Top
Best
New

Posted by cbg0 4 hours ago

Meta ordered to pay $25B penalty in New Mexico Cambridge Analytica case(www.cnbc.com)
https://nmdoj.gov/press-release/the-new-mexico-department-of...
222 points | 131 comments
j_horvat 41 minutes ago|
Sure, but where's the jail time for executives. This may be a bit more than the usual slap on the wrist, but its hardly consequence that actually matters to the likes of Meta. This will keep happening until those at the top are held personally responsible for the crimes they sign off on.
JumpCrisscross 20 minutes ago||
> where's the jail time for executives

Our American obsession with jail is nuts. The violation at hand was “misleading state citizens about how it safeguards and collects user data.”

Lots of folks at Meta should be criminally investigated. But not for this, not unless someone willfully signed off on a lie.

> This will keep happening until those at the top are held personally responsible

Perfect is the enemy of the good.

lrvick 34 minutes ago|||
No one will bother making a move on the execs until the get-out-of-jail-free cards they bought from the current president are no longer valid.
MiroslavPokorny 9 minutes ago|||
Executives cant goto jail, they are already taking responsibilty.
NuclearPM 5 minutes ago||
I don’t understand your comment.
vjvjvjvjghv 44 seconds ago||
[delayed]
cush 31 minutes ago||
If only software engineers were liable like real engineers are
lrvick 21 minutes ago|||
"But my boss told me to increase engagement at all costs, including substantially increased rates of teen suicides, so shrug guess I have to since my visa will be revoked otherwise and I need this cash to send home to my family."

Even when you cannot get highly employable US engineers to agree to do unethical work, you can always import some indentured servants who are too vulnerable to feel like they can say no.

I know someone that took a job at meta short term to get cash for a family member with cancer.

Go after the people giving the orders, not the workers trying to survive a deeply fucked up system.

barbazoo 17 minutes ago|||
Why would you personally punish the chumps that execute the orders instead of leadership that gave the orders?
gosub100 15 minutes ago||
Why punish the leadership? they were just following their "fiduciary duty to shareholders" to maximize value.
wavefunction 4 minutes ago||
Punish everyone, you may be unjust but at least you'll be thorough.
stillpointlab 49 minutes ago||
For those who haven't seen, the New Mexico Attorney General released tapes of the depositions for Zuckerberg [1] and Sandberg [2].

1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7UC2ie0XIE

2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1j4N-3ZkB4

notfried 38 minutes ago||
Meta will surely appeal, and will likely get the fine reduced to like 10% of that. But for comparison, in the recent multistate settlement over social media addiction by 47 states for $17 billion, there was a provision in that settlement to get $459 million [1] in exchange for releasing Meta from any state claims related to Cambridge Analytica. So those 47 states got $459 million for what New Mexico will likely get a few billion for.

[1] https://www.techpolicy.press/the-459-million-cambridge-analy...

bananamogul 3 hours ago||
All the states that participated in the class action settlement got $725 million combined.

New Mexico decided to go it alone and gets $25 billion.

Great timing for the AG who’s up for reelection on November 3 (even though it was the previous AG who made the call).

gruez 3 hours ago||
>New Mexico decided to go it alone and gets $25 billion.

No because that's still subject to appeal, unlike the settlement. "a bird in hand is worth two in the bush", etc.

whycome 2 hours ago|||
That’s all framing. If they use the win for their reelection campaign…they just won’t mention the appeals process.
freejazz 2 hours ago|||
What are the grounds for the appeal? How does NM law look on that issue? It's a significantly reduced judgment too.

Like, yeah, you have a point in the abstract, but barring any actual supportive facts, it doesn't seem like a good point.

gruez 2 hours ago|||
IANAL, but it's not hard to find answers with a trivial search, eg.

https://kieferandkiefer.com/understanding-how-jury-verdicts-...

https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/reports/2006/R331...

freejazz 54 minutes ago||
It's not a jury verdict, and I am a lawyer...

Also, a paper from RAND from 1987? Are you for real?

aprilthird2021 1 hour ago|||
It's a very good point. The further upon appeal Meta goes, the more removed they get from a jury and they'll be more likely to get a favorable ruling due to the company's negative approval rating amongst the public
freejazz 53 minutes ago|||
It's not a jury verdict. Crazy how much that needs to be repeated in this thread.
loeg 8 minutes ago|||
A jury is involved in the process. If the jury doesn't find violations, the judge can't assign penalties for those violations.

> The jury concluded that Meta had more than 43 million violations of the state’s unfair practices act, with each transgression carrying a civil penalty as high as $5,000.

Note that this is like, 20 violations per resident of New Mexico. And also ~50% of Facebook's total revenue (more than 100% of income) at the time of the CA scandal.

cwnyth 28 minutes ago|||
No one reads the article anymore. They're just vibe commenting.
throwaway894345 1 hour ago|||
Presumably it’s also easier to influence judges than random jurors.
loeg 12 minutes ago||
They got an outlandish $25B in their local kangaroo court. It'll be appealed and hopefully reduced.
giancarlostoro 1 hour ago||
I remember long ago, you could fully hide your profile from ANY type of search. Now you cannot. I also remember long before they started scanning your face, they added an opt-out checkbox, I'm pretty sure this disappeared for a long time. You know that feature where they'd auto-suggest who to tag? Yea, you could bar them from using your face for that, now Facebook has taken a steaming pile of... on your privacy at levels I've never seen them pull before.
10111001 22 minutes ago||
> I remember long ago, you could fully hide your profile from ANY type of search. Now you cannot.

Do you have any more details on that? Are you talking about searches within Facebook or outside of it?

I also remember long before they started scanning your face, they added an opt-out checkbox, I'm pretty sure this disappeared for a long time. You know that feature where they'd auto-suggest who to tag? Yea, you could bar them from using your face for that, now Facebook has taken a steaming pile of... on your privacy at levels I've never seen them pull before.

Do you have any more details on that?

alex1138 45 minutes ago||
Yes, I remember an article in the Guardian about this, around 2015-6

Facebook does this. People think 'privacy' as a complaint and perhaps think about advertising on FB but straight up, settings get reset (including posts suddenly becoming Public. or graph search.)

Why? Because Mark Zuckerberg does not believe in it. In 2010 he said privacy was no longer a social norm. Not only does he himself not believe in it, but he can't keep it to himself. He knows 'better than you'. So, he outright changes it himself or instructs his engineers to do it

It's like with Free Basics in India. You could, theoretically, support it. Many didn't, it was a form of digital colonialism. But let's say you happened to think it was a good idea. It didn't matter either way: Facebook sent emails on users' behalf to TRAI

That's who Zuckerberg is. A sociopath, a criminal, someone who knows nothing but how to steal

paxy 35 minutes ago||
It’s hilarious that one of the outcomes of Meta cozying up with the current administration to escape scrutiny at the Federal level has been 50+ state attorneys general prosecuting them instead.
jeanloolz 1 hour ago||
25B is not a small fine. Finally an amount that should make them think twice their harming decisions
barbazoo 16 minutes ago||
You're being sarcastic, right? Right? It's a 1.5 trillion dollar company [1], how would this amount even be relevant compared to the profits they made from their behavior.

[1] https://youtu.be/C7UC2ie0XIE?t=49

rvz 54 minutes ago||
They don't care.

Meta can take the hit by either selling stock, laying of more employees or both to cover that cost.

idlewords 52 minutes ago||
Or they can put thick mitts on Zuckerberg's hands for a couple of years so he can't sign any checks.
binarymax 1 hour ago||
12% of annual revenue (~200B for 2025). Not a small amount.
loeg 4 minutes ago||
~50% of 2018 revenue, which is when the CA scandal was happening.
afdbcreid 44 minutes ago||
You mean 200B?
rajman187 29 minutes ago|||
meta makes $1.4B/week in net profit, so that's about 4 months of net profits
f33d5173 58 seconds ago|||
This is just for new mexico, a relatively small state in a single country facebook operates in. It's probably a solid decade worth of profit in that state. Because their privacy policy that no one reads wasn't clear enough.
MiroslavPokorny 22 minutes ago|||
And kids got fined 1/2M for downloading a few mp3s...
binarymax 21 minutes ago|||
lol that was a fun typo. Fixed :)
yodsanklai 21 minutes ago||
Any reason why META surged after hours? is that related to this news?
loeg 6 minutes ago|
Q3 earnings. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50187025
bilekas 51 minutes ago|
Holy! This might be the first time I've seen a meta fine that actually feels substantial enough for them to change behaviours. That's impressive.
More comments...