Facebook Still Can't Admit That Launching Libra During An International Privacy Scandal Is Idiotic

from the well-duh dept

One of the less charming aspects of Facebook is its executives' total inability to read the room. For example, any sensible company under Facebook's recent level of scrutiny would take the contrite and humble approach -- pausing most operations to insist they'd seen the error of their ways, pummeling home the claim that they were pausing expansion ambitions to ensure they were leaving no stone unturned to fix the problem and company culture (even if the company in question never genuinely intended such a thing).

Instead Facebook, one of the wealthiest companies to ever exist, engaged in repeated PR gaffes and face plants, most of which were their own making. Like thinking it was a good idea to launch a dating app in the middle of a privacy firestorm. Or thinking it was a good idea to push a "privacy protecting" VPN on users that wound up being spyware. Or, you know, thinking it was a good idea for it to push hard into the cryptocurrency space while facing numerous international investigations for being a dumpster fire when it comes to protecting its users' privacy and security.

To that end, a paywalled report at The Information this week hinted that Facebook was finally backing away from its Libra cryptocurrency plan after numerous partners had wisely exited the (likely) doomed venture. Last year Facebook had already been slowly backing away from its original vision of Libra as a fully open, decentralized network, putting it in stark contrast with those excited about the decentralized nature of blockchain-based networks.

But the company and the Libra Association (or what's left of it) subsequently told Ars Technica that nothing has changed:

"The Libra Association has not altered its goal of building a regulatory-compliant global payment network, and the basic design principles that support that goal have not been changed nor has the potential for this network to foster future innovation."

Government regulators around the world balked at the dumb idea from the start. Stripe, Paypal, eBay, Visa, Mastercard, and Mercado Pago all quickly sensed the project was a dumpster fire and quickly backed away. Most of the companies that actually know something about international payment systems want nothing to do with this project. But this being Facebook, it apparently knows better, and will probably keep beating this dead horse for another year or so before it admits the project is a turd, in large part because nobody trusts the company to get it right after Cambridge Analytica.

Filed Under: cryptocurrency, currency, libra, money, regulations, regulators
Companies: facebook


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    Bobvious, 9 Mar 2020 @ 1:49pm

    Scuzzlebutt

    Apparently FB is toying with the idea of merging some excellent business concepts, resulting in either Cambridge Enronlytica, or Cambridge Onavolibraca.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Mar 2020 @ 1:52pm

    will probably keep beating this dead horse for another year or so before it admits the project is a turd, in large part because nobody trusts the company to get it right after Cambridge Analytica.

    This is a weak story. What makes the project a "dumpster fire"? What's the correlation between knowing about international payment systems and wanting nothing to do with it? (And are we sure there's more than a desire to maintain the profitable status quo?)

    More importantly, what level of trust would be placed in the network sponsors/operators? A common theme of cryptocurrency is that one does not need to trust a central authority. How does Libra compare? Are we talking about "trust" in any technical sense, or is this solely about public perception?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      F1, 9 Mar 2020 @ 3:03pm

      Re:

      It's a bit too telling that members began leaving the association as soon as government-types began asking questions about regulatory compliance. The original description of Libra is that it's a platform where Facebook and other members of the association are providing the technology, but all the regulatory mumbo jumbo was someone else's problem. It's the same business model as Uber. You centralize control in your hands, you scoop up all the profits, but all the risks, all the potential losses, you shift that onto someone else. It's the most foul form of captalism. You pillage society for your own benefit while also expecting to be immune from any consequences by the rules of that society (regulatory compliance). Libra was never about empowering those that don't have bank accounts or that live in countries where banking is too expensive. It was always about cornering a market, making as much profit as possible, in the easiest way possible. Thankfully, real and actual financial systems like the US dollar follow the law in order to protect all people. Libra as pitched to investors was said to be except from any and all financial laws because it's the merchants that transact on the network that will be responsible for everything. An interesting idea but it's not one that has an analog in the real world. And if courts don't agree with this novel interpretation, well, then what you've done is, in fact, criminal.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      sumgai (profile), 9 Mar 2020 @ 3:45pm

      Re: Weak story. . .

      I'm not too sure I'd be so quick to label this story as 'weak'. The questions you raise are good, and have been answered both here on TD and elsewhere. But the bottom line for most folks, whether they be FB users or FB haters, is that the Cambridge Analytica debacle proved that FB has no moral scruples whatsoever. And I mean, proved beyond any possible doubt.

      The inescapable problem for FB is that they have a history of taking advantage of people's personal data. Stating things like "we will never mistreat your data" has less than no meaning to them. All that this Libra venture meant to them was yet another avenue to access private, personal data, and deeply financial data at that. Even if they simply worked to arbitrage the money flow (shady at best, but done every day by the big boys...), they'd still be untrustworthy to the maximum degree possible.

      Submitting to any degree of government oversight would expose this kind of behavior, and would tend to reduce profits from triple or quadruple digits down to double digits.... and Mark can't have that, now can he?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Mar 2020 @ 7:57am

        Re: Re: Weak story. . .

        The inescapable problem for FB is that they have a history of taking advantage of people's personal data.

        That's an inescapable perception of Facebook that may taint Libra by association. It's not an inescapable problem of Libra itself. The system could be designed so that Facebook does not have this data. They say it will be, and while I wouldn't necessarily trust them on that, it could be verified given enough technical information about the system.

        If the questions have already been answered, that's why we have links. This story doesn't have that answer the questions. The link to the "libra" category, for example, returns the very story we're looking at and nothing else; "facebook" returns too many stories having nothing to do with "libra"; "currency" has nothing relevant; "cryptocurrency" has one other story that doesn't describe how privacy will work (it says an untrustworthy FB subsidiary will implement a wallet, but doesn't say it would be the only wallet provider).

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    mrtraver (profile), 9 Mar 2020 @ 2:19pm

    But everyone else is doing it!

    Sorry, Facebook, but blockchain is SO 2019.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Mar 2020 @ 2:43pm

    Looking at facebook strategy you have two choices. Launch during a privacy crisis or don't launch. They apparently can't help themselves and are perpetually in a privacy crisis.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Clock of destiny, 9 Mar 2020 @ 4:27pm

    time until the end

    Dicktators dont see anything wrong with their actions even when they are prosecuted for them. They always say they are doing the right thing for their country. They don't seem to see the difference in right of wrong.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Bloof (profile), 9 Mar 2020 @ 4:43pm

    Facebook has charming aspects?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Federico (profile), 10 Mar 2020 @ 4:47am

      Re: Facebook charming

      Well you know, no company this big can be 100,00 % evil. There's always the odd free software project by one of their employees which happens to be good for the world by mistake.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Close

Add A Reply

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Special Affiliate Offer

Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.