Proposed Settlement Between Facebook and Washington State Is "Dangerous" and "Troubling," Experts Say

Comments

1

Obviously Eli would agree that the fine is way too low, but kudos to him for keeping a classic objective reporting premise as opposed to taking liberties in venting, insulting, and extrapolating that some of his colleagues would do.

3

I wouldn't even call $75,000 fine a slap on this wrist. That's not even close to enough to register as anything having happened.

4

A real solution would be to bar FB from running any elections ads in WA for a year, until 2021.

5

Seattle City Govt LOVES corporations. This city will do literally anything for money, for the rich, for corporate pay-offs. Even the "left wing" of the SCC is working for corporate enrichment. Seattle is so desperate to be seen as "world class" that it will do ANYTHING for the holders of wealth. As an individual I shrug and avoid FB and Amazon but what can you do? Nothing. Money is God.

6

People who continue to stay on/use Facebook because it's where they keep up with friends and family are like the Germans who went to the Nazi rallies just to see what all the hubub was about.

7

@3 Thats only half a year’s salary for one low level tech employee.

8

Hold on, let me get this straight... the internet has been lying to me? But they said that girls love anal and that they all squirt? Jesus you fucking people it's Facebook you want Chinese censorship of people sharing stupid lies? Fucking A tyrant hypocrites

9

The State won't allow this to go to court because they are worried that the court would overturn the law. Anytime you have government restricting speech there is a good chance that eventually a court will rule it in violation of the 1st Amendment.

10

In short Facebook played chicken with the state and the state blinked.

11

Poison for the soul.

12

Without going into details let's assume that compliance comes with a significant cost.

Could that cost chill speech?

If so we may not want this before a high court.

13

@9 agreed. I did a text search of this long piece (that I believe represents solid journalism), yet I didn't find the words "Speech", "1st Amendment" or "Constitution". I think Eli might have an interesting take, I'd like to hear it.

14

Anonymous speech needs to be protected. Our founding fathers believed that free speech included the right to speak anonymously. This was a lessen learned when we were under the tyranny of the King.
If your business or your employer relied on government contracts and you opposed, politically, the politicians who were in control you would want your identity secret. After all you couldn't speak out against those politicians if it meant losing those contracts.
Remember all of our founding fathers used pamphleteering under fake names. Pamphleteering was the politician advertising of the day. They did so for obvious reasons. If they were forced to identify themselves to the King they would have remained silent.

15

“Lavallee repeatedly emphasized to commissioners that Facebook has been very nice to the PDC's staff during the nearly year-long investigation and negotiations.”

Translation- “Facebook bribed us”

16

Excellent reporting, Eli.

@6 I bit hyperbolic but I have been wondering at what point participating in a given platform becomes unethical.

There are spaces like Reddit where a few bad actors can really stink things up for the brand but still seem to provide an overall positive (or rather, non-destructive) space for the average user—can the same still be said for Facebook or Twitter? Do we view these platforms as public parks where decent folks and miscreants are all free to gather, or disreputable country clubs where membership alone should be met with unease?