US regulators approve $5bn Facebook 'slap on the wrist'.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Associate
Joined
4 Mar 2004
Posts
475
Location
Portsmouth
Does such a fine open the doors to a class action suit against Facebook ? The individuals harmed as a direct result of Facebook's action should be able to get compensation for the damage.
 
Soldato
Joined
20 Oct 2004
Posts
13,059
Location
Nottingham
We live in a crazy world when a corporation can simply shrug off a $5 billion fine, and its shareholders rejoice because the amount was so 'low.'


:eek:


It was insane, the share price rose 1.8% which probably wasn't far off increasing the value by the same amount as the fine.
 
Soldato
Joined
21 Oct 2011
Posts
21,590
Location
ST4
Definitely not to the victims of the crime, which is where it should go.

Oh no, that would make it seem like real justice is being done. It's much the same as the victim surcharge over here, the house over the backs from me got burgled not too long back and the guy who lived there suffered a broken nose and a fractured arm in a scuffle with the burglar. He was caught andt when he was up before the court he was fined, sent away for a few months and ordered to pay a victim surcharge, but the surcharge didn't go to the victim at all. It just disappears into the system.
 
Soldato
Joined
3 Feb 2010
Posts
3,034
How inconvenient - the costs of doing business :rolleyes:

So long as "regulators" persists in punishing organisations rather than decision makers for behaviour of this sort, nothing will change.

If Zuckerberg and some of Facebook's senior personnel were jailed for a year or two we might see some genuine attempts to respect people's privacy - fining either them or the relevant organisation can just be put down to "expenses".

I'm less interested in the Privacy, moreso interested in their control over free-speech and censoring certian political viewpoints that they deem unsuitable.
 
Caporegime
Joined
18 Mar 2008
Posts
32,741
5 billion is literally under 1% of its market cap, worthless. They can make that back in a few seconds.

Fines need to be serious and proportionate, % of earnings/future profits and sanctions on the executive until they sort their ****.
 
Associate
Joined
4 Mar 2004
Posts
475
Location
Portsmouth
If this isn't an indication a corporation is too big, I don't know what is. I understand that the size and scale of their operations may be directly beneficial to users in terms of what functionality they can obtain, however, the fines for this sort of morally reprehensible behaviour still have to be a genuine punishment - 10% NOT 1% of market cap. The shareholders must feel the punishment directly, so that they are driven to ensure the corporation they own behaves properly in the future.
It is time for society to decide whether they and others like them need to be broken up, in the same way and for similar reasons that the Bell System was (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakup_of_the_Bell_System).

It was insane, the share price rose 1.8% which probably wasn't far off increasing the value by the same amount as the fine.
 
Soldato
Joined
3 Feb 2010
Posts
3,034
If this isn't an indication a corporation is too big, I don't know what is. I understand that the size and scale of their operations may be directly beneficial to users in terms of what functionality they can obtain, however, the fines for this sort of morally reprehensible behaviour still have to be a genuine punishment - 10% NOT 1% of market cap. The shareholders must feel the punishment directly, so that they are driven to ensure the corporation they own behaves properly in the future.
It is time for society to decide whether they and others like them need to be broken up, in the same way and for similar reasons that the Bell System was (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakup_of_the_Bell_System).

Like i said before, the privacy violations are the least of issues purpotrated by Facebook and Silicon Valley giants..

The censorship issue is leading to a breakdown in society unlike any in the past 100 years, the fact that moderate right leaning ideologies are being censored beacause they are offensive yet moderate left and far left ideologies aren't because they aren't offensive is insane. Facebook and Twitter have become too large in this respect, regulations must take place to ensure that these platforms adhere to a set of impartiality laws.

Social media is a platform of communication, imagine if you all of a sudden had your phone cut off because you said something that somebody found offensive somewhere in the world.
 
Capodecina
Soldato
OP
Joined
30 Jul 2006
Posts
12,129
I'm less interested in the Privacy, more interested in their control over free-speech and censoring certain political viewpoints that they deem unsuitable.
If Facebook didn't exist, the censorship that they could be argued to impose wouldn't be an issue . . .

. . . which might be a damned good thing.
 
Soldato
Joined
3 Feb 2010
Posts
3,034
If Facebook didn't exist, the censorship that they could be argued to impose wouldn't be an issue . . .

. . . which might be a damned good thing.

I agree, It has opened up a can of worms on the internet.

The fact remains, whilst silicon valley holds a left-wing bias and censors speech that isn't even considered by political and acedemic definitions as anything but moderately right, i.e. transgender debates, abortion debates, gender politics etc.. It cannot be allowed to remain unregulated, else it has far too much control over what people can or cannot think, in reality it has an adverse effect and ratifies the opposing viewpoint and pushes some people further right than they otherwise would have been in defiance of their speech being hindered. I believe this is what led to such support for the likes of Trump and Brexit.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom