This was obviously never going to happen and is absolutely the right decision for Zuckerberg and Facebook. House of Commons select committees bagging a big scalp invariably turn into show trials, with MPs possessing a completely deluded sense of their own insight into a subject queuing up to play to the cameras. The spectacle of having Zuckerberg there would have been absolutely excruciating.
So, much as I'd like to see Facebook deleted from the internet, at least we'll be spared the embarrassment of the world witnessing the caliber of our elected representatives.
Everything you've said is utterly accurate and yet I still think this is a terrible decision. We'll have to witness some hapless middle-manager undergo the same circus, but with every new person to speak we'll have a customary "I simply cannot believe Mr. Zuckerberg did not think it was important for him to be here in person!".
Having a fall guy give terrible answers looks worse than him giving terrible answers. At the very least send Sheryl Sandberg - the message they're sending out right now is that they aren't taking it seriously.
> We'll have to witness some hapless middle-manager undergo the same circus
According to The Guardian, Facebook said that "the company would be putting forward its chief technology officer, Mike Schroepfer, or its chief product officer, Chris Cox."
Which is fair enough, but the point is it's not Mark or Sheryl.
They want a celebrity they can shake their fists at and give a right telling off to. Politicians don't build their careers giving tongue-lashings to non-public figures, and that's going to be a problem now.
As I type this, I've just read that Zuckerberg has agreed to testify before a congressional committee - this is going to piss off MPs in the UK all the more though because he snubbed them first (which in turns means whoever gets sent is going to get a lot more abuse and more of the "Where is he!?" feigned outrage).
I'm frankly surprised that Sheryl Sandberg isn't being sent to the UK if Zuckerberg is testifying in the US (although I don't see why he can't do both). The whole angle at the time of her hiring was that she would be "the grown up in the room". I realize that was a long time ago now, but if ever there was a time for the COO to step up this has to be it.
> I'm frankly surprised that Sheryl Sandberg isn't being sent to the UK if Zuckerberg is testifying in the US (although I don't see why he can't do both). The whole angle at the time of her hiring was that she would be "the grown up in the room".
Arguably, that perception is exactly why he has to send a clear subordinate if he isn't going himself, and not someone perceived to be his babysitter.
It's no secret that Zukerberg is not very charismatic; IMO he looks kinda rehearsed and scared when he speaks in public.
Cox and Schroepfer both seem more comfortable in front of cameras from what I can find online, and to be honest would probably have better insight into what happened. After all, it's their jobs as the heads of product, and technology.
I'm old enough to remember the 1993 Jack in the Box e. coli outbreak... and then fast-forward to Chipotle's 2015 handling of the same thing. The responses between then and now were staggering differently. Back then it was "deny, deny, deny". In today's PR conscious world - for better or worse - the people expect an immediate confession from the very top.
Given's FB's breadth and depth of exposure to many people's lives, I would expect no less than to see Zuck fielding questions in front of the cameras. It will certainly be a circus and many people will tune in to watch - but if handled correctly can bring an enormous amount of goodwill back to FB - which it desperately needs right now.
Perhaps this is a form of karma. After all, the change in how PR works today compared to last century has a lot to do with the rise of social media and 24 hour news cycles.
The irony of Zuckerberg responding to this spectacle in an entirely old-school and 20th century way, blind to how the social media landscape has changed PR.
Or is it more likely that he's counting on having his eggs in more baskets than just the Facebook one? I don't think he doesn't give a crap because he thinks Facebook is invincible.
Will it be fine? Stock market shaved 10 percent of it's market cap on this. I suppose if you're a $500bn or $450bn company you'll be fine either way... But this is only a week... So time will tell how far the negative press goes with this... And ultimately how many of it's 2bn users actually care.
Agree. It took (e.g.) Microsoft et al too long to realize - for better or worse - the significance of Washington DC. Today, the stage is international, the flow of info more freely. That is, a couple of phone calls and it's possible to mobilize the FB platform against FB itself. Extreme? Yes, but possible.
I actually think this is absolutely the wrong move for him if he already came clean. In my estimate, he is being legally advised not to show up to these hearings for reasons unclear to us at the moment. Perhaps there's more to the story than what has been revealed thus far.
Perhaps not but there is a big difference between going on TV and taking out an apology ad vs. appearing in sworn-in hearings. Recall this is a part of an ongoing issue that they have been carefully trying to manage for the past few years. Unfortunately for Facebook, they are very much in the public space by design. If they cannot withstand this level of public scrutiny, then they are effectively conceding that they "don't deserve" to serve the public.
There's no conspiracy: huge political ad campaigns were purchased in rubles sent from Russian bank accounts. Moreover:
* Monthly meetings with Yuri Milner after he invests $200 million dollars of Gazprom money in facebook after the 2008 crash.
* Facebook assigning liaisons to work at the Trump campaign offices - side by side, if not directly with, Cambridge Analytica. Kushner implies it's directly with them.
“We found that Facebook and digital targeting were the most effective ways to reach the audiences. After the primary, we started ramping up because we knew that doing a national campaign is different than doing a primary campaign. That was when we formalized the system because we had to ramp up for digital fundraising. We brought in Cambridge Analytica. I called some of my friends from Silicon Valley who were some of the best digital marketers in the world. And I asked them how to scale this stuff."
There's a possible win—people would have assumed he was sincere in his apology. Sure it would be bad for business, but perhaps some things are more important than business.
I am sure certain members of the Gov won't forget the lack of his appearance (and the impression it gives) so who knows if it was a good business decision or not, down the line.
Would you feel the same way if the CEO of some massive Russian or Chinese firm holding the private data on millions and millions of American citizens refused to appear before the American Congress?
I mean....I would still recognize it as the correct business decision, even though I would personally dislike it. Those two are not mutually exclusive.
You missed threatening to sue the newspapers and reporters before the first stories dropped with Wylie on the record blowing the whistle the previous Sunday.
Yes, but it wasn't signed by the CPO, the board, or anyone, they were all signed by Zuckerberg so I think it looks especially fake to take out those ads (which are especially targeted at the 'political class' IMO) and then refuse to come before MPs.
That makes it sound like people are upset about an isolated incident, trying to play this off as an isolated incident is going to blow up very badly as people "discover" just how much of their data is everywhere, whether they gave permission or not this isn't about a single breach.
Did you read the linked article? Facebook deliberately structure their operations to try and avoid paying UK tax. So it seems odd to then cite that as a reason for him not attending.
But their current arrangements are partly a result of political lobbying. So if they’re politically engaged enough to lower their taxes why aren’t they politically engaged enough to answer to this?
If Facebook and Zuckerberg cross the invisible line here -- and they may be doing that with this decision -- then political will is going to turn sharply against them. It wouldn't be at all surprising if their tax situation became dramatically worse shortly afterwards. It's basically free money for the government and free political points too.
Is there a criminal charge pending for tax evasion? I'm not sure I understand your comment. Did Facebook fail to pay a legally required tax and we're waiting for HMRC to prosecute?
It feels like Zuck is in panic and listening too much to his PR advisors who are likely telling him to stay out of the public until the storm settles. Not a smart move on this particular case
> Zuck is in panic and listening too much to his PR advisors
In all fairness, and with a healthy dose of irony, he isn't a terrific people person. At least not in front of the camera. Unfortunately, one of the jobs of the CEO of a crisis-stricken company is to be the face of the response.
Rupert Murdoch somehow managed to survive. They aren’t as savage in person as they appear to be. Indeed, who knows what info Facebook/whatsapp they have on the MPs and their families!
What a mess.
Yes is this a new thing? I don't remember in the past the committees being so publicly snide and unpleasant like they seem to be now. Maybe it wasn't televised so prominently before?
And the most strange part is how they now have celebrity appearances as well - comedians and actors?
They always let loose a little - you can go back and look at old transcripts and see much the same thing.
There's a certain element of it becoming slightly worse due to being televised. In an era where there is a huge gap between government rhetoric and practice, it can be a useful way to signal ones 'principles' even as one files obediently through the government lobby when it comes to voting on actual legislation.
It’s less of a grilling when MPs know what they are talking about, which I suspect is not the case here. I expect some will wrongly describe Facebook’s business model as “selling personal information”.
Sending Schrep & Chris will help assess this and clarify some things.
When you've fucked up at that level a bit of humble pie goes a long way towards smoothing over the various ruffled feathers. There wasn't anything to win here but there was a lot to lose.
Wrong time to chicken out. That will probably have serious consequences for FB in Europe and will help with convincing people to regulations like revenue-based taxation.
As someone from the UK I am not at all surprised, there is no upside to him doing so. There is nothing he can say that will help, the committee will absolutely rip into him as their primary audience is the press and people of the UK, they don't really care about his answers to their questions.
The problem is that the story isn't about FB making mistakes, or being hacked, or doing something they said they wouldn't. It's that people are working out what it is they've agreed to to use the service, and there is no spinning that.
>It's that people are working out what it is they've agreed to to use the service
If the vast majority of users are only working out what they have signed up for now, after using the service for years, then it would be hard to argue that Facebook's users have given informed consent to a contract, which is generally a legal requirement here for it to be said that you have agreed to something.
When I and a lot of people I know signed up, an active .edu email was required. It was like the unprofessional kids' version of LinkedIn. The implicit conditions of the agreement to sign up for an account - that only other students and academic faculty could use the service and engage with content - were completely abandoned after they had cornered a part of their "social graph".
Saying this is a strategic mistake may be a bit too early to tell. It depends on whether this issue will slowly disappear in the media and minds of people (like most things). He has no legal obligation to appear if I understand correctly. The select committee mainly consists of MPs who objected Brexit. Of course they try to make their point that the vote was skewed or manipulated. If, on the other hand, the pressure stays on, it may very well be a strategic mistake not to appear.
Cambridge Analytica / SCL donated their services to the pro-leave campaign. There are accusations that (a) these services involved committing crimes, (b) the donated services weren't counted towards the election spending limit and (c) this is an example of foreign billionaires interfering with elections.
In other words, this is embarrassing for the pro-brexit side.
A person who was pro-brexit may be inclined to downplay this, while a person who was pro-remain is less likely to sweep it under the rug.
Brexit is relevant, because like the election of Trump, it appears nefarious actors (likely Russians in both cases) used Facebook to drive votes in a particular direction (pro-Trump, pro-Brexit).
Some people posted fake content on Facebook? And that is responsible for the election of Trump and Brexit? If you actually believe that there's some pop up internet ads I have ready for you...
Responsible on it's own? Likely not. A contributing factor? I believe the jury is still out.
Either way, the simple existence of the tools to do so (via social media and data-crunching groups like CA) should be investigated. And governments rightly should take action to ensure "fake news" is not being used to subvert their elections.
Not so long ago, Zuckerberg said it was "crazy" to think that Facebook influenced the US election. I don't think he's quite so confident of that today.
Zuck could be "persuaded" of anything I'm sure to placate the scapegoating whiners of the western world. The thing is if you're vacuous enough to invest a lot of yourself on fb you are equally vacuous to join the pitchfork mobs at the prompting of mass media.
I said it in a previous post but if the congress/senate were allowed to summon Tony Hayward, BP CEO, over the Deep Water Horizon disaster then the UK Parliament are well in their rights to summon, and expect attendance, of Zukerberg over this.
Hayward didn't meet with Congress because of international equanimity, he met with Congress because he damn well knew they'd twist his arm if he didn't. The extensive US operations of BP make said arm twisting a rather easy thing to accomplish.
It's funny, people are speculating about whether Zuckerberg will choose to appear before Congress. But it isn't up to him, they have the power to compel him to appear. If they don't do that, it's their choice, not his.
(they have the power as a practical matter anyway; Zuckerberg isn't going to spend time in jail to avoid a trip to Washington)
> the UK Parliament are well in their rights to summon, and expect attendance, of Zukerberg over this
But they aren't within their rights to summon him. That's not a power they have. They can invite him, and they did, but he doesn't have to go and speak to a committee if he doesn't want to.
Facebook has enough ties to the UK that he wouldn't ignore a subpoena compelling him to appear. He might try to challenge it first, depending on how it would affect the optics of the situation, appearing only if he lost that challenge.
Not a complete surprise, but I suspect this is a strategic mistake from Zuckerberg. It's going to send the wrong message, at a time when Facebook is already under pressure and regulators in the EU are about to be given the most powerful privacy tools (and the most heavy penalty regime) they've ever had to work with.
> I wonder if regulators will just decide the split up facebook.
I keep hearing this suggestion and it makes no sense. Split into what? It would be like asking to split Google into one company doing the search and another one doing the ads. You're talking about loss leader strategy here and you cannot have a company whose only product is a loss leader. Majority of users won't pay to have search or social network. They value their privacy much lower and would trade it to get the services without direct monetary compensation.
> I keep hearing this suggestion and it makes no sense. Split into what?
Instagram, WhatsApp, and multiple competing Facebook copies (say Facebook Red, Facebook Green, and Facebook Orange) with a mandate to interoperate with each other and with other networks. Existing accounts are divided randomly and evenly between the copies.
The sibling comments make it clear what the split could be. In fact, people who say #deletefacebook are both overreacting and overreaching, when a much easier solution is at hand. It should really be #splitfacebook - that is an excellent outcome for most of the concerned parties (except maybe FB shareholders, which might as well be a good thing).
I wonder if this will affect their tax arrangements, as they have been treated rather nicely up till now.
In 2014, Facebook paid £4,327 in tax to the UK. The next year, they paid £4.16 million, which seems to be an improvement but then in the same year they were given an £11 million tax credit, so not so much.
> "You have a wealthy company from a developed nation going into an economy or democracy that's still struggling to get its feet on the ground - and taking advantage of that to profit from that," he told MPs.
Christopher Wylie (ex-Facebook whistleblower) just gave the primary reason why Facebook is blocked in China.
>> "You have a wealthy company from a developed nation going into an economy or democracy that's still struggling to get its feet on the ground - and taking advantage of that to profit from that," he told MPs.
> Christopher Wylie (ex-Facebook whistleblower) just gave the primary reason why Facebook is blocked in China.
No. China isn't a "democracy that's still struggling to get its feet on the ground," China is a country run by anti-democratic authoritarians who want to protect their power by controlling the information their people see. It's also rather protectionist, and does not want foreign companies to be major players on its internet. The way Facebook makes its money has nothing to do with why it's blocked there.
So you think the Chinese government's motivation for protectionism is purely because they are undemocratic evil-doers hell-bent on preserving their power.
I disagree and believe they have other motivations behind protectionism, limiting democracy, and authoritarianism.
It seems you probably don't have background in Chinese history. There was a period pre-WWII where China was divvied up by colonial powers and humiliated in defeats for over a century (primarily due to a weak navy). The country was addicted at that time not to Facebook but to opium, which was imposed upon by foreign influence. Both nationalist and communist parties recognized this and vowed to unify and expel foreign power. The communists ended up essentially winning, but the legacy of weariness towards foreign influence persisted.
I can assure you the #1 and #2 things in China's mind when banning facebook and google are to #1 prevent a backdoor for the US into massive data collection and #2 nurture homegrown technology companies to prevent spilling wealth out. You might consider #2 to be unfair, but you'd also have to consider that the US was a fully developed economy, and China's developing economy would not be fairly competing against foreign tech companies. The decision has nothing to do with free speech as facebook would simply have to comply with local laws and would have gladly censored at the request of China—but that wasn't the issue.
That being said, protectionism isn't exclusive to China. It's adopted heavily in Japan too, as well as in the US. You can't really argue for or against it as it's a matter of sovereign policy as foreign citizens do not have a natural right to exploit a sovereign market.
Regarding democracy and authoritarianism, keep in mind the the country was super poor and uneducated. Ceding power democratically across the country would have probably resulted in massive corruption. The country is not a dictatorship though, but it is governed by a subset of the population who are communist party members. While they probably want to keep power to themselves, they'll also in theory be better governors than the general public.
Believe it or not the population of China overwhelmingly supports their government. The authority and legitimacy of a government does not come from democracy per se (nor from opinions of people half-way around the world), but from the people. Democracy is a great way to represent the power of the people, but as long as the population approves and delegates power to the government (by not rebelling), then it has legitimacy.
So no there's no democracy, but if they did have a vote right now the people would side with their government, and not the poorly informed foreign distant opinions from people like yourself. It just so happens their form of government does not delegate decisions of governance at the same granularity to the people as we do in America, but then again we don't have much granularity either through our representative form of government (we don't even pick the president!).
They pick their premier through rules of the communist party. We pick our president through a set of complex rules masking the fact that an electoral college actually selects the president (with things like super-delegates, which were enacted to reduce the power of the average voter since one election the democratically elected candidate didn't satisfy the DNC party expectations). In the end they have one party, we have only two real parties. There's not much difference except we directly elect a few more representatives than they do.
> Regarding democracy and authoritarianism, keep in mind the the country was super poor and uneducated. Ceding power democratically across the country would have probably resulted in massive corruption.
Are you claiming China's government isn't massively corrupt right now?
> The country is not a dictatorship though
Never claimed that it was (at this moment).
> Believe it or not the population of China overwhelmingly supports their government. The authority and legitimacy of a government does not come from democracy per se (nor from opinions of people half-way around the world), but from the people. Democracy is a great way to represent the power of the people, but as long as the population approves and delegates power to the government (by not rebelling), then it has legitimacy.
I too have seen that state-published English-language book about the survey that "shows" the Chinese people want a "moral" government before a democratic one. It's right next to a similar title about "true history" of the Dalai Llama (or something like that) in the bookshop in the international terminal of the Beijing airport. On some level, I agree it's true.
But the question of, "do the Chinese people support their government" is a complicated one that I don't think is even answerable at a meaningful level right now. The Chinese information environment doesn't permit it, since it doesn't give the Chinese people the necessary ideological framework or information about alternatives to even form an independent opinion. I'm sure some people do so anyway, but it's a much harder task. In the west people benefit from concepts like "you can love your country and hate your government;" relatively unbiased information; and more varied, competing, opinions.
> So you think the Chinese government's motivation for protectionism is purely because they are undemocratic evil-doers hell-bent on preserving their power.
> I disagree and believe they have other motivations behind protectionism, limiting democracy, and authoritarianism.
And those motivations are? The historic national humiliation thing? To be honest that reads as more of a convenient "surface" justification akin to American evidence-laundering via "parallel construction" from evidence obtained by illegal surveillance. It's not supported by the history of Google in China, for instance. They had a large ~30% marketshare until they refused to play ball on censorship, they then they were blocked, but not before.
> Are you claiming China's government isn't massively corrupt right now?
The corruption happens at lower levels, and is usually a byproduct of too much power granted to someone who doesn't deserve it. Enabling democracy would have caused more corruption as it requires a well-informed public. China during the revolution was definitely not full of educated and well-informed people.
> But the question of, "do the Chinese people support their government" is a complicated one that I don't think is even answerable at a meaningful level right now. The Chinese information environment doesn't permit it, since it doesn't give the Chinese people the necessary ideological framework or information about alternatives to even form an independent opinion. I'm sure some people do so anyway, but it's a much harder task. In the west people benefit from concepts like "you can love your country and hate your government;" relatively unbiased information; and more varied, competing, opinions.
You're clearly not Chinese, and probably don't many people in China. But I am, and I know people who live in China (middle class, even poor people), and the sentiment is that the government is doing a good job.
> And those motivations are? The historic national humiliation thing? To be honest that reads as more of a convenient "surface" justification akin to American evidence-laundering via "parallel construction" from evidence obtained by illegal surveillance. It's not supported by the history of Google in China, for instance. They had a large ~30% marketshare until they refused to play ball on censorship, they then they were blocked, but not before.
Protectionism is preferred by countries in the same way as the "Buy USA" rhetoric in America that you may be able to relate to. The unique history China had with colonialism is just a bonus. It turns out that China was smart enough to recognize the national importance of the internet technology industry, and levied massive walls against them. You can't easily put an import tax on Google, but you can block them. I can guarantee you it had nothing to do with censorship. Google/Facebook are businesses and would never make a stand by jeopardizing their China business by not complying with local censorship laws. It was never about that. It was simply because they were not welcome, and that if they did flourish they'd have troves of data on Chinese citizens in the hands of a foreign entity.
> The corruption happens at lower levels, and is usually a byproduct of too much power granted to someone who doesn't deserve it.
On what basis do you make that judgement? Isn't it too difficult to truly learn about the activities of high government officials?
> China during the revolution was definitely not full of educated and well-informed people.
There has been quite a bit of time since the revolution. Do you think the Chinese people are well-informed enough for democracy (or at least more political liberalization) now? If not, why not?
> You're clearly not Chinese, and probably don't many people in China. But I am, and I know people who live in China (middle class, even poor people), and the sentiment is that the government is doing a good job.
I know many Chinese people very well. Are you yourself from China or do you similarly just know many people from there? I think the former is likely, but your phrasing is ambiguous.
> [Among] people who live in China (middle class, even poor people), [...] the sentiment is that the government is doing a good job.
That doesn't contradict anything that I wrote, in fact I said that's probably true. My point, stated more bluntly, is that it doesn't mean much if their opinion is controlled. The necessary environment for informed opinion includes open information and freedom from coercion, neither of which exist in mainland China.
Mark was invited and he declined. What's really wrong with that?
His wisdom and personal belief (including legal and lawyer suggestions) tells him that coming over to the invitation would not do him (nor his company) any good.
And, given with all the information he has supposedly with people, he may already have some knowledge of the personality of the MPs who are going to grill him that he may think otherwise that appearing before them would tantamount into a gong show.
Legally speaking, there might not be anything wrong with it.
Practically speaking, he just snubbed an influential, cross-party group of MPs, and the House of Commons where those MPs and their colleagues sit has the closest thing to absolute power that exists within our legal system.
These are people who could pass emergency legislation imposing a windfall tax on Facebook amounting to 100% of everything it does or owns in UK territory and authorising HMRC to immediately seize assets accordingly. They could pass laws requiring all UK-based ISPs to filter Facebook traffic any way they want. They could pass laws imposing an extremely privacy-focussed data protection regime, even more so than the GDPR that is already due to come into effect in a couple of months.
Now, obviously such extreme reactions are unlikely in response to this snub, even given the history here. But there is a whole scale of possible responses to Facebook's current situation, and large fines and/or some of the people involved actually going to prison are not out of the question. Tempting fate may not be the smartest business move Facebook could make.
This is the ultimate act of Silicon Valley arrogance, at it will backfire hard.
Not just on Facebook, and not just in the UK. This crosses a line all democratic nations in which SV companies have significant interests and even more significant influence will take note of.
SV and apparently large parts of HN are completely delusional if they think this won't have serious consequences.
Aside from everything, I find it remarkable that the media are gunning for facebook right now (referencing all those shady algorithms / shady partnerships etc etc) to the extent that facebook is a 'dirty word' and yet the newspapers are evidently quite happy to accept payment for full page ads in their publications from ... facebook.
What happens if someone decided to commit a crime using SaaS platform, then requests data to be deleted. Police then go to SaaS provider and such provider can't give any data. Is SaaS provider going to be blamed?
Normally I'd think this comment is a bit too lowbrow for the orange site, but I think it's justified in light of just how fundamentally the world shifted due to the Brexit vote. If this breach was part of that then people should be incredibly angry.
I hope this hate on FB ends already, I'm tired of seeing the home page of HN polluted by it.
We all knew what was going on on FB, so acting surprised is silly. And we all know this won't change nothing because most people don't care and will happily keep using FB. And we also know even if people stop using FB they will keep using WA/IG. So what's the point? Is this only a problem now that Trump took advantage of it?
Why do you think it is inevitable that people would use WhatsApp or Instagram if they decide to leave Facebook? Is that really as obvious as you are making it out to be? Is there any evidence of that?
The point is that finally, FINALLY the mainstream is paying attention to the potential ramifications of having a consolidated identity on social media, and how they potentially could have their perception of reality distorted by using such services. Now is the time to embrace changes if they come, not to get complacent at the news cycle based on ones own personal cognitive biases.
The problem is not only Facebook that distorts the reality, it's most of the media. Look at mainstream media like CNN or RT which favour one side and totally ignore the arguments of the other.
All of that will continue to happen no matter what until people start to think critically and question all the information they get, be it from their parents, school teachers, news outlets or social media.
In my circle of friends in fact a lot of people are using IG and WA and ditched Facebook long ago. I use all of the three solely because my business generates a lot of sales through these channels. So I think yes, people will continue to use it in the foreseeable future. But this opinion is based solely on my bubble that I live in.
Lets be honest, CNN is just a tabloid now. All they want to talk about is Trumps sexcapades when there are so many other things they can focus on that really matter.
I live in Western Europe and I'd say 99.9999% of owners of smartphones have either a FB, WA or IG account and use it every day. Everybody uses WA, older people use FB, younger people use IG. If you refuse to use WA you are an outcast, and many people got a smartphone just for WA.
The media likes to drives us with rage because that attracts clicks, and once a new big thing happens this will be forgotten by everybody forever.
Well GDPR is going to have teeth soon and Facebook is a prime case to test its boundaries and prove those base fines will be enforced. It's important to see the outcome and sentiment of the EU and UK in regards to Facebook from a legal standpoint as it helps inform smaller companies of where the proverbial line in the sand is drawn. I think it is likely in their best interest to keep Facebook in the news so as to improve the optics when the inevitable GDPR violations trickle into the Data Protection Agencies of the EU.
There's an awful lot of people posting "we knew it was bad already, why do you care now?" Remarkably consistently across all articles relating to Facebook. Clearly you want nothing done about this and are happy with this low level of privacy. But on the other hand a lot of people have been unhappy with it for a long time; suddenly the dam has broken and the public discussion in the media is taking an interest.
This happens with many scandals. I'm reminded of LIBOR "rigging", which all the participants thought was entirely normal.
> Clearly you want nothing done about this and are happy with this low level of privacy.
Facebook already locked down their platform in 2014-2015. There's no use asking Facebook to do anything now. What needs to be done is to hunt down the companies that extracted the data, one by one, trace every copy of it and delete it. But that is really hard to do. It's easier to just keep attacking Facebook.
No matter how much of a mistake Facebook make with their PR, they're gonna get away with it.
Primarily because a majority of the public can't sustain their interest in the subject beyond their day-to-day concerns in life.
I mean the whole argument here is that stolen user data from Facebook led a marketing agency to enable a political party with a certain agenda to deceive the public and win a democratic vote. Gathering so much power is a big victory in the first place, that is not so easy to ignore / forget / undo very easily, especially when most people continue to use Facebook products the way they did because the news slowly becomes old and people forget and move on.
This subject is bigger than Facebook, it reveals shortcomings of a democratic vote and how power in the capitalist system can render a democracy to be an illusion. Facebook's victory is to have accumulated so much power in the first place. Power aka most personal user data any institute has ever gathered. Never mind they used shady sly tactics to take permissions in the first place.
So, much as I'd like to see Facebook deleted from the internet, at least we'll be spared the embarrassment of the world witnessing the caliber of our elected representatives.