12 ms·
Facebook Seeks Shutdown of NYU Research Project into Political Ad Targeting
- rdxm 6y agothis is my shocked face...... edit to add: the ROI for the GRU on the Q thing is only slightly less than the ROI on the 2016 election....
- _benj 6y agoIt saddens me that this doesn't surprise me anymore. Big tech is so ridden with secrets and trying to hide them, specially when they have to do with politics seems a little less than what democracy is meant to be.
- eznzt 6y ago>In letter this month, Facebook says the project violates provisions in its terms of service that prohibit bulk data collection I thought people asked for these restrictions after Cambridge Analytica. Are they evil now? :^)
- Barrin92 6y agoThis seems qualitatively different compared to Cambridge Analytica. CA used app permissions to gather data not just from the users who used the app, but also their contacts which enabled them to build up a database that covered a good chunk of the US. The researchers here, as per the article, used 6500 volunteers to collect ads that Facebook explicitly showed to them, apparently without the use of any API or unwilling participants.
- jedberg 6y agoThey asked volunteers to install a browser extension to collect the data for them. So technically aren't they bulk collecting their volunteers' data, not Facebook's? We really need a law/court case that establishes who owns data and who has permission to share it. The volunteers should be allowed to share whatever they want.
- jcims 6y agoCurious if we'll see facebook sniffing for extensions now.
- rbecker 6y agoAn even stronger, still accurate phrasing, would be to say the volunteers are telling the researchers what ads they see on Facebook. The browser extension is just a tool, doing the bidding of the volunteers, to make that sharing easier. Facebook is essentially saying we're not allowed to talk to each-other ("in bulk") about what ads Facebook is showing us. Not the first time corporations try to prevent consumers/users/workers from organizing.
- Reelin 6y agoThis came up recently on HN regarding Facebook taking legal action against two Chrome extensions. (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24661891 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24661891) Scraping appears to violate the ToS. Tortious interference was brought up in the comments but I'm not convinced it applies. Regardless of whether the scraping itself is legal, redistributing the content to a third party is likely to violate copyright in many cases. The entire situation seems overly complicated.
- artemisyna 6y agoYou might be underestimating the number of folks that would be willing to install an extension for $10 and expose the private data of themselves and their friends and family in the process...
- bogomipz 6y agoDoesn't this NYU research project fall squarely within Facebook's stated mission "To give people the power to share and make the world more open and connected." Seriously fuck Facebook and fuck Zuckerberg. This company is the absolute height of hypocrisy, hubris and deception. I hope this only makes more people interested in this research project and spurs more interest in similar projects in the future.
- akalsz 6y ago> This company is the absolute height of hypocrisy, hubris and deception. Welcome to surveillance capitalism. "We are watching you" doesn't sell as well as "We are connecting people".
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- ajmarcic 6y agoIn 2016, there was furor regarding third party data analytics. The $5 billion FTC fine was ostensibly about protecting user privacy. It can be seen here as a fine for inadequate exercise of data authority: Facebook was letting outsiders see what's in the castle. Now, the walls are opaque, and privacy situation is worse. Outsiders can no longer observe and audit Facebook's output information to users, let alone the information users offer as input.
- JumpCrisscross 6y ago> Facebook said it already offers more transparency into political advertising than either traditional media What bullshit. If I want to know what ads are targeting my parents in print, I can buy the locally distributed newspapers. If I want to know what they see on Facebook, I have to literally shoulder surf. That or wait for the week’s crack cure-all to surface in a family message thread.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- nickff 6y agoI don't mean to be snide, but what gives you the right to know what everyone else is seeing? Tons of posts on HN are about how individuals should own their data, yet you think you should also have access to that of others?
- rbecker 6y agoThat's a good point, and the distinction is subtle. I think it lies in using "their data" to describe both what pages they choose to look at, and what ads Facebook decides to show them. These two types of data should really be treated separately. Of course, one could argue that Facebook has a right to communicate with their users confidentially. But it's a bit of a stretch to treat ads as private communication.
- pbalau 6y agoThe ad itself is not private information. The fact that I match the targeting for said ad, is.
- Xylakant 6y agoWhat needs to be published is not that you match the targeting. The information that needs publishing is „who is targeting which ad with what criteria.“ That is: The advertiser, The ad, the targeting given. None of this contains private information and it‘s equivalent to what‘s known about ads in a newspaper.
- bryan_w 6y agoMakes sense. Last time a university wanted to scrape user data from from Facebook users (with their permission) "for research purposes", it didn't end so well for Facebook.
- takeda 6y agoIf you meant Cambridge Analytica, that wasn't an university.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y agoCambridge Analytica got most of their data from a university researcher Aleksandr Kogan, who promised Facebook the data was being used only for academic research but was secretly handing it over to Cambridge Analytica.
- finnthehuman 6y agoSo... the problem with university research is that frauds who claim to be university research aren't university research?
- SpicyLemonZest 6y agoSorry, I don't follow. If you're thinking I was trying to communicate some hidden message with my comment, rest assured I was not.
- disgruntledphd2 6y agoHe wasn't a fraud at the time, he was a postdoc at Cambridge (which is a pretty well-respected university). He gave the data to Cambridge Analytica without permission, though.
- bogomipz 6y agoExcept that Cambridge University did not scrape any data from Facebook nor were they behind Cambridge Analytica. Aleksandar Kogan was a former assistant Professor at Cambridge University who subsequently developed and sold an app to Strategic Communication Laboratories(SCL), the parent company of Cambridge Analytica. That's the entirety of the connection to Cambridge University. This NYU project is the very antithesis of Cambridge Analytica. This project is part of The Online Political Transparency Project. All of the data is public: https://onlinepoliticaltransparencyproject.org/ https://onlinepoliticaltransparencyproject.org/ From the NYU Ad Observatory page: >"The Facebook Ad Observatory is part of the Online Political Transparency Project, which operates from the NYU Tandon School of Engineering. This nonpartisan, independent project is focused on improving the transparency of online political advertising, by deploying traditional methods used in cybersecurity to evaluate the vulnerabilities of online sites. The Project builds tools to collect and archive political advertising data, and makes these available publicly. We encourage journalists and researchers to use these to fuel analysis of online political advertising."
- finnthehuman 6y ago>“Scraping tools, no matter how well-intentioned, are not a permissible means of collecting information from us,” said the letter Well that's quite nice that Facebook understands their intentions are positive, surely Facebook will just supply then the data directly instead!
- yaacov 6y agoFacebook giving data to researchers who promise to behave is how we got the whole Cambridge Analytica mess.
- throwaway2048 6y agoI'm sure that's their concern here, not covering their asses.
- chillee 6y agoIn this case, I think the 2 are aligned.
- nerdponx 6y agoNYU Ad Observatory is overseen by a research university with an IRB, and also operates in plain view of the public.
- rmrfstar 6y ago> by a research university with an IRB Let's not forget that Facebook is a company that tormented an employee so severely he killed himself at the office [1]. [1] https://www.vice.com/en/article/qvgn9q/do-not-discuss-the-incident-facebook-told-employee-fired-after-speaking-about-worker-suicide https://www.vice.com/en/article/qvgn9q/do-not-discuss-the-in...
- Grimm1 6y agoI think NYU should push them on this. Another high profile case protecting scraping would be great. Also in this case proud to be an NYU alum, great response from the researchers.
- Nightshaxx 6y agoNot surprising, they don't want to have the Cambridge Analytica scandal happening again. Yes it's a very different thing, but the general populus and old beuracrats in Washington aren't really going to understand that.
- sul_tasto 6y agopot, meet kettle.
- kpmcc 6y agoRather ironic given that facebook has engaged in human subject research regarding emotional manipulation without informed consent in the past. I think they’ve waived their right to object.
- edmundsauto 6y agoCan you further explain how this works? 1. FB does something wrong that affects 700k of its 1b users at the time 2. FB loses any moral authority to object to things that violate their terms of service. That is a bit of a leap, but I am open to hearing what I’m not understanding about your thought process.
- aiilns 6y agoNot the op, but I'll try: 1. FB didn't "do something wrong". They have repeatedly engaged in research without informed consent as op mentions. These are not isolated incidents, but rather Facebook's modus operandi. 2. NYU uses volunteers to collect information on what Facebook ads are shown to them. A university project using volunteers to research on how people are targeted for political ads. 3. Facebook is trying to use its ToS so that its political targeting remains opaque. I do not see any leaps here. I do not understand how a company such as Facebook has any moral authority to object about _anything_, much less about this research, but I'm open to hearing what I'm not understanding about your thought process.
- disgruntledphd2 6y ago> FB didn't "do something wrong". They have repeatedly engaged in research without informed consent as op mentions. These are not isolated incidents, but rather Facebook's modus operandi. Are you referring to AB testing here? Are you aware that every internet service does this, on an incredibly regular basis, without informed consent? You can argue that this is unethical, but you should then be calling for online experimentation without informed consent to be banned.
- philipodonnell 6y ago
- greenyoda 6y agoArchived copy: https://archive.is/JYSPH https://archive.is/JYSPH
- thesausageking 6y agoHere's the browser plugin the researcher team uses to collect data: https://adobserver.org/ https://adobserver.org/ It's been obfuscated and I don't see a public repo of the source anywhere.
- supernova87a 6y agoSometimes, I think of throwing up my hands and saying, how can you fight this? There's only so much you can fight against what people want -- because by our actions we're saying we want it. What do I mean? Facebook is just a manifestation of something that has gripped us through technology. People want to read about their family/friends little daily stories, they want to engage in arguments about politics, they want to hear gossip and news, they want a platform to promote themselves. And they've found a way to do it. Someone will insert themselves into that stream to manipulate others, entice them to buy things, seek publicity for their causes. Yet we still (collectively) keep opening the app and logging on because we feel -- consciously or not -- that it brings more value to our lives than takes. So every minute, Facebook (or whoever it would be to take their place) gets the reward signal saying, "these people want what we're selling". And on net people aren't abandoning it out of concern for the side effects. Maybe all you can do is create your local island of sanity and protect yourselves against whatever it produces. Maybe that's us for a decade until someone figures out how to manage this new dynamic, or Congress does its job. How much can you fight when every person's minute-by-minute choice produces a force that's uncontrollable?
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- atlantis_ 6y agoBut do people want this? Do they have choice?
- heresie-dabord 6y ago> by our actions we're saying we want it. Just as smokers want lung cancer? Consumers are conditioned to "like" and "dislike". The battle against commercial surveillance is a battle for democracy. It is being fought but it will take effort because these companies have become powerful profiteers with smiling investors. It took a long time to start winning against the cigarette industry. Even now, there are places in the world where cigarette sales are profitable and the product has prestige.
- 6y ago
- maheshkaje 6y agodrawing parallel, if someone research on ads published in news paper and news paper says you cant do that. This is crazy, wake up FB
- dredmorbius 6y agoPolitico has the story also, unpaywalled: https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/23/facebook-block-transparency-political-ads-432038 https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/23/facebook-block-tran...