4 ms·
Do you also agree that FB was unfairly raked through the coals in the Cambridge Analytica (CA) case and that they (FB) weren't actually at fault? I do, but at
by kinkrtyavimoodh 6y ago
Do you also agree that FB was unfairly raked through the coals in the Cambridge Analytica (CA) case and that they (FB) weren't actually at fault?
I do, but at least I am consistent. If the what happened in the CA incident is wrong, the NYU incident is wrong too (ethically. I am not a lawyer and can't comment on legality). If CA was not wrong, this isn't wrong either.
Since at least in the court of public opinion, CA was wrong and FB was a terrible company for letting CA happen, then well FB is doing the right thing by asking NYU to stop.
- cleansingfire 6y agoCA used deceptive practices to collect user data, & downloaded personally identifiable information for u users and their friends without notification or consent, unlike NYU. Those are significant differences.
- sfashset 6y agoCA didn't do any of those things. They purchased some data an academic had collected from a FB quiz app. There's absolutely nothing stopping one of the NYU academics from selling the data they collect for their study to "Cambridge Analytica 2.0" in 12 months. If that happens, which FB would not be able to stop, this situation become identical to the CA scenario. There would be no significant differences.
- freeopinion 6y agoI think it is significant that one happened server-side using FB tooling and the other happens client-side without FB being complicit. One was explicitly installed by the user, the other was foisted upon the unwitting user. So, maybe some significant differences, depending on your POV.
- tqi 6y agoBut AFAIK both CA and NYU got "consent" to access data from the users who installed their game/extension, but neither are asking consent from users' friends (ie the crux of the CA scandal).