The data wasn't "scraped." Here's the part you left out describing what really happened:
Aleksandr Kogan, a data scientist at the University of Cambridge, was hired by Cambridge Analytica, an offshoot of SCL Group, to develop an app called "This Is Your Digital Life" (sometimes stylized as "thisisyourdigitallife").[15][16] Cambridge Analytica then arranged an informed consent process for research in which several hundred thousand Facebook users would agree to complete a survey for payment that was only for academic use.[15][17] However, Facebook allowed this app not only to collect personal information from survey respondents but also from respondents' Facebook friends.[15] In this way, Cambridge Analytica acquired data from millions of Facebook users.[15]
(public profile), [private] page likes, [possibly private] birthday and [possibly private] current city
?
(I've put in my best understanding of the other elements. AIUI, you can make the latter two public, but if I recall the scandal, that wasn't what occurred.)
But judge! We can't be a monopoly ["Quickly... delete all instances of 'Instagram can hurt us' emails..."]. Email exists. Mouths exist, people can communicate without using Facebook...
Meta agreed in August to pay up to $18 billion to settle the multistate lawsuit surrounding child safety issues. Buried in the 130-page settlement was an agreement to release Meta from future liability related to the Cambridge Analytica privacy breach, making New Mexico the only state to pursue a case. Florida was the only other state that did not sign the settlement, saying it was not tough enough on Meta.
This is an inconvenient reminder for people who want more "regulation" and who believe states with high levels of paper regulation like California really care about protecting consumers.
Years down the line, you'll find that a bunch of the people who worked on these cases have cush jobs working on the other side.
...what's inconvenient about it? The less "regulation" in dem scary quotes there is, the easier it is for companies to shirk them (and cheaper, too). The only actual argument there can be is that that $18 bn fine will have to ultimately come out of the pockets of the Meta's customers, and perhaps that'll force Meta to adopt even uglier business practices (defying the whole point of regulating it).
Years down the line, you'll find that a bunch of the people who worked on these cases have cush jobs working on the other side.
Man, I love people on Internet making predictions that will be impossible to disprove for decades, and by that point nobody would care anyhow.
Putting aside the fact that a huge amount of regulation is designed by the most powerful companies to promote and defend their interests, the issue is that regulation, when not enforced, provides a way for corporations to inflict massive harm on individuals and discharge it for pennies on the dollar.
$18 billion was a paltry sum and represents about a month's worth of Meta's revenue. Let that sink in: a month's worth of revenue to discharge liabilities associated with years of massive harm to young people that some legal experts concluded could have reasonably resulted in damages in the high hundreds of billions of dollars, and possibly exceeding $1 trillion.
And as part of the settlement, Meta didn't even have to acknowledge any wrongdoing.
Man, I love people on Internet making predictions that will be impossible to disprove for decades, and by that point nobody would care anyhow.
You're acting as if there's no precedent for what I stated when the evidence is overwhelming.
A handful of examples for you:
1. Eric Holder, former federal prosecutor, U.S. Attorney for D.C. and Deputy AG. He was a partner at Covington & Burling, where he represented Chiquita Brands in the case over its payments to a Colombian paramilitary group and also represented Uber and Airbnb.
2. Lanny Breuer, head of the DOJ's Criminal Division from 2009 to 2013. He didn't prosecute senior bank executives after the financial crisis and then went on to do white collar defense work as vice chair at Covington & Burling.
3. James Comey, U.S. Attorney for SDNY and Deputy AG. He became general counsel for Lockheed Martin and then Bridgewater Associates before he became FBI Director.
4. Mary Jo White, U.S. Attorney for SDNY. She defended financial institutions at Debevoise & Plimpton afterwards, then chaired the SEC between 2013 and 2017, and then went back to Debevoise.
5. Louis Freeh, federal prosecutor for SDNY, federal judge and FBI Director from 1993 to 2001. He went on to become general counsel credit card company MBNA and later represented Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan, who was alleged to have received over £1 billion in bribes from BAE Systems for arms deals. In his defense, Freeh argued that the money was actually going into official Saudi government accounts so they weren't bribes. BAE later pleaded guilty to US charges related to false statements and export violations.
BREAKING NEWS: Attorneys that successfully reached the top of their fields, and have government experience, are in demand by people and corporations that have legal interactions with governments.
BREAKING NEWS: it's widely-discussed that the revolving door creates potential conflicts of interest and helps facilitate regulatory capture, which is why many observers argue that it has a corrupting influence and is a corrosive threat to democratic society.
And then people wonder why a whole swath of society is for tearing down public institutions, buys into conspiracy theories and is willing to elect the most unqualified people.
If you read my comment carefully, I didn't argue for less regulation. I did suggest that more regulation wasn't the solution.
The quantity isn't the problem here; it's the quality. When the system has been completely corrupted, regulation stops doing what laypeople expect it to do.
Virtually none of the regulation people genuinely concerned about consumers, children, etc. would reasonably ask for will ever be enacted and enforced the way they'd want in today's broken system. The law isn't working for the masses; it's working for the asses.
Years down the line, you'll find that a bunch of the people who worked on these cases have cush jobs
Aren't they supposed to be replaced by AI by then?
There won't even be human bodyguards; just Zuck, Musk, Bezos and Rasputin in their Thunderdomes sheltered by swarms of T-800s going StarCraft 3 on our ass
who believe states with high levels of paper regulation
I _do_ want real regulations with teeth against shitty companies like Meta. Just because California has done a performative take doesn't make expecting more controls on these scumbags a wrong thing to expect. Bad execution doesn't make the idea wrong, your scare-quotes be damned.
Nobody's asking for more bureaucracy, they're asking for these companies to be held properly accountable, which will involve bureaucracy.
Nobody's asking for computers that use a lot of electricity, they're asking for powerful computers, which will use a lot of electricity. You can't just turn up with a space heater and pretend it's the same thing because it also uses a lot of electricity.
This is the Ayn Rand trick; let's make government not work == government can never work well == let's cut all customer protections and end up with unfit for consumption beef and glass in your food == somehow it's still not the fault of the free market since after enough people get sick I guess they'll leave one star reviews on Google from their hospital beds == companies will self regulate to produce healthier food?
I wish HN was more of a reliable aggregator and not just people protecting their industry at all cost
You can reliably tell what the most upvoted comments will be
Does that mean we should always hate on big tech? No. If a platform is getting unfairly targeted, that's nice to know. But you come here to get the general sense of the landscape and the first comment is always slanted in favor of big corporate
Standard PSA: Cambridge Analytica electing Trump is not a true story. Cambridge Analytica absolutely broke Facebook's terms of service with its personality quiz scheme but it did not affect the 2016 election.
I'm an advertiser who has managed hundreds of millions of dollars for small startups and big corporations, brands, as well as a few small political campaigns.
Even at the time of the Trump election, the kind of ad targeting that Cambridge Analytica says they were offering through the personality quizzes was absolute garbage. There is a reason why the official response from Boz doesn't even mention the personality quiz stuff, because it was essentially irrelevant to the Trump campaign's performance on paid advertising on Meta. And I would go further to say that, except for his success in fundraising, all of his Meta advertising probably didn't move that many votes.
Cambridge Analytica, the organization, of course, loves to claim that they're the dark evil viziers behind the Trump campaign and they've advertised themselves as such to dictators all over the world. But that's just like Edward Bernays writing "Propaganda" back in the day, it is a way to sell their services. Trump digital director Brad Parscale said the campaign did not even use Cambridge Analytica’s controversial psychographic targeting.
Not to mention, the only reason that Cambridge Analytica had that open graph information available is because communities like Hacker News begged again and again for Facebook to open the graph and not have a walled web. After that they cut off that graph access.
Quizzes had like an 85% engagement rate on Facebook, they were legendarily effective paid eyeballs content. Adtech firm System1 aka OpenMail even merged with an adtech firm that owned a quiz content company, it made like $1m/2wks at small scale. I don't really know what Cambridge Analytica concretely did (to this day I have not seen a single screenshot of any of their creatives or a single concrete report of theirs) but I do know quizzes were really effective. For whatever purposes.
Yes they had a high engagement rate (due to how the platforms were structured at the time and how hyper-shareable it was) and you could make some money serving ads on quizzes because they had a high engagement rate. They were absolutely terrible as an ad targeting methodology.
That’s just a link to full Wikipedia page for the company. I must admit that I would be personally interested in seeing a vaguely scientific analysis of the effect they had. For all the talk on the subject I have yet to see any real analysis backed by data on the subject.
Cambridge Analytica, the organization, of course, loves to claim that they're the dark evil viziers behind the Trump campaign and they've advertised themselves as such to dictators all over the world.
the only reason that Cambridge Analytica had that open graph information available is because communities like Hacker News begged again and again for Facebook to open the graph and not have a walled web.
This isn’t true. All the early Facebook access revolved around engagement and anything even remotely related to data portability was verboten.
Anything remotely related to data portability was verboten?
Here is Facebook's own CTO in 2010 on HN itself saying “First, we genuinely support data portability: we want users to be able to use their data in other applications without restriction.”
Anything remotely related to data portability was verboten?
Yes. Please read the entire sentence before replying:
All the early Facebook access revolved around engagement and anything even remotely related to data portability was verboten.
2010 is years after the Facebook platform was launched.
Regardless, as people in that thread pointed out at the time, what he is referring to is not data portability. If you were building on the Facebook platform at the time, you would know that apps had pretty much free reign to soak up the personal info but the main thing people cared about in terms of data portability was the ability to use the social graph outside of Facebook. Facebook hated the idea because it would allow competitors to bootstrap their own social graph without having to find and re-add all their friends, so it was the one thing that everybody knew could get you booted off the platform.
*Guy that knows more than everybody else voice* Uhm actually it was called The Facebook at the time so this discussion by people that are embarrassingly ignorant of the nomenclature is very laughable to me, a expert
Facebook and Google were one of the first major online services offering an "takeout" feature in service of data portability. FB had multiple rss feeds. It's graph API was around quite early due to demand.
Facebook and Google were one of the first major online services offering an "takeout" feature in service of data portability. FB had multiple rss feeds. It's graph API was around quite early due to demand.
There was a period of time years before the Graph API launched that was all over the place. Facebook couldn't decide how they wanted their platform to work, so they cycled through a bunch of ideas like APIs, FBML, etc. before “Operation Developer Love” and the Graph API happened. Until that point, you could access a load of personal info, but the data portability everybody cared about – the social graph – was off the table because competitors could use it to bootstrap their own social graph without users having to find and re-add all their friends again. You tried to mirror that, you risked losing your account.
My understanding of the internet is Google is extremely flawed but fair and they didn't try to hold you hostage
Facebook is not fair and they actively do (ever try deleting an account? surprise! it's back a few months later. look at how many users we have, as measure of our success)
You're right that the tools were hype, and that they didn't work. So why, despite knowing that Cambridge Analytica tools were useless, did Trumo keep paying it?
Well, Robert and Rebekah Mercer were primary backers of the Trump campaign, and they also owned a major stake in Cambridge Analytica. Giving something like $49 million dollars to Trump and Co.
If you go find the original ones it’s all about defending Facebook. Basically you can’t give our data to a competitor or build one. There’s a reason they had to quickly release a new ToS and its cause CA didn’t break it.
"Let this be a warning to every technology company doing business in our state," Torrez said Friday. "If you lie to New Mexicans about how you use their data, we will find out, and we will hold you accountable."
This is a great way to get companies to simply stop operating in your state, but keep operating everywhere else.
I am sure instead of more bombs, missiles and other military stuff, they will invest it into the public good, education for citizens, and infrastructure. No one will line their pockets. Not in the US. No, no, they will use that money to make things better. for all the people abused by tech giants. I am so sure of it.
Probably to similar purposes as the 2024 opioid settlement: housing assistance, schools, subsidized child care. Legislators will probably try to align it with goals that seem like they would counter the stuff Meta's doing. Smaller communities will probably fail to allocate it promptly.
The key to this story is in the word "liable." That's lawyer-speak for a civil, not criminal, legal judgment. The loser must pay money, no one goes to jail, and Meta has so much money that the judgment means nothing.
Meta already pays billions to gain access to people's personal data. This is just another business expense, a line item on a balance sheet.
When faced with an adverse ruling, an individual raises his hands, is handcuffed and led away. A corporation raises its prices.
I think the point is that jury members have to be objective at all times. So you would do him a favour by being not objective, since the ruling may be overturned and dismissed. So, stay objective.
Then again the whole court system is so skewed in favour of who has more money.
So far all these fines have been "ugh that's one day of net profits only",
be it at Google, Apple, Microsoft, Facebook - you name it. Are there kickbacks
involved to keep the fines at a minimum?
Yeah, fully agree. Fines for companies bigger than a certain threshold should be percentages of their global annual income and potentially include jail time for the decision makers that enabled them.
As long as these are the incentives companies/execs will continue to do this shit
This is much more important than the fines. But really it should be widened to include not only those who made the decision but also those who implemented it (software developers, designers, project managers) and those who benefited from it (executive officers, shareholders).
Anyone involved with the company who knew what was going on and did nothing to hinder it is culpable to some degree.
Since these articles tend to actually bury the data that was scraped:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook%E2%80%93Cambridge_Ana...
This information was limited to what was publicly accessible on the site rather than some private data as many outlets tend to claim.
The data wasn't "scraped." Here's the part you left out describing what really happened:
Is that not parsed as,
?
(I've put in my best understanding of the other elements. AIUI, you can make the latter two public, but if I recall the scandal, that wasn't what occurred.)
I am not sure that this is the case.
The app had access to data about the friends of its participants.
AFAIR that included attributes that were set “friends-only”.
This was 10 years ago. Pretty crazy that this is finally seeing the justice system.
Reminds me of that FOIA request a guy filed when he had his kid and did not receive reply/confirmation until his kid was in college...
Prolong is a legal tactic
But judge! We can't be a monopoly ["Quickly... delete all instances of 'Instagram can hurt us' emails..."]. Email exists. Mouths exist, people can communicate without using Facebook...
(Yeah, 'Book. We know email exists. You apparently don't. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4151433)
This is an inconvenient reminder for people who want more "regulation" and who believe states with high levels of paper regulation like California really care about protecting consumers.
Years down the line, you'll find that a bunch of the people who worked on these cases have cush jobs working on the other side.
...what's inconvenient about it? The less "regulation" in dem scary quotes there is, the easier it is for companies to shirk them (and cheaper, too). The only actual argument there can be is that that $18 bn fine will have to ultimately come out of the pockets of the Meta's customers, and perhaps that'll force Meta to adopt even uglier business practices (defying the whole point of regulating it).
Man, I love people on Internet making predictions that will be impossible to disprove for decades, and by that point nobody would care anyhow.
Putting aside the fact that a huge amount of regulation is designed by the most powerful companies to promote and defend their interests, the issue is that regulation, when not enforced, provides a way for corporations to inflict massive harm on individuals and discharge it for pennies on the dollar.
$18 billion was a paltry sum and represents about a month's worth of Meta's revenue. Let that sink in: a month's worth of revenue to discharge liabilities associated with years of massive harm to young people that some legal experts concluded could have reasonably resulted in damages in the high hundreds of billions of dollars, and possibly exceeding $1 trillion.
And as part of the settlement, Meta didn't even have to acknowledge any wrongdoing.
You're acting as if there's no precedent for what I stated when the evidence is overwhelming.
A handful of examples for you:
1. Eric Holder, former federal prosecutor, U.S. Attorney for D.C. and Deputy AG. He was a partner at Covington & Burling, where he represented Chiquita Brands in the case over its payments to a Colombian paramilitary group and also represented Uber and Airbnb.
2. Lanny Breuer, head of the DOJ's Criminal Division from 2009 to 2013. He didn't prosecute senior bank executives after the financial crisis and then went on to do white collar defense work as vice chair at Covington & Burling.
3. James Comey, U.S. Attorney for SDNY and Deputy AG. He became general counsel for Lockheed Martin and then Bridgewater Associates before he became FBI Director.
4. Mary Jo White, U.S. Attorney for SDNY. She defended financial institutions at Debevoise & Plimpton afterwards, then chaired the SEC between 2013 and 2017, and then went back to Debevoise.
5. Louis Freeh, federal prosecutor for SDNY, federal judge and FBI Director from 1993 to 2001. He went on to become general counsel credit card company MBNA and later represented Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan, who was alleged to have received over £1 billion in bribes from BAE Systems for arms deals. In his defense, Freeh argued that the money was actually going into official Saudi government accounts so they weren't bribes. BAE later pleaded guilty to US charges related to false statements and export violations.
Revolving doors in the US have gold handles.
BREAKING NEWS: Attorneys that successfully reached the top of their fields, and have government experience, are in demand by people and corporations that have legal interactions with governments.
Who woulda thunk it?
BREAKING NEWS: it's widely-discussed that the revolving door creates potential conflicts of interest and helps facilitate regulatory capture, which is why many observers argue that it has a corrupting influence and is a corrosive threat to democratic society.
And then people wonder why a whole swath of society is for tearing down public institutions, buys into conspiracy theories and is willing to elect the most unqualified people.
So there are assholes who give up your birth right for a plate of lentils, and that makes you conclude there should be less regulation?
That just requires some extra rules. No, I'm not being sarcastic.
If you read my comment carefully, I didn't argue for less regulation. I did suggest that more regulation wasn't the solution.
The quantity isn't the problem here; it's the quality. When the system has been completely corrupted, regulation stops doing what laypeople expect it to do.
Virtually none of the regulation people genuinely concerned about consumers, children, etc. would reasonably ask for will ever be enacted and enforced the way they'd want in today's broken system. The law isn't working for the masses; it's working for the asses.
Maybe dont have them written by companies then.
Aren't they supposed to be replaced by AI by then?
There won't even be human bodyguards; just Zuck, Musk, Bezos and Rasputin in their Thunderdomes sheltered by swarms of T-800s going StarCraft 3 on our ass
How is this:
Same as this:
I _do_ want real regulations with teeth against shitty companies like Meta. Just because California has done a performative take doesn't make expecting more controls on these scumbags a wrong thing to expect. Bad execution doesn't make the idea wrong, your scare-quotes be damned.
It does raise the question of the value of California’s bureaucratic burden.
Nobody's asking for more bureaucracy, they're asking for these companies to be held properly accountable, which will involve bureaucracy.
Nobody's asking for computers that use a lot of electricity, they're asking for powerful computers, which will use a lot of electricity. You can't just turn up with a space heater and pretend it's the same thing because it also uses a lot of electricity.
This is the Ayn Rand trick; let's make government not work == government can never work well == let's cut all customer protections and end up with unfit for consumption beef and glass in your food == somehow it's still not the fault of the free market since after enough people get sick I guess they'll leave one star reviews on Google from their hospital beds == companies will self regulate to produce healthier food?
I wish HN was more of a reliable aggregator and not just people protecting their industry at all cost
You can reliably tell what the most upvoted comments will be
Does that mean we should always hate on big tech? No. If a platform is getting unfairly targeted, that's nice to know. But you come here to get the general sense of the landscape and the first comment is always slanted in favor of big corporate
Standard PSA: Cambridge Analytica electing Trump is not a true story. Cambridge Analytica absolutely broke Facebook's terms of service with its personality quiz scheme but it did not affect the 2016 election.
I'm an advertiser who has managed hundreds of millions of dollars for small startups and big corporations, brands, as well as a few small political campaigns.
Even at the time of the Trump election, the kind of ad targeting that Cambridge Analytica says they were offering through the personality quizzes was absolute garbage. There is a reason why the official response from Boz doesn't even mention the personality quiz stuff, because it was essentially irrelevant to the Trump campaign's performance on paid advertising on Meta. And I would go further to say that, except for his success in fundraising, all of his Meta advertising probably didn't move that many votes.
Cambridge Analytica, the organization, of course, loves to claim that they're the dark evil viziers behind the Trump campaign and they've advertised themselves as such to dictators all over the world. But that's just like Edward Bernays writing "Propaganda" back in the day, it is a way to sell their services. Trump digital director Brad Parscale said the campaign did not even use Cambridge Analytica’s controversial psychographic targeting.
Not to mention, the only reason that Cambridge Analytica had that open graph information available is because communities like Hacker News begged again and again for Facebook to open the graph and not have a walled web. After that they cut off that graph access.
Quizzes had like an 85% engagement rate on Facebook, they were legendarily effective paid eyeballs content. Adtech firm System1 aka OpenMail even merged with an adtech firm that owned a quiz content company, it made like $1m/2wks at small scale. I don't really know what Cambridge Analytica concretely did (to this day I have not seen a single screenshot of any of their creatives or a single concrete report of theirs) but I do know quizzes were really effective. For whatever purposes.
Yes they had a high engagement rate (due to how the platforms were structured at the time and how hyper-shareable it was) and you could make some money serving ads on quizzes because they had a high engagement rate. They were absolutely terrible as an ad targeting methodology.
This is false.
You don't appear to have any understanding of how Cambridge Analytica affected the election.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge_Analytica
Nothing in that Wikipedia link disagrees with me at all.
That’s just a link to full Wikipedia page for the company. I must admit that I would be personally interested in seeing a vaguely scientific analysis of the effect they had. For all the talk on the subject I have yet to see any real analysis backed by data on the subject.
I know what it is. One can read it and see that CA's effect wasn't just "all of [Trump's] Meta advertising".
This guy made the exact same comment 12 days ago ... that one was flagged and is dead.
Aren't they defunct [1]?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge_Analytica#:~:text=De...
Yes but the founders and related people are still very happy not to disabuse the notion of the Cambridge Analytica scandal.
This isn’t true. All the early Facebook access revolved around engagement and anything even remotely related to data portability was verboten.
Anything remotely related to data portability was verboten?
Here is Facebook's own CTO in 2010 on HN itself saying “First, we genuinely support data portability: we want users to be able to use their data in other applications without restriction.”
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1440154
Yes. Please read the entire sentence before replying:
2010 is years after the Facebook platform was launched.
Regardless, as people in that thread pointed out at the time, what he is referring to is not data portability. If you were building on the Facebook platform at the time, you would know that apps had pretty much free reign to soak up the personal info but the main thing people cared about in terms of data portability was the ability to use the social graph outside of Facebook. Facebook hated the idea because it would allow competitors to bootstrap their own social graph without having to find and re-add all their friends, so it was the one thing that everybody knew could get you booted off the platform.
*Guy that knows more than everybody else voice* Uhm actually it was called The Facebook at the time so this discussion by people that are embarrassingly ignorant of the nomenclature is very laughable to me, a expert
Are you ok?
Facebook and Google were one of the first major online services offering an "takeout" feature in service of data portability. FB had multiple rss feeds. It's graph API was around quite early due to demand.
What do you mean?
There was a period of time years before the Graph API launched that was all over the place. Facebook couldn't decide how they wanted their platform to work, so they cycled through a bunch of ideas like APIs, FBML, etc. before “Operation Developer Love” and the Graph API happened. Until that point, you could access a load of personal info, but the data portability everybody cared about – the social graph – was off the table because competitors could use it to bootstrap their own social graph without users having to find and re-add all their friends again. You tried to mirror that, you risked losing your account.
My understanding of the internet is Google is extremely flawed but fair and they didn't try to hold you hostage
Facebook is not fair and they actively do (ever try deleting an account? surprise! it's back a few months later. look at how many users we have, as measure of our success)
There's this for example https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1890164
You may be missing the actual crimes.
You're right that the tools were hype, and that they didn't work. So why, despite knowing that Cambridge Analytica tools were useless, did Trumo keep paying it?
Well, Robert and Rebekah Mercer were primary backers of the Trump campaign, and they also owned a major stake in Cambridge Analytica. Giving something like $49 million dollars to Trump and Co.
What are the odds they made a profit on the deal?
Cambridge Analytica didn’t break the TOS.
If you go find the original ones it’s all about defending Facebook. Basically you can’t give our data to a competitor or build one. There’s a reason they had to quickly release a new ToS and its cause CA didn’t break it.
This is a great way to get companies to simply stop operating in your state, but keep operating everywhere else.
Great, we don’t want companies that break the law here in NM
Is that a problem?
Cyberpunk 2077 in all states except New Mexico.
Sounds like it's working exactly as intended.
Promise?
"If you stop me from smoking up fentanyl in front of your store, im only going to smoke up fentanyl outside other stores and not yours!"
Thatd be nice yeah
10-years old ago thing? Yeah, so fast. And what exactly will the settlement money go to?
I am sure instead of more bombs, missiles and other military stuff, they will invest it into the public good, education for citizens, and infrastructure. No one will line their pockets. Not in the US. No, no, they will use that money to make things better. for all the people abused by tech giants. I am so sure of it.
Is the USA even still producing bombs and missiles? Last I heard it's completely ineffective due to all the corruption (same as Russia's problem).
Probably to similar purposes as the 2024 opioid settlement: housing assistance, schools, subsidized child care. Legislators will probably try to align it with goals that seem like they would counter the stuff Meta's doing. Smaller communities will probably fail to allocate it promptly.
The key to this story is in the word "liable." That's lawyer-speak for a civil, not criminal, legal judgment. The loser must pay money, no one goes to jail, and Meta has so much money that the judgment means nothing.
Meta already pays billions to gain access to people's personal data. This is just another business expense, a line item on a balance sheet.
When faced with an adverse ruling, an individual raises his hands, is handcuffed and led away. A corporation raises its prices.
If I was on any jury ever I would vote Zuckberger guilty of everything. He is a creature of nepotism, a monster of a broken system.
I think the point is that jury members have to be objective at all times. So you would do him a favour by being not objective, since the ruling may be overturned and dismissed. So, stay objective.
Then again the whole court system is so skewed in favour of who has more money.
How about real fines?
So far all these fines have been "ugh that's one day of net profits only", be it at Google, Apple, Microsoft, Facebook - you name it. Are there kickbacks involved to keep the fines at a minimum?
Yeah, fully agree. Fines for companies bigger than a certain threshold should be percentages of their global annual income and potentially include jail time for the decision makers that enabled them.
As long as these are the incentives companies/execs will continue to do this shit
This is much more important than the fines. But really it should be widened to include not only those who made the decision but also those who implemented it (software developers, designers, project managers) and those who benefited from it (executive officers, shareholders).
Anyone involved with the company who knew what was going on and did nothing to hinder it is culpable to some degree.
We'll probably see similar decisions on misbehavings of major LLM companies ~2036, when it won't matter anymore.
Move fast and break t̶h̶i̶n̶g̶s̶ the law. Because the law moves very slowly.