12 ms·

Because the "breaches" and "abuses" aren't breaches or abuses, it's Facebook's business model working as intended.

by fooey 9y ago

gowld 9y ago
How? Facebook doesn't get paid when app-developers access users, do they? Wouldn't facebook make more money if CA was forced to go through FB's ad-targeting systems instead of CA's own offsite ad campaigns?
- drchiu 9y ago
  CA may have created retargetting lists and segmented users out to create target lists and lookalike audiences.
- dictum 9y ago
  This doesn't answer your question specifically, but there's the possibility that FB wanted a heated political environment inside its platform so it could sell more ads for all parties involved in the race, keep people engaging with the platform, etc.
  - TAForObvReasons 9y ago
    Everyone wanted a different outcome. All of the monies accepted by NRA and other right wing organizations would not have been investigated if Clinton won in 2016. Trump would have averted the whole issue of finances and set himself up to create a new right-wing media organization. Chaffetz and other politicians admitted they had "years of material" on Benghazi with which they could hound Clinton. All of the potential money laundering operations through the RNC would have gone unnoticed. Facebook would have enjoyed years of elevated activity with political arguments. But because of how things played out, we slowly became more introspective and started questioning. Scandals involving sexual impropriety with actors, culminating in the #metoo movement, is part of this introspection. And there will be increased scrutiny in social media and its role in enabling the current situation.
- nl 9y ago
  That's one of the reasons this behavior has been banned since 2014.
daodedickinson 9y ago
Exactly, and sites like Reddit make money on the same sort of thing. It wasn't controversial when Facebook and Google became arms of the Obama and then Clinton campaigns, but now more people are turning on Facebook after learning that their info was sold to the Trump campaign and companies and so on through companies like CA.
- jstalin 9y ago
  Who remembers how the Obama campaign's social media analytics and strategy were breathlessly praised?
  - karmelapple 9y ago
    Is there a difference in the means and ends? I don’t think we have fully enough information yet, but if a political campaign is using analytics to clearly advertise their campaign, fine, that’s being straightforward. If a political campaign is posting in ways that do not clearly label it as a political campaign, and is lying to people viewing the data it is paying to show, would you agree that’s kind of a different situation? There’s not enough information yet I think to claim what was shown, but if political campaigns are not labeling their ads clearly, that is in violation of a variety of state - and some federal - laws.
    - specialist 9y ago
      The cognitive ability to be aghast over false equivalencies continues to amaze me. Also, rationalizing cheating, because they're certain everyone's doing do it, so it's only proper when the better cheater wins.
  - cratermoon 9y ago
    https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/whataboutism https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/whataboutism
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
jstalin 9y ago
Exactly this. This is not a one-off. This is exactly what Facebook exists to do.
taytus 9y ago
Ding ding ding ding!
RpFLCL 9y ago
This fact has me more confused than anything. What did most people think Facebook was doing... Keeping all the data locked away an never letting anyone make use of it? The interest in that data by political entities should have been especially obvious. Additionally, this information about Cambridge Analytica came out months ago. I remember first hearing about it on a podcast that was mostly focused on the personality profiles. [1?] However, it was open about CA optaining the data via the survey. (I'll provide a link as soon as I dig it up again). Suddenly, months later, this story is exploding in media and political rhetoric. It makes me wonder if this isn't more about a concerted effort to force regulations to give someone control over these platforms? After seeing what happened in the 2016 elections around the world, I'd imagine many people became interested in ensuring social media would work for them next time around. [1] https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/wnyc/note-to-self/e/52312529 https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/wnyc/note-to-self/e/5231252... (not -the- podcast I was trying to find, but still has the info as far back as November)
- jnbiche 9y ago
  > Additionally, this information about Cambridge Analytica came out months ago. No, there's new Cambridge Analytica information, as of today: https://www.channel4.com/news/cambridge-analytica-revealed-trumps-election-consultants-filmed-saying-they-use-bribes-and-sex-workers-to-entrap-politicians-investigation https://www.channel4.com/news/cambridge-analytica-revealed-t...
- munk-a 9y ago
  Because I still have Al Gore's voice in my head. I assumed they took this data and put it in a "Lock-box". You see, we need to take it all in and put it in a "Lock-box".
  - mhneu 9y ago
    I'd be happy if we made it easier for gov't to buy stuff like ashtrays.
- TAForObvReasons 9y ago
  I think culturally we've accepted that political propaganda is different from run-of-the-mill corporate advertisement. Even the words we use are different: few people would call a TV spot "propaganda", even though both seek to influence people to act in a certain way. People understand and accept the concept and execution of advertisement. Propaganda is not received in the same way.
JumpCrisscross 9y ago
> Because the "breaches" and "abuses" aren't breaches or abuses, it's Facebook's business model working as intended One's market value doesn't crash by tens of billions when investors learn everything is going as intended. This is a side effect of Facebook's business model which Facebook ignored. Chickens are coming home to roost.
- s2g 9y ago
  It does when "people finally caught on" is the reason.
rtpg 9y ago
I get that this is most definitely the likely side effect of a business model of collecting info. There's still the fact that FB _did_ close off the info that CA was holding onto, and they saw it as something they no longer want to offer to its ad clients. The simplest explanation is that FB is trying to do damage control for being way too liberal about its data sharing in the past, because it will generate more scrutiny for their present policies (even if they are "better" than before). Even if they're improving, many might not think they've improved enough.
zilchers 9y ago
But that’s sort of my issue, this is Mark Zuckerburg and Cheryl Sandburg, engaged, liberal leaning (to my knowledge) individuals, you’d think regardless of the business model, they would be taking extreme steps to understand Facebook’s role in all this, not ostriching....
ineedasername 9y ago
This is exactly my thought. Being able to see detailed data about "friends" of the person who opted in, when the friend did not opt in with a "but don't use it" caveat, smacks of a :wink: :wink: and :nudge: :nudge: letting facebook sell data without permission after painting a thin veneer of deniability over it.
sounds 9y ago
“The people whose job is to protect the user always are fighting an uphill battle against the people whose job is to make money for the company,” said Sandy Parakilas Just a shout out to all you who might be at a company like this. If your company hasn't figured out user privacy yet (Facebook hasn't), you might want to look for the exit. If your company treats you badly, look for the exit. If your company treats you like you are expendable, you are. If your company treats users like they are replaceable, they are - and when they have burned out all the users, the company will catch fire and sink.
- drewmol 9y ago
  Also, if your company treats what many (probably not most on here) people would consider to be private details of your employment contract financials like an asset to be sold/ another piece of data to monitize... send a GDPR type request to HR. Then look for exit. Or just treat them similarly, and discretely monitize every piece of information you've gained from the relationship that they would expect, but not mandate, you to keep quite about. If you are not aware, here's where most of your Equifax data that's been leaked online comes from, send in a request: https://www.theworknumber.com/Employees/DataReport/ https://www.theworknumber.com/Employees/DataReport/ You can confirm employer participation--> Login--> Find Employer Code if someone wants to scrape the DB list.
daddosi 9y ago
Or even more generic: this is every advertisement platform's business model. They just perfected it. Who knows, if it gets any worse, we might finally be convinced to pay for our things.

Because the "breaches" and "abuses" aren't breaches or abuses, it's Facebook's business model working as intended.

by fooey 9y ago

Because the "breaches" and "abuses" aren't breaches or abuses, it's Facebook's business model working as intended.

How? Facebook doesn't get paid when app-developers access users, do they? Wouldn't facebook make more money if CA was forced to go through FB's ad-targeting systems instead of CA's own offsite ad campaigns?

drchiu 9y ago
CA may have created retargetting lists and segmented users out to create target lists and lookalike audiences.
dictum 9y ago
This doesn't answer your question specifically, but there's the possibility that FB wanted a heated political environment inside its platform so it could sell more ads for all parties involved in the race, keep people engaging with the platform, etc.
- TAForObvReasons 9y ago
  Everyone wanted a different outcome. All of the monies accepted by NRA and other right wing organizations would not have been investigated if Clinton won in 2016. Trump would have averted the whole issue of finances and set himself up to create a new right-wing media organization. Chaffetz and other politicians admitted they had "years of material" on Benghazi with which they could hound Clinton. All of the potential money laundering operations through the RNC would have gone unnoticed. Facebook would have enjoyed years of elevated activity with political arguments. But because of how things played out, we slowly became more introspective and started questioning. Scandals involving sexual impropriety with actors, culminating in the #metoo movement, is part of this introspection. And there will be increased scrutiny in social media and its role in enabling the current situation.
nl 9y ago
That's one of the reasons this behavior has been banned since 2014.

daodedickinson 9y ago

Exactly, and sites like Reddit make money on the same sort of thing. It wasn't controversial when Facebook and Google became arms of the Obama and then Clinton campaigns, but now more people are turning on Facebook after learning that their info was sold to the Trump campaign and companies and so on through companies like CA.

jstalin 9y ago
Who remembers how the Obama campaign's social media analytics and strategy were breathlessly praised?
- karmelapple 9y ago
  Is there a difference in the means and ends? I don’t think we have fully enough information yet, but if a political campaign is using analytics to clearly advertise their campaign, fine, that’s being straightforward. If a political campaign is posting in ways that do not clearly label it as a political campaign, and is lying to people viewing the data it is paying to show, would you agree that’s kind of a different situation? There’s not enough information yet I think to claim what was shown, but if political campaigns are not labeling their ads clearly, that is in violation of a variety of state - and some federal - laws.
  - specialist 9y ago
    The cognitive ability to be aghast over false equivalencies continues to amaze me. Also, rationalizing cheating, because they're certain everyone's doing do it, so it's only proper when the better cheater wins.
- cratermoon 9y ago
  https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/whataboutism https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/whataboutism
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]

jstalin 9y ago

Exactly this. This is not a one-off. This is exactly what Facebook exists to do.

taytus 9y ago

Ding ding ding ding!

RpFLCL 9y ago

This fact has me more confused than anything. What did most people think Facebook was doing... Keeping all the data locked away an never letting anyone make use of it? The interest in that data by political entities should have been especially obvious. Additionally, this information about Cambridge Analytica came out months ago. I remember first hearing about it on a podcast that was mostly focused on the personality profiles. [1?] However, it was open about CA optaining the data via the survey. (I'll provide a link as soon as I dig it up again). Suddenly, months later, this story is exploding in media and political rhetoric. It makes me wonder if this isn't more about a concerted effort to force regulations to give someone control over these platforms? After seeing what happened in the 2016 elections around the world, I'd imagine many people became interested in ensuring social media would work for them next time around. [1] https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/wnyc/note-to-self/e/52312529 https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/wnyc/note-to-self/e/5231252... (not -the- podcast I was trying to find, but still has the info as far back as November)

jnbiche 9y ago
> Additionally, this information about Cambridge Analytica came out months ago. No, there's new Cambridge Analytica information, as of today: https://www.channel4.com/news/cambridge-analytica-revealed-trumps-election-consultants-filmed-saying-they-use-bribes-and-sex-workers-to-entrap-politicians-investigation https://www.channel4.com/news/cambridge-analytica-revealed-t...
munk-a 9y ago
Because I still have Al Gore's voice in my head. I assumed they took this data and put it in a "Lock-box". You see, we need to take it all in and put it in a "Lock-box".
- mhneu 9y ago
  I'd be happy if we made it easier for gov't to buy stuff like ashtrays.
TAForObvReasons 9y ago
I think culturally we've accepted that political propaganda is different from run-of-the-mill corporate advertisement. Even the words we use are different: few people would call a TV spot "propaganda", even though both seek to influence people to act in a certain way. People understand and accept the concept and execution of advertisement. Propaganda is not received in the same way.

JumpCrisscross 9y ago

> Because the "breaches" and "abuses" aren't breaches or abuses, it's Facebook's business model working as intended One's market value doesn't crash by tens of billions when investors learn everything is going as intended. This is a side effect of Facebook's business model which Facebook ignored. Chickens are coming home to roost.

s2g 9y ago
It does when "people finally caught on" is the reason.

rtpg 9y ago

I get that this is most definitely the likely side effect of a business model of collecting info. There's still the fact that FB _did_ close off the info that CA was holding onto, and they saw it as something they no longer want to offer to its ad clients. The simplest explanation is that FB is trying to do damage control for being way too liberal about its data sharing in the past, because it will generate more scrutiny for their present policies (even if they are "better" than before). Even if they're improving, many might not think they've improved enough.

zilchers 9y ago

But that’s sort of my issue, this is Mark Zuckerburg and Cheryl Sandburg, engaged, liberal leaning (to my knowledge) individuals, you’d think regardless of the business model, they would be taking extreme steps to understand Facebook’s role in all this, not ostriching....

ineedasername 9y ago

This is exactly my thought. Being able to see detailed data about "friends" of the person who opted in, when the friend did not opt in with a "but don't use it" caveat, smacks of a :wink: :wink: and :nudge: :nudge: letting facebook sell data without permission after painting a thin veneer of deniability over it.

sounds 9y ago

“The people whose job is to protect the user always are fighting an uphill battle against the people whose job is to make money for the company,” said Sandy Parakilas Just a shout out to all you who might be at a company like this. If your company hasn't figured out user privacy yet (Facebook hasn't), you might want to look for the exit. If your company treats you badly, look for the exit. If your company treats you like you are expendable, you are. If your company treats users like they are replaceable, they are - and when they have burned out all the users, the company will catch fire and sink.

drewmol 9y ago
Also, if your company treats what many (probably not most on here) people would consider to be private details of your employment contract financials like an asset to be sold/ another piece of data to monitize... send a GDPR type request to HR. Then look for exit. Or just treat them similarly, and discretely monitize every piece of information you've gained from the relationship that they would expect, but not mandate, you to keep quite about. If you are not aware, here's where most of your Equifax data that's been leaked online comes from, send in a request: https://www.theworknumber.com/Employees/DataReport/ https://www.theworknumber.com/Employees/DataReport/ You can confirm employer participation--> Login--> Find Employer Code if someone wants to scrape the DB list.

daddosi 9y ago

Or even more generic: this is every advertisement platform's business model. They just perfected it. Who knows, if it gets any worse, we might finally be convinced to pay for our things.