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

Facebook Is Going After Its Critics in the Name of Privacy

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 122 posts

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

#101

Post by hedora »

est31 wrote: post #96
_Understated_ wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fair point but I would argue that NYU are only looking at the page and saying "this user viewed ad XYZ" and recording that fact. They're not (I assume) copying the advert and storing it on their servers. I could see Facebook arguing that taking a copy of it is a violation of IP somehow. But simply looking at the page and recording some of the meta data is the same as someone asking me on the phone "what advert did yo…

Samsung TVs take screenshots of displayed content and send them to their servers. They use it to track what you watch, whether it's the latest blockbuster DVD release or your private homemade porn video :). It's all sent to them.

That doesn’t count as copyright infringement because it doesn’t benefit the end user.

/sarcasm

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

#102

Post by andybak »

chongli wrote: post #31
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.

The third part of Orwell’s original formulation is “ignorance is strength” which is not a pair of opposites either. “Weakness is strength” or “ignorance is wisdom” would be more accurate pairings.

Ah yes. I forgot the 3rd part. That does rather change things.

Also - what a great bit of writing - setting up a clear pattern and then breaking the pattern. Much more effective than it would have been otherwise.

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

#103

Post by romanoderoma »

chrisseaton wrote: post #81
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…

What do you mean by targeted? Is targeting knitters by advertising your knitting needles in a knitting magazine a problem in your mind? That seems a really silly thing to want to ban, to me, and I think it will actually make enjoying advertising-supported content worse, not better.

On the other hand, I am a programmer and receive a lot of ads about basic programming courses or even something slightly tech related (build your own startup, how to improve your UI/UX skills etc.) that target me for what they think I do, but not for what I am really interested in.

I think good advertising shows people something that they don't already know a lot about to get them interested, knitters probably already have their channels to research about the tools they use.

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

#104

Post by Jgrubb »

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…

Please reread what I actually said. I didn't say to stop targeted advertising, but that who is targeting, how they're targeting, and what the ultimate reach of a given ad is should be publicly available. Targeted advertising is too powerful a force to remain completely in the dark as it has so far.

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

#105

Post by romanoderoma »

PicassoCTs wrote: post #58

They do not even take up the main problem between academia and FB. Science goes were the data is- and data is at G,F,A . Meaning any science regarding people e.g. social sciences, psychology, behavioural studies - are effectively privatized. Meaning, the paper of psychology grad-student who did a experiment and asked 200 people on campus is less valuable, as the internal report of some fb-data scientists, who wrote a…

Very good points

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

#106

Post by bobthepanda »

djohnston wrote: post #63
0goel0 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

NYU isn't collaborating with FB though. It's collaborating with FB users, who explicitly agree to do this.

Does FB get to dictate how its users get to share their own data?

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

#107

Post by jkaplowitz »

I'm not expecting this to happen for many financial and sociopolitical reasons, but I wish NYU would sue Facebook before November 30 seeking a declaratory judgment that their extension complies with all applicable laws and also with FB's terms of service (leaving aside the obvious catch-all of "we can cut you off for no reason in our sole discretion").

Too many threats like this from FB and other powerful entities yield unwarranted capitulation. If those powerful entities had to fear a real risk of losing a lawsuit on the topic of their baseless threat, they'd at least think before threatening and would sometimes refrain. Alas.

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

#108

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

bogomipz wrote: post #93
SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for the link, but I'm sure you can understand my skepticism of a naked assertion that the reporting on this issue was wrong - especially since this was Mr. Stillwell's only comment ever.

Is it really that implausible that someone have have forwarded him a link to a site he has no interest in and he saw a comment he felt compelled to comment on? Since when is the number of of past comments a barometer for legitimacy? I mean Hacker News even gives you the option to post from a throwaway account. Further the comment is simply refuting one Wired article with an earlier article Wired published on the same…

I really don't follow your point here. It's plausible, but lots of things are plausible - it's plausible that the original reporting is correct, plausible that Stillwell is embarrassed about his involvement, plausible that Cambridge was involved in some way that didn't involve Stillwell. You seem to have reached a stronger conclusion, that Stillwell's statement is definitely correct and the reporting was definitely wrong, and I don't see how you got there by just looking at plausibility.

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

#109

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

Fnoord wrote: post #48
SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The question is the degree to which advertising actually influences behavior. It must have some effect, I’d agree, but was Cambridge Analytica’s ad targeting so powerful that a 1.3 million vote margin was entirely their doing? I’m pretty skeptical.

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…

I agree with your skepticism of referendums, because they do seem to be influenced more by cultural battles than policy outcomes. But I don't follow the connection you're drawing. If survey polls both before and after the election showed a different result, that just indicates the survey polls were flawed - any opinion changes Cambridge Analytica was able to create should be present both in survey polls and the election result.

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

#110

Post by [deleted] »

bobthepanda wrote: post #106
djohnston wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

NYU isn't collaborating with FB though. It's collaborating with FB users, who explicitly agree to do this. Does FB get to dictate how its users get to share their own data?

[deleted]
Post reply on HN