I think the point neuronexmachina was trying to make about microtargeting is that Obama simply asked their users to send messages to their friends, whereas CA directly advertised to people.
The Obama campaign used that data in every way that CA did. The fact that the app only represented that it was sending messages to friends is just as misleading as what Kogan (not CA, who never had an app) did. They used this data that 99.5% of the people didn't authorize them to have for targeting, campaign strategy, etc.
Again, collecting data about friends while being upfront about the purpose is very different from collecting friends data with completely false pretenses, selling the data(Alex), and then later lying to Facebook that it was deleted when it was not(CA).
https://photos.app.goo.gl/0z3F0BH9Q0wNK0nz1 I think this is from 2013.
Nice. This doesn't seem to mention sharing data about your friends though? I wonder if that would have been mentioned separately to grant access to your friends data?
That one is pretty vague. Here's another that I found that's a lot more explicit. This one is definitely from 2013.
Basically no CEOs ever want to testify in front of a congressional committee. There is only downside to such a situation for the company. There is zero upside. This is not a deeply telling datum. It is a boring an standard one.
In this case there is user trust to be gained. By refusing to appear in front of congress, mark and facebook has lost a little of my trust.
>Beacon formed part of Facebook's advertisement system that sent data from external websites to Facebook, for the purpose of allowing targeted advertisements and allowing users to share their activities with their friends. Beacon would report to Facebook on its members' activities on third-party sites that also participate with Beacon. These activities would be published to users' News Feed. This would occur even whe…
Was this the thing that would put up a notification on your Facebook profile that you just bought a dildo from Amazon (for instance)?
Yep. What was even more bizarre is how they never really acknowledged it might be a problem, they just keep taking this arrogant attitude that the plebe users are wrong and just don't understand this amazing new data feature. It was the first time I recall them using analytics to justify their bullshit, it pretty much set the tone for where we are at now.
I think the point neuronexmachina was trying to make about microtargeting is that Obama simply asked their users to send messages to their friends, whereas CA directly advertised to people.
The Obama campaign used that data in every way that CA did. The fact that the app only represented that it was sending messages to friends is just as misleading as what Kogan (not CA, who never had an app) did. They used this data that 99.5% of the people didn't authorize them to have for targeting, campaign strategy, etc.
You keep stating the same allegations and assumptions, and now including statistics, without sources.
He honestly isn't wrong. People use Google and Facebook everyday for free in exchange for their privacy and they are ok with that. You can ask most people and they'll say they didn't really care about Snowden's leaks. They are happy to use free software and to be under government supervision (I don't care about the inefficacy of it). Privacy really is a social norm of the past.
I understand your intention and don't mean to criticize, but please consider avoiding the term 'free software' when referring to businesses like Facebook and Google. https://www.fsf.org/about/what-is-free-software
So FB opened up their platform to 3rd party Devs in 2007 and this CA incident happened in 2013. FB changed their policy of not allowing broad data access to these Devs in 2014. So my question is: Why they admit that they'd audit the pre-2014 apps now when NYT and Guardian/Observer broke the news? And what policy is in place now that makes sure that these 3rd party Devs won't sell whatever info they do collect as per…
They probably assumed that if devs couldn't access the data anymore it wouldn't be a problem in the future. > We'll require developers to not only get approval but also sign a contract in order to ask anyone for access to their posts or other private data. Sounds like they'll make the developer agreement legally binding so they can take legal action for violating the ToS.
I kind of doubt that this action will stop all of the devs that check in their api keys into public repos everyday that are then used by other parties, but at least it will allow facebook to cover their ass a bit more.
> You're missing the point. I think you are the one missing the point. > The OFA app determined who should share what with who by running all the extracted profile data (including that taken from opted-in users' oblivious, perhaps anti-Obama friends) through their psychographic models. Yes, this was a political app, downloaded by people motivated to get obama to be the president. They shared that info willingly to th…
Again, you're missing the point. The people who SIGNED UP for the Cambridge Analytica app, or the Obama For America app agreed to share their own information with the app. In doing so, they ALSO agreed to share data on their entire friends list with the app -- Facebook had no restrictions in place on this at the time. Those people who were opted-in by proxy, i.e. the friends you sold out, may not have wanted the Obam…
The point you are missing is that there was no cambridge analytica app and nobody opted into it an app that doesn't and didn't exist. They opted into a completely different app that datamined it for completely unrelated purposes and then, much later, sold off to CA which used it to target people. one was on the up and up and one was CA. Again, if trump did what obama did on the level it would have been fair game. they were shady and used shady tactics and shadily acquired data. Not a single person that opted into the koger app thinking it was a political app but people that used the obama app knew what they were getting into.
the crux of what CA did was to re-sell data they collected from Facebook, right? No. An independent developer had an app many years ago, recorded data from that app, and then sold that data to CA years after the fact. That developer did in fact violate Facebook's developer platform policies by selling the data, but CA had nothing to do with the app or what was represented to the people using it when they installed it…
Didn't CA report to fb that the data was deleted when in fact it was not?
koger did report that but ended up not deleting it and also ended up selling the data to CA.
No mention of the fact that fb knew that Kogan sold users’ fb data to CA, and fb intentionally didn’t inform its users about it until the Guardian’s investigative report blew up in the press