I would encourage everyone to read it. My personal take is that this is a ridiculous amount of homework to do in 45 days, and is essentially the FTC asking for not only these companies' "secret sauce" but also their confidential bookkeeping. I would be astounded if none of them challenged this order.
For example, requirement 12.d.: "Submit all documents related to the Company's strategies or plans, including but not limited to research and development efforts." It is not clear the FTC has this kind of authority to essentially demand "what are your trade secrets and future business plans?"
From the one dissenting statement by the FTC board:
--
> The 6(b) orders are rife with broad (and sometimes vague) specifications that burden analysis and oversight could have helped reduce.
"all Documents Relating to the Company’s or any other Person’s strategies or plans, Including, but not limited to: a) business strategies or plans; b) short-term and long-range strategies and objectives; c) expansion or retrenchment strategies or plans; d) research and development efforts; e) sales and marketing strategies or plans, Including, but not limited to, strategies or plans to expand the Company’s customer base or increase sales and marketing to particular customer segments (e.g., a user demographic); f) strategies or plans to reduce costs, improve products or services (e.g., expanding features or functionality), or otherwise become more competitive;"
> Such a request would be suited to an antitrust investigation. But as part of an inquiry ostensibly aimed at consumer privacy practices, it amounts to invasive government overreach.16 And that is just one of the order’s 50-plus specifications.
> The biggest problem is that today’s 6(b) orders simply cover too many topics to make them likely to result in the production of comparable, usable information.
> Such a request would be suited to an antitrust investigation. But as part of an inquiry ostensibly aimed at consumer privacy practices, it amounts to invasive government overreach.
Rather ironic to consider this "invasive government overreach" but not to levy the same accusations towards the perpetrators of surveillance capitalism.
From the dissenting opinion by Commissioner Noah Joshua Phillips:
> These are different companies, some of which have strikingly different business models. And the orders omit other companies engaged in business practices similar to recipients, for example, Apple, Gab, GroupMe, LinkedIn, Parler, Rumble, and Tumblr, not to mention other firms the data practices of which have drawn significant government concern, like WeChat. The only plausible benefit to drawing the lines the Commission has is targeting a number of high profile companies and, by limiting the number to nine, avoiding the review process required under the Paperwork Reduction Act, which is not triggered if fewer than ten entities are subject to requests.
How about if I see an ad I should be allowed to see who bought the ad?
How about how they chose to target me? Is it because of my race or interests or gender or age?
How about the option to opt out?
How about the option to configure your future ad targets / attributes?
How about no special black box algorithms? Past the addiction issues, how can these exist while guaranteeing no racial and other types of discrimination?
How about no algorithm opt outs?
How about no more quasi-curated trending sections and the options to see a purely organic opt-out results (Twitter moments, Twitter comments, Facebook feed/news, Google Search, YouTube trending, etc...)
Finally... How about anti-consumer reparations in some form or jail time for executives?
I still would like to go back to the days where not all my feeds on things like YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, etc... all became just an algorithmic feed of what they think I like. It would be nice to go back to that day in age when it was chronological. I'm all for also having a recommended feed on things like YouTube because I do want to find similar content I may enjoy, so I appreciate that YouTube still has a normal chronological subscription feed I can view too.
I get that you are using algorithm as a short-hand here; but can you elaborate and describe what type of algorithms you suggest be opt-outable?
Algorithm is a super general term, but everyone uses it to describe something super-specific. I feel like everyone sorta has their own personal definition. I am in favor, at least in principal, of legislation that would curb some of the more abusive uses of datascience; but the idea of trying to legislate "algorithms" seems... fraught.
I agree with a lot of these but the option to opt out would be your choice already by stopping use of the service. Or are you thinking that by opting out you could pay for the service instead?
Had a good laugh at the bottom of the release: "Like the FTC on Facebook(link is external), follow us on Twitter(link is external), get consumer alerts, read our blogs, and subscribe to press releases for the latest FTC news and resources."
It might be useful to put TikTok in parentheses for ByteDance, since that's their flagship product and most people (myself included) do/did not know that ByteDance is the company behind TikTok.
Why list Facebook, then list WhatsApp, but not Instagram? Is Instagram not part of it then? If WhatsApp wasn't there, I'd assume they're both under FB but listing WhatsApp separately is strange.
This is heartening news. We are finally approaching the moment where addictive social media is handled with the same seriousness with which big tobacco was treated.
It's funny to think that people might look back at how much time and attention people from 2010 to 2020 spent on their device and think how backwards we were.
Like how "dumb" past generations were for putting lead in gasoline.
I wonder which is worst for health. I’d say tobacco, but social media probably causes more obesity than Coca Cola itself. Also causes people to procrastinate instead of engaging in intellectual activities, especially school or work, so the cost to society might be enormous. I wonder whether this is quantifiable, but it is definitely visible.
But if it slows careers, we also have to reckon it creates careers and side-jobs (« Instagram model », « journalist », ...).
I doubt it, much of this is just going to be finger waving. Case and poin the FTC sued the Match Group for fraud, but I can guarantee you nothing's going to come of it. If you could pay a $5 million fine after increasing your valuation by billions, you'd do that too.
If anything I think there's a massive need for individuals to regulate their own social media. Since I know these things can actively harm me, I don't use social media or online dating. But I also wouldn't pass laws stopping people from using this stuff.
It's like eating junk food, sure the world would be a better place if no one ate McDonald's, but everyone has a right to eat as many big Macs they want to
Something big is brewing. I think there is going to be a big push to reign in social media.
I've thought long about this and can only think of one way to regulate them. I would propose that people are allowed x degrees of separation. As a regular user I can only go n+2 connections. After that the content is not seen no matter how popular. It will kill virility but should reign in stupidity being broadcast. To increase your separation score you must merit it with a reason and stick to it.
Personally I'd like to go back to an age before social media. It seems social media has had limited substantive success for anyone and has really created more problems than it's worth.
Historically I've avoided expressing my views on abolishment but now people are trying to develop fear-mongering strategies around decentralization, so here I am back at abolition. I'd love to find a happy medium but I don't think it's possible. Social media companies, search companies, national news (who is dependent on social media for income), politicians (who are dependent on social media for likes and shares), and law enforcement working in coordination to do an arbitrarily good thing (disrupt the flow of misinformation) was both eye opening and terrifying. These tools can be used for good but they're also the keystone tools of autocracy and are used largely for reasons that require interpretation and narrative following.
My point is that we don't need these kind of problems. We have space exploration ahead of us, major advancements in technology are still needed, and we need a continuum of people who are willing to work together despite whatever differences they may have ideologically and otherwise. I don't think limiting scope or killing virility will achieve these ends.
It will kill virility but should reign in stupidity being broadcast.
Why do they have a responsibility to 'reign in stupidity' in the first place? Who gets to decide what's stupid and what's not?
I understand removing illegal content. I understand providing guidelines around content that may not be acceptable for minors. I understand removing (or compartmentalizing) content that is "off topic" (such as a platform dedicated to eSports not wanting traditional sports content). But every attempt that can be made to 'reign in stupidity' means censorship of one form or another and will inevitably be abused.
I don’t think the FTC is (or ever will) reign in how “far” content can spread. The FTC is a consumer protection agency so they are most definitely focused on advertising and data collection, not user-generated content or misinformation.
This seems interesting - clearly the friction in sharing everything with everyone is far lower online than before. Before, you had to consume finite resources (time, energy, postage stamps, etc.) to tell someone else about something. This gave a natural rate limit.
As a thought experiment, what if the degrees of separation were less rigidly enforced, but people's "power of voice" decays the further it goes from those who directly follow them, resulting in a similar result? Then for every user, there's a probability they'll see or not see a given post (significantly reducing as the degree of separation increases). Clearly this isn't ideal and there's compounding factors (if you have 3 friends share it, should that probability be additive?)
Share rate limits in WhatsApp led to people imploring others to copy paste fake news to share it to others, so clearly this isn't as simple as limiting normal shares.
If that was a legal rule for the internet it would make it illegal for most people to communicate with each other. I don't think this idea is well thought through. That would actually be the government regulating speech and arguably freedom of assembly.
So all content that is not in the "stupidity" classifier (who decides that?) also loses its chance to be surfaced? I think this needs to be thought through some more.
Amazon.com, Inc. [twitch], ByteDance Ltd., which operates the short video service TikTok, Discord Inc., Facebook, Inc., Reddit, Inc., Snap Inc., Twitter, Inc., WhatsApp Inc., and YouTube LLC.
The FTC is seeking information specifically related to:
how social media and video streaming services collect, use, track, estimate, or derive personal and demographic information;
how they determine which ads and other content are shown to consumers;
whether they apply algorithms or data analytics to personal information;
how they measure, promote, and research user engagement; and
how their practices affect children and teens.
Interesting, they have discord there. It's monetization strategy has been quite different than every other entity listed there. So far it's been mostly trying to sell stuff to their users.
Pretty much every other company they list displays ads. Like even whats app now has plans for Ads.
These social media companies are the most effective channels for any organization to reach the widest audience. Which validates why the FTC has social media accounts and why the FTC is investigating them.
The goal of FTC order P205402 is stated as assisting “a study of such policies, practices, and procedures”. With that in mind, the somewhat arbitrary and limited choice of entities[0][1], hard deadlines[1], and scope of requested data[2] to me personally somewhat make sense.
[0] Given it’s a study, it seems overwhelmingly likely that the results will be extrapolated and generalized to the rest of the industry.
[1] The more time passes, the less representative the results would be. If there were more than nine entities chosen, a drawn-out review process would be essentially an advance warning.
[2] Yes, they are asking for a lot, but reporting being unable to provide certain type of data should be useful for the study still as absence of certain type of data is a meaningful result in itself.
I don’t have a strong opinion on other aspects (and it’s definitely no small feat to gather all the data), but at first approach—assuming good faith on the side of FTC—this order looks akin to a quiz of a random selection of school students with the aim not to praise or reprimand individuals but to assess the education system in general. Given enough advance notice, students would be drilled to ace specifically this quiz, negating its point.
As much as I despise social media and the effect it is having on the general population, after reading the (50-page) request and the dissent, this request by the FTC is completely bananas.
This is essentially how it reads:
"Foreach social media and streaming service, provide an audit of all electrons passing through or near the service. Account for the precise position & momentum of said particles, the method by which they are tracked, and the person or persons responsible for auditing bias of said electrons against members of the current political party. You have five days to complete the report."
I would really hope there is more to this. Social media companies are private entities, and as such can be as deliberately, or not, biased and full of censorship against other persons or groups as much as they want. More so, they can openly declare such bias against their best interests without risk of immediate consequences thanks to Section 230. They are legally protected by law.
I really wish the current administration would stop crying about the big bad world and how unfair it is. This only appeals to really insecure people. If they really wanted to “fix” the problem the appropriate regulatory body could provide new regulation against activity not already protected by legislation.
So pathetic. Despite the vast amount of documentation the FTC demands (which seems wildly overbroad), I can answer their question in pretty complete substance here - for free.
1) how social media and video streaming services collect, use, track, estimate, or derive personal and demographic information;
Everything is tracked, and they have a very good idea of your demographic information. They track all interactions on the platform in giant data lakes, including clickstream activity showing sequences of actions, they collect all browser features, ip addresses etc, they collect all referral information. If their code is used by other websites, they collect all the clickstream and profile data from those services. They use publicly available datasets, census tract information, and datasets the govt provides such as DMV databases and voter registration files to enrich the data. They may synthesis what are called "features" from this data.
This is used for social media updates, fraud control and ad targeting among other purposes.
2) How they determine which ads and other content are shown to consumers;
Based on a machine learning models which look at the qualify and performance of ad copy related to folks who have been a) targeted by advertiser by specific criteria they then b) develop and estimate of which other users would also be interested and their level of interest based on all data points they maintain in the user profile, scored along an economic axis and user engagement and satisfaction targets (ie, all ads vs no ads).
3) Whether they apply algorithms or data analytics to personal information;
Yes - they do on a huge scale, and AWS / Google and others are busy designing custom chips to help speed up this type of analysis.
4) How they measure, promote, and research user engagement; and
They make their platforms as addictive as possible, with notifications, stimiulations. A popular book for these companies might be "Hooked: How to Build Habit-Forming Products" if the FTC actually cared about being educated at all in this space.
5) How their practices affect children and teens.
Affect them significantly, children are much easier to "hook", be it with computer games, e-cigs, or social media or even sugar or lack of sleep. The effects of all of these are very negative. Parents can have a power impact on these items.
Does anyone think social media companies do not use personal information and monetization of that to provide their hyperscale "free" services?
TikTok already released details of its recommendation algorithm [1] so it's out there in public domain and free accessible. I'm not a lawyer but some of this information that FTC is demanding are trade secrets of these companies and they are not willing to give them just like that.
> Commissioner Noah Phillips, who voted against the study, issued a separate dissent.
> The orders are "an undisciplined foray into a wide variety of topics, some only tangentially related to the stated focus of this investigation," Phillips said, arguing that the probe was a waste of FTC resources and would not provide the public with valuable information or address issues of consumer privacy.
[+] [-] akersten|5 years ago|reply
I would encourage everyone to read it. My personal take is that this is a ridiculous amount of homework to do in 45 days, and is essentially the FTC asking for not only these companies' "secret sauce" but also their confidential bookkeeping. I would be astounded if none of them challenged this order.
For example, requirement 12.d.: "Submit all documents related to the Company's strategies or plans, including but not limited to research and development efforts." It is not clear the FTC has this kind of authority to essentially demand "what are your trade secrets and future business plans?"
[+] [-] jkelleyrtp|5 years ago|reply
--
> The 6(b) orders are rife with broad (and sometimes vague) specifications that burden analysis and oversight could have helped reduce.
> Such a request would be suited to an antitrust investigation. But as part of an inquiry ostensibly aimed at consumer privacy practices, it amounts to invasive government overreach.16 And that is just one of the order’s 50-plus specifications.> The biggest problem is that today’s 6(b) orders simply cover too many topics to make them likely to result in the production of comparable, usable information.
[+] [-] iamacyborg|5 years ago|reply
Rather ironic to consider this "invasive government overreach" but not to levy the same accusations towards the perpetrators of surveillance capitalism.
[+] [-] jawzz|5 years ago|reply
> These are different companies, some of which have strikingly different business models. And the orders omit other companies engaged in business practices similar to recipients, for example, Apple, Gab, GroupMe, LinkedIn, Parler, Rumble, and Tumblr, not to mention other firms the data practices of which have drawn significant government concern, like WeChat. The only plausible benefit to drawing the lines the Commission has is targeting a number of high profile companies and, by limiting the number to nine, avoiding the review process required under the Paperwork Reduction Act, which is not triggered if fewer than ten entities are subject to requests.
[+] [-] jcjdbdndndthrow|5 years ago|reply
How about if I see an ad I should be allowed to see who bought the ad?
How about how they chose to target me? Is it because of my race or interests or gender or age?
How about the option to opt out?
How about the option to configure your future ad targets / attributes?
How about no special black box algorithms? Past the addiction issues, how can these exist while guaranteeing no racial and other types of discrimination?
How about no algorithm opt outs?
How about no more quasi-curated trending sections and the options to see a purely organic opt-out results (Twitter moments, Twitter comments, Facebook feed/news, Google Search, YouTube trending, etc...)
Finally... How about anti-consumer reparations in some form or jail time for executives?
[+] [-] Fogest|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pjc50|5 years ago|reply
There's a lot of anti Facebook hyperbole in this thread; please stick to feasible and reasonable demands and we're more likely to get them.
[+] [-] tekromancr|5 years ago|reply
Algorithm is a super general term, but everyone uses it to describe something super-specific. I feel like everyone sorta has their own personal definition. I am in favor, at least in principal, of legislation that would curb some of the more abusive uses of datascience; but the idea of trying to legislate "algorithms" seems... fraught.
[+] [-] jonplackett|5 years ago|reply
I’d like to add: no targeting of any kind for political ads - you wanna say something? You have to say it to everyone.
[+] [-] cblconfederate|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] notyourwork|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] schappim|5 years ago|reply
Like us on the platforms we're issuing orders to.
[+] [-] uncomputation|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tape_measure|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nvrspyx|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ehsankia|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] askvictor|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] KukiAirani|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] devmunchies|5 years ago|reply
Like how "dumb" past generations were for putting lead in gasoline.
[+] [-] laurent92|5 years ago|reply
But if it slows careers, we also have to reckon it creates careers and side-jobs (« Instagram model », « journalist », ...).
[+] [-] offtop5|5 years ago|reply
If anything I think there's a massive need for individuals to regulate their own social media. Since I know these things can actively harm me, I don't use social media or online dating. But I also wouldn't pass laws stopping people from using this stuff.
It's like eating junk food, sure the world would be a better place if no one ate McDonald's, but everyone has a right to eat as many big Macs they want to
[+] [-] ttul|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nitrogen|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] throwaway2048|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kaiju0|5 years ago|reply
I've thought long about this and can only think of one way to regulate them. I would propose that people are allowed x degrees of separation. As a regular user I can only go n+2 connections. After that the content is not seen no matter how popular. It will kill virility but should reign in stupidity being broadcast. To increase your separation score you must merit it with a reason and stick to it.
[+] [-] kodah|5 years ago|reply
Historically I've avoided expressing my views on abolishment but now people are trying to develop fear-mongering strategies around decentralization, so here I am back at abolition. I'd love to find a happy medium but I don't think it's possible. Social media companies, search companies, national news (who is dependent on social media for income), politicians (who are dependent on social media for likes and shares), and law enforcement working in coordination to do an arbitrarily good thing (disrupt the flow of misinformation) was both eye opening and terrifying. These tools can be used for good but they're also the keystone tools of autocracy and are used largely for reasons that require interpretation and narrative following.
My point is that we don't need these kind of problems. We have space exploration ahead of us, major advancements in technology are still needed, and we need a continuum of people who are willing to work together despite whatever differences they may have ideologically and otherwise. I don't think limiting scope or killing virility will achieve these ends.
[+] [-] trentnix|5 years ago|reply
Why do they have a responsibility to 'reign in stupidity' in the first place? Who gets to decide what's stupid and what's not?
I understand removing illegal content. I understand providing guidelines around content that may not be acceptable for minors. I understand removing (or compartmentalizing) content that is "off topic" (such as a platform dedicated to eSports not wanting traditional sports content). But every attempt that can be made to 'reign in stupidity' means censorship of one form or another and will inevitably be abused.
[+] [-] jedberg|5 years ago|reply
That's an absolutely terrible idea. For example, I doubt you and I are two degrees away. I would have never seen this.
I doubt I have two degrees of separation from most of the interesting content posted on this site.
[+] [-] elliekelly|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vineyardmike|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] g_p|5 years ago|reply
As a thought experiment, what if the degrees of separation were less rigidly enforced, but people's "power of voice" decays the further it goes from those who directly follow them, resulting in a similar result? Then for every user, there's a probability they'll see or not see a given post (significantly reducing as the degree of separation increases). Clearly this isn't ideal and there's compounding factors (if you have 3 friends share it, should that probability be additive?)
Share rate limits in WhatsApp led to people imploring others to copy paste fake news to share it to others, so clearly this isn't as simple as limiting normal shares.
[+] [-] tqi|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bigbubba|5 years ago|reply
Virility is great if social contagions are assumed benign. I think that's an assumption many no longer make.
[+] [-] CyberDildonics|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] SkyPuncher|5 years ago|reply
How do you define this? Seems impossible to define and easy to circumvent.
----
By your own definition, I wouldn't be able to see or respond to your content since we're likely separated by more than two degrees.
[+] [-] processing|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vineyardmike|5 years ago|reply
Amazon.com, Inc. [twitch], ByteDance Ltd., which operates the short video service TikTok, Discord Inc., Facebook, Inc., Reddit, Inc., Snap Inc., Twitter, Inc., WhatsApp Inc., and YouTube LLC.
The FTC is seeking information specifically related to:
[+] [-] anfilt|5 years ago|reply
Pretty much every other company they list displays ads. Like even whats app now has plans for Ads.
[+] [-] lotsofpulp|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cooljacob204|5 years ago|reply
If this is about targeted ads the Microsoft should have been included, tired of all the spyware on Windows 10.
[+] [-] mrkramer|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] devmunchies|5 years ago|reply
These social media companies are the most effective channels for any organization to reach the widest audience. Which validates why the FTC has social media accounts and why the FTC is investigating them.
[+] [-] strogonoff|5 years ago|reply
[0] Given it’s a study, it seems overwhelmingly likely that the results will be extrapolated and generalized to the rest of the industry.
[1] The more time passes, the less representative the results would be. If there were more than nine entities chosen, a drawn-out review process would be essentially an advance warning.
[2] Yes, they are asking for a lot, but reporting being unable to provide certain type of data should be useful for the study still as absence of certain type of data is a meaningful result in itself.
I don’t have a strong opinion on other aspects (and it’s definitely no small feat to gather all the data), but at first approach—assuming good faith on the side of FTC—this order looks akin to a quiz of a random selection of school students with the aim not to praise or reprimand individuals but to assess the education system in general. Given enough advance notice, students would be drilled to ace specifically this quiz, negating its point.
[+] [-] pcj-github|5 years ago|reply
This is essentially how it reads:
"Foreach social media and streaming service, provide an audit of all electrons passing through or near the service. Account for the precise position & momentum of said particles, the method by which they are tracked, and the person or persons responsible for auditing bias of said electrons against members of the current political party. You have five days to complete the report."
[+] [-] austincheney|5 years ago|reply
I really wish the current administration would stop crying about the big bad world and how unfair it is. This only appeals to really insecure people. If they really wanted to “fix” the problem the appropriate regulatory body could provide new regulation against activity not already protected by legislation.
[+] [-] random5634|5 years ago|reply
1) how social media and video streaming services collect, use, track, estimate, or derive personal and demographic information;
Everything is tracked, and they have a very good idea of your demographic information. They track all interactions on the platform in giant data lakes, including clickstream activity showing sequences of actions, they collect all browser features, ip addresses etc, they collect all referral information. If their code is used by other websites, they collect all the clickstream and profile data from those services. They use publicly available datasets, census tract information, and datasets the govt provides such as DMV databases and voter registration files to enrich the data. They may synthesis what are called "features" from this data.
This is used for social media updates, fraud control and ad targeting among other purposes.
2) How they determine which ads and other content are shown to consumers;
Based on a machine learning models which look at the qualify and performance of ad copy related to folks who have been a) targeted by advertiser by specific criteria they then b) develop and estimate of which other users would also be interested and their level of interest based on all data points they maintain in the user profile, scored along an economic axis and user engagement and satisfaction targets (ie, all ads vs no ads).
3) Whether they apply algorithms or data analytics to personal information;
Yes - they do on a huge scale, and AWS / Google and others are busy designing custom chips to help speed up this type of analysis.
4) How they measure, promote, and research user engagement; and
They make their platforms as addictive as possible, with notifications, stimiulations. A popular book for these companies might be "Hooked: How to Build Habit-Forming Products" if the FTC actually cared about being educated at all in this space.
5) How their practices affect children and teens.
Affect them significantly, children are much easier to "hook", be it with computer games, e-cigs, or social media or even sugar or lack of sleep. The effects of all of these are very negative. Parents can have a power impact on these items.
Does anyone think social media companies do not use personal information and monetization of that to provide their hyperscale "free" services?
[+] [-] mrkramer|5 years ago|reply
[1] https://newsroom.tiktok.com/en-us/how-tiktok-recommends-vide...
[+] [-] madrox|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] ggggtez|5 years ago|reply
> The orders are "an undisciplined foray into a wide variety of topics, some only tangentially related to the stated focus of this investigation," Phillips said, arguing that the probe was a waste of FTC resources and would not provide the public with valuable information or address issues of consumer privacy.
https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements...