News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Judge rules Facebook parent Meta intentionally violated campaign finance laws. Parent comment

Re:Judge rules Facebook parent Meta intentionally violated c... by TremendousJudge on Tuesday September 06, 2022 @03:20PM (#32741941)
They need to argue that, because otherwise it would eat into their bottom line to the point of unprofitability. You can't run a service for billions of people with less than 100k employees that also has an editor review everything.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Judge rules Facebook parent Meta intentionally violated c... by giantg2 on Tuesday September 06, 2022 @03:25PM (#32742012)
If it's unable to comply with the law and stay profitable, then maybe they should go out of business.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Judge rules Facebook parent Meta intentionally violated c... by TremendousJudge on Tuesday September 06, 2022 @04:44PM (#32742955)
Yeah, I completely agree. I wasn't trying to imply that I condone their behavior.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Judge rules Facebook parent Meta intentionally violated c... by AnimalMuppet on Tuesday September 06, 2022 @03:38PM (#32742173)
Or change their business model.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Judge rules Facebook parent Meta intentionally violated c... by ThePadawan on Tuesday September 06, 2022 @03:46PM (#32742283)
Fully agree! See also "loud pipes save lives".
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Judge rules Facebook parent Meta intentionally violated c... by InitialLastName on Tuesday September 06, 2022 @03:28PM (#32742049)
"We can't follow legal requirements at this scale" isn't an excuse we should be accepting from companies that want to continue operating.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Judge rules Facebook parent Meta intentionally violated c... by dogleash on Tuesday September 06, 2022 @03:27PM (#32742047)
That's a terrible argument as the thing to be reviewed (advertisement (not "everything")) is directly connected to a revenue stream and the level of time spent on reviews scales with the amount of income.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Judge rules Facebook parent Meta intentionally violated c... by hazeii on Tuesday September 06, 2022 @03:28PM (#32742052)
How do they charge per advert? If I was paying someone hundreds - or thousands - of dollars, I'd certainly expect some degree of personal service.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Judge rules Facebook parent Meta intentionally violated c... by whimsicalism on Tuesday September 06, 2022 @03:34PM (#32742131)
The "personal service" is that they have created an entire social media platform just to serve your ads.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Judge rules Facebook parent Meta intentionally violated c... by pc86 on Tuesday September 06, 2022 @03:24PM (#32741989)
Billions of people are not buying Facebook ads.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Judge rules Facebook parent Meta intentionally violated c... by gloryjulio on Tuesday September 06, 2022 @03:56PM (#32742419)
I am curious about how other similar platforms handle this problem (like youtube) handles this kind of problems. If someone could provide some insight it would be great
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Judge rules Facebook parent Meta intentionally violated c... by TremendousJudge on Tuesday September 06, 2022 @04:50PM (#32743023)
They are all the same way, maybe even worse. Google is notoriously allergic to having real people in any step of a workflow, even for paying customers. Twitter is currently going through its own battle with the fact that a huge chunk of the userbase isn't even real. Amazon product quality is going down due to lack of manual quality checking of their sellers. And so on. The culprit is always the same: real people don't scale to the expectations of shareholders, so everything gets automated, and then some very real people show up and exploit the system.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Judge rules Facebook parent Meta intentionally violated c... by sixothree on Tuesday September 06, 2022 @03:47PM (#32742299)
If they can afford to buy personal information about its users, they can afford basic compliance.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Judge rules Facebook parent Meta intentionally violated c... by TomSwirly on Wednesday September 07, 2022 @04:15AM (#32747952)
You: "If they complied with the law, then they wouldn't be profitable."

It seems your conclusion is, "Therefore they should be above the law."

No, that isn't how it works. They *must* comply with the law, and if they cannot be profitable when they are not a criminal entity, then they should go out of business.

[ Parent | on HN ]