4 ms·

There definitely is... That's the whole point of Facebook's Senate hearing. If it stays within company and can't be used by directly by third parties for their

by matlin 9y ago

There definitely is... That's the whole point of Facebook's Senate hearing. If it stays within company and can't be used by directly by third parties for their own agendas like influencing elections. I 100% think that we should be weary of over centralized information but we are talking about two very different scenarios: even a small social network with relatively little information can be very dangerous if it leaks personal data.

jacquesm 9y ago
Please stop spreading factually wrong information, especially on a subject as important as this one. Maybe research the material for a bit? The best place to start is doubleclick and their profiling options as well as the RTB spec. That will give you a pretty shocking (if I understand the level to which you are still in the dark correctly) insight into what kind of data is freely shared between ad tech companies amongst each other and their customers (agencies, advertisers).
- matlin 9y ago
  I understand that you are angry about the Cambridge Analytica revelations, I am too. But I am not spreading misinformation, I am participating in a discussion. I have repeatedly try to communicate that I am not talking about targeted advertising. In the senate hearing, the counsel is honing on some important points. What is the alternative to Facebook (i.e. a real competitor)? What information is Facebook gathering on non-users? What is Facebook doing to shield users' from the outside world? How much metadata is Facebook gathering/surmising outside of a user's direct input? These are way bigger questions than does Facebook allow Advertisers to target you based on certain demographics (a similar but different debate). Google is poised to abuse / misuse personal data in the same way but regulating and persecuting are very different processes and should not be conflated in these discussions. I simply want to draw those distinctions between Google and Facebook.
  - jacquesm 9y ago
    It's all targeted advertising so if you want to make the case that outside of targeted advertising Google is squeaky clean then you're welcome to that but it's a rather narrow definition for what arguably is the largest advertising company in the world. They exist because of and for targeted advertising, everything else is just a means of getting there.
ocdtrekkie 9y ago
You do realize that Google has it's own reasons for wanting to influence elections, right? They operate their own PAC and spend millions of dollars donating to political candidates and lobbyist groups. "Within company" is a meaningless distinction. It requires the assumption that Facebook or Google themselves are trustworthy, and smaller companies are not. But the big players themselves, are in fact, not trustworthy. So whether or not they sell the data or abuse it in-house is pretty much irrelevant.
- matlin 9y ago
  Obviously but you're missing the main focus which is privacy and responsibility of holding personal data. It's not about whether Facebook is more or less trustworthy than Google--I think we should be very wary of both. All I'm saying is when you give your data to a company it should stay within those walls and be clear how is used. It's one thing if Facebook or Google is influencing elections (which every major corporation tries to do with money, power, and/or information) it's about allowing third parties to abuse that power indiscriminately which Facebook did and Google did not.

by matlin 9y ago

jacquesm 9y ago

Please stop spreading factually wrong information, especially on a subject as important as this one. Maybe research the material for a bit? The best place to start is doubleclick and their profiling options as well as the RTB spec. That will give you a pretty shocking (if I understand the level to which you are still in the dark correctly) insight into what kind of data is freely shared between ad tech companies amongst each other and their customers (agencies, advertisers).

matlin 9y ago
I understand that you are angry about the Cambridge Analytica revelations, I am too. But I am not spreading misinformation, I am participating in a discussion. I have repeatedly try to communicate that I am not talking about targeted advertising. In the senate hearing, the counsel is honing on some important points. What is the alternative to Facebook (i.e. a real competitor)? What information is Facebook gathering on non-users? What is Facebook doing to shield users' from the outside world? How much metadata is Facebook gathering/surmising outside of a user's direct input? These are way bigger questions than does Facebook allow Advertisers to target you based on certain demographics (a similar but different debate). Google is poised to abuse / misuse personal data in the same way but regulating and persecuting are very different processes and should not be conflated in these discussions. I simply want to draw those distinctions between Google and Facebook.
- jacquesm 9y ago
  It's all targeted advertising so if you want to make the case that outside of targeted advertising Google is squeaky clean then you're welcome to that but it's a rather narrow definition for what arguably is the largest advertising company in the world. They exist because of and for targeted advertising, everything else is just a means of getting there.

ocdtrekkie 9y ago

You do realize that Google has it's own reasons for wanting to influence elections, right? They operate their own PAC and spend millions of dollars donating to political candidates and lobbyist groups. "Within company" is a meaningless distinction. It requires the assumption that Facebook or Google themselves are trustworthy, and smaller companies are not. But the big players themselves, are in fact, not trustworthy. So whether or not they sell the data or abuse it in-house is pretty much irrelevant.

matlin 9y ago
Obviously but you're missing the main focus which is privacy and responsibility of holding personal data. It's not about whether Facebook is more or less trustworthy than Google--I think we should be very wary of both. All I'm saying is when you give your data to a company it should stay within those walls and be clear how is used. It's one thing if Facebook or Google is influencing elections (which every major corporation tries to do with money, power, and/or information) it's about allowing third parties to abuse that power indiscriminately which Facebook did and Google did not.