FTC 'Failed Miserably' in Punishing Facebook With $5 Billion Fine, Democrats Say
The Federal Trade Commission, which has been investigating Facebook in the wake of its massive Cambridge Analytica scandal, has voted to approve levying a massive $5 billion fine against the social media giant, according to reporting in both the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post. It's the single largest fine against a tech company by the FTC to date, but its inadequacy to curtail future breaches of this sort already has progressive lawmakers furious
Facebook was aware of a fine of this magnitude potentially coming down the pike for some time, and braced for a hit between $3 billion and $5 billion. The approval vote—which reportedly split down party lines, with three Republicans voting in favor and two Democrats against—was on the higher end of the expected spectrum.
This is expected to cap the agency's investigation into the data-mining scandal that compromised up to 87 million Facebook users' personal data. The data was originally harvested using a seemingly benign quiz app on the platform but was later potentially used by Cambridge Analytica, a political consultancy, for the unrelated purpose of political ad targeting.
Both the FTC and Facebook declined to comment. [...]
(Score: 2) by sjames on Sunday July 21 2019, @11:01PM (8 children)
You have to consider the SCALE as well. If I speed, I pass MAYBE 1000 people who in theory were very slightly less safe. Facebook effectively passed 87 million people in their 'speeding' incident.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday July 21 2019, @11:08PM (7 children)
I don't actually see Facebook's fine as being that out of line.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 22 2019, @01:14AM (6 children)
Everybody here knows your views are so narrow you qualify for medically blind disability support, no need to remind us at every occasion.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday July 22 2019, @02:33AM (5 children)
Narrow compared to who? I notice once again that there's this apparent complaint without anything material to the complaint. It's like you're just tiredly going through the motions.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 22 2019, @04:14AM (4 children)
The correct term is "to what", khallow. And the answer is "to the limits defined by medical standards [wikipedia.org]". Specifically the "has 20 degrees (diameter) or less of visual field remaining" proviso.
Oh, don't be a bore, dear. Yes, we all know you are always insisting on the material.
We've gotten for quite a while your views of the material world you are living in and that you want the proper credit, or you just walk away.
Well, I'm sure you'll understand my point of view, I like to get into physical. If it makes you freak out, that's fine, le freak c'est chic.
But, come on baby, doing the motions with you is way too loco to my taste, no matter how much you swing your hips, now.
Finally, I hope you'll agree my reply is substantive even if all the matter it addresses is "no matter".
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday July 22 2019, @04:32AM (3 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 22 2019, @04:45AM (2 children)
Foolish me, what was I expecting? Not a funny bone in this fellow's body.
Say khallow, then flush and that's all that is to the matter.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday July 22 2019, @05:01AM (1 child)
Indeed. I'm a bit surprised that we could find some common ground.
I've seen Saturday morning cartoons with better dialogue than you've been cranking out.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 22 2019, @05:35AM
Then maybe you'll get this Pay atteshun, boy. Ah'm cuttin' but you ain't bleedin' [youtu.be]