The distinction is that a penalty paid to the government is getting put toward the public's use and not toward the private enrichment of an individual (or small group of individuals).

If a cop pulls me over and I offer to pay him a "fine" (wink-wink) on the spot if he doesn't write me a ticket, that money is going to his pocket (and maybe his partner's). If I get a ticket and I pay that ticket, the money is going into the state's general budget or state controlled funds (for example, speeding tickets in my state put money into a head injury fund).

Responding to a different reply:

> Distinctions like this are why people feel the government is hopelessly corrupt. It really makes no difference whose pocket it’s going into. It’s paying money to game the system.

I definitely understand that sentiment. However, I think there's a difference between money going to a private individual against what we as the public have decided vs. going to the government in a way that we have some control over.

For example, I've heard that in Singapore there are lots of fees for everything. These fees are standard, on-the-book government fees. The money goes into the government's hands and the government compensates its workforce with reasonably high salaries. I think most people would consider this completely above board. The government can set standard taxes and fees and the government can compensate its employees.

This situation is a bit different because the fine that Facebook paid isn't a standard fine. It's a negotiated fine. These certainly leave a worse taste in one's mouth, especially if the company is paying it to avoid liability for an individual executive. However, the government needs some leeway to negotiate deals and we have some indirect control over this process via our elected officials. Yes, it can be frustratingly indirect given a two-party system where there are more important issues than whether someone appointed someone at the FTC who negotiated a settlement you think is wrong.

At the same time, a lot of our criminal and civil law system works like this. Prosecutors don't want to have to try every single small case so plea-bargaining is a thing. Maybe someone agrees to a smaller punishment than you would like, but the prosecutor is guaranteed the win and doesn't have to expend resources. Companies negotiate all the time to avoid trial.

In this case, is the settlement that the FTC came to in the best interests of the government and the American people? It can be hard to say. On the one hand, they got a lot more money out of Facebook and a guaranteed win. On the other hand, it means that Mark Zuckerberg didn't need to face any personal risk. Given that we're pretty terrible at prosecuting executives, it seems like a reasonable deal to negotiate.

I mean, the Sackler family is getting immunity for $4.5B when they created an epidemic that's killed people and destroyed countless more lives. You can hate on Facebook/Zuckerberg as much as you like and I'm not trying to say that the Cambridge Analytica scandal was nothing, but compared to the Sackler deal it seems like the FTC got a lot. The Sacklers are going to remain one of America's richest families and escape any real consequences of something far worse and nefarious.

So, do you take the easy win of getting $5B out of Facebook (47x more than anticipated) when, realistically, you weren't going to go after Zuckerberg to begin with or do you try to win against Facebook and then try the harder task of winning against Zuckerberg personally? If it went on for years, would the public continue to care? Would someone above you reassign you to something they deemed a more worthy use of your time?

The answer might be "no." There is something satisfying and important about holding people accountable for their actions. However, I think it's hard to call that a bribe. The odds for any real liability against Zuckerberg were probably reasonably small (and this was a civil suit so it's not like he was going to be serving jail time) and the settlement seems mostly about letting Zuckerberg avoid being embarrassed personally than about letting him off the hook. He lost a lot more money with the $5B settlement than if the FTC got $106M out of Facebook and another $106M out of him personally.

I think the biggest issue is that which the shareholders are bringing up: that he also spent their money protecting his. ~30% of that settlement would basically be coming out of his shares ($1.5B), but it's a little unfair to other shareholders to use their money for his protection.