Facebook Is Going After Its Critics in the Name of Privacy • Hacker News Board

Re: Facebook Is Going After Its Critics in the Name of Privacy

#21

Post by JumpCrisscross » Sun, Nov 22, 2020, 1:39 PM UTC

ankit219 wrote: post #8

For once, can we have articles (or even opinion pieces) which try to explain the context and position of both sides rather than pieces such as these. These kind of writings do nothing to change the mind of anyone. For someone who hates FB and its practices, they reinforce the already held belief. And for those, who are skeptical of such media articles, they would be put off by the language used. And make no mistake,…

> isnt that close to how Cambridge Analytica happened?

Close to. But different.

Cambridge Analytica drew from Facebook’s servers. This plug-in pulls from users’ computers. Cambridge Analytica was not academically affiliated. This is legitimate research. Cambridge was closed source. This is open.

Most importantly, users are explicitly sharing their data with NYU. There is no carrot of a personality quiz to obscure the quid pro quo.

Re: Facebook Is Going After Its Critics in the Name of Privacy

#22

Post by JumpCrisscross » Sun, Nov 22, 2020, 1:40 PM UTC

gabea wrote: post #14

It’s important to point out that Facebook has an Ads library that allows you to research currently running ads for a given Facebook page and for politics, social issue, or election ads there is an API. While these capabilities do not map 1:1 to how this plugin works it seems like a bit of a middle ground for the researchers to be able to research ads without risking privacy of people or violating terms of service. (D…

> Facebook has an Ads library that allows you to research currently running ads for a given Facebook page and for politics

The library omits targeting information. The specific subject of this research. Also, Facebook has a culture and history of lying. There is public interest in auditing its disclosures.

Re: Facebook Is Going After Its Critics in the Name of Privacy

#23

Post by C19is20 » Sun, Nov 22, 2020, 1:53 PM UTC

URfejk wrote: post #16

Maarten88 wrote: post #15

> This may be par for the course with Facebook, but it's not something we as a society can afford to tolerate any longer. Those are strong words, but I'm afraid the "we as a society" are not as much of a power as one would hope. Facebook as a company might turn out to be more powerful. Facebook can bring lawsuits, PR doublespeak and over time wear down adversaries threatening their business. I think the underlying pr…

> Those are strong words, but I'm afraid the "we as a society" are not as much of a power as one would hope. If everyone would abandon FB, they would go out of bussiness. People have much more power that they think they do. They just do not know it.

....or care.

Re: Facebook Is Going After Its Critics in the Name of Privacy

#24

Post by andybak » Sun, Nov 22, 2020, 2:09 PM UTC

mcny wrote: post #6

andybak wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're alluding to the "war is peace, freedom is slavery" forumulation then I don't think it quite fits. Censorship and privacy aren't opposites and I would probably argue they are largely independent or even orthogonal.

I think you’re missing the context of this conversation. From a comment in a previous Han post about this > The research participants are voluntarily sharing their ads with NYU. Facebook is objecting.

Yes, you're right. The statement makes sense with that context.

Re: Facebook Is Going After Its Critics in the Name of Privacy

#25

Post by antris » Sun, Nov 22, 2020, 2:10 PM UTC

I have recently started supporting a ban on targeted advertising. Dividing people into cultural bubbles and being able to spend unlimited dollars on it is dangerous if we are to maintain cultural unity and be able to agree on facts.

Also, when your advertising is not public and only visible to subsections of people, it is more difficult to investigate what is going on. Facebook can do it themselves, but do we want to rely on a single company to do it? But when the advertising is public, it is easier to have a public discussion and have a possible backlash to it.

Re: Facebook Is Going After Its Critics in the Name of Privacy

#26

Post by _y5hn » Sun, Nov 22, 2020, 2:10 PM UTC

KaiserPro wrote: post #13

input_sh wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The plug-in is open sourced: https://github.com/OnlinePoliticalTransparency/social-media-... You can download a release straight from there and import it into your browser. Browsers also do some reviews of the plugins that are in their stores, so every update should be tested by both Google and Mozilla (even if only superficially). I'd say the odds of them managing to pull off scraping anything else without anyone no…

with respect, thats not the issue. With facebook they only collect "limited" information. Its what they do with it afterwards that matter. How is it stored, is it secure, how do they anonymise it, who has access to the raw data, what happens when there is a break, is there monitoring, etc etc etc. They are making a massive honey pot, and we just have to trust them that they are doing good job. (much like facebook....…

Please don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. There's no obligation to opt-in, and there's risk in everything we do and don't do.

Re: Facebook Is Going After Its Critics in the Name of Privacy

#27

Post by jan_Inkepa » Sun, Nov 22, 2020, 2:15 PM UTC

antris wrote: post #25

I have recently started supporting a ban on targeted advertising. Dividing people into cultural bubbles and being able to spend unlimited dollars on it is dangerous if we are to maintain cultural unity and be able to agree on facts. Also, when your advertising is not public and only visible to subsections of people, it is more difficult to investigate what is going on. Facebook can do it themselves, but do we want to…

Since I turned off targeted advertising, youtube delights in showing me very graphic videos of earwax extraction. It feels like deliberate punishment and a not-so-gentle nudge to opt for more personalised ads.

Re: Facebook Is Going After Its Critics in the Name of Privacy

#28

Post by SpicyLemonZest » Sun, Nov 22, 2020, 2:15 PM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #21

ankit219 wrote: post #8

For once, can we have articles (or even opinion pieces) which try to explain the context and position of both sides rather than pieces such as these. These kind of writings do nothing to change the mind of anyone. For someone who hates FB and its practices, they reinforce the already held belief. And for those, who are skeptical of such media articles, they would be put off by the language used. And make no mistake,…

> isnt that close to how Cambridge Analytica happened? Close to. But different. Cambridge Analytica drew from Facebook’s servers. This plug-in pulls from users’ computers. Cambridge Analytica was not academically affiliated. This is legitimate research. Cambridge was closed source. This is open. Most importantly, users are explicitly sharing their data with NYU. There is no carrot of a personality quiz to obscure the…

Cambridge Analytica was academically affiliated. The data they got was laundered through a University of Cambridge researcher Aleksandr Kogan, and their app claimed to be using the data for legitimate academic research. I’m not saying it’s exactly the same, but the fundamental challenge is still present: how can Facebook be sure that these researchers won’t share the data with some controversial organization?

Re: Facebook Is Going After Its Critics in the Name of Privacy

#29

Post by _y5hn » Sun, Nov 22, 2020, 2:16 PM UTC

C19is20 wrote: post #23

URfejk wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Those are strong words, but I'm afraid the "we as a society" are not as much of a power as one would hope. If everyone would abandon FB, they would go out of bussiness. People have much more power that they think they do. They just do not know it.

....or care.

Frankly, I really don't care. I keep my account and treat it like what it is, utter garbage. Though, it keeps my contacts in cases where it's convenient to connect. If not FB, it would be something else.

The problem is those people who derive their world-view from social media platforms and buy in to all the lies and manipulation from bullies. There's pressure for accountability, and that should be a good thing, although we need to keep watch. If they oust the bullies and fake lies, good riddance. I don't need someone telling me their "Final Solution", especially without anything backing their words.

Re: Facebook Is Going After Its Critics in the Name of Privacy

#30

Post by Jgrubb » Sun, Nov 22, 2020, 2:22 PM UTC

antris wrote: post #25

I have recently started supporting a ban on targeted advertising. Dividing people into cultural bubbles and being able to spend unlimited dollars on it is dangerous if we are to maintain cultural unity and be able to agree on facts. Also, when your advertising is not public and only visible to subsections of people, it is more difficult to investigate what is going on. Facebook can do it themselves, but do we want to…

Since that'll never happen without toppling the money printing machines of several of the world's most powerful companies, I'd like to repeat an idea that I once heard -

A publicly available clearinghouse of all targeted ads published via a service so that researchers can find out

- Every ad published

- What targeting parameters were used, other basic data about the ad

- How many impressions the ad received

- How many clickthroughs, etc

It would not include any PII of those who saw the ads, only on the ads themselves. Bonus points if we can also have some kind of GUID "advertiser_id" that would allow researchers to tie the ads back to some kind of probably-anonymized-but-maybe-not entity that published the ad. The API would be defined in the regulation so that vendors can't pull any obfuscatory fuckery.

Sunlight is the first step in stopping this.