Hi all, I work at a small company called Corbalt (https://www.corbalt.com), and I wanted to share a project we've been working on — a simple, browser-based tool that scans for Terraform drift. We're looking for folks to kick the tires on an alpha version, so please try it out:

https://www.terraformdriftdetection.com

We've found that scanning for drift (i.e. Terraform config diverging from real resources) helps eliminate unexpected blockers when we're applying changes and gives us confidence that our infrastructure hasn't accidentally — or maliciously — been changed.

Hope you find this useful. Feel free to click the feedback link on the web site or email tdd-feedback@corbalt.com.

The market cares. It had already priced in a fine, possibly one larger than 3B. The reduction in uncertainty -- knowing the magnitude of the fine -- also positively affects the stock price. If the fine were cancelled tomorrow, you can be sure that, all else equal, Facebook's market cap would jump by 3B.

The fines need to be bigger.

They need to increase the fine substantially for each repeated violation. After a few violations its going to be hard to justify a $50B fine to investors.

The fines also needs to be fair, not fixed cost. I think the EU has got the percentage-of-revenue approach right. A million dollar fine for a small company can be death-sentence while for a big player it is lose change, that is not fair.

I agree that percent of revenue is a much better metric to base these kinds of fines off of, but not without reservations -- a small company with high sales revenue but razor thin margin could get killed by a % revenue fine; this seems unfair to the little guy.

On the other hand, if the fine is % income or anything but % gross receipts, then of course the system will be gamed endlessly by accountants and lawyers to show the smallest possible net number. The end result might be worse than a fixed fine. So % of revenue it is.

> So % of revenue it is.

GDPR, 4% of Global revenue and your Directors can be barred from operating in the EU.

Totally agree, at the third time there is really no excuse anymore to not bump this up to maybe even threaten the existence of an organization or it changes its behavior.

For FB this is the nth time. I don't even know what n is anymore.

Neither do any of the regulators...

No, they need to adjust the first-time penalties for deterrence. $50B at a minimum, because it has to hurt their stock price when they do these things. Or hey, how about a year of revenue.

The fines should be 100 billion. Make them itch a little.

Yes. The fine needs to take into account how much Facebook would stand to lose if the case went to trial and they were found guilty, setting a precedent for future actions against them. That seems like it could result in near-unlimited liability for Facebook. The fine for avoiding an admission of wrongdoing should be set equal to the expected value of all that liability, based on an estimate of the probability of winning the case.

There's no way the government has the same resources as Facebook to make that case. The FTC loses when it goes to Court. Facebook would have more lawyers on the case than the FTC has paralegals total.

And that guarantees victory? Interesting judicial system you have, over there.

Where is that fundamentally different in other countries for very large (especially domestic) players?

Will Germany actually take a swing at Volkswagen? Will Germany try to go after those that defrauded the government with cum-ex-trades?

Everybody vs banks regarding the Libor scandal? Sure, they paid some fines, but the fines were far below the damage done, and it appears to still have been a good investment for the banks, that is: all in all they made money, fines included.

Crime does pay at that level.

That's not something US specific, I believe.

I was referring to the fact that you can outpay your opponent.

Yes, large corporations can get away with much more in other countries as well, but rarely by outpaying their opponents.

Disagree. The money is very important to creating and maintaining the position they sit in.

A world in which business cares about more than just profit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benefit_corporation

And even if you buy a physical game for the Playststion, the game still has to be approved by Sony.

The tone of this post is so superior and dickish I'd rather not listen to the author.

Good advice is good advice, even if it is poorly delivered.

I disagree. As Marshall McLuhan said, "the medium is the message." Poorly delivered messages are prone to be lost as noise.

This critique is one of rhetoric - which is not what McLuhan meant in the concept contained in that quote at all.

Your complaint seems to be that the use of a sexual metaphor affects the ethos of the speaker in the eyes of some.

That metaphor is part of the message, regardless of whether or not you like it.

The article makes the assumption the creator's desire is to grow+grow it. It's only good advice is that's true, if the creator just wants to make some scratch, whilst scratching their own itch, then it wouldn't be good advice for said person.

But why write this comment? You’re a critic, but are you a creator?

Post so your creations. I’d like to offer my valuable input.

The thought, clearly expressed in Elizabeth Warren's post, is that Amazon et al are stifling innovation by discouraging entrants and using dominant positions in adjacent industries to crowd out competitors. This isn't a new idea—it's one of the pillars of antitrust.

They're not stifling innovation. Their successes have had massive spillover effects helping other companies to innovate. The Golden Goose is still laying eggs.

This isn't Standard Oil. It's not Ma Bell. When they stop innovating and start extracting rents we can have a reasonable conversation about breaking them up.

All I can say is that a lot of people disagree with you. If you're interested in that perspective, a good book is "World Without Mind" by Franklin Foer.

When does a company stop innovating and start becoming a rent seeker? Don’t most companies eventually become the latter?

I was but a lowly intern when the verdict came down, but I can tell you I heard the term "consent decree" more times than I could count.

As Elizabeth Warren makes clear in her post, "demonstrated consumer harm" isn't the only justification for antitrust action. We can't demonstrate the innovation that would occur in a competitive marketplace, but we break up monopolies with the faith that it will. This was the prevailing view until the late 20th century. Hopefully we'll get back to it.

From the Warren post:

Companies with an annual global revenue of $25 billion or more and that offer to the public an online marketplace, an exchange, or a platform for connecting third parties would be designated as "platform utilities." … These companies would be prohibited from owning both the platform utility and any participants on that platform.

Thus Safeway would be exempt from the regulation because (a) they do not offer an online marketplace and (b) they do not connect third parties (but instead act as an intermediary).

Similarly, it appears that only Amazon Marketplace, not the retail arm of Amazon, would be affected by this regulation.

Yes, the free market is making it very easy to move away from Facebook.

You are not compelled by law to use it. You may be addicted but it is a different problem. So the short answer is it just you that makes it difficult.

> You may be addicted but it is a different problem.

Not everyone is addicted, but rather Facebook has become arguably necessary because of its network effect.

Facebook has become the de facto standard of communication in some institutions. For example, in some universities, important notices on due dates or class cancellations is done solely through Facebook. One may be very heavily pressured to use it.

The original article points out that you don't even have to use Facebook yourself for someone else to put your data there.

That's true, and I'm not sure what rights Americans have in this case, it's hard to tell. Could claim defamation possibly, or impersonation?

The usual one that's claimed it that it's facebook's free speech. Can't defame someone with unpublished, accurate information ..

I suppose they do have a right to express what they observe.

Yeah, and kids aren't compelled by law to smoke. If you think that Facebook addiction is the result of human weakness, you need to wake up. Facebook has methodically exploited human psychology for years to cultivate addiction. Check out Roger McNamee's new book.

By the way, I don't have a Facebook account.

Is this sarcasm? Because I'm fine without Facebook and there are plenty of social media options.

Yes, it was sarcasm. They're more entrenched than you'd like to admit. They have a monopoly on social networking, they control a huge portion of digital advertising, and together with Google, they've bought a huge swath of Washington D.C. (see McNamee's new book). The results aren't surprising: regular abuse of customers, exploitation of human psychology to cultivate addiction, the peddling of a harmful product to minors. They're a consolidated version of the cigarette industry. Free markets ain't working—we antitrust action and regulation.