Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Facebook has sent a cease-and-desist letter to researchers

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 201 posts

Re: Facebook has sent a cease-and-desist letter to researchers

#31

Post by MAGZine »

mobileexpert wrote: post #20

Some takes From Benedict Evans that are worth considering: https://twitter.com/benedictevans/status/1320378054150148098... “Meanwhile: the NYU app has access to friend data in your feed and friend data is also in the ads it scrapes. And it replaces an actual security model with our trust that NYU are nice people and won't abuse this access. That is exactly how Cambridge Analytica happened.”

Comparing Cambridge Analytica, who harvested data though means that were not transparent to users (and for malicious purpose), to NYU has explained what data and why, AND has the consent of its users, seems disingenuous at best.

Re: Facebook has sent a cease-and-desist letter to researchers

#32

Post by Ensorceled »

goodluckchuck wrote: post #26
root_axis wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see this repeated often, but it's totally incorrect, they do not resemble utilities at all, not even a little bit. I think everyone agrees these companies need more regulation, but the idea that they are in any way comparable to utilities is absurd.

How so?

I can cook dinner, heat my house, call 911 and even check out government websites on the internet without google or facebook.

Re: Facebook has sent a cease-and-desist letter to researchers

#33

Post by 2arrs2ells »

Don't miss Alex Stamos (former Facebook Chief Security Officer's reply): https://twitter.com/alexstamos/status/1320006154424967170

If I'm understanding Alex right, he's saying that Facebook's 2019 FTC consent decree requires them to limit the personal information collected by apps on the platform.

Re: Facebook has sent a cease-and-desist letter to researchers

#34

Post by walrus01 »

> The researchers (w/ the help of others) are responsible for a browser plug-in called Ad Observer, which allows FB users to voluntarily share very limited and anonymous data about the political ads that FB shows them. You can read about Ad Observer here:

https://adobservatory.org

=================

Absolutely preposterous takedown demand. Facebook doesn't get to dictate what software I run on my own client devices, including browser plugins, or even what browser I use. If I want to install a plugin that sends a screenshot or data of every advertisement I receive, to a third party of my choice, that's up to me. Or maybe I want to install ublock origin and see no ads.

It sounds like they're complaining because they have no way of detecting this or preventing it on the user client end, thankfully, because of the way browsers are architected to prevent a website from screwing with the software on your computer. The only way fb could detect or block this would be to force users to install their own fb-written browser plugin, with extensive permissions required.

Obviously fb has a high level of motivation to get every user to use their officially app-store-published android or ios app, where the whole experience is centrally controlled, and such a plugin is impossible to use. Rather than having the user browse facebook in Firefox or Chrome or Edge.

If I can display something on my own computer screen it's my right to choose to share it however I damn well please.

Re: Facebook has sent a cease-and-desist letter to researchers

#35

Post by scbrg »

goodluckchuck wrote: post #26
root_axis wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see this repeated often, but it's totally incorrect, they do not resemble utilities at all, not even a little bit. I think everyone agrees these companies need more regulation, but the idea that they are in any way comparable to utilities is absurd.

How so?

I admit I use some Google services. At the same time, I have no relationship with the non G:s of FAANG, which arguably is 80% of them (though perhaps not 80% of the influence). I'm not sure how they can really be considered public utilities at that point. None of the services they provide are essential.

Re: Facebook has sent a cease-and-desist letter to researchers

#38

Post by christkv »

mobileexpert wrote: post #20

Some takes From Benedict Evans that are worth considering: https://twitter.com/benedictevans/status/1320378054150148098... “Meanwhile: the NYU app has access to friend data in your feed and friend data is also in the ads it scrapes. And it replaces an actual security model with our trust that NYU are nice people and won't abuse this access. That is exactly how Cambridge Analytica happened.”

Turns out Cambridge analytics might have been practically useless https://www.wired.co.uk/article/cambridge-analytica-facebook...

Re: Facebook has sent a cease-and-desist letter to researchers

#39

Post by input_sh »

tolbish wrote: post #9
ethanwillis wrote: post #2

It's well within their rights as a private company, right? We need to have a serious discussion about the power these FAANGs are exerting and we need to stop making excuses for them.

How was their acquisition of Instagram and Whatsapp legal? Haven't antitrust laws broken up companies for less?

Pre-Reagan, sure. Since then, none. There's zero interest in breaking up monopolies in the US from both Democrats and Republicans.

Hell, today's AT&T has more market share than Bell Systems did before it was split up.

EU, on the other hand, appears to be slowly progressing towards the goal of breaking up tech monopolies. Leaked plans would shake up the tech quite a bit: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/10/eu-vs-big-tech-leaked-...

Re: Facebook has sent a cease-and-desist letter to researchers

#40

Post by TheOperator »

amelius wrote: post #4
ethanwillis wrote: post #2

It's well within their rights as a private company, right? We need to have a serious discussion about the power these FAANGs are exerting and we need to stop making excuses for them.

Yes, the FAANGs are very close to being public utilities, and therefore deserve a special treatment.

I can buy the argument that they could require special treatment but I'm much more sceptical that social media specifically resembles a public utility.

If I decide Facebook and all it's products are trash I can pretty trivially not use any of them. If I dislike all social media I can choose not to engage with it at all. I would have a much harder time going without electricity or water.

Social media feels somewhere between a public commons and print media, and it's acting more and more like print media all the time. I'm seeing this election the banning of certain sources like the New York Post and the editorialization of what people say with friendly links to approved "non-partisan fact checkers" who are essentially opinion columnists that cite more sources.

Netflix is about as close to a public utility as the local movie theatre, which is to say, nowhere close.

Post reply on HN