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

181–190 of 201 posts

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

#181

Post by stale2002 »

root_axis wrote: post #173
stale2002 wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they do not resemble utilities at all, not even a little bit. I think that these large communication platforms absolutely resemble other large communication platforms that are currently covered by common carrier laws. Specifically, a lot of the functionality that these platforms provides, fulfills a usecase that is similar to the phone network. And the phone network is both a large communication platform, and is al…

> I think that these large communication platforms absolutely resemble other large communication platforms that are currently covered by common carrier laws They have nothing in common except the "communication" label. > Specifically, a lot of the functionality that these platforms provides, fulfills a usecase that is similar to the phone network They don't. The "phone network" is what provides access to the internet…

> They have nothing in common except the "communication" label.

Sure they do. They have usecases in common.

There are many ways that I communicate with people, online, that has now entirely replaced me calling those people up on the phone.

That is how they are similar. They are similar in that online services are, in many cases, direct or indirect substitutes for the same exact usecase.

> They don't

They absolutely do. The shared functionality is that I no longer use phone companies anymore, and I instead use online services for that same exact content.

> That's not true.

It absolutely is true. To explain what I mean, I would say that I would truly rather be banned from the entire phone network than to be banned from something like facebook.

This is because I legitimately use facebook for communication more often than I use phones. Therefore, being banned from facebook would have a larger impact on my life than being banned from ever making a phone call again.

That is how facebook is more important than the phone network.

It is more important in that being banned from facebook would have a larger effect on my life than being banned from make phone calls ever again, due to the fact that I use facebook much much more for communication.

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

#182

Post by stale2002 »

Natanael_L wrote: post #159
stale2002 wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they do not resemble utilities at all, not even a little bit. I think that these large communication platforms absolutely resemble other large communication platforms that are currently covered by common carrier laws. Specifically, a lot of the functionality that these platforms provides, fulfills a usecase that is similar to the phone network. And the phone network is both a large communication platform, and is al…

All of this assumes an equivalence in function and access that just isn't there. If my phone company decides who I can call, then I got issues. I can't trivially change carrier however I want. If a website arbitrarily bans all kind of people it will soon be their own problem as people leave with a single click. More specifically, I do not need linkedin, Facebook and co at all to communicate with people over the inter…

> If my phone company decides who I can call, then I got issues.

> If a website arbitrarily bans all kind of people it will soon be their own problem as people leave with a single click.

False. I use facebook for communicating with people more often than I use the phone network.

Being banned from facebook would have a much larger effect on me, and many others, than being banned from ever making phone calls again, due to the fact that we use facebook for the vast majority of our online communication.

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

#183

Post by bryan_w »

filoleg wrote: post #176
CivBase wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Facebook created a platform which allows users to access information about others users who have agreed to be "friends". A third party then came along and asked users for the information which their friends gave them access to. The users gave the third party the data. I'm not missing anything here, right? If the third party should not have access to the data, then neither should the friends who gave it to them. Faceb…

>Either way, I don't see how this is a problem with thr research group. Which is a valid take, not trying to say that your logic doesn't make sense. It does. But it is literally no difference in terms of what happened during the CA scandal, so all the same rules apply here. If you are ok with this group of researches and think they did nothing wrong, and that FB should have let them have the data, then the CA situati…

Exactly, the FTC order asks FB to prevent data about someone from leaving FB's servers and go into a third party's database unless that person explicitly allows it.

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

#184

Post by david_stillwell »

ahupp wrote: post #145
bogomipz wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are a little short on facts. Dr Michal Kosinski and Dr David Stillwell of Cambridge University pioneered the use of Facebook data for psychometric research with a Facebook quiz application called the MyPersonality Quiz. Aleksandar Kogan was a lecturer at Cambridge who then built his own app based on Stilwell's and Kosinki's app and work. Aleksandar then turned around and sold his version to SCL - the parent of Ca…

From the Wired magazine explainer on CA: "That data was acquired via “thisisyourdigitallife,” a third-party app created by a researcher at Cambridge University's Psychometrics Centre. Nearly 300,000 people downloaded it, thereby handing the researcher—and Cambridge Analytica—access to not just their own data, and their friends' as well." https://www.wired.com/amp-stories/cambridge-analytica-explai... re: "the exact o…

Hi, I am David Stillwell. I can confirm that Kogan's app "thisisyourdigitallife" was his own endeavour and unrelated to the Psychometrics Centre. I'm not sure why Wired has written this now. They actually already wrote an extensive article about the Psychometrics Centre here in June 2018 if you want the real story: https://www.wired.com/story/the-man-who-saw-the-dangers-of-c...

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

#185

Post by root_axis »

stale2002 wrote: post #181
root_axis wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think that these large communication platforms absolutely resemble other large communication platforms that are currently covered by common carrier laws They have nothing in common except the "communication" label. > Specifically, a lot of the functionality that these platforms provides, fulfills a usecase that is similar to the phone network They don't. The "phone network" is what provides access to the internet…

> They have nothing in common except the "communication" label. Sure they do. They have usecases in common. There are many ways that I communicate with people, online, that has now entirely replaced me calling those people up on the phone. That is how they are similar. They are similar in that online services are, in many cases, direct or indirect substitutes for the same exact usecase. > They don't They absolutely d…

> This is because I legitimately use facebook for communication more often than I use phones. Therefore, being banned from facebook would have a larger impact on my life than being banned from ever making a phone call again..

If you use Facebook as your primary communication platform I can see how getting banned from Facebook would be very inconvenient, unfortunately, the fact that you would rely on Facebook in such a manner doesn't change the reality that Facebook is just one website, while a phone network is fundamental infrastructure that underpins internet connectivity. For the vast majority of Facebook users losing access to the phone network would mean losing access to not just Facebook, but everything on the internet. You might have grown accustomed to thinking of Facebook as something more than just a website, but that conception is simply wrong, the idea that Facebook is comparable to the network that Facebook runs on is categorically incorrect.

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

#186

Post by ahupp »

david_stillwell wrote: post #184
ahupp wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the Wired magazine explainer on CA: "That data was acquired via “thisisyourdigitallife,” a third-party app created by a researcher at Cambridge University's Psychometrics Centre. Nearly 300,000 people downloaded it, thereby handing the researcher—and Cambridge Analytica—access to not just their own data, and their friends' as well." https://www.wired.com/amp-stories/cambridge-analytica-explai... re: "the exact o…

Hi, I am David Stillwell. I can confirm that Kogan's app "thisisyourdigitallife" was his own endeavour and unrelated to the Psychometrics Centre. I'm not sure why Wired has written this now. They actually already wrote an extensive article about the Psychometrics Centre here in June 2018 if you want the real story: https://www.wired.com/story/the-man-who-saw-the-dangers-of-c...

Thank you for clarifying. Always nice to get first-hand information.

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

#187

Post by stale2002 »

root_axis wrote: post #185
stale2002 wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They have nothing in common except the "communication" label. Sure they do. They have usecases in common. There are many ways that I communicate with people, online, that has now entirely replaced me calling those people up on the phone. That is how they are similar. They are similar in that online services are, in many cases, direct or indirect substitutes for the same exact usecase. > They don't They absolutely d…

> This is because I legitimately use facebook for communication more often than I use phones. Therefore, being banned from facebook would have a larger impact on my life than being banned from ever making a phone call again.. If you use Facebook as your primary communication platform I can see how getting banned from Facebook would be very inconvenient, unfortunately, the fact that you would rely on Facebook in such…

> e fact that you would rely on Facebook in such a manner

It is the reality of the situation that a whole lot of people rely on facebook in such a manner, and because of the network effect they would be unable to convince all of their friends and family to switch to other platforms.

One person cannot defeat platform locking and network effects.

> while a phone network is fundamental infrastructure

Not really. It would be easier for me to never call someone's phone number again, than to get rid of other communication platforms that I use.

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

#188

Post by root_axis »

stale2002 wrote: post #187
root_axis wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is because I legitimately use facebook for communication more often than I use phones. Therefore, being banned from facebook would have a larger impact on my life than being banned from ever making a phone call again.. If you use Facebook as your primary communication platform I can see how getting banned from Facebook would be very inconvenient, unfortunately, the fact that you would rely on Facebook in such…

> e fact that you would rely on Facebook in such a manner It is the reality of the situation that a whole lot of people rely on facebook in such a manner, and because of the network effect they would be unable to convince all of their friends and family to switch to other platforms. One person cannot defeat platform locking and network effects. > while a phone network is fundamental infrastructure Not really. It woul…

> It is the reality of the situation that a whole lot of people rely on facebook

You're just wrong. The overwhelming majority of people use a variety of communication services like e-mail, imessage/sms and many others, and this is common knowledge, people who only use Facebook for communication are frankly extremely rare.

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

#189

Post by Natanael_L »

stale2002 wrote: post #182
Natanael_L wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All of this assumes an equivalence in function and access that just isn't there. If my phone company decides who I can call, then I got issues. I can't trivially change carrier however I want. If a website arbitrarily bans all kind of people it will soon be their own problem as people leave with a single click. More specifically, I do not need linkedin, Facebook and co at all to communicate with people over the inter…

> If my phone company decides who I can call, then I got issues. > If a website arbitrarily bans all kind of people it will soon be their own problem as people leave with a single click. False. I use facebook for communicating with people more often than I use the phone network. Being banned from facebook would have a much larger effect on me, and many others, than being banned from ever making phone calls again, due…

Is that because you can not replace Facebook, or because it's merely inconvenient to do so?

Because the law doesn't protect convenience in these contexts.

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

#190

Post by stale2002 »

Natanael_L wrote: post #189
stale2002 wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If my phone company decides who I can call, then I got issues. > If a website arbitrarily bans all kind of people it will soon be their own problem as people leave with a single click. False. I use facebook for communicating with people more often than I use the phone network. Being banned from facebook would have a much larger effect on me, and many others, than being banned from ever making phone calls again, due…

Is that because you can not replace Facebook, or because it's merely inconvenient to do so? Because the law doesn't protect convenience in these contexts.

> Is that because you can not replace Facebook, or because it's merely inconvenient to do so

As in it would be much more difficult to replace Facebook as a communication platform for me than it would be for me to be banned from making phone calls ever again.

So facebook is more in the category of "can not replace" than being able to make phone calls.

Post reply on HN