Facebook and its arguments - rantish

Benkei

Today, I read the Irish court is continuing to allow Facebook to transfer personal data to its servers the US, despite the recent European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruling this as in breach of the GDPR.

On September 10, 2020, Facebook Ireland asserted legal action seeking to enjoin the IDPC’s proposed ban on Facebook’s transfer of personal data from the EU to the US. Facebook Ireland alleges that the IDPC’s actions breach several administrative law principles, including failure to conduct a proper inquiry before issuing the preliminary decision, premature judgment and prejudice, failure to follow the IDPC’s procedures, breach of fair procedures, and discriminatory treatment.

Facebook’s affidavit in support of its claims states that it “is not clear to [Facebook] how, in those circumstances, it could continue to provide the Facebook and Instagram services in the EU”. Facebook also warns that if it “alone is being investigated and subject to a suspension of data transfers to the U.S., this would be liable to create a serious distortion of competition”.

On September 14, the High Court of Ireland issued an ex parte order temporarily suspending the IDPC’s proposed ban on Facebook’s data transfers to the US. The court scheduled a hearing on the matter for later this year. — Pearl Cohen Zedek Latzer Baratz - Haim Ravia and Dotan Hammer

I find this surprising for a few reasons. Nothing in the affidavit supports that Facebook is actually in compliance with the law and the decision of the IDPC (Irish Data Protection Commission) is factually wrong. Of course, the IDPC should reach its decision properly but why does Facebook get a suspension, and what apparently seems like a waiver to continue to breach the law, from the ban on data transfers when the conclusion form the ECJ is clear.

That's like detaining a speedster on the road and then allowing him to continue to exceed the speed limit because the cop that stopped him made a procedural mistake. It just doesn't make sense to me.

The argument for a distortion of competition coming from a monopolist is always funny but, in any case, tu quoque is a fallacy. Just because other people break the law and haven't been caught yet, isn't an excuse even if it results in a distortion of competion. We can also stop prosecuting burglars then because we're never going to catch them all (unlike Pokemon).

Also, if you don't want to have a distortion then don't break the fucking law. Jesus.

Same day I read this:

* Responding to a U.S. government effort to split Facebook (NASDAQ:FB) from Instagram and WhatsApp, the company's lawyers say such a move would be a "complete non-starter" in a 14-page document released ahead of a report from the House Antitrust Subcommittee expected this month.

* According to the document, it would be almost impossible for Facebook to unwind the acquisitions, Instagram in 2012 and WhatsApp in 2014, and would force it to spend "billions" of dollars maintaining separate systems, weakening security and harming user experiences.

* The government's case, if pursued, would probably focus on arguments that the company's acquisitions were aimed at reducing competition, a question that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) did not consider (?) according to Columbia University law professor Tim Wu. He adds that Facebook's claim that a potential breakup would be too hard would be unlikely to carry much legal weight.

* This summer, the subcommittee published emails from Facebook chief Mark Zuckerberg citing the difficulty competing against Instagram as a rationale for a takeover. In a later message, he acknowledged that the company's aim would be to "neutralize a competitor," although he backtracked in a subsequent email.

* The FTC is reportedly planning to file a complaint against the company by year-end, part of a broader wave of investigations into fellow tech behemoths Apple, Amazon and Google. — seeking alpha

Let's recall at the time of acquisition that Zuckerberg promised Instagram and Whatsapp wouldn't be integrated and saying stuff like:

But in order to do this well, we need to be mindful about keeping and building on Instagram’s strengths and features rather than just trying to integrate everything into Facebook.

That’s why we’re committed to building and growing Instagram independently. Millions of people around the world love the Instagram app and the brand associated with it, and our goal is to help spread this app and brand to even more people. — Zuckerberg

But here we are.

It seems Zuckerberg has the moral backbone of a jellyfish.

FrankGSterleJr

Its notable flaws notwithstanding, social media has enabled far greater non-gate-keeping information freedom — particularly in regards to corporate environmental degradation — than that by what had been a news-monopoly mainstream news-media, including those of print.

The mainstream news-media have lost both information control (e.g. story parameterization) and, perhaps most problematic for them, advertisement revenue to popular social media platforms.

Though I don’t know his opinion of social media in general, renowned American author and linguistic/cognitive scientist Noam Chomsky noted that while there are stories published about man-made global warming, “It’s as if … there’s a kind of a tunnel vision — the science reporters are occasionally saying ‘look, this is a catastrophe,’ but then the regular [non-environmental pro-fossil fuel] coverage simply disregards it.”

While I feel it's a couple decades late, massive environmental movements have been made possible by social media.

Benkei

Fucking finally: https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2020/12/ftc-sues-facebook-illegal-monopolization

Outlander

↪Benkei

Sweet, now I can roll out my social media platform start-up that's been cluttering my hard drive for years.

i wonder what effect this will have on the other big tech companies. Everyone uses YouTube, Android holds about 87% of the global market. Heads up, Google!

I wonder how one would go about- rather if there would be any reason in- making another social networking site. Everything you need or can even think of has already been made and works great, above all simplistically. Would it be sued by Facebook for copyright infringement? Surely they don't own the concept of a website you can sign up, meet friends, and share posts. But they made simplicity their brand image and so it would be challenging to come up with another site that isn't essentially/legally a copy/clone imo.

I imagine what these companies would do, assuming they don't just assign someone distant enough yet friendly or become friendly (money may talk, but big money shouts) with whoever may be in charge, is put all their resources behind a new and upcoming starter service of the same type (ie. similar to Instagram, or even just beef up their Facebook Messenger to replace Whatsapp).

"In particular, Facebook allegedly has made key APIs available to third-party applications only on the condition that they refrain from developing competing functionalities, and from connecting with or promoting other social networking services." — Ian Conner

Hm. Kind of a "you can try to kill me if you want, but I'm not gonna let you use my own gun to do it" kind of attitude, in a way. Or is that a logical fallacy? It can be argued they want to protect their consumers and brand image by not allowing "just anything from any random social network" to be shared. The smaller and newer it is the likelier it is to have vulnerabilities or exploits yet to be discovered. The ads are interesting. How would you feel if your family owned a hardware store and I came in dressed head to toe in gear advertising a new one that just opened up downtown. If you Google "best search engines"- no ads- but if you search "best laptops", more ads than results lol. Not saying whether it's right or wrong it just seems to be an established practice throughout.

Benkei

↪Outlander

Google, alibaba, weibo, they all need to die as far as I'm concerned. Or at least the targeted ads and mass use of personal data need to go. Death to the bubble!

Wayfarer

I get the argument about monopolisation and think it has merit. One of the co-founders of facebook wrote an impassioned OP in the NYT about that a while back. Right on the money.

The problem is, blundering bureaucrats and clueless politicians are just as likely to f*** it as fix it. During the congressional grilling of the tech CEOs it became obvious that a lot of the politicians had not the least clue how any of it actually works or what it does. A big driver is that if you search IDIOT in Google then Trump comes up at the top of the rankings. (It still does, after several years, but now they’re meta-results about why it happened in the first place.) That is one of the main reasons the Republicans have any interest. If you typed GENIUS in Google and Trump came up, Republicans would die in the trenches to defend it. Likewise, Trump is miffed because Twitter keeps flagging his posts as obviously bogus. That’s why he wants to reel them in.

However I think the New York AG is a credible critic, if she thinks there’s a case there, then let ‘em go for it.

Benkei

↪Wayfarer

I don't think a demerger will really solve anything either but it's a start of politicians realising the problems these companies are creating.

Have you heard of the information apocalypse?

Wayfarer

↪Benkei

Yes. I do agree. Huge problems.Large numbers if people with no idea what’s real and what’s fake.

Facebook and its arguments - rantish

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions