7 ms·

> Sharing or not sharing data with another app is likewise not an unusual decision. FB is not a public utility - they can not work with other apps for any reaso

> Sharing or not sharing data with another app is likewise not an unusual decision. FB is not a public utility - they can not work with other apps for any reason, or no reason at all. And this is a particularly ironic thing to point out, considering that the main thrust is complaining that they _did_ share data with other apps. So it's bad if they do share data, but also bad if they don't? To me, this would be Facebook taking advantage of their stronghold on the market to continue to dominate the market. Let's remember this is not Facebook's data, this is their users' data. It should be up to the User who they can share their data with, but they weren't given the choice to use their data with an app because Facebook decided they didn't like the way the other business competes with them in some aspect or how they aren't making money out of the third party app. An example is Facebook won't grant Influencer Marketing Companies access to their API even though the user (The Influencer) wants them to have the data so they can get paid based on the views, shares, comments, and likes of the posts they've been contracted for. User has a legit desire to share that data to the point where they will take screenshots, GDPR deletions, etc to fulfil the need for that data to be shared. Facebook's reason for not allowing them access is simple, they don't make any money out of the deal. So if they refuse to allow you to share your data with people you want to share it with, that is bad. Sharing your data with companies you don't want to share with is also bad.

ddalex 8y ago
> is not Facebook's data Look at the T&Cs sometime. Once you upload something, it's theirs. Once they sniff something off your phone, it's theirs. Once you look at something in another tab while FB is open, it's theirs.
- NeedMoreTea 8y ago
  GDPR, and even the former 1998 Data Protection Act disagrees. Ts&Cs can't override statute. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Protection_Act_1998#Data_protection_principles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Protection_Act_1998#Data_...
  - RhodesianHunter 8y ago
    My understanding is that gdpr still doesn't say that it's your data and not Facebook's, it just gives you certain rights to that data such as the right to have it deleted.
    - Angostura 8y ago
      Facebook is the Data Controller, not the owner of the data
  - elliekelly 8y ago
    I’m pretty sure Facebook has made a substantial investment in structuring their data flow & server locations with the specific intention of avoiding the reach/responsibilities of GDPR.
    - JumpCrisscross 8y ago
      > I’m pretty sure Facebook has made a substantial investment in...avoiding the reach/responsibilities of GDPR Because they’ve been so careful about following other laws?
    - johnnyfaehell 8y ago
      Yes, and during so actually broke the law and didn't succeed either.
- anticensor 8y ago
  > Once you upload something, it's theirs. Once they sniff something off your phone, it's theirs. Once you look at something in another tab while FB is open, it's theirs. According to Facebook TOS, you own the data but grant them an open-ended licence to use said data.
  - wbl 8y ago
    Ownership is a fuzzy word. Are we talking copyright? What do I sell if I sell you data?
- TheForumTroll 8y ago
  You cannot sign your rights away in a T&C so what it says is unimportant.
ysavir 8y ago
I agree with your point overall, but we need to recognize here that the problem isn't Facebook being selective, it's Facebook being a monopoly.
- dmix 8y ago
  Selectively using business intelligence data is what makes a company a 'monopoly' these days?
  - chmod775 8y ago
    I suggest re-reading your parent comment because that's not what was said at all.
ryanwaggoner 8y ago
Facebook won't grant Influencer Marketing Companies access to their API even though the user (The Influencer) wants them to have the data so they can get paid based on the views, shares, comments, and likes of the posts they've been contracted for. User has a legit desire to share that data to the point where they will take screenshots, GDPR deletions, etc to fulfil the need for that data to be shared. Facebook's reason for not allowing them access is simple, they don't make any money out of the deal. This seems so ludicrously backwards to me. How is my decision to upload my data to Facebook a meaningful claim that they should run their platform in a particular way for my convenience, even if there's no business justification? Allow me a tortured metaphor :) Imagine you own a very popular art museum and you let any artist display their work there for free. Visiting requires a free membership, but visitors must apply for it. Competing museums and galleries are always trying to get a membership so they can come through and scope out which artists are most popular and then woo them away. You reject those memberships. How on earth is this unfair to anyone? Now, letting those competing museums in is obviously better for the artist, but does that give them any right to demand it? You're providing this space for them for free! You're providing a huge audience to them, for free! What possible justification do they have for demanding that you let your competition come strolling through and hurt your business just so it'll make their life a little better? If you don't like it, you can pull your work from the museum at any time. So many of the critiques of companies like Facebook and Apple come down to people wanting all the benefits that these platforms provide, but without any terms, inconvenience, restrictions, or tradeoffs. Ridiculous.
- Calloggs 8y ago
  Your metaphor is good, but misses the part where this art museum has either bought or forced downsizing/closure on all other competitive museums. That forces artists to choose this museum or one that it owns if they want any recognition/income from the work they do (this museum certainly isn't paying them for the work).
  - ryanwaggoner 8y ago
    That would be a fair concern if it were true. But Facebook is hardly the only way to build an audience. What about Twitter, or Snapchat, or just building and hosting your own site and using Facebook as just another promotion channel?
manfredo 8y ago
> Let's remember this is not Facebook's data, this is their users' data. No, it's not - short of a change in law it is Facebook's data. Facebook collected, maintained , and analyzed the data. It's their data, the fact that their users allowed Facebook to collect it does not change that fact. GDPR allows users to view the data Facebook collected about them. If users want manually request their data from Facebook and provide it to competing apps they can. But this is the user's prerogative, not Facebook's.
- ryanwaggoner 8y ago
  Seriously, it's mind-blowing to me that people can't make this distinction. I should be able to ask the library for a record of the books I've checked out. But that doesn't imply that they should hand those records out to whoever wants them, or that they need to make them available for anyone but me, even if I think it'd be more convenient for someone else to pick them up for me.
- johnnyfaehell 8y ago
  > If users want manually request their data from Facebook and provide it to competing apps they can. Actually, for a lot of it they can't. The GDPR downloads are incomplete and are missing lots of data like many other GDPR downloads. And in some cases these aren't competing, they just aren't making Facebook money so Facebook denies them access and tells them what they need to do to add Facebook to process so they can get access. And if I can tell Facebook to delete something and they have to do it, they do not own it. Facebook are not in control of the data, they have access to it, but they can't share it without permission, they can't sell it without permission, they can't do alot of things. This, to me, means they do not own the data.
  - manfredo 8y ago
    The requirement to make GDPR downloads available was never well thought out. For instance, say you requested a log of your Facebook chat logs. Should Facebook provide this without redaction of the recipients' identities? I'd say no, providing this data without that redaction is a violation of the recipients' privacy. Especially for a service that is all about networking and sharing, it's difficult to walk the line between giving the user the data they requested, and respecting the privacy of other users. The ability to tell Facebook to delete your data does not grant you ownership of that data. You do not have the right to tell Facebook to let some 3rd party to access it using Facebook's infrastructure (which seemed to be the claim made by the original comment I responded to). The fact that the government forces companies to abide by certain regulations does not mean that the company is not the owner of the things that are regulated. A company might have it's interview records audited to investigate discrimination. Does that mean the company does not actually own or possess these interview records?
breischl 8y ago
Even if it was the User's data and not FB's (which is argued downthread a bit...) there's nothing that requires Facebook to make it accessible to other companies. There is real cost in creating an API, running it, managing it, etc. One could also argue that the User already has all their own data, they just didn't collect it very well. So really they're trying to use FB as their data collection platform - which FB is free to do or not, as they choose.
nradov 8y ago
As a Facebook user I'm glad they don't grant access to influencer marketing companies. Those companies drive the creation of trash content which would harm the Facebook user experience.

ddalex 8y ago

> is not Facebook's data Look at the T&Cs sometime. Once you upload something, it's theirs. Once they sniff something off your phone, it's theirs. Once you look at something in another tab while FB is open, it's theirs.

NeedMoreTea 8y ago
GDPR, and even the former 1998 Data Protection Act disagrees. Ts&Cs can't override statute. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Protection_Act_1998#Data_protection_principles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Protection_Act_1998#Data_...
- RhodesianHunter 8y ago
  My understanding is that gdpr still doesn't say that it's your data and not Facebook's, it just gives you certain rights to that data such as the right to have it deleted.
  - Angostura 8y ago
    Facebook is the Data Controller, not the owner of the data
- elliekelly 8y ago
  I’m pretty sure Facebook has made a substantial investment in structuring their data flow & server locations with the specific intention of avoiding the reach/responsibilities of GDPR.
  - JumpCrisscross 8y ago
    > I’m pretty sure Facebook has made a substantial investment in...avoiding the reach/responsibilities of GDPR Because they’ve been so careful about following other laws?
  - johnnyfaehell 8y ago
    Yes, and during so actually broke the law and didn't succeed either.
anticensor 8y ago
> Once you upload something, it's theirs. Once they sniff something off your phone, it's theirs. Once you look at something in another tab while FB is open, it's theirs. According to Facebook TOS, you own the data but grant them an open-ended licence to use said data.
- wbl 8y ago
  Ownership is a fuzzy word. Are we talking copyright? What do I sell if I sell you data?
TheForumTroll 8y ago
You cannot sign your rights away in a T&C so what it says is unimportant.

ysavir 8y ago

I agree with your point overall, but we need to recognize here that the problem isn't Facebook being selective, it's Facebook being a monopoly.

dmix 8y ago
Selectively using business intelligence data is what makes a company a 'monopoly' these days?
- chmod775 8y ago
  I suggest re-reading your parent comment because that's not what was said at all.

ryanwaggoner 8y ago

Facebook won't grant Influencer Marketing Companies access to their API even though the user (The Influencer) wants them to have the data so they can get paid based on the views, shares, comments, and likes of the posts they've been contracted for. User has a legit desire to share that data to the point where they will take screenshots, GDPR deletions, etc to fulfil the need for that data to be shared. Facebook's reason for not allowing them access is simple, they don't make any money out of the deal. This seems so ludicrously backwards to me. How is my decision to upload my data to Facebook a meaningful claim that they should run their platform in a particular way for my convenience, even if there's no business justification? Allow me a tortured metaphor :) Imagine you own a very popular art museum and you let any artist display their work there for free. Visiting requires a free membership, but visitors must apply for it. Competing museums and galleries are always trying to get a membership so they can come through and scope out which artists are most popular and then woo them away. You reject those memberships. How on earth is this unfair to anyone? Now, letting those competing museums in is obviously better for the artist, but does that give them any right to demand it? You're providing this space for them for free! You're providing a huge audience to them, for free! What possible justification do they have for demanding that you let your competition come strolling through and hurt your business just so it'll make their life a little better? If you don't like it, you can pull your work from the museum at any time. So many of the critiques of companies like Facebook and Apple come down to people wanting all the benefits that these platforms provide, but without any terms, inconvenience, restrictions, or tradeoffs. Ridiculous.

Calloggs 8y ago
Your metaphor is good, but misses the part where this art museum has either bought or forced downsizing/closure on all other competitive museums. That forces artists to choose this museum or one that it owns if they want any recognition/income from the work they do (this museum certainly isn't paying them for the work).
- ryanwaggoner 8y ago
  That would be a fair concern if it were true. But Facebook is hardly the only way to build an audience. What about Twitter, or Snapchat, or just building and hosting your own site and using Facebook as just another promotion channel?

manfredo 8y ago

> Let's remember this is not Facebook's data, this is their users' data. No, it's not - short of a change in law it is Facebook's data. Facebook collected, maintained , and analyzed the data. It's their data, the fact that their users allowed Facebook to collect it does not change that fact. GDPR allows users to view the data Facebook collected about them. If users want manually request their data from Facebook and provide it to competing apps they can. But this is the user's prerogative, not Facebook's.

ryanwaggoner 8y ago
Seriously, it's mind-blowing to me that people can't make this distinction. I should be able to ask the library for a record of the books I've checked out. But that doesn't imply that they should hand those records out to whoever wants them, or that they need to make them available for anyone but me, even if I think it'd be more convenient for someone else to pick them up for me.
johnnyfaehell 8y ago
> If users want manually request their data from Facebook and provide it to competing apps they can. Actually, for a lot of it they can't. The GDPR downloads are incomplete and are missing lots of data like many other GDPR downloads. And in some cases these aren't competing, they just aren't making Facebook money so Facebook denies them access and tells them what they need to do to add Facebook to process so they can get access. And if I can tell Facebook to delete something and they have to do it, they do not own it. Facebook are not in control of the data, they have access to it, but they can't share it without permission, they can't sell it without permission, they can't do alot of things. This, to me, means they do not own the data.
- manfredo 8y ago
  The requirement to make GDPR downloads available was never well thought out. For instance, say you requested a log of your Facebook chat logs. Should Facebook provide this without redaction of the recipients' identities? I'd say no, providing this data without that redaction is a violation of the recipients' privacy. Especially for a service that is all about networking and sharing, it's difficult to walk the line between giving the user the data they requested, and respecting the privacy of other users. The ability to tell Facebook to delete your data does not grant you ownership of that data. You do not have the right to tell Facebook to let some 3rd party to access it using Facebook's infrastructure (which seemed to be the claim made by the original comment I responded to). The fact that the government forces companies to abide by certain regulations does not mean that the company is not the owner of the things that are regulated. A company might have it's interview records audited to investigate discrimination. Does that mean the company does not actually own or possess these interview records?

breischl 8y ago

Even if it was the User's data and not FB's (which is argued downthread a bit...) there's nothing that requires Facebook to make it accessible to other companies. There is real cost in creating an API, running it, managing it, etc. One could also argue that the User already has all their own data, they just didn't collect it very well. So really they're trying to use FB as their data collection platform - which FB is free to do or not, as they choose.

nradov 8y ago

As a Facebook user I'm glad they don't grant access to influencer marketing companies. Those companies drive the creation of trash content which would harm the Facebook user experience.