Remember, if you work for FB, you are part of the problem.
Facebook Is Going After Its Critics in the Name of Privacy
111–120 of 122 posts
Re: Facebook Is Going After Its Critics in the Name of Privacy
#112Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 on my computer? While I agree with your opinion, that data would still be Facebook/the advertisers' intellectual property and your actions could be considered infringing the terms you agreed with. Though NYU may not have agreed to those terms, en…
While I agree with your opinion, that data would still be Facebook/the advertisers' intellectual property I read something, now it is in my brain. Does Facebook still own it? I suspect they believe they do.
I think the ad's creator would own it but they've licensed it to Facebook.
Re: Facebook Is Going After Its Critics in the Name of Privacy
#113Earlier 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…
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 elect…
Survey polls can and do manipulate people. True, unlikely in a referendum, but not impossible. Say the polls say its 55/45 for your team, and its raining heavily (weather is known to influences outcome). Would you be motivated to go? Maybe you would, but some would not.
Another one (not referendum specific; my comment regarding strategic voting wasn't specific to referendum either). Say your preferential candidate is Charlie. You have no idea what other people vote. You'd vote for Charlie. However, say you know its going to be between Alice and Bob. You really don't want Bob to win. So you vote for Alice.
If you consider mass media and hype surrounding survey polls, these cause strategic voting between whoever ends up popular. Consider, for example, the way a candidate gets chosen for Republican or Democratic party. Prime example of strategic voting.
Some see these examples as opportunities to get their preference [for a candidate or political goal] in higher regard. I don't; I see these factors as factors which potentially harm the democratic outcome on the long term. Now, like Earth, democracy is strong and adaptive. It can take a bump. But it isn't endlessly going to accept stomps and beatings. Hence, I believe we need to try to maintain the integrity and authenticity.
Re: Facebook Is Going After Its Critics in the Name of Privacy
#114Earlier quoted context omitted.
Facebook doesn't have the greatest security track record. While it wouldn't be productive to argue that one group is inherently more trustworthy than the other it's worth pointing out (as others already have) that the code is available to the public.
Code being public doesn't mean its secure. See php, django, gnupgp, openssl etc etc etc. Again, the issue isn't the collection, its the storage, processing and disposal that really matters here.
> its the storage, processing and disposal that really matters
That you can say about almost all web apps? Then almost maybe you shouldn't use the Internet, I start thinking
Re: Facebook Is Going After Its Critics in the Name of Privacy
#115Earlier quoted context omitted.
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....…
The last part is the crux of this dispute to me. If the users are opting into this, isn't that the same argument for letting them opt into the Facebook platform itself? Why must we protect them from NYU and not from Facebook?
[deleted]
Re: Facebook Is Going After Its Critics in the Name of Privacy
#116Is there any difference between selected private ads, secret society and religion? It's quite similar. Subgroup of crowd, believing something may not be scientific, xenophobia, delivering some "special idea" to their members, etc.
If there is no illegal stuff, why should we criticize on this? Just because they are not mature or long enough as religion?
Re: Facebook Is Going After Its Critics in the Name of Privacy
#117It’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.
Moreover there's value in seeing how that targeting applies to real people in practice.
It's great to be able to see what ads campaigns are running, but if you're a real user, who's feed is full of ads from overtly partisan news sites, clothing companies selling aggressive political gear, AND all the campaigns and SuperPACs, what does your experience look like as a whole?
Our information environment is festering. I can't speak to any given study or technique, but we need to understand this stuff.
Re: Facebook Is Going After Its Critics in the Name of Privacy
#118Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
The tool would need to guarantee that the data of a user opting in doesn't contain private information about his contacts which may not have done so.
Re: Facebook Is Going After Its Critics in the Name of Privacy
#119Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm curious, who is on the other side of the debate here? Because I've seen more people argue for a flat earth than a non-evil facebook.
There are several arguments to be made for a non-evil Facebook. But people are unlikely to engage with a starting comparison like that. Perhaps that's why you haven't see any opposing arguments.
Please do.
Re: Facebook Is Going After Its Critics in the Name of Privacy
#120Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 w…
I actually provided a link that to a well-researched article by Wired Magazine. I have also pointed out that the differentiation between the two different apps is well-documented. In that I have given you the two key points that you could easily use in your own Google search.
What have you provided? You have provided exactly nothing to substantiate your "strong" conclusion. It's hard to see how you yourself "got there" based on nothing other than it's just your opinion.