26 ms·

Facebook has sent a cease-and-desist letter to researchers

535 points by ColinWright 6y ago

dr-detroit 6y ago
Facebook is a sexapp. Lack of transparency has always been a feature.
ethanwillis 6y ago
It's well within their rights as a private company, right? We need to have a serious discussion about the power these FAANGs are exerting and we need to stop making excuses for them.
- amelius 6y ago
  Yes, the FAANGs are very close to being public utilities, and therefore deserve a special treatment.
  - root_axis 6y ago
    I see this repeated often, but it's totally incorrect, they do not resemble utilities at all, not even a little bit. I think everyone agrees these companies need more regulation, but the idea that they are in any way comparable to utilities is absurd.
    - goodluckchuck 6y ago
      How so?
      - root_axis 6y ago
        It's absurd on its face and this topic has been beaten to death on this forum; the burden of demonstrating why social media websites are like utilities rests on the person making the claim. However, for the sake of discussion, I'll start out with the fact that a privately owned website is not an example of shared public infrastructure. Think water, electricity and other basic staples of civilization... Facebook is not an example of that.
      - Ensorceled 6y ago
        I can cook dinner, heat my house, call 911 and even check out government websites on the internet without google or facebook.
        ethanwillis 6y ago
        More government websites are relying on infrastructure from these companies. S3, cloudfront, etc. And don't worry soon enough Amazon themselves will insert themselves between you and 911 https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/publicsector/modernizing-911-to-meet-the-evolving-communications-needs-of-constituents/ https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/publicsector/modernizing-911-to... Edit: I would like to point out my original parent comment that started all of this was in the context of FAANGs not just Google/Facebook
      - scbrg 6y ago
        I admit I use some Google services. At the same time, I have no relationship with the non G:s of FAANG, which arguably is 80% of them (though perhaps not 80% of the influence). I'm not sure how they can really be considered public utilities at that point. None of the services they provide are essential.
        strawberrypuree 6y ago
        Much of the web is hosted on AWS. So, you have an invisible relationship with Amazon. Same with Facebook and their trackers, unless you block them.
        scbrg 6y ago
        > Much of the web is hosted on AWS. Fair enough. I'm sure I use some web sites that are hosted on AWS, I did not consider that. > Same with Facebook and their trackers, unless you block them. That may be (though I block at least some of them), but that's hardly equivalent. I don't depend in any way on Facebook tracking me. If they stopped, I would certainly not suffer from it.
        stale2002 6y ago
        > None of the services they provide are essential. I use online messaging and online communication more than I use the telephone network. To me, and many others, these online platforms are as or more essential than the phone system, which is already covered by common carrier laws.
        Natanael_L 6y ago
        Utility regulation doesn't depend only on importance. It depends on importance plus access. That's why your local grocery store can ban you even if food is necessary for your survival, because you didn't lose access to other sources (stores).
        root_axis 6y ago
        > I use online messaging and online communication more than I use the telephone network. That's your choice, you don't have to use any particular online messaging service. My cousins communicate over steam more than over SMS, that doesn't mean steam is a utility.
    - stale2002 6y ago
      > they do not resemble utilities at all, not even a little bit. I think that these large communication platforms absolutely resemble other large communication platforms that are currently covered by common carrier laws. Specifically, a lot of the functionality that these platforms provides, fulfills a usecase that is similar to the phone network. And the phone network is both a large communication platform, and is all covered by common carrier laws. The laws need to be updated to recognize that many of the online communication platforms are now as important as the phone system, and therefore should be covered by our existing common carrier laws.
      - Natanael_L 6y ago
        All of this assumes an equivalence in function and access that just isn't there. If my phone company decides who I can call, then I got issues. I can't trivially change carrier however I want. If a website arbitrarily bans all kind of people it will soon be their own problem as people leave with a single click. More specifically, I do not need linkedin, Facebook and co at all to communicate with people over the internet, stuff like P2P software never went away.
        stale2002 6y ago
        > If my phone company decides who I can call, then I got issues. > If a website arbitrarily bans all kind of people it will soon be their own problem as people leave with a single click. False. I use facebook for communicating with people more often than I use the phone network. Being banned from facebook would have a much larger effect on me, and many others, than being banned from ever making phone calls again, due to the fact that we use facebook for the vast majority of our online communication.
        Natanael_L 6y ago
        Is that because you can not replace Facebook, or because it's merely inconvenient to do so? Because the law doesn't protect convenience in these contexts.
  - krustyburger 6y ago
    How exactly is Netflix close to being a public utility?
    - ethanwillis 6y ago
      How exactly does one thing out of a set of things not form the set of things?
      - krustyburger 6y ago
        Ah yes, it’s assumed that 20% of the set is not included but let’s use the snappy acronym anyway.
  - TheOperator 6y ago
    I can buy the argument that they could require special treatment but I'm much more sceptical that social media specifically resembles a public utility. If I decide Facebook and all it's products are trash I can pretty trivially not use any of them. If I dislike all social media I can choose not to engage with it at all. I would have a much harder time going without electricity or water. Social media feels somewhere between a public commons and print media, and it's acting more and more like print media all the time. I'm seeing this election the banning of certain sources like the New York Post and the editorialization of what people say with friendly links to approved "non-partisan fact checkers" who are essentially opinion columnists that cite more sources. Netflix is about as close to a public utility as the local movie theatre, which is to say, nowhere close.
- jandrese 6y ago
  Is it within the rights of a company to dictate what software I have installed on my personal machine? If Facebook wants to ban every account using the software that is within their rights, but they don't get a say in what I have installed.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - ethanwillis 6y ago
    Not too long ago I remember people on this exact site making the argument that Slack had a right to determine what browser extensions I ran. Slack also tried to make this argument in the name of "security" when I wrote to them about it. But yes to your point, NO they do not get a say in what users install. Thank you for taking the time to write in and share your concerns. We hear you and understand how important this issue is to developers. As a communication company we want to make sure we don't put our customers and their data at risk, and it's something we take very seriously. We provide a full-featured platform with many avenues for improving user experience while working with Slack, but we need to also provide the security and privacy controls business owners, IT administrators, and users expect. We're happy to continue the conversation about UX improvements and future extensions to the platform. This is something we'll keep working on as we listen to feedback from the developer community. That is a cop out and you know it. An it administrator or corporate is not using this extension and they would lock down their users from installing BROWSER extensions if they thought that was a security risk. Thanks for getting back to me. I appreciate your thoughts on this matter. I'd like to pose a hypothetical to you if you don't mind! Bearing in mind Slack is a product designed to help teams work together and is geared towards business and enterprises — imagine for a second we're working with an enterprise considering adopting Slack and their security team comes across this extension (or something like it) — and identifies it as a security/privacy/reliability concern. Our job is to alleviate these concerns. They expect better from us and we're doing our best to meet and even exceed those expectations. We're certainly not perfect and we can always do better — for businesses big and small and for developers. It is important to note here, we're learning from this experience. We're working with the developer to find a middle-ground which is beneficial to everyone involved. We're reevaluating our processes for these situations. We're listening to feedback from users such as yourself and identifying areas we could improve. I understand this has been a disappointing and frustrating situation and I do apologise for any difficulty it has caused you. I promise you, we're working on it. I for one am very excited to see what comes from this. It's been a learning opportunity for us all. Let me know if you have any questions, or suggestions. I'm here to help!
- tolbish 6y ago
  How was their acquisition of Instagram and Whatsapp legal? Haven't antitrust laws broken up companies for less?
  - input_sh 6y ago
    Pre-Reagan, sure. Since then, none. There's zero interest in breaking up monopolies in the US from both Democrats and Republicans. Hell, today's AT&T has more market share than Bell Systems did before it was split up. EU, on the other hand, appears to be slowly progressing towards the goal of breaking up tech monopolies. Leaked plans would shake up the tech quite a bit: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/10/eu-vs-big-tech-leaked-enforcement-plans-and-dutch-french-counterproposal https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/10/eu-vs-big-tech-leaked-...
    - testrun 6y ago
      Nice re-writing of history. Microsoft anti-trust was post Reagan. AT7T now is about 34% market share. The rest is between Verizon, Sprint etc. Not the same as what Bell had.
      - chopin 6y ago
        Microsoft has been broken up?
- CalChris 6y ago
  Well within their rights to do what? They certainly have access to the courts.
- Solvitieg 6y ago
  "Government is that which governs" Who governs information and speech online? Washington DC or Silicon Valley?
  - iratewizard 6y ago
    Silicon valley. Was that a rhetorical question?
- jMyles 6y ago
  In a just society, their "rights" stop at their network interface.
- duxup 6y ago
  "It's well within their rights as a private company, right?" To do what? What does that mean?
  - ethanwillis 6y ago
    Block extensions, user software, that interact with their site. Remember, Slack did something very similar not very long ago. Only with pushback did they relent somewhat. https://g3rv4.com/2018/08/bye-bye-betterslack https://g3rv4.com/2018/08/bye-bye-betterslack
- an_opabinia 6y ago
  It's interesting. What would be an "acceptable" mix of demographics for political ads recipients? That is to say, what is the answer to that question where there is no PR story, where Facebook doesn't look bad? If the answer is, none at all... I'm sure we can see where they are coming from. In my opinion you don't really need to do the NYU study. Intellectually honestly, many political ads will disproportionately appear in front of users with different demographics than their census tracts, regardless of their targeting parameters. In my experience many of the demographics of users in many software products are arbitrary, telling you nothing about the content and much more about acquisition channels and technology usage patterns at a particular point in time. As far as I know, Facebook allows some targeting parameters for political ads. So they should publish how often those targeting parameters are selected. Great, advocate for that. Intellectually honestly, that will conclusively show that ad buyers have a wide diversity of targeting parameters that, in aggregate, represent a complex mix of objectives oftentimes only adjacent to a specific election. Almost certainly Facebook already looked at this and found that geography, gender, age and proxies for user's race (like "multicultural affinity") are among the top choices, and that looks bad, even though it may be an important part of all ads targeted anywhere. Is NYU's study going to have enough power to measure targeting in an intellectually honest way? They can certainly write something descriptive. That descriptive, "Well here are some ads we looked at, and some of them disproportionately appeared in front of users with e.g. this ethnicity more often than others, which we editorially chose" - I can see how that is a lose-lose for Facebook.
  - xg15 6y ago
    > That is to say, what is the answer to that question where there is no PR story, where Facebook doesn't look bad? How about don't have political ads at all, if this question is so difficult to answer...
chriscappuccio 6y ago
Do not capitulate to Facebook
trhway 6y ago
I don't understand what the researchers violated - it looks like they didn't sign the FB's EULA, nor did they perform anything resembling CFAA violation. It is the FB users who signed the EULA and use "unapproved" user-agent to access FB services and to voluntarily share the data (isn't FB a sharing platform btw?) in "unapproved" way. Thus FB should go after the real violators - their users. I wonder why FB didn't do it ... I mean i can write any stupid EULA, yet until you agree to it my C&D based on that EULA is just my personal hallucinations, and even if you agree to it, your communication/business/etc. partners don't magically become bound by it too.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  Facebook says it's a privacy issue. So it doesn't make sense to go after individual users - users can violate their own privacy if they really want - but it might make sense to go after the researchers if Facebook thinks they're tricking people into giving up more privacy than they expect. (I hate to sound like a broken record, because this comes up truly constantly, but the Cambridge Analytica scandal was caused by an academic researcher collecting voluntarily shared data.)
  - trhway 6y ago
    Cambridge Analytica was doing it on FB platform. Thus it isn't related to the current situation.
tytso 6y ago
And this is why I will refuse to take any calls from Facebook researchers. It's bad enough that Facebook is disproportionately used by Right Wing Trolls and Authoritarians. See [1] for more information about why this is so. [1] https://www.lawfareblog.com/lawfare-podcast-maria-ressa-weaponization-social-media https://www.lawfareblog.com/lawfare-podcast-maria-ressa-weap...
rolph 6y ago
FB claims automated data collection, the data is apparently input to the app by a user , i think the hairs will be split between copy paste mechaniics, or ten finger entry in response to prompt, thus massaging the definition of automated entry. (1)FB has consistently refused to publish anything about how the ads are targeted. (2)The NYU researchers have tried to fill that gap, offering the Ad Observer plug-in to users who want to voluntarily donate the ads they see — along with the limited targeting data FB displays to users. (3)Here’s where things get troubling: Facebook is now trying to shut down the Ad Observer plug-in, saying that it violates Facebook’s terms of service by automating the collection of data that Facebook shows to its users.
- tim333 6y ago
  Though presumably the Ad Observer plug-in didn't sign up to Facebook's terms of service. If anyone's violating their terms it's probably the users who install the plug-in.
- punitxsmart 6y ago
  Why would the AdObserver plugin (completely independent piece of software installed by the user) need to follow facebook's Terms of Service?
pfortuny 6y ago
Unbelievable. So now they want to prevent people from helping others share what appears on their computer screens? And they have the face to even WRITE IT! Just say no.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- dang 6y ago
  Thoughtful critique is obviously welcome, but please don't break the HN guidelines like this. These ones in particular: "Please don't fulminate." "Please don't use uppercase for emphasis. If you want to emphasize a word or phrase, put asterisks around it and it will get italicized." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
tomcat27 6y ago
The world would have been a very different place had Facebook or other big companies built the internet.
- macspoofing 6y ago
  Facebook, and Twitter and Google were built by particular libertarian-types who were young and idealistic. They erred on the side of openness and really disliked regulating content. I don't mind them. The people who are taking over these companies, those people I'm afraid of because they are political and their first instinct is to push ideology and censorship.
  - tomcat27 6y ago
    Everyone talks openness but rarely commit when its really needed. I think mobile app development would have been a different experience if people had the convictions similar to their 90s parallels that made GNU, WWW or Linux foundations possible and lasting. The paper "Protocols, Not Platforms: A Technological Approach to Free Speech, Masnick 2019" underscores the difference.
  - beagle3 6y ago
    Facebook always has the “dumb f*cks” mentality. Google was benevolent (or at least seemed that way) until they had any competition, at which point they threw out the “don’t be evil” motto, but same guys (page, brin, Schmidt) were still at the helm. Wasn’t following twitter closely, but Dorsey is still running it - same guy. It’s the same guys, not some “nefarious guys taking over”.
    - tomcat27 6y ago
      good point!
duxup 6y ago
Apparently they created software that someone else installs and then uses to share info they saw on facebook with them. This seems like a pretty big stretch.
TLightful 6y ago
You're welcome to downvote this, but in the interest of objective and logical responses to Facebook: Facebook can get Zuck'ed ... just another corrupt, bullsh!tter company. If you work there, you've sold your soul for cr@ppy smiles around the food counter or the drinks cooler ... but your life is being zucked dry. I pity you.
mobileexpert 6y ago
Some takes From Benedict Evans that are worth considering: https://twitter.com/benedictevans/status/1320378054150148098?s=21 https://twitter.com/benedictevans/status/1320378054150148098... “Meanwhile: the NYU app has access to friend data in your feed and friend data is also in the ads it scrapes. And it replaces an actual security model with our trust that NYU are nice people and won't abuse this access. That is exactly how Cambridge Analytica happened.”
- christkv 6y ago
  Turns out Cambridge analytics might have been practically useless https://www.wired.co.uk/article/cambridge-analytica-facebook-psychographics https://www.wired.co.uk/article/cambridge-analytica-facebook...
  - InitialLastName 6y ago
    That's not what the article you posted is arguing. The article is arguing that the data they collected directly through their trojan apps is not particularly useful, NOT that the full connection graphs (including data drawn from connections of users who didn't use their app) they collected and allegedly used to target advertising is useless.
- MAGZine 6y ago
  Comparing Cambridge Analytica, who harvested data though means that were not transparent to users (and for malicious purpose), to NYU has explained what data and why, AND has the consent of its users, seems disingenuous at best.
  - mobileexpert 6y ago
    The whole point is that a major problem with CA was the scaled friend’s data collection. The NYU app scraping modality could easily do the same thing which violates the present FB consent/sharing model of you control your data going to or not going to third party apps. FB has to fight as hard as possible against such apps. Remember Clearview AI? If we want FB to fight CA and Clearview they must fight here as well.
op03 6y ago
Monitoring Facebook needs to work like the Black hole photo project. Large alliances spanning countries and multiple institutions, hundreds of researchers working in tandem. Thats the best way to tame a beast this large. Same goes for regulators/legal strategies/journalism etc. Associations and alliances are key.
2arrs2ells 6y ago
Don't miss Alex Stamos (former Facebook Chief Security Officer's reply): https://twitter.com/alexstamos/status/1320006154424967170 https://twitter.com/alexstamos/status/1320006154424967170 If I'm understanding Alex right, he's saying that Facebook's 2019 FTC consent decree requires them to limit the personal information collected by apps on the platform.
- cronix 6y ago
  It's a browser plugin, not a facebook app. Why should facebook have a say on what plugins I have installed in my browser that did not come from facebook? Should they be able to have a say about ublock origin or other apps I have installed on my computer/browser?
  - rolph 6y ago
    it would be a new angle to require functionality qualifications examination to weed out any compromized browsers or OS's, all in the name of security and privacy of course
    - XMPPwocky 6y ago
      SECURITY ERROR This comment by /u/XMPPwocky cannot be displayed because of a security problem with your device. If this error persists, reinstall your operating system or replace your device. Technical details: "An enclave could not be verified due to a problem with its digital certificate" (E_BAD_ENCLAVE_SIG). Logging info: Local: Success (monotonic counter 5 increment OK) Remote: Success (200 OK in 0.113s)
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - echlebek 6y ago
    I'm sure they would absolutely love to dictate this.
  - warkdarrior 6y ago
walrus01 6y ago
> The researchers (w/ the help of others) are responsible for a browser plug-in called Ad Observer, which allows FB users to voluntarily share very limited and anonymous data about the political ads that FB shows them. You can read about Ad Observer here: https://adobservatory.org https://adobservatory.org ================= Absolutely preposterous takedown demand. Facebook doesn't get to dictate what software I run on my own client devices, including browser plugins, or even what browser I use. If I want to install a plugin that sends a screenshot or data of every advertisement I receive, to a third party of my choice, that's up to me. Or maybe I want to install ublock origin and see no ads. It sounds like they're complaining because they have no way of detecting this or preventing it on the user client end, thankfully, because of the way browsers are architected to prevent a website from screwing with the software on your computer. The only way fb could detect or block this would be to force users to install their own fb-written browser plugin, with extensive permissions required. Obviously fb has a high level of motivation to get every user to use their officially app-store-published android or ios app, where the whole experience is centrally controlled, and such a plugin is impossible to use. Rather than having the user browse facebook in Firefox or Chrome or Edge. If I can display something on my own computer screen it's my right to choose to share it however I damn well please.
- ninth_ant 6y ago
  A lot of people felt Facebook should do more to proactively stop people from scraping and aggregating data from their site after the CA debacle. Which is what they are doing here, and you are labeling “absolutely preposterous”. Which way is it? Should they let people do whatever they want with their accounts as you suggest, and risk a repeat of the CA fiasco? Or try to proactively stop it like they are now?
  - rizpanjwani 6y ago
    This looks like a strawman dressed in false dilemma. With Cambridge Analytica debacle, as I understand it, it was a facebook quiz hosted by facebook and the data collected from facebook directly and used for nefarious purposes. This is a an extension developed by researchers asking users to install it on their machines and used exactly as advertised: scrapes advertisement data that facebook shows them.
Lendal 6y ago
Wait so Facebook can collect data about its users but Facebook users aren't allowed to collect data about Facebook?
- Permit 6y ago
  If I’m your friend on Facebook should you be allowed to go to my page and give all the information I’ve shared with you to another 3rd party? You trust NYU, OK fine. Can I give the same information about you to pro-Trump researchers?
  - arbol 6y ago
    Yes the OP is absolutely allowed to do this. Their are consequences of befriending people in real life and online. It's up to you to decide who you befriend.
    - justapassenger 6y ago
      Not according to FTC.
  - CivBase 6y ago
    You shared the information with your Facebook friends without any protections. Why shouldn't they be allowed to share it with other people? What legal obligation do they have to keep the information you shared private?
    - filoleg 6y ago
      >Why shouldn't they be allowed to share it with other people? >What legal obligation do they have to keep the information you shared private? Those exact same questions can very well be asked of the whole Cambridge Analytica scandal, and yet some people will give different answers to those two scenarios. Cambridge Analytica app was explicitly asking users for permission to access their data and data their friends publicly shared with those users. The first one is obviously ok, but the latter was what people had issues with, and I don't see how it is different here. As for what legal obligations your friends have to keep your information private, I don't think they do. However, Facebook does have the obligation to not share info of users who didn't explicitly consent to it with third party apps, according to this order from FTC issued in 2019[0]. And third party apps that share not only your FB info, but that of your friends (who do not use those third-party apps), definitely fall under this. 0. https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/c4365facebookmodifyingorder.pdf https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/c4365facebo...
X6S1x6Okd1st 6y ago
Did they even agree to the ToS? It seems like they wrote their own plugin to harvest the data, what agreement did they made with Facebook that they are in violation of?
- dfxm12 6y ago
  Having an agreement with someone is not a prerequisite for being able to send them a C&D.
  - X6S1x6Okd1st 6y ago
    I agree, but: > In a letter sent Oct. 16 to the researchers behind the NYU Ad Observatory, Facebook said the project violates provisions in its terms of service that prohibit bulk data collection from its site.
  - 013a 6y ago
    Sure, but at that point they'd have to be breaking some kind of law to warrant one, wouldn't they?
    - tim333 6y ago
      Given the wonders of the US legal system Facebook can probably throw a few million in legal fees into fighting the NYU researchers who will have to back down as unable to afford their own legal fees irrespective of who's right or wrong.
      - 013a 6y ago
        I imagine in a situation like this the university (may/would) stand behind them. And, you know, Facebook really picked a target given NYU is a top five US law school.
    - dfxm12 6y ago
      No, not at all. They aren't really legal documents, anyone can send one, even to simply intimidate the recipient, or force them to spend time and resources (they may not have) addressing it. And even if the sender is acting in good faith, the courts could interpret the law differently from them. Remember, one is presumed innocent/not liable until proven otherwise, not when you get a C&D (or get arrested, or get sued, for that matter).
0n34n7 6y ago
Frankly... Fck Facebook and their alien overlord.
lmilcin 6y ago
Isn't it ironic, Facebook has no trouble explaining mass surveillance of its user base but gets lawyered up when somebody tries to surveil them.
macspoofing 6y ago
Mixed feelings on this. On the one hand, I'm against Facebook censorship, especially of academics. On the other hand, the researchers (and journalists) are going to use this research to browbeat Facebook into more censorship (and specifically censorship of the right, though some non-mainstream progressives will be caught up in the dragnet as well) as they have already done with a ton of hit pieces [1]. What to do, what to do. [1] Brings to mind the hit-piece: "The Making of a YouTube Radical - The New York Times" article. But there is an ongoing effort to continue pushing Facebook, Twitter and YouTube into more and more censorship of anyone deemed on the right and the Overton window keeps getting smaller and smaller. The situation with the Hunter Biden laptop story and NYPost is absolutely bonkers. Not only do journalists at mainstream center/center-left news outfits not care that Twitter and Facebook outright decided that the story is false and therefore shouldn't be shared by anyone and banned the account of their colleagues at NYPost .. but worse, actually applaud it and justify it.
- aluminum96 6y ago
  The evidence just doesn't support your claim that Facebook predominantly censors content from the political right. Facebook produces disproportionately more engagements for right-wing sites[1]. This is reflected in the best performing content on the site -- after the first debate, 9 of the top 10 posts were right leaning [2], which is a regular occurrence. [1] https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2020/09/10/facebook-offers-a-distorted-view-of-american-news https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2020/09/10/facebook... [2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/elections/debate-facebook-sharing/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/elections/debat...
  - macspoofing 6y ago
    >Facebook produces disproportionately more engagements for right-wing sites Bull. America is a country where any given election 50% vote Democrat and 50% vote Republican. Look at the chart. Look at the total number of left-wing vs right-wing sites. I bet if you add those up, total left-wing engagements will dwarf the number of total right-wing engagements. Looks to me that engagement is skewed towards left-wing, it's just that there are way more left-wing outfits so individual share is lower. Which makes sense, there is one major right-wing news network, Fox News, there's like 10 that are center-left/left wing which have to share the audience.
Emendo 6y ago
Facebook's complaint about user privacy is really a red herring. I am sure that someone is worried about negative stories written based on the data collected and tasked another person to shut it down in a way that makes the researchers look like a villain and Facebook looks like a hero.
ponker 6y ago
Good. I didn't agree for NYU to have my Facebook data and for them to operate a plugin at scale which crawls my data (if anyone with permissions to see my profile installs this plugin) is a violation of my rights.
- patja 6y ago
  How do you feel about it when anyone who has you in their phone's contacts list hands over all that personal information about you when they install WhatsApp or any other app that requests contacts data? Seems like the same thing.
  - kinkrtyavimoodh 6y ago
    Yes, it is objectionable, and ordinarily people here would agree it is objectionable. The wrongness doesn't change just because in this particular case the framing is "poor researcher vs evil Facebook"
  - ponker 6y ago
    An app should request contacts data to do what contacts data is intended for ... place calls and messages to contacts. Anything else is an abuse of trust.
013a 6y ago
I legitimately don't understand how Facebook has any grounds to C&D this application. Its a Terms and Conditions violation. Ok, I get that. But, at what point did the developers of this application ever agree to any terms and conditions? Its not like its accessing data via the API, or requires some kind of privileged access levels. Morals, ethics, security, whatever aside; I just don't understand the legal angle Facebook is using here.
kinkrtyavimoodh 6y ago
Not sure why people are angry at Facebook for this. Cambridge Analytica was very similar—it was a third-party using an API for its intended purpose (with the user's consent) and then doing questionable things with the data, yet that did not stop the world from raking FB through the coals. And it does not matter that CA was using FB's API and platform. In both cases there was user consent to provide the data.
dredmorbius 6y ago
Recent discussion / submissions: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24874602 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24874602 on the WSJ (linked in tweet here) story https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-seeks-shutdown-of-nyu-research-project-into-political-ad-targeting-11603488533 https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-seeks-shutdown-of-nyu-... (paywalled) Politico: 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...
wmeredith 6y ago
Sounds good. I just signed up.

535 points by ColinWright 6y ago

Facebook is a sexapp. Lack of transparency has always been a feature.

It's well within their rights as a private company, right? We need to have a serious discussion about the power these FAANGs are exerting and we need to stop making excuses for them.

amelius 6y ago
Yes, the FAANGs are very close to being public utilities, and therefore deserve a special treatment.
- root_axis 6y ago
  I see this repeated often, but it's totally incorrect, they do not resemble utilities at all, not even a little bit. I think everyone agrees these companies need more regulation, but the idea that they are in any way comparable to utilities is absurd.
  - goodluckchuck 6y ago
    How so?
    - root_axis 6y ago
      It's absurd on its face and this topic has been beaten to death on this forum; the burden of demonstrating why social media websites are like utilities rests on the person making the claim. However, for the sake of discussion, I'll start out with the fact that a privately owned website is not an example of shared public infrastructure. Think water, electricity and other basic staples of civilization... Facebook is not an example of that.
    - Ensorceled 6y ago
      I can cook dinner, heat my house, call 911 and even check out government websites on the internet without google or facebook.
      - ethanwillis 6y ago
        More government websites are relying on infrastructure from these companies. S3, cloudfront, etc. And don't worry soon enough Amazon themselves will insert themselves between you and 911 https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/publicsector/modernizing-911-to-meet-the-evolving-communications-needs-of-constituents/ https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/publicsector/modernizing-911-to... Edit: I would like to point out my original parent comment that started all of this was in the context of FAANGs not just Google/Facebook
    - scbrg 6y ago
      I admit I use some Google services. At the same time, I have no relationship with the non G:s of FAANG, which arguably is 80% of them (though perhaps not 80% of the influence). I'm not sure how they can really be considered public utilities at that point. None of the services they provide are essential.
      - strawberrypuree 6y ago
        Much of the web is hosted on AWS. So, you have an invisible relationship with Amazon. Same with Facebook and their trackers, unless you block them.
        scbrg 6y ago
        > Much of the web is hosted on AWS. Fair enough. I'm sure I use some web sites that are hosted on AWS, I did not consider that. > Same with Facebook and their trackers, unless you block them. That may be (though I block at least some of them), but that's hardly equivalent. I don't depend in any way on Facebook tracking me. If they stopped, I would certainly not suffer from it.
      - stale2002 6y ago
        > None of the services they provide are essential. I use online messaging and online communication more than I use the telephone network. To me, and many others, these online platforms are as or more essential than the phone system, which is already covered by common carrier laws.
        Natanael_L 6y ago
        Utility regulation doesn't depend only on importance. It depends on importance plus access. That's why your local grocery store can ban you even if food is necessary for your survival, because you didn't lose access to other sources (stores).
        root_axis 6y ago
        > I use online messaging and online communication more than I use the telephone network. That's your choice, you don't have to use any particular online messaging service. My cousins communicate over steam more than over SMS, that doesn't mean steam is a utility.
  - stale2002 6y ago
    > they do not resemble utilities at all, not even a little bit. I think that these large communication platforms absolutely resemble other large communication platforms that are currently covered by common carrier laws. Specifically, a lot of the functionality that these platforms provides, fulfills a usecase that is similar to the phone network. And the phone network is both a large communication platform, and is all covered by common carrier laws. The laws need to be updated to recognize that many of the online communication platforms are now as important as the phone system, and therefore should be covered by our existing common carrier laws.
    - Natanael_L 6y ago
      All of this assumes an equivalence in function and access that just isn't there. If my phone company decides who I can call, then I got issues. I can't trivially change carrier however I want. If a website arbitrarily bans all kind of people it will soon be their own problem as people leave with a single click. More specifically, I do not need linkedin, Facebook and co at all to communicate with people over the internet, stuff like P2P software never went away.
      - stale2002 6y ago
        > If my phone company decides who I can call, then I got issues. > If a website arbitrarily bans all kind of people it will soon be their own problem as people leave with a single click. False. I use facebook for communicating with people more often than I use the phone network. Being banned from facebook would have a much larger effect on me, and many others, than being banned from ever making phone calls again, due to the fact that we use facebook for the vast majority of our online communication.
        Natanael_L 6y ago
        Is that because you can not replace Facebook, or because it's merely inconvenient to do so? Because the law doesn't protect convenience in these contexts.
- krustyburger 6y ago
  How exactly is Netflix close to being a public utility?
  - ethanwillis 6y ago
    How exactly does one thing out of a set of things not form the set of things?
    - krustyburger 6y ago
      Ah yes, it’s assumed that 20% of the set is not included but let’s use the snappy acronym anyway.
- TheOperator 6y ago
  I can buy the argument that they could require special treatment but I'm much more sceptical that social media specifically resembles a public utility. If I decide Facebook and all it's products are trash I can pretty trivially not use any of them. If I dislike all social media I can choose not to engage with it at all. I would have a much harder time going without electricity or water. Social media feels somewhere between a public commons and print media, and it's acting more and more like print media all the time. I'm seeing this election the banning of certain sources like the New York Post and the editorialization of what people say with friendly links to approved "non-partisan fact checkers" who are essentially opinion columnists that cite more sources. Netflix is about as close to a public utility as the local movie theatre, which is to say, nowhere close.
jandrese 6y ago
Is it within the rights of a company to dictate what software I have installed on my personal machine? If Facebook wants to ban every account using the software that is within their rights, but they don't get a say in what I have installed.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- ethanwillis 6y ago
  Not too long ago I remember people on this exact site making the argument that Slack had a right to determine what browser extensions I ran. Slack also tried to make this argument in the name of "security" when I wrote to them about it. But yes to your point, NO they do not get a say in what users install. Thank you for taking the time to write in and share your concerns. We hear you and understand how important this issue is to developers. As a communication company we want to make sure we don't put our customers and their data at risk, and it's something we take very seriously. We provide a full-featured platform with many avenues for improving user experience while working with Slack, but we need to also provide the security and privacy controls business owners, IT administrators, and users expect. We're happy to continue the conversation about UX improvements and future extensions to the platform. This is something we'll keep working on as we listen to feedback from the developer community. That is a cop out and you know it. An it administrator or corporate is not using this extension and they would lock down their users from installing BROWSER extensions if they thought that was a security risk. Thanks for getting back to me. I appreciate your thoughts on this matter. I'd like to pose a hypothetical to you if you don't mind! Bearing in mind Slack is a product designed to help teams work together and is geared towards business and enterprises — imagine for a second we're working with an enterprise considering adopting Slack and their security team comes across this extension (or something like it) — and identifies it as a security/privacy/reliability concern. Our job is to alleviate these concerns. They expect better from us and we're doing our best to meet and even exceed those expectations. We're certainly not perfect and we can always do better — for businesses big and small and for developers. It is important to note here, we're learning from this experience. We're working with the developer to find a middle-ground which is beneficial to everyone involved. We're reevaluating our processes for these situations. We're listening to feedback from users such as yourself and identifying areas we could improve. I understand this has been a disappointing and frustrating situation and I do apologise for any difficulty it has caused you. I promise you, we're working on it. I for one am very excited to see what comes from this. It's been a learning opportunity for us all. Let me know if you have any questions, or suggestions. I'm here to help!
tolbish 6y ago
How was their acquisition of Instagram and Whatsapp legal? Haven't antitrust laws broken up companies for less?
- input_sh 6y ago
  Pre-Reagan, sure. Since then, none. There's zero interest in breaking up monopolies in the US from both Democrats and Republicans. Hell, today's AT&T has more market share than Bell Systems did before it was split up. EU, on the other hand, appears to be slowly progressing towards the goal of breaking up tech monopolies. Leaked plans would shake up the tech quite a bit: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/10/eu-vs-big-tech-leaked-enforcement-plans-and-dutch-french-counterproposal https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/10/eu-vs-big-tech-leaked-...
  - testrun 6y ago
    Nice re-writing of history. Microsoft anti-trust was post Reagan. AT7T now is about 34% market share. The rest is between Verizon, Sprint etc. Not the same as what Bell had.
    - chopin 6y ago
      Microsoft has been broken up?
CalChris 6y ago
Well within their rights to do what? They certainly have access to the courts.
Solvitieg 6y ago
"Government is that which governs" Who governs information and speech online? Washington DC or Silicon Valley?
- iratewizard 6y ago
  Silicon valley. Was that a rhetorical question?
jMyles 6y ago
In a just society, their "rights" stop at their network interface.
duxup 6y ago
"It's well within their rights as a private company, right?" To do what? What does that mean?
- ethanwillis 6y ago
  Block extensions, user software, that interact with their site. Remember, Slack did something very similar not very long ago. Only with pushback did they relent somewhat. https://g3rv4.com/2018/08/bye-bye-betterslack https://g3rv4.com/2018/08/bye-bye-betterslack
an_opabinia 6y ago
It's interesting. What would be an "acceptable" mix of demographics for political ads recipients? That is to say, what is the answer to that question where there is no PR story, where Facebook doesn't look bad? If the answer is, none at all... I'm sure we can see where they are coming from. In my opinion you don't really need to do the NYU study. Intellectually honestly, many political ads will disproportionately appear in front of users with different demographics than their census tracts, regardless of their targeting parameters. In my experience many of the demographics of users in many software products are arbitrary, telling you nothing about the content and much more about acquisition channels and technology usage patterns at a particular point in time. As far as I know, Facebook allows some targeting parameters for political ads. So they should publish how often those targeting parameters are selected. Great, advocate for that. Intellectually honestly, that will conclusively show that ad buyers have a wide diversity of targeting parameters that, in aggregate, represent a complex mix of objectives oftentimes only adjacent to a specific election. Almost certainly Facebook already looked at this and found that geography, gender, age and proxies for user's race (like "multicultural affinity") are among the top choices, and that looks bad, even though it may be an important part of all ads targeted anywhere. Is NYU's study going to have enough power to measure targeting in an intellectually honest way? They can certainly write something descriptive. That descriptive, "Well here are some ads we looked at, and some of them disproportionately appeared in front of users with e.g. this ethnicity more often than others, which we editorially chose" - I can see how that is a lose-lose for Facebook.
- xg15 6y ago
  > That is to say, what is the answer to that question where there is no PR story, where Facebook doesn't look bad? How about don't have political ads at all, if this question is so difficult to answer...

chriscappuccio 6y ago

Do not capitulate to Facebook

trhway 6y ago

I don't understand what the researchers violated - it looks like they didn't sign the FB's EULA, nor did they perform anything resembling CFAA violation. It is the FB users who signed the EULA and use "unapproved" user-agent to access FB services and to voluntarily share the data (isn't FB a sharing platform btw?) in "unapproved" way. Thus FB should go after the real violators - their users. I wonder why FB didn't do it ... I mean i can write any stupid EULA, yet until you agree to it my C&D based on that EULA is just my personal hallucinations, and even if you agree to it, your communication/business/etc. partners don't magically become bound by it too.

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
Facebook says it's a privacy issue. So it doesn't make sense to go after individual users - users can violate their own privacy if they really want - but it might make sense to go after the researchers if Facebook thinks they're tricking people into giving up more privacy than they expect. (I hate to sound like a broken record, because this comes up truly constantly, but the Cambridge Analytica scandal was caused by an academic researcher collecting voluntarily shared data.)
- trhway 6y ago
  Cambridge Analytica was doing it on FB platform. Thus it isn't related to the current situation.

tytso 6y ago

And this is why I will refuse to take any calls from Facebook researchers. It's bad enough that Facebook is disproportionately used by Right Wing Trolls and Authoritarians. See [1] for more information about why this is so. [1] https://www.lawfareblog.com/lawfare-podcast-maria-ressa-weaponization-social-media https://www.lawfareblog.com/lawfare-podcast-maria-ressa-weap...

rolph 6y ago

FB claims automated data collection, the data is apparently input to the app by a user , i think the hairs will be split between copy paste mechaniics, or ten finger entry in response to prompt, thus massaging the definition of automated entry. (1)FB has consistently refused to publish anything about how the ads are targeted. (2)The NYU researchers have tried to fill that gap, offering the Ad Observer plug-in to users who want to voluntarily donate the ads they see — along with the limited targeting data FB displays to users. (3)Here’s where things get troubling: Facebook is now trying to shut down the Ad Observer plug-in, saying that it violates Facebook’s terms of service by automating the collection of data that Facebook shows to its users.

tim333 6y ago
Though presumably the Ad Observer plug-in didn't sign up to Facebook's terms of service. If anyone's violating their terms it's probably the users who install the plug-in.
punitxsmart 6y ago
Why would the AdObserver plugin (completely independent piece of software installed by the user) need to follow facebook's Terms of Service?

pfortuny 6y ago

Unbelievable. So now they want to prevent people from helping others share what appears on their computer screens? And they have the face to even WRITE IT! Just say no.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
dang 6y ago
Thoughtful critique is obviously welcome, but please don't break the HN guidelines like this. These ones in particular: "Please don't fulminate." "Please don't use uppercase for emphasis. If you want to emphasize a word or phrase, put asterisks around it and it will get italicized." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

tomcat27 6y ago

The world would have been a very different place had Facebook or other big companies built the internet.

macspoofing 6y ago
Facebook, and Twitter and Google were built by particular libertarian-types who were young and idealistic. They erred on the side of openness and really disliked regulating content. I don't mind them. The people who are taking over these companies, those people I'm afraid of because they are political and their first instinct is to push ideology and censorship.
- tomcat27 6y ago
  Everyone talks openness but rarely commit when its really needed. I think mobile app development would have been a different experience if people had the convictions similar to their 90s parallels that made GNU, WWW or Linux foundations possible and lasting. The paper "Protocols, Not Platforms: A Technological Approach to Free Speech, Masnick 2019" underscores the difference.
- beagle3 6y ago
  Facebook always has the “dumb f*cks” mentality. Google was benevolent (or at least seemed that way) until they had any competition, at which point they threw out the “don’t be evil” motto, but same guys (page, brin, Schmidt) were still at the helm. Wasn’t following twitter closely, but Dorsey is still running it - same guy. It’s the same guys, not some “nefarious guys taking over”.
  - tomcat27 6y ago
    good point!

duxup 6y ago

Apparently they created software that someone else installs and then uses to share info they saw on facebook with them. This seems like a pretty big stretch.

TLightful 6y ago

You're welcome to downvote this, but in the interest of objective and logical responses to Facebook: Facebook can get Zuck'ed ... just another corrupt, bullsh!tter company. If you work there, you've sold your soul for cr@ppy smiles around the food counter or the drinks cooler ... but your life is being zucked dry. I pity you.

mobileexpert 6y ago

Some takes From Benedict Evans that are worth considering: https://twitter.com/benedictevans/status/1320378054150148098?s=21 https://twitter.com/benedictevans/status/1320378054150148098... “Meanwhile: the NYU app has access to friend data in your feed and friend data is also in the ads it scrapes. And it replaces an actual security model with our trust that NYU are nice people and won't abuse this access. That is exactly how Cambridge Analytica happened.”

christkv 6y ago
Turns out Cambridge analytics might have been practically useless https://www.wired.co.uk/article/cambridge-analytica-facebook-psychographics https://www.wired.co.uk/article/cambridge-analytica-facebook...
- InitialLastName 6y ago
  That's not what the article you posted is arguing. The article is arguing that the data they collected directly through their trojan apps is not particularly useful, NOT that the full connection graphs (including data drawn from connections of users who didn't use their app) they collected and allegedly used to target advertising is useless.
MAGZine 6y ago
Comparing Cambridge Analytica, who harvested data though means that were not transparent to users (and for malicious purpose), to NYU has explained what data and why, AND has the consent of its users, seems disingenuous at best.
- mobileexpert 6y ago
  The whole point is that a major problem with CA was the scaled friend’s data collection. The NYU app scraping modality could easily do the same thing which violates the present FB consent/sharing model of you control your data going to or not going to third party apps. FB has to fight as hard as possible against such apps. Remember Clearview AI? If we want FB to fight CA and Clearview they must fight here as well.

op03 6y ago

Monitoring Facebook needs to work like the Black hole photo project. Large alliances spanning countries and multiple institutions, hundreds of researchers working in tandem. Thats the best way to tame a beast this large. Same goes for regulators/legal strategies/journalism etc. Associations and alliances are key.

2arrs2ells 6y ago

Don't miss Alex Stamos (former Facebook Chief Security Officer's reply): https://twitter.com/alexstamos/status/1320006154424967170 https://twitter.com/alexstamos/status/1320006154424967170 If I'm understanding Alex right, he's saying that Facebook's 2019 FTC consent decree requires them to limit the personal information collected by apps on the platform.

cronix 6y ago
It's a browser plugin, not a facebook app. Why should facebook have a say on what plugins I have installed in my browser that did not come from facebook? Should they be able to have a say about ublock origin or other apps I have installed on my computer/browser?
- rolph 6y ago
  it would be a new angle to require functionality qualifications examination to weed out any compromized browsers or OS's, all in the name of security and privacy of course
  - XMPPwocky 6y ago
    SECURITY ERROR This comment by /u/XMPPwocky cannot be displayed because of a security problem with your device. If this error persists, reinstall your operating system or replace your device. Technical details: "An enclave could not be verified due to a problem with its digital certificate" (E_BAD_ENCLAVE_SIG). Logging info: Local: Success (monotonic counter 5 increment OK) Remote: Success (200 OK in 0.113s)
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- echlebek 6y ago
  I'm sure they would absolutely love to dictate this.
- warkdarrior 6y ago

walrus01 6y ago

> The researchers (w/ the help of others) are responsible for a browser plug-in called Ad Observer, which allows FB users to voluntarily share very limited and anonymous data about the political ads that FB shows them. You can read about Ad Observer here: https://adobservatory.org https://adobservatory.org ================= Absolutely preposterous takedown demand. Facebook doesn't get to dictate what software I run on my own client devices, including browser plugins, or even what browser I use. If I want to install a plugin that sends a screenshot or data of every advertisement I receive, to a third party of my choice, that's up to me. Or maybe I want to install ublock origin and see no ads. It sounds like they're complaining because they have no way of detecting this or preventing it on the user client end, thankfully, because of the way browsers are architected to prevent a website from screwing with the software on your computer. The only way fb could detect or block this would be to force users to install their own fb-written browser plugin, with extensive permissions required. Obviously fb has a high level of motivation to get every user to use their officially app-store-published android or ios app, where the whole experience is centrally controlled, and such a plugin is impossible to use. Rather than having the user browse facebook in Firefox or Chrome or Edge. If I can display something on my own computer screen it's my right to choose to share it however I damn well please.

ninth_ant 6y ago
A lot of people felt Facebook should do more to proactively stop people from scraping and aggregating data from their site after the CA debacle. Which is what they are doing here, and you are labeling “absolutely preposterous”. Which way is it? Should they let people do whatever they want with their accounts as you suggest, and risk a repeat of the CA fiasco? Or try to proactively stop it like they are now?
- rizpanjwani 6y ago
  This looks like a strawman dressed in false dilemma. With Cambridge Analytica debacle, as I understand it, it was a facebook quiz hosted by facebook and the data collected from facebook directly and used for nefarious purposes. This is a an extension developed by researchers asking users to install it on their machines and used exactly as advertised: scrapes advertisement data that facebook shows them.

Lendal 6y ago

Wait so Facebook can collect data about its users but Facebook users aren't allowed to collect data about Facebook?

Permit 6y ago
If I’m your friend on Facebook should you be allowed to go to my page and give all the information I’ve shared with you to another 3rd party? You trust NYU, OK fine. Can I give the same information about you to pro-Trump researchers?
- arbol 6y ago
  Yes the OP is absolutely allowed to do this. Their are consequences of befriending people in real life and online. It's up to you to decide who you befriend.
  - justapassenger 6y ago
    Not according to FTC.
- CivBase 6y ago
  You shared the information with your Facebook friends without any protections. Why shouldn't they be allowed to share it with other people? What legal obligation do they have to keep the information you shared private?
  - filoleg 6y ago
    >Why shouldn't they be allowed to share it with other people? >What legal obligation do they have to keep the information you shared private? Those exact same questions can very well be asked of the whole Cambridge Analytica scandal, and yet some people will give different answers to those two scenarios. Cambridge Analytica app was explicitly asking users for permission to access their data and data their friends publicly shared with those users. The first one is obviously ok, but the latter was what people had issues with, and I don't see how it is different here. As for what legal obligations your friends have to keep your information private, I don't think they do. However, Facebook does have the obligation to not share info of users who didn't explicitly consent to it with third party apps, according to this order from FTC issued in 2019[0]. And third party apps that share not only your FB info, but that of your friends (who do not use those third-party apps), definitely fall under this. 0. https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/c4365facebookmodifyingorder.pdf https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/c4365facebo...

X6S1x6Okd1st 6y ago

Did they even agree to the ToS? It seems like they wrote their own plugin to harvest the data, what agreement did they made with Facebook that they are in violation of?

dfxm12 6y ago
Having an agreement with someone is not a prerequisite for being able to send them a C&D.
- X6S1x6Okd1st 6y ago
  I agree, but: > In a letter sent Oct. 16 to the researchers behind the NYU Ad Observatory, Facebook said the project violates provisions in its terms of service that prohibit bulk data collection from its site.
- 013a 6y ago
  Sure, but at that point they'd have to be breaking some kind of law to warrant one, wouldn't they?
  - tim333 6y ago
    Given the wonders of the US legal system Facebook can probably throw a few million in legal fees into fighting the NYU researchers who will have to back down as unable to afford their own legal fees irrespective of who's right or wrong.
    - 013a 6y ago
      I imagine in a situation like this the university (may/would) stand behind them. And, you know, Facebook really picked a target given NYU is a top five US law school.
  - dfxm12 6y ago
    No, not at all. They aren't really legal documents, anyone can send one, even to simply intimidate the recipient, or force them to spend time and resources (they may not have) addressing it. And even if the sender is acting in good faith, the courts could interpret the law differently from them. Remember, one is presumed innocent/not liable until proven otherwise, not when you get a C&D (or get arrested, or get sued, for that matter).

0n34n7 6y ago

Frankly... Fck Facebook and their alien overlord.

lmilcin 6y ago

Isn't it ironic, Facebook has no trouble explaining mass surveillance of its user base but gets lawyered up when somebody tries to surveil them.

macspoofing 6y ago

Mixed feelings on this. On the one hand, I'm against Facebook censorship, especially of academics. On the other hand, the researchers (and journalists) are going to use this research to browbeat Facebook into more censorship (and specifically censorship of the right, though some non-mainstream progressives will be caught up in the dragnet as well) as they have already done with a ton of hit pieces [1]. What to do, what to do. [1] Brings to mind the hit-piece: "The Making of a YouTube Radical - The New York Times" article. But there is an ongoing effort to continue pushing Facebook, Twitter and YouTube into more and more censorship of anyone deemed on the right and the Overton window keeps getting smaller and smaller. The situation with the Hunter Biden laptop story and NYPost is absolutely bonkers. Not only do journalists at mainstream center/center-left news outfits not care that Twitter and Facebook outright decided that the story is false and therefore shouldn't be shared by anyone and banned the account of their colleagues at NYPost .. but worse, actually applaud it and justify it.

aluminum96 6y ago
The evidence just doesn't support your claim that Facebook predominantly censors content from the political right. Facebook produces disproportionately more engagements for right-wing sites[1]. This is reflected in the best performing content on the site -- after the first debate, 9 of the top 10 posts were right leaning [2], which is a regular occurrence. [1] https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2020/09/10/facebook-offers-a-distorted-view-of-american-news https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2020/09/10/facebook... [2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/elections/debate-facebook-sharing/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/elections/debat...
- macspoofing 6y ago
  >Facebook produces disproportionately more engagements for right-wing sites Bull. America is a country where any given election 50% vote Democrat and 50% vote Republican. Look at the chart. Look at the total number of left-wing vs right-wing sites. I bet if you add those up, total left-wing engagements will dwarf the number of total right-wing engagements. Looks to me that engagement is skewed towards left-wing, it's just that there are way more left-wing outfits so individual share is lower. Which makes sense, there is one major right-wing news network, Fox News, there's like 10 that are center-left/left wing which have to share the audience.

Emendo 6y ago

Facebook's complaint about user privacy is really a red herring. I am sure that someone is worried about negative stories written based on the data collected and tasked another person to shut it down in a way that makes the researchers look like a villain and Facebook looks like a hero.

ponker 6y ago

Good. I didn't agree for NYU to have my Facebook data and for them to operate a plugin at scale which crawls my data (if anyone with permissions to see my profile installs this plugin) is a violation of my rights.

patja 6y ago
How do you feel about it when anyone who has you in their phone's contacts list hands over all that personal information about you when they install WhatsApp or any other app that requests contacts data? Seems like the same thing.
- kinkrtyavimoodh 6y ago
  Yes, it is objectionable, and ordinarily people here would agree it is objectionable. The wrongness doesn't change just because in this particular case the framing is "poor researcher vs evil Facebook"
- ponker 6y ago
  An app should request contacts data to do what contacts data is intended for ... place calls and messages to contacts. Anything else is an abuse of trust.

013a 6y ago

I legitimately don't understand how Facebook has any grounds to C&D this application. Its a Terms and Conditions violation. Ok, I get that. But, at what point did the developers of this application ever agree to any terms and conditions? Its not like its accessing data via the API, or requires some kind of privileged access levels. Morals, ethics, security, whatever aside; I just don't understand the legal angle Facebook is using here.

kinkrtyavimoodh 6y ago

Not sure why people are angry at Facebook for this. Cambridge Analytica was very similar—it was a third-party using an API for its intended purpose (with the user's consent) and then doing questionable things with the data, yet that did not stop the world from raking FB through the coals. And it does not matter that CA was using FB's API and platform. In both cases there was user consent to provide the data.

dredmorbius 6y ago

Recent discussion / submissions: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24874602 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24874602 on the WSJ (linked in tweet here) story https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-seeks-shutdown-of-nyu-research-project-into-political-ad-targeting-11603488533 https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-seeks-shutdown-of-nyu-... (paywalled) Politico: 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...

wmeredith 6y ago

Sounds good. I just signed up.