Top Communications Union Joins Group Pushing for Facebook's Breakup (bloomberg.com) 121
The top U.S. communications union is joining a coalition calling for the Federal Trade Commission to break up Facebook, as the social media company faces growing government scrutiny and public pressure. From a report: "We should all be deeply concerned by Facebook's power over our lives and democracy," said Brian Thorn, a researcher for the 700,000-member Communications Workers of America, the newest member of the Freedom From Facebook coalition. For the FTC not to end Facebook's monopoly and impose stronger rules on privacy "would be unfair to the American people, our privacy, and our democracy," Thorn said in an email.
Facebook disclosed July 2 that it's cooperating with probes by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and the Federal Bureau of Investigation on how political consulting firm Cambridge Analytica obtained personal information from as many as 87 million of the siteâ(TM)s users without their consent. The FTC, the Department of Justice and some state regulators were already probing the matter, which prompted Facebook Chief Executive Officer Mark Zuckerberg to testify before Congress in April. Facebook also faces calls for regulation from many lawmakers and the public over the privacy issue, Russian efforts to manipulate the 2016 presidential election and the spread of false information on the platform.
Facebook disclosed July 2 that it's cooperating with probes by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and the Federal Bureau of Investigation on how political consulting firm Cambridge Analytica obtained personal information from as many as 87 million of the siteâ(TM)s users without their consent. The FTC, the Department of Justice and some state regulators were already probing the matter, which prompted Facebook Chief Executive Officer Mark Zuckerberg to testify before Congress in April. Facebook also faces calls for regulation from many lawmakers and the public over the privacy issue, Russian efforts to manipulate the 2016 presidential election and the spread of false information on the platform.
I don't see the problem with Facebook. (Score:5, Funny)
If you don't like it, you can always go to MySpace or GeoCities.
Re: (Score:2)
drives them out of hosting user-generated content entirely due to the risk of damages from prosecution for hosting libel, hate speech, or facilitating sex trafficking and child pornography.
- Um, "hosting libel?" Really? While I have no doubt libel exists on FB do we hold AT&T accountable for libel communicated over their phone system? Or GM accountable for libel said in their vehicles? None starter...
- Hate speech? You have to be joking. No I suspect you are not. Why don't you just spit the truth out and say you prefer censorship. Forget the 1A because obviously free speech is hate speech.
- Sex trafficking? Huh? I hardly think the best apple pie recipe ever created qualifies as
Fake Facebook Account (Score:3)
I made one just to watch my kids in events that are live streamed on Facebook.
Have to say it seems pretty useless otherwise. It's illogical in design, shit you dismiss keeps coming back, they keep suggesting "friends" for my fucking fake person.
It's actually a bit creepy.
Re: (Score:2)
Shoot yourself.
You'll feel better.
Re: (Score:2)
That would work if I had an account. Now, what would be your suggestion for people who don't have a FB account but appear in pictures of someone? What would you suggest as a sensible way to avoid their omnipresent tracking cookies? What would you suggest as a suitable way to react to more and more companies not having an own web presence and instead relying on FB not only for their presence but also for contact, which is by now even to the point of them doing their hiring through FB?
I am absolutely certain
Re: (Score:2)
Now, what would be your suggestion for people who don't have a FB account but appear in pictures of someone?
What would you suggest for anytime someone posts a picture containing you in any online way? Someone has a picture of something that includes you on their blog. What legal recourse do you want? You can't sue the blog operator, they didn't post it. Sue your friend? Put them in jail?
Re: just cancel your account (Score:1)
Jail is too good for them. I suggest execution at dawn, along with gouging out the eyes of anybody who tried to steal my soul by looking at this infernal picture.
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe you should have considered the ramifications of smearing yourself in chocolate and prancing around in a speedo at your 12 year old daughter's birthday pool party.
Re: (Score:2)
What I do in my home is my business. If you take picture of me in my home, be prepared that me and my lawyer will come not only to, but for your home.
Re: (Score:3)
"What would you suggest for anytime someone posts a picture containing you in any online way?"
Scale always matters.
Don't pretend facebook or google are the same thing as being in the background on some rando's self hosted blog.
If some random picture from 3 years ago has me in the background of some Japanese tourists blog on xyz.com; and another random photo containing me from a month ago is on some Brazilian journalists news feed hosted by uvw.com... that's not even slightly a problem
But when a multiple bil
Re: (Score:2)
Scale always matters.
With Google, nobody knows you're a dog. What is "scale" when your picture shows up in a google or bing search?
Don't pretend facebook or google are the same thing as being in the background on some rando's self hosted blog.
So now we're limiting the issue to being "in the background"?
The operator of that network should be subject to a LOT more scrutiny than some rando with a blog.
I asked the question of how you deal with someone who has posted a picture that includes you to their blog. That wasn't "some rando", that could be one of your friends. And there was nothing about "in the background", it was "a picture that included you." And your friend is very likely to have included your name to identify his friends in
Re: (Score:2)
Google (right now, presumably) does not run facial recognition software on the images and correlate the results. Facebook, however, probably has a windowless building somewhere with NSA computers tying it all together.
Re: (Score:2)
Google (right now, presumably) does not run facial recognition software on the images and correlate the results.
"Omnichad and I chillin' at the local jazz fest. What a great day of music..." No Google face recognition software necessary. While you may not know if Google is doing it, you also don't know if Bing is doing it, and since it is a valuable function to do, they probably are. (If it weren't something valuable, Facebook wouldn't do it, either.)
People want laws about Facebook and what happens if you don't have a Facebook account and someone puts a picture of you up. I think the term is "bill of attainder" whe
Re: (Score:2)
"So now we're limiting the issue to being "in the background"?"
No. That was just an example.
"I asked the question of how you deal with someone who has posted a picture that includes you to their blog."
One picture by one person on one host really doesn't bother me.And if it did, I'd ask them to take it down. What is the 'problem' that needs solving? Why is it a problem?
"And your friend is very likely to have included your name to identify his friends in that picture."
No, *my* friends aren't fuckwits. But as
Re: (Score:2)
One picture by one person on one host really doesn't bother me.
That's nice. Are we talking about you specifically, or the general issue of pictures of people being posted on the web when they don't have any control over it? I really don't care what you personally think about one image. The question is, what should the LAW think about such things. I've already explained this.
Its not that I have no answer, its that my answer is that no societal level response is needed. Deal with it personally, or civilly if you find it egregious enough.
Ok. No laws necessary. I don't know how you deal with Facebook "personally", and trying to sue them for a civil claim will be a nightmare, but "no societal level response is needed." Others disagree
What is this nonsense? (Score:1)
You can walk away from Facebook at any time. Just turn off the computer, stand up, and walk away.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't get it (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Working for a company that was a former Bell company... it really doesn't matter.
You obviously weren't alive during the reign of Bell. Before the breakup, you couldn't connect 3rd party phones to the All Mighty Bell Network. Long distance rates were sky freaking high, and there was NO competition. Since the breakup we actually got competition in the LD market. You likely weren't alive during that time when everyone and their dog wanted you to switch to THEIR long distance network. My father used to pla
Re: (Score:3)
If it hadn't been for the Bell breakup we'd probably all be paying 4.99 per hour for AOL high speed 28Kbps.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I thought AT&T didn't allow modems on their network for things like that during their rein?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They own multiple communications networks, including WhatsApp and Instagram.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That was a widespread argument when they broke up AT&T, and a true one. Telephony standards have been glacial in their changes since then. It is no surprise that they have found major vulnerabilities in even the most recent standard and are just living with them.
However, virtually nobody argues today that we'd be better off without the breakup.
In my opinion, the reason for breakup is partly to reduce the lobbying power, partly to open up the client side to all who want to develop for it, and partly to f
Re: (Score:2)
Wasting time.
Oh, wait ...
Break up (Score:3)
Into two social networks. One for the cool people and one for the dorks.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It's all for dorks. Get a life offline and you won't miss it, zombies.
Re: (Score:3)
One for the cool people and one for the dorks.
And two Denny's, so we can always say, "Let's not go to that one. Let's go to the good one."
Re: (Score:2)
One for the people cool enough to be worth tracking their every movement and utterance, and one for the people that might interact with those people, so they can keep in practice?
Re: (Score:1)
You could break it up into 6 companies
-Advertising
-Facebook
-Messenger
-WhatsApp
-Instagram
-Datacenters
What monopoly? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My "friends" can only be found on other networking service. Most people wouldn't consider it "social" though. ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook should be slammed for what it has done, and it should REALLY be slammed for its ridiculously, deliberately misleading advertising going on now. But calling it a monopoly and "breaking it up", that's nonsense. Don't punish success, punish the bad things that anyone does.
If you haven't seen the current ad campaign, here it is in a nutshell. People talking about how great it was to be able to connect to friends, "and then we got spam" and invasion of privacy
Re: (Score:2)
Spam and invasion of privacy was around long before Facebook. Facebook just perfected them.
Re: (Score:2)
Spam and invasion of privacy was around long before Facebook.
Not on Facebook. The ad is talking about how great Facebook was.
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook has over 2 billion users. Twitter has 328 million and LinkedIn doesn't even show up on this list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] Perhaps we could find some of our friends among Youtube's 1.5 billion users?
Nope. Facebook has an effective monopoly.
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook has over 2 billion users. Twitter has 328 million and LinkedIn doesn't even show up on this list
The statement was "find your friends", not "find 2 billion people you don't know". You and your friends are free to move to Twitter or LinkedIn or any of the other social media sites. I assume you know who your friends are and you can suggest that they join you there, or they can suggest you join them there, without having to wade through 2 billion names and profile pictures.
Yes, Facebook is successful. They are not the only game in town. That's why they aren't a monopoly.
Re: (Score:2)
OK, more directly: If you have ~600 family, friends, colleagues, and acquaintances, what is the likelihood (statistical probability) of finding them all or most of them on each of the social networking services? At a rough, heuristic guess, which one would have the highest probability?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
How would that work? (Score:3, Insightful)
The biggest area of concern that would need to be broken up is the Facebook social network, and I fail to see any meaningful way of breaking that part up. Sure, you could make Facebook spin off some of its other brands, but Facebook itself would still likely be intact and a problem.
However, I'm not sure that Facebook even is such a great problem. Stupid people who believe everything they read on the internet are a much bigger problem. Facebook just provides a platform for sharing such junk, and I'd say any platform that allows stupid people will suffer from similar problems. Speaking of which, I just got a Facebook notification from a stupid friend that cars will explode if the fuel tanks are filled completely in the summer heat. I need smarter friends.
Re: (Score:2)
You might break it up into the social media part and then data analysis/advertising part.
Regulate via sound privacy law (one can dream) so the advertising spin off does not have total and complete access to the social media data and the social media part can sell this data to anyone within the regulatory framework.
The sound privacy law is the most important part followed by encouraging competition with what do to with the shareable data and where we want to go as a society with targeted ads.
Re: How would that work? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
People thought there would be no Bell without R&D, techs, and so forth either.
Like bulls charging a cape (Score:3)
Re: Like bulls charging a cape (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is a non-starter (Score:5, Interesting)
Facebook is useful and popular precisely because everyone in the world with any interest in social media is on it (well, except for places that restrict free access to the Internet, like China). You can't "break it up" into 20 different social-media sites, because then it won't be useful any more.
Sure, you could force them to spin off Instagram or whatever as a separate corporate entity, but as brucekeller observes-- what difference would that make? You'd still be left with a core platform that has billions of users. That makes the core platform bigger than any news outlet in the history of the world, and means that it will always have enormous power to influence political opinion.
With that said: I'd love to migrate from Facebook to a different social media site, one which still retains the basic functionality of Facebook. I'd be OK with doing this even knowing that most of my friends would *not* be on the new site, at least initially. But I tried looking for Facebook alternatives a few months ago, and the results were... not encouraging. Maybe someone here can post a suggestion.
Re: (Score:2)
What does Facebook have to gain from doing this? They won't gain a single customer from doing that, so why should they do it?
Re: (Score:2)
Still existing? These are the blueprints for creating Baby Bells out of mother Facebook. If they are broken up as a monopoly, you still need a nationwide backbone to interoperate on and even spur new competitors.
Re: (Score:1)
As long as the people in power believe they can use Facebook as a mechanism to allow foreign governments to interfere in our elections on their behalf, ain't nobody gonna be breaking up Facebook.
It could happen, but it's going to have to wait for a Democratic administration and congress.
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently, your reality differs significantly from the reality everyone else lives in.
Re:This is a non-starter (Score:4, Interesting)
Of course, this by itself would do nothing to address the privacy problems. At a minimum, personal information controlled by the back-end company would need to well regulated. Really the front end companies should get the same, but it's not quite as important.
Re: (Score:2)
I've been working on an alternative for a little bit if anyone is interested. The central philosophy is basically that of the FSF: give users freedom and allow them to control the software they run.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm interested-- got a link?
Why just Facebook ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Instead of focusing on a single company, why not target the crux of the problem instead ?
Get some serious privacy laws enacted so that NO company is allowed to obtain or collect private information from individuals without their express knowledge and consent. ( No, burying it on page 212 of a EULA doesn't qualify, nor does tying the right to spy on us for a discounted price for a service ) Obtaining it without consent is basically theft and should be treated as such.
Companies get a fucking slap on the wrist for surreptitiously obtaining data on us and / or losing it in a breach. Why is it I can get hit with a $150K fine for downloading a music track ( per infringement ) but companies stealing OUR personal data is perfectly legal ? Imagine if companies had to pay a $150K fine for every customers data they obtained without consent. ( Or on a per customer / account basis during a data breach ) That would be one impressive fine if you have several million customers data in your possession. . .
Additionally, some harsh laws ( at least on par with HIPAA laws ) need to be enacted to protect said information and force companies to take this matter seriously.
The only way you fix this is if you hurt them financially.
A good start (Score:2)
Cut off one head (Score:1)
Two more shall take its place!
Hail Zuckra!
Re: (Score:2)
Chop off enough heads and none will want to take the place.
I agree: DEATH TO ZUCKERBOOK (Score:2)
That's a good one (Score:2)
Break up a company that provides a free service? How does that work? More like the feds aren't getting their cut and business could get "difficult" in the future.
Can we outlaw unions AND break up large companies? (Score:3)
1) Break up monopolies or any company large enough to get more than a third of a market
2) Outlaw unions that could disrupt public transportation/services (like this AT&T union), artificially drive prices (or the price of government services) up, influence elections, or drive companies out of the city/state/country
As a side benefit, this might also have the effect of removing a lot of money from politics (e.g., https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php?cycle=2016)
Don't break up - force standards (Score:2)
Consumers are benefited by centralization of a sort. In order to have that without having a monopoly, standards must be forced. What good would phone system competition have been without a telephony standard?
We should create a distributed data standard for social networking and force all providers to start using it, open up their data to all other providers, and not be able to mandate any client. Build privacy control into the standard and force compliance. Users should be able to say that the providers hav
I'm all for it, but why just Facebook? (Score:3)
With this government? (Score:2)
Heh. There's no way an FTC with a chair nominated by a Republican president would think about splitting up Facebook (or most any corporation, for that matter).
It could be beneficial if some of Facebook's vertical integration could be split apart (e.g. messenger, Instagram), which might provide room for competing services to fill those tasks. But there's just zero chance the current FTC will be interested in bothering.
The ONLY reason the Comm union (Score:1)
Yes, I'm sure this is important but... (Score:2)
While we're at it ... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)