Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[Cambridge Analytica], [Facebook], and Data Security.

1323334353638»

Posts

  • MonwynMonwyn Registered User regular
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Monwyn wrote: »
    Yeah human content moderation has actually been a growing issue for a while. People clamor for "curated" content but then don't realize that someone will have to watch all the filth and dreck in order to determine if it needs to be removed. Wired had an article about it a while ago: https://www.wired.com/2014/10/content-moderation/

    I think if open platforms like Youtube and Facebook actually had to properly moderate their content, and then had to provide the physical and mental health support actually commensurate with those jobs, there is an open question as to whether their business models would be sustainable. The fact of the matter is that a place where you can upload literally anything and show it to literally everyone in the world requires a level of moderation that is likely impossible to support if you were to apply, say, American public television broadcast standards to them. Facebook would get shut down immediately based on the fines alone.

    I've long thought that YouTube (at the very least) should require a nominal fee per, say, fifteen minutes uploaded. $5 or something. It's not much of a barrier to entry, but it's enough to make people have to actually think before tossing shit up.

    Implicit in the idea of a Marketplace of Ideas is that there are costs of doing business. That's... not really the case with the internet, anymore.
    Monwyn wrote: »
    Yeah human content moderation has actually been a growing issue for a while. People clamor for "curated" content but then don't realize that someone will have to watch all the filth and dreck in order to determine if it needs to be removed. Wired had an article about it a while ago: https://www.wired.com/2014/10/content-moderation/

    I think if open platforms like Youtube and Facebook actually had to properly moderate their content, and then had to provide the physical and mental health support actually commensurate with those jobs, there is an open question as to whether their business models would be sustainable. The fact of the matter is that a place where you can upload literally anything and show it to literally everyone in the world requires a level of moderation that is likely impossible to support if you were to apply, say, American public television broadcast standards to them. Facebook would get shut down immediately based on the fines alone.

    I've long thought that YouTube (at the very least) should require a nominal fee per, say, fifteen minutes uploaded. $5 or something. It's not much of a barrier to entry, but it's enough to make people have to actually think before tossing shit up.

    Implicit in the idea of a Marketplace of Ideas is that there are costs of doing business. That's... not really the case with the internet, anymore.

    That's not nominal. I think that would literally collapse Youtube as a business model.

    On which end? Like, you can increase ad revenue share to creators, that's fine. Nobody makes money from YouTube anymore as it stands anyway, they make it from Patreon.

  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    I would think even just requiring a single $5 deposit or something to cover the first few videos that will be refunded if an uploader manages to not get a ton of strikes would probably severely hurt Youtube, but Youtube relies enough on a relatively few huge channels that it might not make much of a difference.

  • VeeveeVeevee WisconsinRegistered User regular
    Couscous wrote: »
    I would think even just requiring a single $5 deposit or something to cover the first few videos that will be refunded if an uploader manages to not get a ton of strikes would probably severely hurt Youtube, but Youtube relies enough on a relatively few huge channels that it might not make much of a difference.

    For anyone actually making a living off of youtube a small fee to upload a video would be basically nothing. It would absolutely kill some creator's drive to start/continue a channel, but most youtube channels that make enough money to call it a job are putting much more money into their video production already. A small fee would quickly turn into a standard part of doing business, and everyone would end up happier with actual and decent content moderation.

  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    YouTube doesn't want to charge people money to upload videos because then you've got paying customers and that means they're entitled to rights that they currently don't have to provide to "content producers."

    wpyz0Y5.png
    Gamertag: PrimusD | Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
    FencingsaxZonugalRchanenMan in the MistsHefflingZilla360Youtube
  • Inquisitor77Inquisitor77 2 x Penny Arcade Fight Club Champion A fixed point in space and timeRegistered User regular
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    YouTube doesn't want to charge people money to upload videos because then you've got paying customers and that means they're entitled to rights that they currently don't have to provide to "content producers."

    This. Customers have more rights and leverage. When it's "free" then you are the product being sold. Products are chattel. They have no rights.

    Three things in human life are important: the first is to be kind; the second is to be kind; and the third is to be kind.
  • CelestialBadgerCelestialBadger Registered User regular
    I think YouTube doesn't want to charge to upload videos because then people would not feel free to upload dumb stuff that might go viral, like their cat falling off a chair or whatever. Especially if they are teenagers. "Mooooom, can I use your credit card to upload a video of me farting?"

    Dark_SideredxYoutube
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    So, there was a hearing on regulating social media's addictiveness yesterday, and the testimony was frankly terrifying:
    It’s calculating what is the thing it can show you that gets the most engagement, and it turns out that outrage, moral outrage, gets the most engagement. It was found in a study that for every word of moral outrage you add to a tweet it increases your retweet rate by seventeen percent. In other words, the polarization of our society is actually part of the business model. [...] As recently as just a month ago on YouTube, if you did a map of the top 15 most frequently mentioned verbs or keywords on the recommended videos, they were: hates, debunks, obliterates, destroys [...] that kind of thing is the background radiation that we’re dosing two billion people with.

    [...]

    If you imagine a spectrum on YouTube. On my left side there’s the calm, Walter Cronkite section of YouTube. On my right side there’s crazy town: UFOs, conspiracy theories, Bigfoot, whatever. [...] if I’m YouTube and I want you to watch more, which direction am I going to send you? I’m never going to send you to the calm section; I’m always going to send you towards crazy town. So now you imagine two billion people, like an ant colony of humanity, and it’s tilting the playing field towards the crazy stuff.
    The problem with a lot of these systems is they’re based on data sets which reflect all of our current conditions, which also means any imbalances in our conditions [...] Amazon’s hiring algorithm was found to have gender-disparate outcomes, and that’s because it was learning from prior hiring practices.

    [...]

    They determine where our children go to school, whether someone will receive medicaid benefits, who is sent to jail before trial, which news articles we see, and which job-seekers are offered an interview [...] they are primarily developed and deployed by a few power companies and therefore shaped by these companies values, incentives, and interests. [...] While most technology companies promise that their products will lead to broad societal benefits there’s little evidence to support these claims and in fact mounting evidence points to the contrary.
    We have a name for this asymmetric power relationship, and that’s a fiduciary relationship or a duty of care relationship—the same standard we apply to doctors, to priests, to lawyers. Imagine a world in which priests only make their money by selling access to the confession booth to someone else, except in this case Facebook listens to two billion peoples’ confessions, has a supercomputer next to them, and is calculating and predicting confessions you’re going to make before you know you’re going to make them.


    This is all just terrifying.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
    FANTOMASDarkPrimusOrcaBlackDragon480Man in the MistsJazzFencingsaxHefflingRchanen38thDoePolaritieZilla360Hacksaw
  • JazzJazz UKRegistered User regular
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Jazz wrote: »

    That was the same thought as the two Democratic members, who voted against it.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
    RMS OceanicFencingsaxMan in the MistsJazzPolaritieHacksaw
  • ZibblsnrtZibblsnrt Registered User regular
    It's pretty telling that their stock immediately went up after the fine was announced because it was a small enough hit that it fell under their "fines are just service charges" budget.

    FencingsaxIncenjucarHefflingEinzelJazzshrykePolaritieZilla360Hacksaw
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar Audio Game Developer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    Any fine that is smaller than the gain is merely a tax.

    FencingsaxCelestialBadgerjmcdonaldRchanenZonugalkimeDocJazzZibblsnrtPolaritieZilla360YoutubeDarkewolfeBullheadApogee
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    Zibblsnrt wrote: »
    It's pretty telling that their stock immediately went up after the fine was announced because it was a small enough hit that it fell under their "fines are just service charges" budget.

    Presumably the stock had already fallen in anticipation of this fine, and potentially further regulations to go along with it. The rise was probably because it wound up being just the fine, not because the fine is negligible.

    Gauging the gains from these offenses is tough, but just looking at the fine in terms of the company’s revenues, the amount is substantial. $5B isn’t nothing. It’s like a full month of gross revenue for them, or alternately an entire quarter of profit. As much as I’d love to see Facebook literally nuked from orbit, I’m not sure how anybody could have been expecting much larger in terms of actual monetary penalties.

  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Zibblsnrt wrote: »
    It's pretty telling that their stock immediately went up after the fine was announced because it was a small enough hit that it fell under their "fines are just service charges" budget.

    Presumably the stock had already fallen in anticipation of this fine, and potentially further regulations to go along with it. The rise was probably because it wound up being just the fine, not because the fine is negligible.

    Gauging the gains from these offenses is tough, but just looking at the fine in terms of the company’s revenues, the amount is substantial. $5B isn’t nothing. It’s like a full month of gross revenue for them, or alternately an entire quarter of profit. As much as I’d love to see Facebook literally nuked from orbit, I’m not sure how anybody could have been expecting much larger in terms of actual monetary penalties.

    That's what they said about punishing the banks a decade ago. We need to do enough damage that they won't do it again. Especially when the crime is essentially assisting foreign powers to interfere in our elections.

    torchlight-sig-80.jpg
    SpoitRchanenJazzIncenjucarAngelHedgieshrykePhoenix-DYoutubeMan in the MistsBullhead
  • JazzJazz UKRegistered User regular


    Carole Cadwalladr is the journalist who broke the FB/CA story in the first place.

    IncenjucarFencingsaxJaysonFourCelestialBadgerZilla360YoutubeMan in the MistsThawmus
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Zibblsnrt wrote: »
    It's pretty telling that their stock immediately went up after the fine was announced because it was a small enough hit that it fell under their "fines are just service charges" budget.

    Presumably the stock had already fallen in anticipation of this fine, and potentially further regulations to go along with it. The rise was probably because it wound up being just the fine, not because the fine is negligible.

    Gauging the gains from these offenses is tough, but just looking at the fine in terms of the company’s revenues, the amount is substantial. $5B isn’t nothing. It’s like a full month of gross revenue for them, or alternately an entire quarter of profit. As much as I’d love to see Facebook literally nuked from orbit, I’m not sure how anybody could have been expecting much larger in terms of actual monetary penalties.

    That's what they said about punishing the banks a decade ago. We need to do enough damage that they won't do it again. Especially when the crime is essentially assisting foreign powers to interfere in our elections.

    It needed to be so big that Zuckerberg would have had no choice but to remove the dual tier stock structure that gives him complete control over Facebook, or see his company collapse. A month's worth of revenue is not that.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
    IncenjucarJazzRchanenMoridin889FencingsaxJaysonFourYoutubeZonugalMan in the MistsBullheadThawmus
  • PhyphorPhyphor Building Planet Busters Tasting FruitRegistered User regular
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Zibblsnrt wrote: »
    It's pretty telling that their stock immediately went up after the fine was announced because it was a small enough hit that it fell under their "fines are just service charges" budget.

    Presumably the stock had already fallen in anticipation of this fine, and potentially further regulations to go along with it. The rise was probably because it wound up being just the fine, not because the fine is negligible.

    Gauging the gains from these offenses is tough, but just looking at the fine in terms of the company’s revenues, the amount is substantial. $5B isn’t nothing. It’s like a full month of gross revenue for them, or alternately an entire quarter of profit. As much as I’d love to see Facebook literally nuked from orbit, I’m not sure how anybody could have been expecting much larger in terms of actual monetary penalties.

    That's what they said about punishing the banks a decade ago. We need to do enough damage that they won't do it again. Especially when the crime is essentially assisting foreign powers to interfere in our elections.

    It needed to be so big that Zuckerberg would have had no choice but to remove the dual tier stock structure that gives him complete control over Facebook, or see his company collapse. A month's worth of revenue is not that.

    How would a fine cause that? It's either too big for the company to survive or it isn't

    Magic Box
    Academician Prokhor "Phyphor" Zakharov, Chief Scientist of China, Provost of the University of Planet - SE++ Megagame
  • ZibblsnrtZibblsnrt Registered User regular
    Other possibilities exist, such as "too big for the company to survive unless."

    Fencingsax
  • TryCatcherTryCatcher Registered User regular
    That fine does jack and shit to dissuade companies to change their behaviour. Putting the Zuck in jail, on the other hand...

    JaysonFour
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Zibblsnrt wrote: »
    Other possibilities exist, such as "too big for the company to survive unless."

    Right - you need a fine big enough that Zuckerberg has to go to the market for capital, which then allows the market to say "the money comes with strings, the first being that you surrender your privileged stock."

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
    ArbitraryDescriptorMoridin889ZibblsnrtFencingsaxBlackDragon480IncenjucarJaysonFourZonugalMan in the MistsThawmusEinzel
  • ArbitraryDescriptorArbitraryDescriptor Registered User regular
    Phyphor wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Zibblsnrt wrote: »
    It's pretty telling that their stock immediately went up after the fine was announced because it was a small enough hit that it fell under their "fines are just service charges" budget.

    Presumably the stock had already fallen in anticipation of this fine, and potentially further regulations to go along with it. The rise was probably because it wound up being just the fine, not because the fine is negligible.

    Gauging the gains from these offenses is tough, but just looking at the fine in terms of the company’s revenues, the amount is substantial. $5B isn’t nothing. It’s like a full month of gross revenue for them, or alternately an entire quarter of profit. As much as I’d love to see Facebook literally nuked from orbit, I’m not sure how anybody could have been expecting much larger in terms of actual monetary penalties.

    That's what they said about punishing the banks a decade ago. We need to do enough damage that they won't do it again. Especially when the crime is essentially assisting foreign powers to interfere in our elections.

    It needed to be so big that Zuckerberg would have had no choice but to remove the dual tier stock structure that gives him complete control over Facebook, or see his company collapse. A month's worth of revenue is not that.

    How would a fine cause that? It's either too big for the company to survive or it isn't

    While I think the former would suit AngelHedgie just fine, in this scenario there's potentially a tipping point where it's big enough that Zuck can either sell his controlling stake to cover it or let FB go under and walk away with nothing.

    (I think it's far more likely he'd strip the company to the bone first)

    FencingsaxLostNinja
  • Marty81Marty81 Registered User regular
    Zibblsnrt wrote: »
    Other possibilities exist, such as "too big for the company to survive unless."

    Right - you need a fine big enough that Zuckerberg has to go to the market for capital, which then allows the market to say "the money comes with strings, the first being that you surrender your privileged stock."

    "The market" can't really make demands like that.

  • discriderdiscrider Registered User regular
    Forget fines, just facebook.eminent it.

    Steam Community page: http://steamcommunity.com/id/discrider/
    Oh hey! A knife!
  • NEO|PhyteNEO|Phyte They follow the stars, bound together. Strands in a braid till the end.Registered User regular
    discrider wrote: »
    Forget fines, just facebook.eminent it.

    Eeeeh, if it becomes facebook.gov, suddenly all the muh free speech talk starts mattering in a legalese sense.

    It was that somehow, from within the derelict-horror, they had learned a way to see inside an ugly, broken thing... And take away its pain.
    Warframe/Steam: NFyt
    ZibblsnrtFencingsaxOrcaIncenjucarForarBullheadLostNinjaThawmus
  • thatassemblyguythatassemblyguy RESIST. Registered User regular
    edited July 13
    Jazz wrote: »

    US Senator Dude from Oregon agrees (e: Ron Wyden is a US Senator from Oregon and on the Senate Finance Committee):

    thatassemblyguy on
    JaysonFour
  • PhyphorPhyphor Building Planet Busters Tasting FruitRegistered User regular
    Zibblsnrt wrote: »
    Other possibilities exist, such as "too big for the company to survive unless."

    Right - you need a fine big enough that Zuckerberg has to go to the market for capital, which then allows the market to say "the money comes with strings, the first being that you surrender your privileged stock."

    If that's what "the market" wants why aren't they already threatening to sell their positions unless that happens?

    Let's say that a huge fine is issued so that FB needs to issue shares to pay it. Zuck removing the voting system might cause a small share price bump, but the price will still be in the toilet and a few % difference isn't likely to make the difference between being able to issue enough shares or not. If it is then we are already close to collapse anyway

    However future incomes are still secure - it's the same company, just with a huge liability on its books. If they can wipe out that liability via share issuance it should quickly recover to current price * current share count / new share count

    So you're hoping for exactly: share price collapses, institutional investors offer to buy new issuance at a premium if zuck steps aside, that premium makes the difference between being able to pay it or not and all this happens before the stock either recovers some so zuck won't need to do anything or goes to zero and can't pay the fine, that's a tough needle to thread

    Issuing a fine that straight up causes a collapse like that tweet suggests is a one day 5% Nasdaq drop at minimum, that's going to be a bad time

    Magic Box
    Academician Prokhor "Phyphor" Zakharov, Chief Scientist of China, Provost of the University of Planet - SE++ Megagame
  • HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    Zibblsnrt wrote: »
    Other possibilities exist, such as "too big for the company to survive unless."

    Right - you need a fine big enough that Zuckerberg has to go to the market for capital, which then allows the market to say "the money comes with strings, the first being that you surrender your privileged stock."

    This is a bizarrely specific outcome to try to achieve using an incredibly blunt instrument. Like, trying to get the 8 ball in the corner pocket using a vial of nitroglycerin. In other words, it's complete fantasy.

    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
    lazegamerLostNinja
  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    If your aim is to get Mark Zuckerberg out of the company, you really leave it up to him whether facebook exists or not. Shooting to wound is a mark of indecisive desperation. If facebook must go away, then make it go away.

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
    TryCatcherdiscriderdispatch.oMan in the MistsBullhead
  • ArbitraryDescriptorArbitraryDescriptor Registered User regular
    Jazz wrote: »

    US Senator Dude from Oregon agrees (e: Ron Wyden is a US Senator from Oregon and on the Senate Finance Committee):


    Remove the "mobile."

    (The share button on the tweet has a 'copy link' option that will give you the embeddable one.)

    thatassemblyguy
  • evilmrhenryevilmrhenry Registered User regular
    If you want Facebook to change their behavior, you force them to change their behavior. From the article:
    "As part of the agreement, Facebook will now reexamine the ways it handles user data, but the settlement will not restrict the company’s ability to share data with third parties, reports said."
    You want Facebook to never do this again, you don't tailor the fine to wound but not destroy Facebook, instead you put that into the agreement. The reason this is called a slap on the wrist isn't due to the size of the fine, but because it doesn't impose restrictions on Facebook's future actions.

    Side note:
    "The company is expected to come up against more regulatory challenges as it seeks to launch its new cryptocurrency Libra in 2020. "

    FencingsaxYoutube
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    If you want Facebook to change their behavior, you force them to change their behavior. From the article:
    "As part of the agreement, Facebook will now reexamine the ways it handles user data, but the settlement will not restrict the company’s ability to share data with third parties, reports said."
    You want Facebook to never do this again, you don't tailor the fine to wound but not destroy Facebook, instead you put that into the agreement. The reason this is called a slap on the wrist isn't due to the size of the fine, but because it doesn't impose restrictions on Facebook's future actions.

    Side note:
    "The company is expected to come up against more regulatory challenges as it seeks to launch its new cryptocurrency Libra in 2020. "

    You really think Facebook cares about agreements? Remember, their unofficial motto is "move fast and break things". No, the way you get Facebook to not do this again is to hurt them hard enough that the corporate primative brain remembers how much it hurt. This is why $5B was a slap on the wrist - it's not nearly enough. Make it $50B - erase a year's profit, basically - and now you're going to get somewhere.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
    OrcaMan in the MistsJaysonFourFencingsax
Sign In or Register to comment.