Why did Facebook pitch in over $1 million to fight this CA privacy ballot initiative?


#1

Originally published at: https://boingboing.net/2018/03/20/why-did-facebook-pitch-in-over.html


#2

Why? Privacy hurts their bottom line.


#3

Cockroaches are happier in the dark.

For example: Mr Zuckerberg did not attend a Facebook staff briefing on the crisis at its Californian headquarters on Tuesday


#4

Uh, because their entire business model is to collect anything they can about you, and sell it? Seriously? We’re still asking this question?


#5

Waiting for the Zuck to police himself/FBook is like waiting for tRump to resign, it ain’t going to happen, we have to make it HAPPEN!


#6
Why did Facebook pitch in over $1 million to fight this CA privacy ballot initiative?

Because the concept of privacy is completely antithetical to every single aspect of facebook’s entire business model and if privacy were to be in any way strengthened in law, facebook only stands to lose money.


#7

I found myself wondering at the headline. I tried applying Betteridge’s law, but that yields no solution at all. “Why did Facebook pitch in over $1 million to fight this CA privacy ballot initiative?” “No.” See? It makes no sense. Facebook thinks they can just break the law, do they?


#8

The state consumer privacy act, a proposed 2018 ballot measure, would require companies to disclose what personal information from Californians they collect, buy or share. It would allow many consumers to “opt out” from those practices and would prevent businesses from charging a higher price to those who make that choice.

And we still need to ask why? Fuckerberg is on record saying many things that show he believes privacy is an outmoded concept, and that it is no longer a societal norm. Plus, such a measure prevents blatant privacy discrimination - a future source of much potential revenue for him. The CA proposal sounds a lot like Europe’s GDPR, and it may only be idle speculation (not necessarily a fantasy?) that FB may decide to split into two simply to service and adapt to GDPR, while fighting hard to stop US states doing the same. I can’t see it operating two ToS under the same corporate and technical organisation (but I have not thought abut it much TBH). Would it be baiting FB to ask if those wanting privacy share anything in their views with those who wanted it under the Stasi in East Germany? I see no difference. If the Stasi had had better gamification strategies and better PR, they’d have looked much like FB does. It’s all about personal data and it’s all about control.


#9

That (particularly the second part) does sound like the kind of ill-conceived law that ends up costing a lot of time and money to annoy everyone without fixing anything, though.


#10

Facebook supposedly insists on a Real Name™ policy for reasons of trust, but then uses subscribers’ info in an untrustworthy manner. Why am I not surprised?

I signed up for a Facebook account a long time ago using a fake name to play a Scrabble clone online with a friend in New Zealand, but made my settings as private as possible (for all of the good that does). I haven’t signed into it in years, I guess I should delete the account.


#11

|'m gonna guess that they already know who you are by now. You should have gotten out years ago.


#12

fuckbook, as in they’re fucking you everytime you log into their services.


#13

I’d be happy to see Facebook become the next Geocities.

Now would be a really good time for people working on Diapora to up their game. (I didn’t have much luck doing a quick install on a Raspberry Pi. There were too many package management conflicts between stuff in Apt and Ruby’s tool, and I didn’t have the time to sort it out in depth.)


#14

This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.