Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ok, we've put partners in the title above.
I use the facebook API but don't consider myself a facebook partner. I'm fine with "API user"
But other partners may have hundreds of users.
Facebook says one hundred API users may have improperly accessed user data
61–70 of 75 posts
Re: Facebook says one hundred API users may have improperly accessed user data
#62So many controversies with facebook lately. It seems like there is something wrong with facebook.
Re: Facebook says one hundred API users may have improperly accessed user data
#63Re: Facebook says one hundred API users may have improperly accessed user data
#64The Facebook blog post would probably be a better source, since it explains the nature of the data: https://developers.facebook.com/blog/post/2019/11/05/changes... I.e. apps added to a group by an admin could get some metadata about members of the group. (That blog post would also have been harder to mis-interpret than the NBC article. Half the early comments seem to think that this was about Facebook engineers impro…
I'm confused as to how this is 'improper', if Facebook made this data available why are the developers at fault?
Re: Facebook says one hundred API users may have improperly accessed user data
#65Could this be related to upcoming release of internal documents? >Big new leak of internal Facebook docs to be published Thursday. There’s been extraordinary attempts by Facebook to suppress this including seeking disclosure of emails sent to journalists & MPs https://twitter.com/carolecadwalla/status/119140241162292838... >At noon on Wednesday, Dublin time, I + others will publish full copies of 6,971 pages of Faceb…
Duncan Campbell (@dcampbell_iptv) started posting links to documents: https://twitter.com/dcampbell_iptv
UPD Reuters story: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-facebook-antitrust/facebo...
Computer Weekly story: https://www.computerweekly.com/news/252473540/Lawmakers-stud...
Re: Facebook says one hundred API users may have improperly accessed user data
#66Can we throw Mark Zuckerberg in Jail yet?
Re: Facebook says one hundred API users may have improperly accessed user data
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, there are intelligent people everywhere. But intelligent people are often catastrophically wrong when writing on a topic about which they know nothing.
The key word, of course, is "often" and not "always". How would you know the difference?
It’s not about knowing the difference; it’s about recognizing the pattern and applying the appropriate measure of skepticism. It happens with complicated topics in other fields as well.
Re: Facebook says one hundred API users may have improperly accessed user data
#68The Facebook blog post would probably be a better source, since it explains the nature of the data: https://developers.facebook.com/blog/post/2019/11/05/changes... I.e. apps added to a group by an admin could get some metadata about members of the group. (That blog post would also have been harder to mis-interpret than the NBC article. Half the early comments seem to think that this was about Facebook engineers impro…
In the context of a Facebook user, what is the difference between data and metadata?
I guess it depends on whether you view this as a continuum or have an absolute "anything the user touched is user data" take. Compare it to a couple of security issues they had last year:
First, the one where the attackers would have had full access to the accounts. Photos, posts, private messages, likes, contacts, etc: https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2018/09/security-update/
Or the one where some apps could read photos that they were not given access to, or in some cases that the user hadn't shared at all: https://developers.facebook.com/blog/post/2018/12/14/notifyi...
Re: Facebook says one hundred API users may have improperly accessed user data
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I thought building personality profiles and launching targeted ads was pretty mundane at the end of the day. The next level of discussion that interests me is why social media manipulation is so powerful in the first place. Well, if you push in that direction then the whole narrative falls apart. There is absolutely no evidence that social media based personality profiles are actually effective -- why would knowing…
You're picking Taylor Swift to make it sound your argument is solid... Aren't there better indicators? If I follow my local city's LGBT group's FB page, well, what do you think my political leanings would be? Or on the opposite end, if I follow that megachurch's FB page? Or even if I'm just friends with many people who "checked-in" there last Sunday.
Sure, but do you really think this basic information about general political leanings wasn’t available before social media? 2004 wasn’t the stone age.
Re: Facebook says one hundred API users may have improperly accessed user data
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I thought building personality profiles and launching targeted ads was pretty mundane at the end of the day. The next level of discussion that interests me is why social media manipulation is so powerful in the first place. Well, if you push in that direction then the whole narrative falls apart. There is absolutely no evidence that social media based personality profiles are actually effective -- why would knowing…
> There is absolutely no evidence that social media based personality profiles are actually effective And that's why microtargeting has become pretty widespread in its use during political campaigning [0], because it's not effective at all. > why would knowing somebody likes Taylor Swift be better for targeting political ads than knowing where they live and their party affiliation Because FB knows all of these things…
> Care to name any other place where data like that exists in such an aggregated format?
Come on. Both political parties maintain databases of voters containing plenty of personal information. When people canvas door to door they know precisely what kind of people will answer the door. This is a basic aspect of campaigning that was around well before Facebook. 2004 wasn’t the stone age.