Couldn't somebody decompile the android or iOS app and try to find evidence for one way or the other?
Facebook denies 'listening' to conversations
81–90 of 415 posts
Re: Facebook denies 'listening' to conversations
#82I'm inclined to dismiss it as confirmation bias, but I've had this experience personally - a conversation followed shortly by an extremely specific advertisement on FB shortly thereafter.
I just want to add that this has also happened to my wife and I multiple times and with very specific ads showing up, shortly after the conversation.
Re: Facebook denies 'listening' to conversations
#83I'm inclined to dismiss it as confirmation bias, but I've had this experience personally - a conversation followed shortly by an extremely specific advertisement on FB shortly thereafter.
As suggested in the comments on Reddit, there's another possible explanation for this -- someone else in the conversation does a search based on what you were talking about, clicks on a result that sends tracking data to Facebook, and then the ads are retargeted to you based on a shared public IP address.
Could be shared IP or even just "target people located near people who are targets" since they have location data
Re: Facebook denies 'listening' to conversations
#84No microphone access is needed for the spooky ultra-targeted advertising claims. You just have to keep in mind that Facebook is cross-referencing all your information with everyone physically near you (even people without Facebook accounts, as they can be extrapolated from their relatives and from photo geodata and tags), and cross-referencing all of those results with cookies from ads all over the web and with purchase history results from credit card companies and retailers.
Re: Facebook denies 'listening' to conversations
#85> "I run ads product at Facebook. We don't - and have never - used your microphone for ads. Just not true," Mr Goldman wrote. Personally, I am so used to corp speak and word play by major companies that it is difficult to take anything at face value. Therefore, I think the nature of the question asked to Facebook should be different. It should be on what they do rather do they do X. So, here's my question - "What doe…
I’m sure they don’t use the microphone for ads. If they use the microphone, they surely use it to feed data into their profile of you which gets used for all sorts of things... like ads. One level of indirection is enough to make this denial technically true.
Re: Facebook denies 'listening' to conversations
#86Couldn't somebody decompile the android or iOS app and try to find evidence for one way or the other?
Or just have a proper methodology with many samples, control group, etc.
Re: Facebook denies 'listening' to conversations
#87> "I run ads product at Facebook. We don't - and have never - used your microphone for ads. Just not true," Mr Goldman wrote. Personally, I am so used to corp speak and word play by major companies that it is difficult to take anything at face value. Therefore, I think the nature of the question asked to Facebook should be different. It should be on what they do rather do they do X. So, here's my question - "What doe…
I was about to leave an extremely similar comment, but I was going to frame it in terms of the NSA "direct access" story. I got the impression from that story that immediate denials from tech companies, which seemed categorical, turned out to hinge on which magic words were used. In this case, when I read a sentence like "We don't use your microphone for ads" I end up doing that game where you re-read the sentence ov…
"We don't use your microphone for ads, your phone uses its microphone for our ads" /s
Re: Facebook denies 'listening' to conversations
#88I think the risk versus reward for Facebook and other companies is very high. All things being equal, I think it's more likely than not they will record things, will listen for words you say, and use that. The risk is enormous if it comes out with proof, but let's say they only listen a small percentage of the time, that kind of AI analysis is priceless.
There's no risk. If there was then there would be a statue of Edward Snowden on the National Mall. People are too stupid to care.
Maybe I'm just having a bad day.
Re: Facebook denies 'listening' to conversations
#89But has anyone scientifically validated any of these assumptions? It doesn't seem very hard. Speak, then visit pages with FB ads and take note.
Seems like the internets has taken these serious accusations as some sort of corporate conspiracy but I haven't seen any independent, credible study of how Facebook's apps (confirmed) access to microphone are actually being translated into ads.
Re: Facebook denies 'listening' to conversations
#90It is interesting that they feel the need to officially deny it. The Twitter user co-hosts a podcast where users can call in to tell him whether they think Facebook is listening or not.
One could argue, from a PR perspective, it does not matter whether Facebook is listening or not.
First, some users do not trust them. Maybe Facebook is worried about those users telling other users.
Second, some users believe it is technically feasible to listen.
Finally, there is no legal/regulatory framework in the United States to effectively stop Facebook from listening[FN1], if they wanted to do so. They have clear business incentives to listen because the objective is to gather more personal data about users than their competitors.
NB: Added "in the United States" for clarification.
FN1. Incorrect? What are the theories of liability? What are the sources of law or regulation in the United States? Is injury required? What is the injury? How does one prove the injury?