Facebook, Google Fund Nonprofits Shaping Privacy Debate • Hacker News Board

Re: Facebook, Google Fund Nonprofits Shaping Privacy Debate

#111

Post by jonas21 » Mon, Nov 18, 2019, 7:21 PM UTC

throwawaylolx wrote: post #33

dmos62 wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sad truth. I'd like to see something label itself as a public-interest group and be able to trust it immediately, but it's not as simple as that.

It's not very difficult either. For most of these organisations, you can just check their Financials page, and it's very clearly stated. Example: https://www.accessnow.org/financials/ https://cdt.org/financials/ Trusting anything immediately is a bad habit to develop anyway.

Finding the information can be easy, but coming to a conclusion from it is harder.

For example, in the links you provided, we can see that AccessNow is supported by Google and Facebook, but also by Mozilla, which is generally considered to be a strong privacy advocate. Similarly, CDT is supported by Google and Facebook, but also by DuckDuckGo and Mozilla.

So what can we conclude from this? I'm not really sure. It could be any of:

1. Mozilla, DuckDuckGo, etc. are supporting organizations that are working against the interests of privacy.

2. Google and Facebook actually care about privacy.

3. Privacy is a complicated issue and there aren't really well-defined "sides" to take.

Re: Facebook, Google Fund Nonprofits Shaping Privacy Debate

#112

Post by shadowgovt » Mon, Nov 18, 2019, 7:29 PM UTC

brtt wrote: post #110

shadowgovt wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because people are profoundly bad at understanding how modern online advertising works and the companies profiting from it have done a notably bad job of consumer education. The most common behavior people observe that makes them think companies are selling their data is when they visit some site P that sells widget p and then on completely unrelated site Q they start seeing ads for p. The obvious conclusion to draw…

Just bc data doesn't leave the platform doesn't mean they are not selling products with it baked in. Maybe it's semantics, but if you buy an audience to target based on data that FB is capturing, you are buying user data.

The distinction people have been using in this thread is "buying eyeballs" vs. "buying user data." And it's a meaningful distinction; I might trust FB to show me an ad microtargeted at employees of my company, but I don't trust every advertiser to know what company I work for.

Re: Facebook, Google Fund Nonprofits Shaping Privacy Debate

#113

Post by pvg » Mon, Nov 18, 2019, 7:38 PM UTC

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #75

amilein7minutes wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you explain why the restriction over selling user data would be a violation of first amendment rights? Overall, isn't your last point also the source of problems? If the whole idea is to be able to exert regulatory control, to protect users, over companies that seem to have a huge share on decision-making in this space due to their unmatched wealth, how is their parting with a minuscule portion of their wealth…

> Could you explain why the restriction over selling user data would be a violation of first amendment rights? Start with the premise that you're passing a law against people telling other people anything they know about you (especially if they would otherwise be able to without compensation), then add in the "money is speech" thing, which is existing precedent whether you like it or not. > If the whole idea is to be…

Start with the premise [...]

This sounds extremely vague and contrived - something something, the money is speech thing, 1A issue. We regulate all sorts of sales, data collection practices, etc, all the time. Can you find a concrete example, especially in a non-political, plain business-to-consumer context where such regulation has received 1A scrutiny? Even a description by Google or FB or their surrogates of such a potential problem will do.

Every dollar is more advocacy.

The question is advocacy for what. To square this circle you have to argue that the interests of Google and FB are aligned with the privacy interests of individual users - those are the interests such groups tend to claim to represent. This seems implied in your line of argument as I read it and, to me at least, appears glaringly inaccurate.

Re: Facebook, Google Fund Nonprofits Shaping Privacy Debate

#114

Post by jermaustin1 » Mon, Nov 18, 2019, 7:43 PM UTC

sounds wrote: post #107

jermaustin1 wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't agree that just because 3rd parties are where google profits, means that they are buying the data. If I ran a newsletter, "selling data" would be me giving a 3rd party my mailing list. Profiting from the data would be me "selling eyeballs" from my list. That is effectively what Google and Facebook do. They are in the eyeball selling industry, not email selling.

No, a newspaper doesn't sell eyeballs. They create a medium the advertisers want to advertise into. They "own the eyeballs," as it were. They create the newspaper that people read. Google does not own the eyeballs, they are an aggregator but they loudly point out that users could switch. Let's acknowledge that users are not likely to switch away from Google websites, Android, etc. but it's as if Google snatched the n…

I can see where you are going with this, but I disagree with it (mostly).

Google owns the eyeballs on the places of the internet that have sold that space to google.

If I have a website and want to monetize it with ads, I'm giving that section of my page to Google. Who now rents the "tower" in my sidebar, and owns the eyeballs of my visitors. The advertisers don't get to own my data. I'm just exposing my audience to their products. If my audience decides that they want the advertised widget, they are then willingly giving their data to the advertiser when they purchase/sign up/whatever.

The only point I agree with you on (if this is what you meant) is how Google ranks search results based on the speed of the content, and who's content loads fastest for Google? AMP... owned by Google.

Re: Facebook, Google Fund Nonprofits Shaping Privacy Debate

#115

Post by edmundsauto » Mon, Nov 18, 2019, 7:54 PM UTC

brtt wrote: post #110

shadowgovt wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because people are profoundly bad at understanding how modern online advertising works and the companies profiting from it have done a notably bad job of consumer education. The most common behavior people observe that makes them think companies are selling their data is when they visit some site P that sells widget p and then on completely unrelated site Q they start seeing ads for p. The obvious conclusion to draw…

Just bc data doesn't leave the platform doesn't mean they are not selling products with it baked in. Maybe it's semantics, but if you buy an audience to target based on data that FB is capturing, you are buying user data.

It's more than a semantic difference. Buying user data means you are purchasing data. That is not what is happening here.

When you purchase data, it can be remixed and resold, can be used outside the original terms of service agreed to between FB/Google and their users. This is difficult to enforce agreed upon protections, and is a troubling issue (e.g. Cambridge Analytica had user data they used in a "clearly wrong" manner -- a problem that AFAIK was from 3 years ago and has since been shut down).

Buying access to the users means an advertiser is purchasing the ability to put a message in front of the user. This data is covered by user agreements, and is much harder for third parties to use in a "clearly wrong" manner. This data must be deleted at the request of the user, and can be (relatively) easily deleted by going to the original source (a key distinction -- it's very hard to delete data that has been sold and resold).

It is important to use the correct description of what is happening. On FB, you're not "buying an audience" so much as "defining an audience to reach". You don't get to hold the user data in a csv; you get to put messages in front of groups of people. You don't possess the data -- you have access to use it through a user interface provided by FB/Google.

I respect that you may feel FB/Google holding these user data is unethical. Other people feel the exchange is perfectly fine. Regardless, using precise language is important to not muddy the waters, especially in such a tendentious debate.

Re: Facebook, Google Fund Nonprofits Shaping Privacy Debate

#116

Post by throwaway829 » Mon, Nov 18, 2019, 8:04 PM UTC

cj wrote: post #8

This quote from the article highlights the problem at hand: > Organizations like the Center for Democracy and Technology, which received at least $960,000 from [Google and Facebook] in 2018, are often quoted in the media as unbiased third parties and influence how policy is developed in Washington as such, despite receiving the tech company funding. > The group supports allowing tech giants to sell user data to third…

Looks like a classic example of controlled opposition.

Re: Facebook, Google Fund Nonprofits Shaping Privacy Debate

#117

Post by SahAssar » Mon, Nov 18, 2019, 8:10 PM UTC

sounds wrote: post #107

jermaustin1 wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't agree that just because 3rd parties are where google profits, means that they are buying the data. If I ran a newsletter, "selling data" would be me giving a 3rd party my mailing list. Profiting from the data would be me "selling eyeballs" from my list. That is effectively what Google and Facebook do. They are in the eyeball selling industry, not email selling.

No, a newspaper doesn't sell eyeballs. They create a medium the advertisers want to advertise into. They "own the eyeballs," as it were. They create the newspaper that people read. Google does not own the eyeballs, they are an aggregator but they loudly point out that users could switch. Let's acknowledge that users are not likely to switch away from Google websites, Android, etc. but it's as if Google snatched the n…

> but it's as if Google snatched the newspaper and stuck advertising stickers all over it just before you read it in the morning.

Google gives free reading glasses that allows you to read the newspaper. The problem is that they only work for the newspapers they like and the newspapers they like happen to have advertising stickers all over it.

Purportedly unrelated to that they have also told all the newspaper sellers to take a note of when and where you buy your newspaper, but they assure you that is completely unrelated to the advertising side of things.

Re: Facebook, Google Fund Nonprofits Shaping Privacy Debate

#118

Post by user601 » Mon, Nov 18, 2019, 8:12 PM UTC

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #58

cj wrote: post #8

This quote from the article highlights the problem at hand: > Organizations like the Center for Democracy and Technology, which received at least $960,000 from [Google and Facebook] in 2018, are often quoted in the media as unbiased third parties and influence how policy is developed in Washington as such, despite receiving the tech company funding. > The group supports allowing tech giants to sell user data to third…

The problem with this theory is that it doesn't align with facts. Google and most of the other major tech companies don't actually sell user data. They collect it to use internally. The biggest companies who actually do that are the ISPs, but that doesn't really fit the same narrative, and I doubt they donate a lot to privacy groups. The reason a lot of privacy groups don't try to restrict selling user data is a comb…

> Google and most of the other major tech companies don't actually sell user data

This is not correct. Google and Facebook may not sell PII directly to third party but most lower/medium size tech companies do sell PII to third party (insurers, credit co, erc) and most of them even say it explicitly on TOS or privacy policy.

Now, because it's written deep down inside some TOS doesn't mean users are fully informed and people certainly are not making truly informed decisions.

Now, the fact is: people do not understand whats going in and tech companies are abusing this.

And the question is: are we OK with that?

Re: Facebook, Google Fund Nonprofits Shaping Privacy Debate

#119

Post by dang » Mon, Nov 18, 2019, 8:21 PM UTC

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #66

menacingly wrote: post #18

The actual title, "Facebook, Google Fund Nonprofits Shaping Federal Privacy Debate" is much clearer

So, Twitter shares of the article also use the current headline on HN, "Facebook, Google Donate Heavily to Privacy Advocacy Groups". It looks like Bloomberg Law changed the title, but the original submitter here did use the article title at the time. Hopefully dang can update the title here as well.

Updated now.

Re: Facebook, Google Fund Nonprofits Shaping Privacy Debate

#120

Post by sounds » Mon, Nov 18, 2019, 8:29 PM UTC

jermaustin1 wrote: post #114

sounds wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, a newspaper doesn't sell eyeballs. They create a medium the advertisers want to advertise into. They "own the eyeballs," as it were. They create the newspaper that people read. Google does not own the eyeballs, they are an aggregator but they loudly point out that users could switch. Let's acknowledge that users are not likely to switch away from Google websites, Android, etc. but it's as if Google snatched the n…

I can see where you are going with this, but I disagree with it (mostly). Google owns the eyeballs on the places of the internet that have sold that space to google. If I have a website and want to monetize it with ads, I'm giving that section of my page to Google. Who now rents the "tower" in my sidebar, and owns the eyeballs of my visitors. The advertisers don't get to own my data. I'm just exposing my audience to…

Good points.

I think the browser is the equivalent of a newspaper.

It's just you can "open your newspaper" to pages defined by someone on the internet, as opposed to only getting the 30-to-50 pages put out by the newspaper company.

I think the pages within it can be Google, but there's a browser in between. If you use Chrome, then Google totally owns your eyeballs (according to my viewpoint).

But you are spot on with publishers opening up a "tower" on their page, and Google moving in and paying rent. And from that point on, Google is watching you.

Maybe the ISP owns the eyeballs? ISPs are often characterized as either a "content network" (such as Netflix) or an "eyeball network" (such as Comcast). And the networks sometimes fight because Comcast thinks they're the big, bad eyeball network. Netflix, of course, thinks they're the big, bad content network.