Thread

1. ElProlactin · 1790389002 · focus · HN ↗

   > Meta agreed in August to pay up to $18 billion to settle the multistate lawsuit surrounding child safety issues. Buried in the 130-page settlement was an agreement to release Meta from future liability related to the Cambridge Analytica privacy breach, making New Mexico the only state to pursue a case. Florida was the only other state that did not sign the settlement, saying it was not tough enough on Meta.

   This is an inconvenient reminder for people who want more "regulation" and who believe states with high levels of paper regulation like California really care about protecting consumers.

   Years down the line, you'll find that a bunch of the people who worked on these cases have cush jobs working on the other side.

   1. Joker_vD · 1790400023 · focus · HN ↗

      ...what's inconvenient about it? The less "regulation" in dem scary quotes there is, the easier it is for companies to shirk them (and cheaper, too). The only actual argument there can be is that that $18 bn fine will have to ultimately come out of the pockets of the Meta's customers, and perhaps that'll force Meta to adopt even uglier business practices (defying the whole point of regulating it).

      > Years down the line, you'll find that a bunch of the people who worked on these cases have cush jobs working on the other side.

      Man, I love people on Internet making predictions that will be impossible to disprove for decades, and by that point nobody would care anyhow.

      1. ElProlactin · 1790401456 · focus · HN ↗

         > ...what's inconvenient about it?

         Putting aside the fact that a huge amount of regulation is designed by the most powerful companies to promote and defend their interests, the issue is that regulation, when not enforced, provides a way for corporations to inflict massive harm on individuals and discharge it for pennies on the dollar.

         $18 billion was a paltry sum and represents about a month's worth of Meta's revenue. Let that sink in: a month's worth of revenue to discharge liabilities associated with years of massive harm to young people that some legal experts concluded could have reasonably resulted in damages in the high hundreds of billions of dollars, and possibly exceeding $1 trillion.

         And as part of the settlement, Meta didn't even have to acknowledge any wrongdoing.

         > Man, I love people on Internet making predictions that will be impossible to disprove for decades, and by that point nobody would care anyhow.

         You're acting as if there's no precedent for what I stated when the evidence is overwhelming.

         A handful of examples for you:

         1. Eric Holder, former federal prosecutor, U.S. Attorney for D.C. and Deputy AG. He was a partner at Covington & Burling, where he represented Chiquita Brands in the case over its payments to a Colombian paramilitary group and also represented Uber and Airbnb.

         2. Lanny Breuer, head of the DOJ's Criminal Division from 2009 to 2013. He didn't prosecute senior bank executives after the financial crisis and then went on to do white collar defense work as vice chair at Covington & Burling.

         3. James Comey, U.S. Attorney for SDNY and Deputy AG. He became general counsel for Lockheed Martin and then Bridgewater Associates before he became FBI Director.

         4. Mary Jo White, U.S. Attorney for SDNY. She defended financial institutions at Debevoise & Plimpton afterwards, then chaired the SEC between 2013 and 2017, and then went back to Debevoise.

         5. Louis Freeh, federal prosecutor for SDNY, federal judge and FBI Director from 1993 to 2001. He went on to become general counsel credit card company MBNA and later represented Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan, who was alleged to have received over £1 billion in bribes from BAE Systems for arms deals. In his defense, Freeh argued that the money was actually going into official Saudi government accounts so they weren't bribes. BAE later pleaded guilty to US charges related to false statements and export violations.

         Revolving doors in the US have gold handles.

         1. sem000 · 1790408656 · focus · HN ↗

            BREAKING NEWS: Attorneys that successfully reached the top of their fields, and have government experience, are in demand by people and corporations that have legal interactions with governments.

            Who woulda thunk it?

            1. ElProlactin · 1790409738 · focus · HN ↗

               BREAKING NEWS: it's widely-discussed that the revolving door creates potential conflicts of interest and helps facilitate regulatory capture, which is why many observers argue that it has a corrupting influence and is a corrosive threat to democratic society.

               And then people wonder why a whole swath of society is for tearing down public institutions, buys into conspiracy theories and is willing to elect the most unqualified people.

               1. tzs · 1790437839 · focus · HN ↗

                  There are indeed some revolving door issues, but there is also a lot of people going between government and industry that is perfectly legitimate and expected.

                  First, unless we are going to limit ourselves to hiring government lawyers for regulatory agencies fresh out of law school where else are we going to get lawyers with significant experience in the field that agency regulates?

                  Second, especially for political appointees, these government jobs are usually temporary. Where do you expect an experienced say antitrust lawyer working for the government to go when that gig ends?

                  It really isn't unusual for lawyers to work both plaintiff and defense in the same field. Major law firms often take cases from both plaintiffs and defendants in whatever fields their specialize in.

                  It might be possible to build a system where there is no switching, but it would have to be quite different. We'd need some way for you to go into government early in your career with assurances that you can stay there for the rest of your career. I can't see a reasonable way to do that.

                  1. ElProlactin · 1790561430 · focus · HN ↗

                     > We'd need some way for you to go into government early in your career with assurances that you can stay there for the rest of your career.

                     Prior to the current administration at least, staying in government work for an entire career was more than possible and let's be clear: tons of people do stay in these jobs. Not every government lawyer, SEC employee, etc. goes over to the "dark side".

                     The problem is not that there is no ability to stay in public service; it's that the financial rewards of going to the other side can be massive and for the most ambitious and money and power-driven, this is a problem because the system isn't nearly as resistant to corruption as Americans would like to believe.

                     People with intelligence, skill and drive can use public service as a path to lucrative opportunities working for companies and organizations that are diametrically opposed to the public interest.

                     > Major law firms often take cases from both plaintiffs and defendants in whatever fields their specialize in.

                     This actually isn't really true in the way you're suggesting. For example, you won't find firms that handle consumer class action defense filing class action lawsuits on behalf of consumers, you won't find firms that sue employers over wage and hour violations also representing employers, etc.

                     That's why firms in these markets are known as "plaintiff-side" or "defense-side" firms.

         2. tgv · 1790412115 · focus · HN ↗

            > And as part of the settlement, Meta didn't even have to acknowledge any wrongdoing.

            So there are assholes who give up your birth right for a plate of lentils, and that makes you conclude there should be less regulation?

            > Revolving doors in the US have gold handles.

            That just requires some extra rules. No, I'm not being sarcastic.

            1. ElProlactin · 1790412441 · focus · HN ↗

               If you read my comment carefully, I didn't argue for less regulation. I did suggest that more regulation wasn't the solution.

               The quantity isn't the problem here; it's the quality. When the system has been completely corrupted, regulation stops doing what laypeople expect it to do.

               Virtually none of the regulation people genuinely concerned about consumers, children, etc. would reasonably ask for will ever be enacted and enforced the way they'd want in today's broken system. The law isn't working for the masses; it's working for the asses.

               1. specialist · 1790505701 · focus · HN ↗

                  Respectfully, I also initially thought you were advocating for less regulation.

                  Further, to me regulation (rules) is legislation, rules, and procedures. Your criticism of this settlement, of a court doing the regulating, shows I need to recalibrate.

                  TBH, a bit of a face palm for me; eg Roberts Court regularly legislates from the bench.

         3. watwut · 1790416957 · focus · HN ↗

            Maybe dont have them written by companies then.

            1. mitxela · 1790430186 · focus · HN ↗

               It's not that simple, it's very difficult to prevent that from happening.
         4. jfengel · 1790432826 · focus · HN ↗

            Now that's one heck of a mixed metaphor. Kudos.
   2. Razengan · 1790401956 · focus · HN ↗

      > Years down the line, you'll find that a bunch of the people who worked on these cases have cush jobs

      Aren't they supposed to be replaced by AI by then?

      There won't even be human bodyguards; just Zuck, Musk, Bezos and Rasputin in their Thunderdomes sheltered by swarms of T-800s going StarCraft 3 on our ass

      1. mitxela · 1790430146 · focus · HN ↗

         I say let them. They're not keeping us away from them - they're keeping themselves away from us, as it should be.
   3. [deleted] · 1790414037 · focus · HN ↗

      [deleted]

   4. noisy_boy · 1790417762 · focus · HN ↗

      How is this:

      > people who want more "regulation"

      Same as this:

      > who believe states with high levels of paper regulation

      I _do_ want real regulations with teeth against shitty companies like Meta. Just because California has done a performative take doesn't make expecting more controls on these scumbags a wrong thing to expect. Bad execution doesn't make the idea wrong, your scare-quotes be damned.

      1. JumpCrisscross · 1790418008 · focus · HN ↗

         > Bad execution doesn't make the idea wrong

         It does raise the question of the value of California’s bureaucratic burden.

         1. mitxela · 1790418326 · focus · HN ↗

            Nobody's asking for more bureaucracy, they're asking for these companies to be held properly accountable, which will involve bureaucracy.

            Nobody's asking for computers that use a lot of electricity, they're asking for powerful computers, which will use a lot of electricity. You can't just turn up with a space heater and pretend it's the same thing because it also uses a lot of electricity.

            1. JumpCrisscross · 1790426148 · focus · HN ↗

               > Nobody's asking for more bureaucracy

               Very few are also asking for less bureaucracy, which in this case could potentially increase state capacity to pursue civic goals.

               1. mitxela · 1790429582 · focus · HN ↗

                  Indeed, nobody here is asking for less bureaucracy in regard to this situation because it wouldn't solve anything.

                  1. naasking · 1790434912 · focus · HN ↗

                     What is the actual problem being solved though?

                     1. mitxela · 1790445433 · focus · HN ↗

                        That Facebook sells a lot of data
               2. conorcleary · 1790440824 · focus · HN ↗

                  what's all the cut the red tape talk from _insert lots of groups/demographics here_ then?
            2. newsclues · 1790433554 · focus · HN ↗

               Bureaucrats are absolutely asking for more bureaucratic systems. The incentive is clear

               1. UqWBcuFx6NV4r · 1790470321 · focus · HN ↗

                  Is the incentive genuine? Is it load-bearing?
               2. specialist · 1790505033 · focus · HN ↗

                  I don't think I've ever seen that. Lobbyists and legislators, absolutely.

                  But my experience is that admins mostly want the rules to be clear and simple.

         2. Matl · 1790418757 · focus · HN ↗

            This is the Ayn Rand trick; let's make government not work == government can never work well == let's cut all customer protections and end up with unfit for consumption beef and glass in your food == somehow it's still not the fault of the free market since after enough people get sick I guess they'll leave one star reviews on Google from their hospital beds == companies will self regulate to produce healthier food?

            1. GoblinSlayer · 1790425640 · focus · HN ↗

               let's make capitalism == everything is for sale == let's buy government == let's make government work for the buyer == government works well ==...
            2. JumpCrisscross · 1790426232 · focus · HN ↗

               Bloat is real. One can simplify an organization while making it more effective. California broadly seems to be in the overcomplicated/ineffective quadrant.

               1. Matl · 1790427230 · focus · HN ↗

                  Bloat is real. The point is if there's a regulation that should stop glass contamination in food and it doesn't then the answer isn't 'too much red tape, see?'.

                  It's that there's clearly been industry capture and the regulations no longer work. It doesn't mean the regulations themselves are automatically the problem.

                  It also doesn't mean every regulation is good or should exist, but that's not an argument I see anyone actually making. Only some people like to pretend like someone is making that argument, because the actual argument is harder to argue against.

               2. downut · 1790437882 · focus · HN ↗

                  "... seems to be ..."

                  Compared to what? Your string of comments are banal generalities that may or may not apply to this particular situation. Where else in this world at this time, is this particular governmental failing handled materially better?

                  Singapore? China? Russia? Switzerland? England?

                  I have sometimes learned interesting things from you (as a commenter) but there is nothing to learn here. It appears to be only diversion and distraction.

               3. brookst · 1790438437 · focus · HN ↗

                  Perhaps. But you’d be more persuasive if you proposed ways to achieve the same or more effective controls over corporate abuses, just more efficiently. Instead you come across as a baby/bathwater proponent.
         3. [deleted] · 1790427969 · focus · HN ↗

            [deleted]

      2. alex1138 · 1790421646 · focus · HN ↗

         I wish HN was more of a reliable aggregator and not just people protecting their industry at all cost

         You can reliably tell what the most upvoted comments will be

         Does that mean we should always hate on big tech? No. If a platform is getting unfairly targeted, that's nice to know. But you come here to get the general sense of the landscape and the first comment is always slanted in favor of big corporate

   5. [deleted] · 1790427136 · focus · HN ↗

      [deleted]

   6. tzs · 1790435629 · focus · HN ↗

      The multi-state settlement was a huge loss for Meta.

      You are focusing on the money, which is not the important part. The important part is that the settlement just settled that one lawsuit. There are many thousands of individual lawsuits over many of the same issues, mostly by local governments (school districts).

      Almost all the work the nearly 50 states in the multi-state lawsuit put in to prepare their case, such as depositions, getting expert reports, their successful legal arguments, the testimony from the trial, etc can be used by the plaintiffs in all those other suits.

      This basically gives all those plaintiffs a fully loaded giant legal cannon that was custom built using the vast resources of the Attorney General's offices of almost 50 states specifically as an anti-Meta weapon.

      1. BobbyTables2 · 1790481097 · focus · HN ↗

         Why do you have to get our hopes up? (:->
   7. amelius · 1790436763 · focus · HN ↗

      Stop framing bad regulation as a case against good regulation.

      1. specialist · 1790505136 · focus · HN ↗

         Yes and: Regulation is just a scary word for rules.
   8. brookst · 1790438331 · focus · HN ↗

      Nobody wants more “regulation” in the abstract, any more than they want more “water” in the abstract (to drink? When drowning? In a drought? In a flood?).

      Positioning yourself as zealously in favor of or opposed to abstract concepts like regulation is silly.

      1. cindyllm · 1790449424 · focus · HN ↗

         [dead]

   9. giaour · 1790438759 · focus · HN ↗

      > This is an inconvenient reminder for people who want more "regulation"

      Some people say they want more “food,” but did you know that consuming calories can lead to obesity?! The existence of fat people is an inconvenient reminder for people who claim to be “malnourished” or “wasting away.”

   10. amelius · 1790439799 · focus · HN ↗

       Net neutrality is also a form of regulation. Are you against it?
   11. keeda · 1790443720 · focus · HN ↗

       I think the Cambridge Analytica scandal was a big deal, and even used it to reinforce and reprioritize some privacy-focused initiatives at a past job. But I heard some credible voices on social media say that the actual impact was negligible. Anyone know what they mean? Maybe that has some bearing here?
   12. krsw · 1790466784 · focus · HN ↗

       This is such a stupid libertarian take with a dash of neo-liberalism. The fact these ideologies got so much foothold is the only reason they perpetuate. There's enough shared delusion to intrude on reality. Good regulation takes into account the context of what it is regulating. If it was written pragmatically with penalities in proportion greater than the harm it causes you'd have far fewer companies doing fuck shit.

       The penalty should never be less than the profit or approximate value of power gained from the violation. There should be full transparency around the chain of events that constituted the violation and how the resolution was arrived at. No special privileges for mega-corporations. The harm needs to be clearly identified and there should be a process to re-evaluate outcomes that could be reasonably argued are unfair to the victims only.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.