
Facebook Has No First Amendment Right to Send Unauthorized Texts, Says Court - objections
http://reason.com/blog/2017/02/10/facebook-has-no-first-amendment-right-to
======
sly010
Facebook is borderline scammy with it's practices. I few months ago I made a
mistake of installing Facebook Messenger (which is now only called "Messenger"
in the Play Store) to communicate with a friend who was in town. To use the
app I had to verify my phone number. When my friend left town, I removed the
app. To my surprise, I kept receiving notifications from an app called
"Messenger" which is not accidentally also how the SMS app in stock android is
named. There is no way to disable it from my phone and after 15 minutes of
looking around I could not find a way to fully disable it in the browser
either. I could remove my phone number from the account entirely, but then I
would not be able to use sms to recover my account. The best I could do was to
set the maximum number of messages to 1 per day.

That, and you also can't change your relationship status to married
retroactively without Facebook notifying every person in your contact list.

~~~
castratikron
Facebook _really_ wants you to install Messenger on your phone, for some
reason:

[https://brachistochr0ne.wordpress.com/2016/12/26/facebook-
ha...](https://brachistochr0ne.wordpress.com/2016/12/26/facebook-hates-mobile-
unless-you-use-their-app/)

~~~
wattt
Surprised it has not been mentioned yet, but mbasic.facebook.com would solve
the issue in both articles. I don't even have a facebook account and I'm
constantly referring people to the slimmer version. I guess they must not
advertise it.

~~~
iokanuon
There's something weird happenning here with that subdomain. I've just tried
using that domain to access facebook on my android phone a couple of times, it
was redirecting me to
[https://mobile.facebook.com/?_rdr](https://mobile.facebook.com/?_rdr) every
time.

Until I've decided to try it in the Chrome Incognito Mode. It worked
correctly, without redirecting to the normal facebook's mobile site.

But after coming back from Incognito, it started working as intended on normal
browsing mode too.

~~~
ShinyCyril
I noticed something similar when I was travelling in either Hong Kong or
Thailand. The network operators in that country offered free access to
Facebook and so when accessing mbasic... it would ask you if you wanted to use
Facebook for free, and if not then it would forcefully redirect you to the
regular Facebook interface - no option to use the lightweight one.

------
bbitmaster
I'm just going to take a moment here to vent about the nuisance it has become
for me to deal with smartphone app notifications.

It isn't just facebook, although facebook is probably the worst. I live in a
city and I pretty much need a smartphone to do anything, but it has become so
annoying dealing with the myriad of notifications and advertisements from
random apps, and trying to find settings to disable everything.

90% of the time when my phone buzzes it's because sprig is telling me I need
to eat dinner. Messenger is telling me it's someone's birthday. Yelp is trying
to tell me there's popular a new spot nearby. Hell, even youtube was sending
me recommended videos and touching the notification caused this random video
to immediately play, using mobile data.

It is getting out of hand. You have to figure out how to disable this stuff in
each app independently, sometimes digging through confusing options menus
looking for buried settings. Sometimes I haven't even found a way.

This has taught me to usually ignore my phone, but it's especially annoying if
I'm waiting for an important e-mail or text. My smartphone has just become an
advertisement line sending bullshit that I don't care about, that I have to
wade through to get to important stuff.

Am I the only one? Is there a solution to this?

~~~
int_19h
In Android, you can easily disable all notifications for any particular app.

Settings -> Notifications -> {app} -> Block All

~~~
Consultant32452
It's even easier than that. Instead of sliding the notification off the
screen, slide it ever so slightly to the right. It displays this little gear
thing, and you can block all notifications for that app from right there. I
have a stock Nexus phone so YMMV.

------
exabrial
What annoys me about Facebook is that:

* Production appear to be the only QA they do

* Most of the time _something_ doesn't work... then you come back and it suddenly works, then it's broken again

* The news feed is non-deterministic. You can refresh and see something completely different

* Features [like the one in question] are always "opt-out" or "on by default". The attitude is "force the user to use the new feature" rather than improving it until people _actually want_ to use it

I'm glad to see them get into hot water on that last point. I see this user-
hostile "we know better than you" authoritarian attitude taking over quite a
few tech companies.

~~~
gnicholas
#3 is why I use Most Recent sort, which of course they boot me out of every
once in a while, and I have to re-select.

~~~
dmitrygr
Bookmark this instead to avoid being booted out of it:

[https://www.facebook.com/?sk=h_chr](https://www.facebook.com/?sk=h_chr)

------
incompatible

      The case will go forward with Facebook defending its text  
      messages on technical grounds; it argues that the texts
      were not automated because Brickman and others who received
      them had supplied Facebook with their phone numbers. 
    

That sounds like a strange definition of "automated" and a very weak argument.

~~~
jessaustin
If that passes muster, the next argument we'll hear will be, "we bought this
list of numbers from ATT, and your number is on the list, so our robocall to
your number isn't really 'automated', _per se_."

~~~
SilasX
A spammer used that exact defense before, that it's not spam, because they
used legal means to obtain the email addresses.

A slashdot poster once compared that to (if I can add some embellishment)
saying that "I have a valid driver's license and comply with local laws,
therefore I can park on your lawn."

[https://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=157986&cid=13234763](https://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=157986&cid=13234763)

------
Buge
On my dad's birthday, my aunt got one of those "reply 1 to post happy
birthday" texts. She replied 1. And it posted 1 onto my dad's timeline, not
happy birthday.

[https://www.reddit.com/r/facebook/comments/2qbg9j/reply_1_to...](https://www.reddit.com/r/facebook/comments/2qbg9j/reply_1_to_post_happy_birthday_text_doesnt_work)

~~~
raverbashing
Oh what a very well thought a and nicely implemented feature... Not

Typical of fb "new features". Annoying and half broken

~~~
rhizome
Version 2 posts "true" to the timeline.

~~~
a3n
So they moved from C to C++?

~~~
rhizome
It's a perfect opportunity for a rewrite.

------
mankash666
Facebook's attitude - "when Facebook forces itself on you, it's just good
parenting".

------
comex
Full decision, if anyone's interested:

[https://www.dropbox.com/s/68g4zq28aqiaqor/IMG_1374.PDF?dl=0](https://www.dropbox.com/s/68g4zq28aqiaqor/IMG_1374.PDF?dl=0)

------
username223
And this is why I haven't set up 2FA: I don't trust them (or Google) not to
abuse my phone number.

~~~
cm2187
Same

------
DashRattlesnake
> Facebook attorneys argued that the TCPA's allowed exceptions—for emergency
> communications and _debt collectors_

Debt collectors get a special exemption?

~~~
mark212
no they don't. The article isn't reporting accurately on Facebook's argument.
The TCPA has exceptions for emergency communications and debt collection
activity where the debt is owed to or guaranteed by the federal government.
General debt collection most certainly isn't exempt from TCPA compliance.

------
af16090
Sort of off-topic but something that I've noticed that Facebook does that is
really scummy is they make you receive an email notification before you can
opt-out of that type. At one point I set my email notification preferences to
"Only notifications about your account, security and privacy" but that had the
consequence of not getting notifications if someone sent me a message. So I
changed it back to all notifications but then I had to get all the different
types of emails (recent statuses from your friends, recent photos from your
friends, recent videos from your friends, etc.) in order to opt-out of each
one individually. On the notification setting page, all I can do is opt back
in to receiving the notifications, not opt out of other notifications that I
am currently set to receive.

Does anyone know how to selectively turn off the email notifications without
first receiving them?

~~~
blackoil
[https://www.facebook.com/settings?tab=notifications&section=...](https://www.facebook.com/settings?tab=notifications&section=email&view)

~~~
af16090
Thanks but that's the page I was talking about. I can only choose to re-enable
email notifications that I've turned off there. I can't disable notifications
from that page, I have to wait to get an email that I don't want to
unsubscribe from that type of notification. I can see why they'd do it, but
it's still really sleazy.

------
dqv
Is anyone from the TCPA bar here? How long does it typically take for a TCPA
class action law suit to proceed?

The timing on this seems unfortunate (for professional TCPA claimants):

We have a president who might not like this law so much[1]. He also wants to
reduce regulation (see his executive order). Ajit Pai has first amendment
rights as one of his core issues[2]. I could, howe er, be incorrectly
conflating Pai's conception of the first amendment and Facebook's.

Ready for a repeal of the TCPA? We could be headed that way.

[1]: Thorne v. Donald J. Trump for President, Inc.

[2]: [https://www.fcc.gov/about/leadership/ajit-
pai](https://www.fcc.gov/about/leadership/ajit-pai)

~~~
mark212
FCC can't repeal the TCPA, only Congress can do that, and it's unlikely given
the way even modest amendments to the law have been roundly criticized. Last
try in 2013 was the only time I've seen Mother Jones, NYT editorial page, Bill
O'Reilly, and the Wall Street Journal agree on something.

The new chair of the FCC could whittle away at many of the consumer-friendly
rulings of the agency, but those date back to 2003 and it would be hard to
throw all of them out. Any new regulations could also be challenged judicially
and that would delay their effective date. So I don't anticipate a major,
sudden change. It also seems like Pai's agenda puts a high priority on
reversing net neutrality and other telecom stuff and not the TCPA.

This ruling against Facebook is not that important. Article itself says that
the Ninth Circuit has shot down constitutional challenges to the law in '95
and in '14, the latter went to the USSC but not on those grounds.

(to answer your first question, it's about 3-5 years from filing to final
settlement.)

------
ransom1538
First. There is a difference between "texts" (SMS) and "notifications" (Apples
own private system). Suing Facebook by confusing the courts on this difference
is absolutely horrifying. I am no facebook fanboy, but push notifications
should not be handled by the "Telephone Communications Privacy Act". W(who)tf
wrote this confusing article. We engineers here have a responsibility to know
the difference.

I am sure lawyers are laughing over whiskey somewhere.

"You see, Brickman had opted out of receiving texts from Facebook via the
platform's notification settings."

then later in the article

"The suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, argues that Facebook's sending unauthorized text messages is a
violation of the federal Telephone Communications Privacy Act (TCPA)."

~~~
atomical
Why is the distinction important? I have heard people regularly confuse the
two but now I'm wondering if it even matters outside of a technical
discussion.

~~~
tomjen3
The only difference of my head is because one is messages received over the
network and the other is messages generated by your phone (which can certainly
be from network messages, but could also be because you have arrived at your
destination, reach your fitbit goal, etc).

------
djyaz1200
This communication would be protected under the first amendment if they
addressed the recipient by name, used the senders name and had a mechanism for
replying to a human being. That's one to one speech. If they failed to adhere
to that standard it's likely their communication would be classified as one to
many communication and therefore subject to TCPA and a host of other
restrictions.

------
jmcdiesel
I'm going to play devil's advocate here...

Sending a text does no harm, receiving a text incurs no harm. This lawsuit is
ridiculous. There has to be some sense of harm done at some point, doesn't
there?

We're filing lawsuits over being annoying now...

------
Havoc
Weird. Of all the things I'm concerned about @ FB...spam texts is not one of
them

------
yueq
How many of those are counted in DAU/MAUs if this is their only action of a
day?

------
coldcode
Is it me or is everyone using the First Amendment to invent all sorts of new
stuff these days. Can I throw a rock at my neighbor's window and claim the
first amendment allowed me to do so because I don't like them?

~~~
TenJack
No, because that would be property damage.

~~~
jonathankoren
So much for the tolerant left! ;)

------
ccvannorman
Please, PLEASE let this be expanded to telemarketers and email spammers, et.
al.

------
whoisthemachine
I'm not really sure what this is about, but I only use the browser version of
Facebook (which is very functional), so that may be why.

------
intrasight
It will be interesting to see how this settles out legally. In the mean time,
don't share your phone number with bots.

------
campbelltown
Whenever one of these posts come around, people start sharing horrible
experiences they've had with facebook and how they're "scaling back" or
tailoring their facebook usage ie. using the mobile browser instead of the
app. It's a strange discussion. Just leave the platform and send a formal
request to delete your account. It's like reading a meth addict forum.

~~~
eriknstr
It's not so easy to leave when so many people are in your contact list only on
fb and also there are many discussions and posts made on fb that one would
miss out on.

~~~
frogpelt
Curious, are these discussions and posts really important?

How many crucial conversations have taken place only on Facebook?

I removed my account a couple of years ago when I found out stuff about people
that I would have been happier not knowing. And I haven't missed much.

I don't expect that my social life and yours are that similar though.

~~~
mewse
Personally, I joined Facebook only because the co-working office space that I
rent space in coordinate most events and notices through a private Facebook
group. To know (for example) when government representatives or media are
going to be on-site.

I still don't really use facebook socially at all.

------
greens231
deleted my profile 10 years back. everytime someone takes a picture of me, i
explicitly tell them not to post it on facebook.

------
nameisu
i deleted my number from Facebook but it still keeps the number asks me to
confirm it for security whenever i login.

------
kpil
How can a non-human entity be entitled to free speech...

~~~
mcintyre1994
As I understand it, to allow certain types of lobbying or something companies
lobbied for, there's a ruling in the US that companies are people in some
contexts.

~~~
jimnotgym
Whilst corporations are entities _apart from their directors_ , I find this
being twisted to mean they are _people_ incredibly distasteful.

~~~
cgriswald
They are not considered people. They are considered persons. In a legal
context, a person is not a human being, but any entity to which rights or
responsibilities (also read: liabilities) can be attached.

No court has said they are human beings. And they do not have all human
rights. They have only those rights which law and case law have put upon them.

~~~
jimnotgym
You are right the term is person. And they do not have all human rights. I am
no expert in the US constitution either. However I still feel that a
corporation argueing for rights to free speech (like Facebook here) is not in
the spirit of the contstitution. Free speech is a human right not a corporate
one

------
sogen
But hey, they freed a country!

