9 ms·

My problem with this 'outing' of CA is that Facebook explicitly commercially exists to harvest user data for Procter & Gamble, Johnson & Johnson, Fidelity etc e

My problem with this 'outing' of CA is that Facebook explicitly commercially exists to harvest user data for Procter & Gamble, Johnson & Johnson, Fidelity etc etc so they can profile us. A million dollars is chump change in the crazy US election game. This all seems overly selective - it's ok for some people to profile but not for others. I'm not in favor of any of it to be clear but there is a definite political bias going on here. Let's not forget FB itself has a formal political unit that exists to push propaganda in foreign elections, 'stifling opposition and stoking extremism' https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-12-21/inside-the-facebook-team-helping-regimes-that-reach-out-and-crack-down https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-12-21/inside-th...

rtx 9y ago
In recent years America seems to be very eager to compromise. First it did for security after 9/11 and now for right thought after Trump.
eecks 9y ago
> Facebook explicitly commercially exists to harvest user data for Procter & Gamble, Johnson & Johnson, Fidelity etc etc Sources on this?
- olivermarks 9y ago
  https://www.wsj.com/articles/p-g-to-scale-back-targeted-facebook-ads-1470760949 https://www.wsj.com/articles/p-g-to-scale-back-targeted-face... Not hard to find information, although it is typically couched as brand reach and advertising spots. The big data sales side of FB and other sites is more sensitive and less overt https://www.facebook.com/help/494750870625830?helpref=uf_permalink https://www.facebook.com/help/494750870625830?helpref=uf_per...
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - IAmEveryone 9y ago
    Your links do not support the idea of “harvest[ing] user data”. They describe the usual Facebook ad platform, where you can set criteria to target users. But nowhere does it mention data on individual users flowing from Facebook to advertisers.
    - olivermarks 9y ago
      from my original Bloomberg link in post about FB 'Politicians running for office can be lucrative ad buyers. For those who spend enough, Facebook offers customized services to help them build effective campaigns, the same way it would Unilever NV or Coca-Cola Co. ahead of a product launch. While Facebook declined to give the size of its politics unit, one executive said it can expand to include hundreds during the peak of an election, drawing in people from the company’s legal, information security and policy teams.' It is harder to find information about FB's data sales policies (which are very opaque unless you speak to people high up in marketing large companies and their activities). FB's ad platform information is pretty transparent, but the quarterly numbers don't really add up for me based on spend by large firms like Procter & Gamble etc in those areas...
      - IAmEveryone 9y ago
        > It is harder to find information about FB's data sales policies So you’re explicitly agreeing that you have no proof that Facebook is offering data for sale. The quote you cite has nothing to do with the initial assertion: providing consultants that teach people how to use the ad manager is something completely different than selling PII.
        olivermarks 9y ago
        Obviously you won't be finding a FB webpage providing details of where to buy user data by the thousands as I tried to explain above. FB"s role working with and for the Trump campaign provides some insights Trump, Cambridge Analytica and how big data is reshaping politics - Gillian Tett in the FT https://www.ft.com/content/e66232e4-a30e-11e7-9e4f-7f5e6a7c98a2 https://www.ft.com/content/e66232e4-a30e-11e7-9e4f-7f5e6a7c9...
  - joering2 9y ago
    The Facebook page you refer to is interesting. At the bottom it says to reach out to https://aboutthedata.com/ https://aboutthedata.com/ to see what data they have on you. So I did. Then I scroll down to see "See and Edit Marketing Data about You. CLICK HERE" only to be redirected to a registration page that requires my US-based address and last 4 of SSN. Talking about misled communication, or rather blunt deception, otherwise how the heck "click here to see data about you" lands me on registration page? I don't want to register, I want to see the data!
  - nl 9y ago
    This simply isn’t true. I’ve spent lots of time and money getting data out of FB. You can pay to get anonymized topic data via DataSift and others, you can pay to run ads against users you have email addresses for (but you don’t get their data) or you can scrape (which is against the terms of service and they have an aggressive anti bot system to stop it - unlike Twitter). Their political support systems are analytics support to ad buying.
ChicagoDave 9y ago
I could see a constitutional amendment barring psycho-graphic profiling from election advertising and intent. Not sure how it could be enforced because this is very technical. Even so, there is a significant difference between Coke trying to sell me a flavored soft drink and a firm tweaking my emotions to get me to abstain from voting with false information or to vote against my best interests with false information. There are definitely people who are susceptible to psycho-graphic warfare and we need to protect them in order to protect our democracy.
- r00fus 9y ago
  You do it by making the activity costly. Mandatory opt-out for any persistence of data. Require regular re-enrollments for anyone who opted in.
  - olivermarks 9y ago
    European GDPR is going to help a lot when it kicks in this May
- chibg10 9y ago
  I don't think "false information" is the kicker here. Taking a cursory glance at Breitbart and Fox News, there isn't that much that is patently false. Furthermore, my observations of how propaganda works in general is that it doesn't usually rely information that is technically false. It relies on selective distribution of information, editorial spin, and other more subtle methods. This makes "enforcement" basically impossible because you can't have a news outlet without editorial decisions. A better way to go about it would be to try incentivize media outlets to make a good faith effort at "both sides" journalism, but members of both political sides have been attacking the media for doing just that since the 2016 election season.
  - threeseed 9y ago
    > Taking a cursory glance at Breitbart and Fox News, there isn't that much that is patently false. Don't you think it would be better for you to take more than a cursory glance before commenting ? Breitbart has had significant issues with fake news over its lifetime. Far more egregious and consistent than other any other news organisation not that I would necessarily call it one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breitbart_News#Notable_stories https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breitbart_News#Notable_stories
doubt_me 9y ago
1. It's not an "outing". 2. Johnson & Johnson doesn't work for Putin. 3. United States elections aren't crazy. Entire parties of Congress being blackmailed into submission by foreign influence is crazy. 4. It's not overly selective. 5. I hope it has an extreme political bias. 6. Facebook commercially exists because the United States has shit privacy laws. 7. How much did Putin pay you to gas light articles? 8. A million dollars is still a million dollars. 9. Let's not forget about that one time you tried to comment on HN to down play this article. When in fact I couldnt be happier to see this.
- dang 9y ago
  > How much did Putin pay you to gas light articles? That is an egregious violation of the guidelines and a bannable offense on HN. If the rest of the internet is losing its mind, that makes following HN's rules more important, not less. > Let's not forget about that one time you This also crosses into personal attack, which is not ok. Heated political arguments are bad enough without users trying to take each other out like this. Please don't do it on HN, regardless of how strongly you disagree. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Edit: your account history unfortunately contains many examples of personal abuse. You've also broken the guideline against using HN primarily for political or ideological battle. We ban accounts that do these things, so would you please re-read the guidelines and use HN as intended from now on?
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - mistermann 9y ago
    Something I have been noticing for quite some time now is an increasing tendency for people to seemingly believe they can read other people's minds &/or the future, or that they somehow have an omniscient insight into the world. You might expect this on Facebook or Reddit, and I know this will not please most people here, but it is becoming rather common on HN as well. To those of you who disagree with me, keep this idea in the back of your mind for a while and remember it as you read comments. Make a serious effort to notice how many people know what other people's motives are for their beliefs, how they know the real reason for certain policy decisions, how they know what Putin or Trump are thinking and what they are going to do in the future, how they know China is going to fail now that they've gone full-on communist dictatorship (because history "guarantees" it), etc. I honestly don't think I am imagining this, I think something very historically significant is happening to the psychology of the public.
mrtksn 9y ago
>This all seems overly selective - it's ok for some people to profile but not for others What's the issue here? Selective information distribution is rooted in the society, people are O.K. with some information to be known to some people while kept secret from others due to implication differences. I.E. I'm fine to be profiled for selling me chocolates but I'm not O.K. to be profiled to be manipulated to select public officials or to make my mind about controversial topics like the god, abortions, guns etc. I expect to be exposed in a proper way to these topics, i.e. proper journalism and discussions.
- jsmthrowaway 9y ago
  Sadly, the downside of the consumer data culture in which we live is that you don’t really get to make that call. It seems like data is really an all or nothing game at this point, regardless of how society feels about it. Not sure how to change that, either, and I don’t personally think legislation is the answer.
  - matt4077 9y ago
    It’s really easy: you pass laws. Look at health records. HIPAA is rather successful at keeping your health data narrowly confined to those that need it. There is nothing that prevents similar laws to work for financial data, location data, etc. The only roadblock is people saying they “don’t personally think legislation is the answer”. Because there is literally nothing but law that can have an effect.
    - Spooky23 9y ago
      Good law is hard. HIPPA prevents gossip. That’s about it. The sales director for a drug manufacturer knows that you’ve filled a prescription before the claim is filed. Enfamil and Gerber knew the estimated due date of our baby — although the only interaction we had with anyone was a miscarriage at 8 weeks and a near fatal complication.
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
mattnewton 9y ago
People signed up to give it to Facebook, and whatever your views on that bargain, this wasn’t part of it.
stef25 9y ago
I guess if P&G uses the data to push me to buy some soap, it's less sinister than using that to influence an election. Commercial vs Political.
IAmEveryone 9y ago
This is simply not true: There is NO indication that Facebook ever allows data on specific users to flow from their platform to advertisers. Only apps have limited access to the data that you agree to share in the app install dialog. The article you linked does not even mention any of the companies.
thisisit 9y ago
>My problem with this 'outing' of CA is that Facebook explicitly commercially exists to harvest user data for Procter & Gamble, Johnson & Johnson, Fidelity etc etc so they can profile us. Not only conglomerates but anyone with the money and know-how. Example P&G proxy fight: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-procter-gamble-trian-investors/pg-peltz-vie-for-small-investor-votes-in-biggest-ever-proxy-fight-idUSKCN1C01CW https://www.reuters.com/article/us-procter-gamble-trian-inve... Neubecker said he has seen several ads on his Facebook feed that link to Trian’s “Revitalize P&G” website and to videos of Peltz and former P&G Chief Financial Officer Clayton Daley, who is advising Trian. The video of Peltz features him sitting in Trian’s Park Avenue, New York City headquarters, discussing P&G’s future, gripping a Trian-labeled coffee mug that reads “Sales up, expenses down.” In response, P&G has called upon more than a century of product marketing experience with its own “Vote Blue” campaign. One YouTube video begins with an image of P&G’s blue logo and a banner proclaiming “Every Single Vote Matters!”. A narrator and series of slick images offer step-by-step instructions, ending by asking viewers to vote for the blue proxy card and to throw Trian’s white card in the recycling bin. Trian won this fight.
- threeseed 9y ago
  Sorry what are you talking about ? Please provide some evidence that anyone with money and know how can harvest tens of millions of accounts from Facebook. Your example does not address this and seems just like normal Facebook targeting to me.
  - JPGalt 9y ago
    What? You can scrape that kind of data with a simply Python application...
    - threeseed 9y ago
      You are either lying or completely ignorant because this is not possible. The data that this app obtained was far deeper than what Google can crawl e.g. what a person liked.
  - 9y ago
mbostleman 9y ago
Agreed. This is marketing. The tone of the article makes it sound like some egregiously illegal scandal. The only wrongdoing is that one private entity breached the terms of service with another private entity. Innuendo.
- threeseed 9y ago
  You are being completely disingenuous here. 1. It is not normal marketing to have tens of millions of Facebook account data on your own private server. This isn't standard practice by any company large or small. Standard practice is to use Facebook's advertising system which does not reveal this data. 2. The wrongdoing wasn't just "breaching the terms of service" it was the transfer of account data from one party to another for the purposes of influencing an election. 3. It is not innuendo.
stevenwoo 9y ago
The thing about the relatively low cost of a million is that we know that many of the voters targeted by the Russians for influence on both sides were much cheaper than what your example commercial interests targeted for marketing services/products, so a million dollars on targeted campaign is much more effective than what that million dollars buys in a major media market TV ad equivalent or commercial Facebook targeted ad.
- olivermarks 9y ago
  For 'Russians' I would suggest individual oligarchs over the nation state. Semion Mogilevich rather than politicians...
  - threeseed 9y ago
    It's both. Very little goes on in Russia without the knowledge and/or support of Putin.
underwater 9y ago
There is a big difference between sharing data with companies, and allowing companies to specify as targeting rules. Facebook lets companies bid for ads to show you, based on Facebook’s data about your interests and demographics. If you never engage with the ads there is no information leakage. It’s the difference between telling a random person “I’ll tell my gay friends about your party” and “Did you know that Bob is dating Steve?”.
- wdr1 9y ago
  > Facebook lets companies bid for ads to show you, based on Facebook’s data about your interests and demographics. If you never engage with the ads there is no information leakage. That's not true.
  - threeseed 9y ago
    Please provide evidence then. I have never seen Facebook allowing large scale harvesting of their data. And it would qualify as data breaches in places like EU which do not tolerate this sort of thing.
    - OrganicMSG 9y ago
      Well, they may not officially permit it in public, however they clearly allow it, otherwise we wouldn't be here.
      - scotu 9y ago
        do you understand how this data ended up in CA's hands? Regular facebook app asked persmission to get data to it's users, one by one. It then retained the data and shared without facebook or their users permission (and against FB terms). Then facebook realized this data was shared, required CA to delete all of it. CA agreed. CA didn't delete. That's how we are here I'm no facebook fan by the way, but there's no reason for facebook to sell their most important asset when they can allow you to pay to use it, without ever seeing it
ur_all_autistic 9y ago
More HN whataboutism, surprise surprise.
JPGalt 9y ago
You won't get far in a blinding leftist arena if you go around spitting truth like this.
enraged_camel 9y ago
Please don't purposefully oversimplify things and engage in whataboutism in an effort to downplay their importance. You should read this: https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/mar/17/data-war-whistleblower-christopher-wylie-faceook-nix-bannon-trump https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/mar/17/data-war-whistl... Three particularly important points: The guy who was contracted by CA to steal the data is from Russia. He had previously undisclosed funding from the Russian government. CA later tried to do business from a Russian oligarch. Choice quote: "There are other dramatic documents in Wylie’s stash, including a pitch made by Cambridge Analytica to Lukoil, Russia’s second biggest oil producer. In an email dated 17 July 2014, about the US presidential primaries, Nix wrote to Wylie: “We have been asked to write a memo to Lukoil (the Russian oil and gas company) to explain to them how our services are going to apply to the petroleum business. Nix said that “they understand behavioural microtargeting in the context of elections” but that they were “failing to make the connection between voters and their consumers”. The work, he said, would be “shared with the CEO of the business”, a former Soviet oil minister and associate of Putin, Vagit Alekperov. “It didn’t make any sense to me,” says Wylie. “I didn’t understand either the email or the pitch presentation we did. Why would a Russian oil company want to target information on American voters?”"

rtx 9y ago

In recent years America seems to be very eager to compromise. First it did for security after 9/11 and now for right thought after Trump.

eecks 9y ago

> Facebook explicitly commercially exists to harvest user data for Procter & Gamble, Johnson & Johnson, Fidelity etc etc Sources on this?

olivermarks 9y ago
https://www.wsj.com/articles/p-g-to-scale-back-targeted-facebook-ads-1470760949 https://www.wsj.com/articles/p-g-to-scale-back-targeted-face... Not hard to find information, although it is typically couched as brand reach and advertising spots. The big data sales side of FB and other sites is more sensitive and less overt https://www.facebook.com/help/494750870625830?helpref=uf_permalink https://www.facebook.com/help/494750870625830?helpref=uf_per...
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- IAmEveryone 9y ago
  Your links do not support the idea of “harvest[ing] user data”. They describe the usual Facebook ad platform, where you can set criteria to target users. But nowhere does it mention data on individual users flowing from Facebook to advertisers.
  - olivermarks 9y ago
    from my original Bloomberg link in post about FB 'Politicians running for office can be lucrative ad buyers. For those who spend enough, Facebook offers customized services to help them build effective campaigns, the same way it would Unilever NV or Coca-Cola Co. ahead of a product launch. While Facebook declined to give the size of its politics unit, one executive said it can expand to include hundreds during the peak of an election, drawing in people from the company’s legal, information security and policy teams.' It is harder to find information about FB's data sales policies (which are very opaque unless you speak to people high up in marketing large companies and their activities). FB's ad platform information is pretty transparent, but the quarterly numbers don't really add up for me based on spend by large firms like Procter & Gamble etc in those areas...
    - IAmEveryone 9y ago
      > It is harder to find information about FB's data sales policies So you’re explicitly agreeing that you have no proof that Facebook is offering data for sale. The quote you cite has nothing to do with the initial assertion: providing consultants that teach people how to use the ad manager is something completely different than selling PII.
      - olivermarks 9y ago
        Obviously you won't be finding a FB webpage providing details of where to buy user data by the thousands as I tried to explain above. FB"s role working with and for the Trump campaign provides some insights Trump, Cambridge Analytica and how big data is reshaping politics - Gillian Tett in the FT https://www.ft.com/content/e66232e4-a30e-11e7-9e4f-7f5e6a7c98a2 https://www.ft.com/content/e66232e4-a30e-11e7-9e4f-7f5e6a7c9...
- joering2 9y ago
  The Facebook page you refer to is interesting. At the bottom it says to reach out to https://aboutthedata.com/ https://aboutthedata.com/ to see what data they have on you. So I did. Then I scroll down to see "See and Edit Marketing Data about You. CLICK HERE" only to be redirected to a registration page that requires my US-based address and last 4 of SSN. Talking about misled communication, or rather blunt deception, otherwise how the heck "click here to see data about you" lands me on registration page? I don't want to register, I want to see the data!
- nl 9y ago
  This simply isn’t true. I’ve spent lots of time and money getting data out of FB. You can pay to get anonymized topic data via DataSift and others, you can pay to run ads against users you have email addresses for (but you don’t get their data) or you can scrape (which is against the terms of service and they have an aggressive anti bot system to stop it - unlike Twitter). Their political support systems are analytics support to ad buying.

ChicagoDave 9y ago

I could see a constitutional amendment barring psycho-graphic profiling from election advertising and intent. Not sure how it could be enforced because this is very technical. Even so, there is a significant difference between Coke trying to sell me a flavored soft drink and a firm tweaking my emotions to get me to abstain from voting with false information or to vote against my best interests with false information. There are definitely people who are susceptible to psycho-graphic warfare and we need to protect them in order to protect our democracy.

r00fus 9y ago
You do it by making the activity costly. Mandatory opt-out for any persistence of data. Require regular re-enrollments for anyone who opted in.
- olivermarks 9y ago
  European GDPR is going to help a lot when it kicks in this May
chibg10 9y ago
I don't think "false information" is the kicker here. Taking a cursory glance at Breitbart and Fox News, there isn't that much that is patently false. Furthermore, my observations of how propaganda works in general is that it doesn't usually rely information that is technically false. It relies on selective distribution of information, editorial spin, and other more subtle methods. This makes "enforcement" basically impossible because you can't have a news outlet without editorial decisions. A better way to go about it would be to try incentivize media outlets to make a good faith effort at "both sides" journalism, but members of both political sides have been attacking the media for doing just that since the 2016 election season.
- threeseed 9y ago
  > Taking a cursory glance at Breitbart and Fox News, there isn't that much that is patently false. Don't you think it would be better for you to take more than a cursory glance before commenting ? Breitbart has had significant issues with fake news over its lifetime. Far more egregious and consistent than other any other news organisation not that I would necessarily call it one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breitbart_News#Notable_stories https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breitbart_News#Notable_stories

doubt_me 9y ago

1. It's not an "outing". 2. Johnson & Johnson doesn't work for Putin. 3. United States elections aren't crazy. Entire parties of Congress being blackmailed into submission by foreign influence is crazy. 4. It's not overly selective. 5. I hope it has an extreme political bias. 6. Facebook commercially exists because the United States has shit privacy laws. 7. How much did Putin pay you to gas light articles? 8. A million dollars is still a million dollars. 9. Let's not forget about that one time you tried to comment on HN to down play this article. When in fact I couldnt be happier to see this.

dang 9y ago
> How much did Putin pay you to gas light articles? That is an egregious violation of the guidelines and a bannable offense on HN. If the rest of the internet is losing its mind, that makes following HN's rules more important, not less. > Let's not forget about that one time you This also crosses into personal attack, which is not ok. Heated political arguments are bad enough without users trying to take each other out like this. Please don't do it on HN, regardless of how strongly you disagree. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Edit: your account history unfortunately contains many examples of personal abuse. You've also broken the guideline against using HN primarily for political or ideological battle. We ban accounts that do these things, so would you please re-read the guidelines and use HN as intended from now on?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- mistermann 9y ago
  Something I have been noticing for quite some time now is an increasing tendency for people to seemingly believe they can read other people's minds &/or the future, or that they somehow have an omniscient insight into the world. You might expect this on Facebook or Reddit, and I know this will not please most people here, but it is becoming rather common on HN as well. To those of you who disagree with me, keep this idea in the back of your mind for a while and remember it as you read comments. Make a serious effort to notice how many people know what other people's motives are for their beliefs, how they know the real reason for certain policy decisions, how they know what Putin or Trump are thinking and what they are going to do in the future, how they know China is going to fail now that they've gone full-on communist dictatorship (because history "guarantees" it), etc. I honestly don't think I am imagining this, I think something very historically significant is happening to the psychology of the public.

mrtksn 9y ago

>This all seems overly selective - it's ok for some people to profile but not for others What's the issue here? Selective information distribution is rooted in the society, people are O.K. with some information to be known to some people while kept secret from others due to implication differences. I.E. I'm fine to be profiled for selling me chocolates but I'm not O.K. to be profiled to be manipulated to select public officials or to make my mind about controversial topics like the god, abortions, guns etc. I expect to be exposed in a proper way to these topics, i.e. proper journalism and discussions.

jsmthrowaway 9y ago
Sadly, the downside of the consumer data culture in which we live is that you don’t really get to make that call. It seems like data is really an all or nothing game at this point, regardless of how society feels about it. Not sure how to change that, either, and I don’t personally think legislation is the answer.
- matt4077 9y ago
  It’s really easy: you pass laws. Look at health records. HIPAA is rather successful at keeping your health data narrowly confined to those that need it. There is nothing that prevents similar laws to work for financial data, location data, etc. The only roadblock is people saying they “don’t personally think legislation is the answer”. Because there is literally nothing but law that can have an effect.
  - Spooky23 9y ago
    Good law is hard. HIPPA prevents gossip. That’s about it. The sales director for a drug manufacturer knows that you’ve filled a prescription before the claim is filed. Enfamil and Gerber knew the estimated due date of our baby — although the only interaction we had with anyone was a miscarriage at 8 weeks and a near fatal complication.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]

mattnewton 9y ago

People signed up to give it to Facebook, and whatever your views on that bargain, this wasn’t part of it.

stef25 9y ago

I guess if P&G uses the data to push me to buy some soap, it's less sinister than using that to influence an election. Commercial vs Political.

IAmEveryone 9y ago

This is simply not true: There is NO indication that Facebook ever allows data on specific users to flow from their platform to advertisers. Only apps have limited access to the data that you agree to share in the app install dialog. The article you linked does not even mention any of the companies.

thisisit 9y ago

>My problem with this 'outing' of CA is that Facebook explicitly commercially exists to harvest user data for Procter & Gamble, Johnson & Johnson, Fidelity etc etc so they can profile us. Not only conglomerates but anyone with the money and know-how. Example P&G proxy fight: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-procter-gamble-trian-investors/pg-peltz-vie-for-small-investor-votes-in-biggest-ever-proxy-fight-idUSKCN1C01CW https://www.reuters.com/article/us-procter-gamble-trian-inve... Neubecker said he has seen several ads on his Facebook feed that link to Trian’s “Revitalize P&G” website and to videos of Peltz and former P&G Chief Financial Officer Clayton Daley, who is advising Trian. The video of Peltz features him sitting in Trian’s Park Avenue, New York City headquarters, discussing P&G’s future, gripping a Trian-labeled coffee mug that reads “Sales up, expenses down.” In response, P&G has called upon more than a century of product marketing experience with its own “Vote Blue” campaign. One YouTube video begins with an image of P&G’s blue logo and a banner proclaiming “Every Single Vote Matters!”. A narrator and series of slick images offer step-by-step instructions, ending by asking viewers to vote for the blue proxy card and to throw Trian’s white card in the recycling bin. Trian won this fight.

threeseed 9y ago
Sorry what are you talking about ? Please provide some evidence that anyone with money and know how can harvest tens of millions of accounts from Facebook. Your example does not address this and seems just like normal Facebook targeting to me.
- JPGalt 9y ago
  What? You can scrape that kind of data with a simply Python application...
  - threeseed 9y ago
    You are either lying or completely ignorant because this is not possible. The data that this app obtained was far deeper than what Google can crawl e.g. what a person liked.
- 9y ago

mbostleman 9y ago

Agreed. This is marketing. The tone of the article makes it sound like some egregiously illegal scandal. The only wrongdoing is that one private entity breached the terms of service with another private entity. Innuendo.

threeseed 9y ago
You are being completely disingenuous here. 1. It is not normal marketing to have tens of millions of Facebook account data on your own private server. This isn't standard practice by any company large or small. Standard practice is to use Facebook's advertising system which does not reveal this data. 2. The wrongdoing wasn't just "breaching the terms of service" it was the transfer of account data from one party to another for the purposes of influencing an election. 3. It is not innuendo.

stevenwoo 9y ago

The thing about the relatively low cost of a million is that we know that many of the voters targeted by the Russians for influence on both sides were much cheaper than what your example commercial interests targeted for marketing services/products, so a million dollars on targeted campaign is much more effective than what that million dollars buys in a major media market TV ad equivalent or commercial Facebook targeted ad.

olivermarks 9y ago
For 'Russians' I would suggest individual oligarchs over the nation state. Semion Mogilevich rather than politicians...
- threeseed 9y ago
  It's both. Very little goes on in Russia without the knowledge and/or support of Putin.

underwater 9y ago

There is a big difference between sharing data with companies, and allowing companies to specify as targeting rules. Facebook lets companies bid for ads to show you, based on Facebook’s data about your interests and demographics. If you never engage with the ads there is no information leakage. It’s the difference between telling a random person “I’ll tell my gay friends about your party” and “Did you know that Bob is dating Steve?”.

wdr1 9y ago
> Facebook lets companies bid for ads to show you, based on Facebook’s data about your interests and demographics. If you never engage with the ads there is no information leakage. That's not true.
- threeseed 9y ago
  Please provide evidence then. I have never seen Facebook allowing large scale harvesting of their data. And it would qualify as data breaches in places like EU which do not tolerate this sort of thing.
  - OrganicMSG 9y ago
    Well, they may not officially permit it in public, however they clearly allow it, otherwise we wouldn't be here.
    - scotu 9y ago
      do you understand how this data ended up in CA's hands? Regular facebook app asked persmission to get data to it's users, one by one. It then retained the data and shared without facebook or their users permission (and against FB terms). Then facebook realized this data was shared, required CA to delete all of it. CA agreed. CA didn't delete. That's how we are here I'm no facebook fan by the way, but there's no reason for facebook to sell their most important asset when they can allow you to pay to use it, without ever seeing it

ur_all_autistic 9y ago

More HN whataboutism, surprise surprise.

JPGalt 9y ago

You won't get far in a blinding leftist arena if you go around spitting truth like this.

enraged_camel 9y ago

Please don't purposefully oversimplify things and engage in whataboutism in an effort to downplay their importance. You should read this: https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/mar/17/data-war-whistleblower-christopher-wylie-faceook-nix-bannon-trump https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/mar/17/data-war-whistl... Three particularly important points: The guy who was contracted by CA to steal the data is from Russia. He had previously undisclosed funding from the Russian government. CA later tried to do business from a Russian oligarch. Choice quote: "There are other dramatic documents in Wylie’s stash, including a pitch made by Cambridge Analytica to Lukoil, Russia’s second biggest oil producer. In an email dated 17 July 2014, about the US presidential primaries, Nix wrote to Wylie: “We have been asked to write a memo to Lukoil (the Russian oil and gas company) to explain to them how our services are going to apply to the petroleum business. Nix said that “they understand behavioural microtargeting in the context of elections” but that they were “failing to make the connection between voters and their consumers”. The work, he said, would be “shared with the CEO of the business”, a former Soviet oil minister and associate of Putin, Vagit Alekperov. “It didn’t make any sense to me,” says Wylie. “I didn’t understand either the email or the pitch presentation we did. Why would a Russian oil company want to target information on American voters?”"