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

#61

Post by djohnston » Sun, Nov 22, 2020, 3:44 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 absolutely academically affiliated when they requested research data from FB, they just lied about their research which is why the doors are closed now.

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

#62

Post by 0goel0 » Sun, Nov 22, 2020, 3:46 PM UTC

djohnston wrote: post #61

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 absolutely academically affiliated when they requested research data from FB, they just lied about their research which is why the doors are closed now.

The methods were vastly different.

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

#63

Post by djohnston » Sun, Nov 22, 2020, 3:50 PM UTC

0goel0 wrote: post #62

djohnston wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

cambridge analytica was absolutely academically affiliated when they requested research data from FB, they just lied about their research which is why the doors are closed now.

The methods were vastly different.

i think the point is that no academic is owed any of this data, and while FB was collaborating with academic institutions, its clearly not worth the risk

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

#64

Post by antris » Sun, Nov 22, 2020, 3:54 PM UTC

cambalache wrote: post #54

Jgrubb wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 man…

None of that will work. Sure, have some basic regulatory model for your political campaigns to avoid unduly intervention by foreign actors and similar shady stuff,but that is an small deterrent. You cannot avoid targeted advertising, hell, all advertising is in one way or another targeted. Even if you get rid of advertisement period, you will have to deal with stuff like famous academic Op-Eds, celebrities recommendi…

> You cannot avoid targeted advertising, hell, all advertising is in one way or another targeted

But there's a drastic difference in effectiveness. No one would support private ownership of nuclear weapons just because everyone has fists which are weapons also.

Hyper-targeted advertising has gone off rails recently and when you can simply buy your way into any specific segment of the population without having to put it under public scrutiny, you are asking for trouble.

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

#65

Post by Fnoord » Sun, Nov 22, 2020, 3:55 PM UTC

cambalache wrote: post #51

Fnoord wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was highly targeted advertising on targets which were highly susceptible to be turned. Whatever they were turned by, doesn't matter whether it was factual or not (cause that is the low standard for advertising). We have Edward Bernays standard of advertising coupled with the power of Facebook available for everyone, including people who lie through their teeth to get what they wanted. Furthermore, there is evidenc…

> Elections are very tough nowadays because of how easy people (WHO VOTE AGAINST MY POLITICAL ORIENTATION) are influenced. Let's be honest, none of this were a scandal if Cambridge Analytica would have worked for Hilary or the remain campaign. I dont deny all this stuff influence people, it clearly does, but that is the price you have to pay for having a society with freedom of speech and universal vote. If you want…

Brexit is just an example. Manipulation of citizens is of all time. The danger lies in how precise the targeting nowadays is, together with internet being world-wide and advanced.

Its the price we all paid for some of us having a dishonest ML data hoarder.

I'm involved in the integrity of elections in The Netherlands. I have a political preference, but I am able to leave that out when I manually count votes.

I also am aware of ways which undermine our democracy: electronic voting, strategic voting, and abused ML. I believe a high integrity on elections benefits society on the long term.

However given the international forecast of our societies (ie. what used to be called globalization 20 years ago), and difference in population and cheap labour, a country like Russia or China can heavily influence our society. In this case with the help of an American behemoth, but there is no reason other sources cannot be abused.

I don't have the solution to this problem. It warrants further investigation though. Hopefully before it is too late.

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

#66

Post by djohnston » Sun, Nov 22, 2020, 3:57 PM UTC

cute_boi wrote: post #43

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…

So you don't want independent researcher to verify if you are targeting ads when you have proved from time to time Facebook is not trustworthy with our data? And the link you shared doesn't have any information how ads are targeted. Stop using Privacy as a PR stunt. I trust those researcher with my data than facebook.

I mean the last time this happened it was Cambridge Analytica, so maybe you shouldnt trust either?

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

#67

Post by gorgoiler » Sun, Nov 22, 2020, 3:58 PM UTC

_Understated_ wrote: post #57

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,…

> If Facebook allows third parties to scrape data (who can incentivize users any which way) where does it stop? What say should Facebook have here though? I'd argue that when I am viewing data through my browser it's on my computer at that point. I've downloaded it so why should Facebook be allowed to decide what I can and cannot do with it any more than they can decide what I can do with my emails that I also view o…

...but Facebook doesn’t have to let you use their service (for free) if they don’t want to.

If they don’t like something you are doing, they can do whatever they like.

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

#68

Post by annadane » Sun, Nov 22, 2020, 3:58 PM UTC

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #42

KaiserPro wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> isnt that close to how Cambridge Analytica happened? Yes, its exactly this. "Facebook changes based on past scandal for the better, and this is bad. here is my 9th grade essay with no research just feeling" Facebook _should_ be held to account. I personally don't think that the advertising is actually that much of a problem. It all has paper trails because they have to pay. Advertising is not the worst part of face…

> "I personally don't think that the advertising is actually that much of a problem" Facebook was used to illegally infuence elections in Uk and break spending rules and because of their closed nature, nobody realised untill a whistleblower stepped forwards. Its a massive problem, and maybe we would not have Brexit without it. www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-politics-44856992 A TV ad, by comparison, is aired publically and…

Said whistleblower (assuming you're talking about Christopher Wylie) got banned from fb. That's my issue with all this. Did the Russians or Cambridge Analytica do bad stuff? Probably yes. Is Facebook also incredibly hypocritical and self serving? Yes

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

#69

Post by Guest42 » Sun, Nov 22, 2020, 4:05 PM UTC

gorgoiler wrote: post #67

_Understated_ wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If Facebook allows third parties to scrape data (who can incentivize users any which way) where does it stop? What say should Facebook have here though? I'd argue that when I am viewing data through my browser it's on my computer at that point. I've downloaded it so why should Facebook be allowed to decide what I can and cannot do with it any more than they can decide what I can do with my emails that I also view o…

...but Facebook doesn’t have to let you use their service (for free) if they don’t want to. If they don’t like something you are doing, they can do whatever they like.

Are you sure there isn’t more nuance to the situation?

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

#70

Post by sneak » Sun, Nov 22, 2020, 4:07 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…

Advertising, targeted or not, does not change the general public's ability to agree on facts or not, if indeed that ability exists at all.

If you're going to advocate for restricting free speech (by the state, no less) there had better be a great reason for it, not false claims like this one. It's a critical human right, not to be regulated lightly.

A vague desire for "cultural unity" is insufficient alone to start eroding human rights.