11 ms·

For once, can we have articles (or even opinion pieces) which try to explain the context and position of both sides rather than pieces such as these. These kind

For once, can we have articles (or even opinion pieces) which try to explain the context and position of both sides rather than pieces such as these. These kind of writings do nothing to change the mind of anyone. For someone who hates FB and its practices, they reinforce the already held belief. And for those, who are skeptical of such media articles, they would be put off by the language used. And make no mistake, its not about putting arguments from all sides, they picked a side and decided they are right, while the other side is wrong. > Ad Observer is a browser plug-in that Facebook users voluntarily install. The plug-in scrapes (makes a copy of) every ad that a user sees and sends it to Ad Observatory, a public database of Facebook ads that scholars and accountability journalists mine to analyze what's really happening on the platform. I agree with the sentiment, but this clearly mentions that the plugin scrapes data and sends to NYU servers. I may be wrong, but arent we taking NYU on their word that they are scraping only the ad data and nothing else? People agree to share their data voluntarily, but they are taking this add in at the face value. It may not be scraping, but can scrape. If Facebook allows third parties to scrape data (who can incentivize users any which way) where does it stop? The question I had was, both - the independent ad analysis and the user privacy - seem important. So, what is the way both can exist? Maybe FB sharing the data by themselves? But, isnt that close to how Cambridge Analytica happened? These are grey areas, we should be debating and discussing in detail about them, not writing snide pieces with one side as the aggressor and another as victim.

input_sh 6y ago
The plug-in is open sourced: https://github.com/OnlinePoliticalTransparency/social-media-collector https://github.com/OnlinePoliticalTransparency/social-media-... You can download a release straight from there and import it into your browser. Browsers also do some reviews of the plugins that are in their stores, so every update should be tested by both Google and Mozilla (even if only superficially). I'd say the odds of them managing to pull off scraping anything else without anyone noticing are rather slim.
- KaiserPro 6y ago
  with respect, thats not the issue. With facebook they only collect "limited" information. Its what they do with it afterwards that matter. How is it stored, is it secure, how do they anonymise it, who has access to the raw data, what happens when there is a break, is there monitoring, etc etc etc. They are making a massive honey pot, and we just have to trust them that they are doing good job. (much like facebook....)
  - loopz 6y ago
    Please don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. There's no obligation to opt-in, and there's risk in everything we do and don't do.
    - raxxorrax 6y ago
      The tool would need to guarantee that the data of a user opting in doesn't contain private information about his contacts which may not have done so.
  - tjpnz 6y ago
    Facebook doesn't have the greatest security track record. While it wouldn't be productive to argue that one group is inherently more trustworthy than the other it's worth pointing out (as others already have) that the code is available to the public.
    - KaiserPro 6y ago
      Code being public doesn't mean its secure. See php, django, gnupgp, openssl etc etc etc. Again, the issue isn't the collection, its the storage, processing and disposal that really matters here.
      - cutemonster 6y ago
        > its the storage, processing and disposal that really matters That you can say about almost all web apps? Then almost maybe you shouldn't use the Internet, I start thinking
- ankit219 6y ago
  Thanks for the link. I agree odds would be slim, but this can potentially set a precedent for others to do similar things. Imagine, in the future, a new company comes up with similar add-in claiming to scan ads, and take more data than needed. Facebook needs to be careful of that too. (though i think that is not the reason they are shutting this down, just that privacy is favorable to them in this case :)). There has to be a better way to do this, and that needs serious discussion. Also, as an aside, the add-in records the following things: country, age, gender, language etc. and the text of the ad. Not so clear what happens when ads have personal info (or friends' names) attached like xyz likes page. Payload seems to suggest they take every bit of info so it could include that as well maybe.
  - mattnewton 6y ago
    What is the alternative? No visibility for the general public into hyper targeted ad campaigns? If the users are opting into this, isn't that the same argument for letting them opt into the Facebook platform itself? Why must we protect them from NYU and not from Facebook?
KaiserPro 6y ago
> isnt that close to how Cambridge Analytica happened? Yes, its exactly this. "Facebook changes based on past scandal for the better, and this is bad. here is my 9th grade essay with no research just feeling" Facebook _should_ be held to account. I personally don't think that the advertising is actually that much of a problem. It all has paper trails because they have to pay. Advertising is not the worst part of facebook is its users. for that to change facebook needs to understand that "freedom of expression" disappears when you sign the terms and agreements, which specifically limit your freedom of expression. If they actually enforced their community standards properly, the place would be much better. Instead they carve out exceptions for celebs, based on precedence that not even employees can find.
- intricatedetail 6y ago
  Isn't how human nature works? Exceptions, greed, gossip, deception? You can't leave that to a company to enforce with T&C.
- ClumsyPilot 6y ago
  > "I personally don't think that the advertising is actually that much of a problem" Facebook was used to illegally infuence elections in Uk and break spending rules and because of their closed nature, nobody realised untill a whistleblower stepped forwards. Its a massive problem, and maybe we would not have Brexit without it. www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-politics-44856992 A TV ad, by comparison, is aired publically and you can see it and ask who paid for it.
  - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
    The question is the degree to which advertising actually influences behavior. It must have some effect, I’d agree, but was Cambridge Analytica’s ad targeting so powerful that a 1.3 million vote margin was entirely their doing? I’m pretty skeptical.
    - Fnoord 6y ago
      It was highly targeted advertising on targets which were highly susceptible to be turned. Whatever they were turned by, doesn't matter whether it was factual or not (cause that is the low standard for advertising). We have Edward Bernays standard of advertising coupled with the power of Facebook available for everyone, including people who lie through their teeth to get what they wanted. Furthermore, there is evidence Russian trolls influenced the Brexit campaign, and if that isn't enough: it was a moment in polls where leavers indeed won, but before and after the referendum it was more votes for stay and for leave. I'm actually glad The Netherlands quit with referendum. Elections are very tough nowadays because of how easy people are influenced.
White_Wolf 6y ago
Isn't(technically speaking) the addon taking data only from the users PC and not from facebook servers? At the end of the day it shouldn't be facebook's call what goes on the user's device. One thing about these addons is that you can actually take them apart and see what is going on if you don't trust that the addon is built from their github code.
- ankit219 6y ago
  I do think that users opting in is an insufficient response. A lot of users opt in for things they do not understand. (Terms and conditions of any site or app for example). For tech savvy users with the plug in, they will be smart enough to know what they are accepting, though that is not true for everyone. I like the idea of open source code and that is helpful but there is got to be a better way. And I also believe that the research like this should be supported. All things aside, we can arrive at solutions without the need of an article like this which neither poses such questions, nor provides context.
  - CogitoCogito 6y ago
    > I do think that users opting in is an insufficient response. A lot of users opt in for things they do not understand. (Terms and conditions of any site or app for example). For tech savvy users with the plug in, they will be smart enough to know what they are accepting, though that is not true for everyone. Everything you just said here applies to Facebook themselves as much as the researchers. If we allow people to opt-in to sending data to Facebook (by creating an account), why would be against giving those same users the option to send the data somewhere else?
JumpCrisscross 6y ago
> isnt that close to how Cambridge Analytica happened? Close to. But different. Cambridge Analytica drew from Facebook’s servers. This plug-in pulls from users’ computers. Cambridge Analytica was not academically affiliated. This is legitimate research. Cambridge was closed source. This is open. Most importantly, users are explicitly sharing their data with NYU. There is no carrot of a personality quiz to obscure the quid pro quo.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  Cambridge Analytica was academically affiliated. The data they got was laundered through a University of Cambridge researcher Aleksandr Kogan, and their app claimed to be using the data for legitimate academic research. I’m not saying it’s exactly the same, but the fundamental challenge is still present: how can Facebook be sure that these researchers won’t share the data with some controversial organization?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - bogomipz 6y ago
    No they were not. Please see this post from Dr David Stillwell from the Psychometric Centers at Cambridge University who responded to a post here a few weeks ago about this very point: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24912986 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24912986
    - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
      Thanks for the link, but I'm sure you can understand my skepticism of a naked assertion that the reporting on this issue was wrong - especially since this was Mr. Stillwell's only comment ever.
      - bogomipz 6y ago
        Is it really that implausible that someone have have forwarded him a link to a site he has no interest in and he saw a comment he felt compelled to comment on? Since when is the number of of past comments a barometer for legitimacy? I mean Hacker News even gives you the option to post from a throwaway account. Further the comment is simply refuting one Wired article with an earlier article Wired published on the same subject in which he participated in. It's not like some crazy idea was being posited in the comment. Lastly Dr Stillwell has made the assertion many times that the app and data he and Dr Michal Kosinskis developed for their "MyPersonality Quiz" app at Cambridge University is neither the same app or data as Aleksandar Kogan's My Digital Life" app that Kogan developed for Global Science Research and their client SCL Elections. The "MyPersonality Quiz" app was simply based on Stillwell's earlier work.
rebuilder 6y ago
The thing is, I don't see how Facebook have any business allowing or forbidding users to install software on their own devices. I mean, if this was about FB banning users for TOS violations, that's one thing. But claiming a third party is not legally allowed to provide software that does something FB do not like? That's a whole different can of worms.
- edmundsauto 6y ago
  IANAL, but if NYU makes software designed to violate a contract between user and FB, isn’t that torturous interference? IOW, I think what you just described is not legal. I can’t make something that is designed to violate a contract, then step back and pretend they aren’t encouraging users to violate a contract w fb.
_Understated_ 6y ago
> If Facebook allows third parties to scrape data (who can incentivize users any which way) where does it stop? What say should Facebook have here though? I'd argue that when I am viewing data through my browser it's on my computer at that point. I've downloaded it so why should Facebook be allowed to decide what I can and cannot do with it any more than they can decide what I can do with my emails that I also view on my computer?
- gorgoiler 6y ago
  ...but Facebook doesn’t have to let you use their service (for free) if they don’t want to. If they don’t like something you are doing, they can do whatever they like.
  - Guest42 6y ago
    Are you sure there isn’t more nuance to the situation?
    - _Understated_ 6y ago
      Like what? It's not running on their servers at this point: It's on my computer. Now, I don't know what the US laws exactly say about that but in terms of common sense, FB should not be allowed to make any claims to that data when it's on my computer. Sure, they can say "well, no more data for you, you're banned" but that's a different argument. In addition, having control over users of FB is one thing as they signed up to it and agreed to the terms but NYU didn't so I have no idea how they can even claim to enforce them especially if NYU are scraping data from the users computer (I assume they aren't making a connection to the FB servers!) Also, not that it matters for this argument, I do not have a FB (or any social media) account: I tried it, maybe 10 years ago, and found it silly :) Edit: Guys, this isn't Reddit! I'm all for downvotes but not drive-by downvoting... a simple "I downvoted you because..." would suffice. Edit2: Mea Culpa! As has been pointed out, I replied to someone that wasn't actually commenting on my post... not sure how I missed that!
      - 6y ago
konjin 6y ago
I'm curious, who is on the other side of the debate here? Because I've seen more people argue for a flat earth than a non-evil facebook.
- EarthLaunch 6y ago
  There are several arguments to be made for a non-evil Facebook. But people are unlikely to engage with a starting comparison like that. Perhaps that's why you haven't see any opposing arguments.
  - konjin 6y ago
    Please do.

input_sh 6y ago

The plug-in is open sourced: https://github.com/OnlinePoliticalTransparency/social-media-collector https://github.com/OnlinePoliticalTransparency/social-media-... You can download a release straight from there and import it into your browser. Browsers also do some reviews of the plugins that are in their stores, so every update should be tested by both Google and Mozilla (even if only superficially). I'd say the odds of them managing to pull off scraping anything else without anyone noticing are rather slim.

KaiserPro 6y ago
with respect, thats not the issue. With facebook they only collect "limited" information. Its what they do with it afterwards that matter. How is it stored, is it secure, how do they anonymise it, who has access to the raw data, what happens when there is a break, is there monitoring, etc etc etc. They are making a massive honey pot, and we just have to trust them that they are doing good job. (much like facebook....)
- loopz 6y ago
  Please don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. There's no obligation to opt-in, and there's risk in everything we do and don't do.
  - raxxorrax 6y ago
    The tool would need to guarantee that the data of a user opting in doesn't contain private information about his contacts which may not have done so.
- tjpnz 6y ago
  Facebook doesn't have the greatest security track record. While it wouldn't be productive to argue that one group is inherently more trustworthy than the other it's worth pointing out (as others already have) that the code is available to the public.
  - KaiserPro 6y ago
    Code being public doesn't mean its secure. See php, django, gnupgp, openssl etc etc etc. Again, the issue isn't the collection, its the storage, processing and disposal that really matters here.
    - cutemonster 6y ago
      > its the storage, processing and disposal that really matters That you can say about almost all web apps? Then almost maybe you shouldn't use the Internet, I start thinking
ankit219 6y ago
Thanks for the link. I agree odds would be slim, but this can potentially set a precedent for others to do similar things. Imagine, in the future, a new company comes up with similar add-in claiming to scan ads, and take more data than needed. Facebook needs to be careful of that too. (though i think that is not the reason they are shutting this down, just that privacy is favorable to them in this case :)). There has to be a better way to do this, and that needs serious discussion. Also, as an aside, the add-in records the following things: country, age, gender, language etc. and the text of the ad. Not so clear what happens when ads have personal info (or friends' names) attached like xyz likes page. Payload seems to suggest they take every bit of info so it could include that as well maybe.
- mattnewton 6y ago
  What is the alternative? No visibility for the general public into hyper targeted ad campaigns? If the users are opting into this, isn't that the same argument for letting them opt into the Facebook platform itself? Why must we protect them from NYU and not from Facebook?

KaiserPro 6y ago

> isnt that close to how Cambridge Analytica happened? Yes, its exactly this. "Facebook changes based on past scandal for the better, and this is bad. here is my 9th grade essay with no research just feeling" Facebook _should_ be held to account. I personally don't think that the advertising is actually that much of a problem. It all has paper trails because they have to pay. Advertising is not the worst part of facebook is its users. for that to change facebook needs to understand that "freedom of expression" disappears when you sign the terms and agreements, which specifically limit your freedom of expression. If they actually enforced their community standards properly, the place would be much better. Instead they carve out exceptions for celebs, based on precedence that not even employees can find.

intricatedetail 6y ago
Isn't how human nature works? Exceptions, greed, gossip, deception? You can't leave that to a company to enforce with T&C.
ClumsyPilot 6y ago
> "I personally don't think that the advertising is actually that much of a problem" Facebook was used to illegally infuence elections in Uk and break spending rules and because of their closed nature, nobody realised untill a whistleblower stepped forwards. Its a massive problem, and maybe we would not have Brexit without it. www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-politics-44856992 A TV ad, by comparison, is aired publically and you can see it and ask who paid for it.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  The question is the degree to which advertising actually influences behavior. It must have some effect, I’d agree, but was Cambridge Analytica’s ad targeting so powerful that a 1.3 million vote margin was entirely their doing? I’m pretty skeptical.
  - Fnoord 6y ago
    It was highly targeted advertising on targets which were highly susceptible to be turned. Whatever they were turned by, doesn't matter whether it was factual or not (cause that is the low standard for advertising). We have Edward Bernays standard of advertising coupled with the power of Facebook available for everyone, including people who lie through their teeth to get what they wanted. Furthermore, there is evidence Russian trolls influenced the Brexit campaign, and if that isn't enough: it was a moment in polls where leavers indeed won, but before and after the referendum it was more votes for stay and for leave. I'm actually glad The Netherlands quit with referendum. Elections are very tough nowadays because of how easy people are influenced.

White_Wolf 6y ago

Isn't(technically speaking) the addon taking data only from the users PC and not from facebook servers? At the end of the day it shouldn't be facebook's call what goes on the user's device. One thing about these addons is that you can actually take them apart and see what is going on if you don't trust that the addon is built from their github code.

ankit219 6y ago
I do think that users opting in is an insufficient response. A lot of users opt in for things they do not understand. (Terms and conditions of any site or app for example). For tech savvy users with the plug in, they will be smart enough to know what they are accepting, though that is not true for everyone. I like the idea of open source code and that is helpful but there is got to be a better way. And I also believe that the research like this should be supported. All things aside, we can arrive at solutions without the need of an article like this which neither poses such questions, nor provides context.
- CogitoCogito 6y ago
  > I do think that users opting in is an insufficient response. A lot of users opt in for things they do not understand. (Terms and conditions of any site or app for example). For tech savvy users with the plug in, they will be smart enough to know what they are accepting, though that is not true for everyone. Everything you just said here applies to Facebook themselves as much as the researchers. If we allow people to opt-in to sending data to Facebook (by creating an account), why would be against giving those same users the option to send the data somewhere else?

JumpCrisscross 6y ago

> isnt that close to how Cambridge Analytica happened? Close to. But different. Cambridge Analytica drew from Facebook’s servers. This plug-in pulls from users’ computers. Cambridge Analytica was not academically affiliated. This is legitimate research. Cambridge was closed source. This is open. Most importantly, users are explicitly sharing their data with NYU. There is no carrot of a personality quiz to obscure the quid pro quo.

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
Cambridge Analytica was academically affiliated. The data they got was laundered through a University of Cambridge researcher Aleksandr Kogan, and their app claimed to be using the data for legitimate academic research. I’m not saying it’s exactly the same, but the fundamental challenge is still present: how can Facebook be sure that these researchers won’t share the data with some controversial organization?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- bogomipz 6y ago
  No they were not. Please see this post from Dr David Stillwell from the Psychometric Centers at Cambridge University who responded to a post here a few weeks ago about this very point: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24912986 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24912986
  - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
    Thanks for the link, but I'm sure you can understand my skepticism of a naked assertion that the reporting on this issue was wrong - especially since this was Mr. Stillwell's only comment ever.
    - bogomipz 6y ago
      Is it really that implausible that someone have have forwarded him a link to a site he has no interest in and he saw a comment he felt compelled to comment on? Since when is the number of of past comments a barometer for legitimacy? I mean Hacker News even gives you the option to post from a throwaway account. Further the comment is simply refuting one Wired article with an earlier article Wired published on the same subject in which he participated in. It's not like some crazy idea was being posited in the comment. Lastly Dr Stillwell has made the assertion many times that the app and data he and Dr Michal Kosinskis developed for their "MyPersonality Quiz" app at Cambridge University is neither the same app or data as Aleksandar Kogan's My Digital Life" app that Kogan developed for Global Science Research and their client SCL Elections. The "MyPersonality Quiz" app was simply based on Stillwell's earlier work.

rebuilder 6y ago

The thing is, I don't see how Facebook have any business allowing or forbidding users to install software on their own devices. I mean, if this was about FB banning users for TOS violations, that's one thing. But claiming a third party is not legally allowed to provide software that does something FB do not like? That's a whole different can of worms.

edmundsauto 6y ago
IANAL, but if NYU makes software designed to violate a contract between user and FB, isn’t that torturous interference? IOW, I think what you just described is not legal. I can’t make something that is designed to violate a contract, then step back and pretend they aren’t encouraging users to violate a contract w fb.

_Understated_ 6y ago

> If Facebook allows third parties to scrape data (who can incentivize users any which way) where does it stop? What say should Facebook have here though? I'd argue that when I am viewing data through my browser it's on my computer at that point. I've downloaded it so why should Facebook be allowed to decide what I can and cannot do with it any more than they can decide what I can do with my emails that I also view on my computer?

gorgoiler 6y ago
...but Facebook doesn’t have to let you use their service (for free) if they don’t want to. If they don’t like something you are doing, they can do whatever they like.
- Guest42 6y ago
  Are you sure there isn’t more nuance to the situation?
  - _Understated_ 6y ago
    Like what? It's not running on their servers at this point: It's on my computer. Now, I don't know what the US laws exactly say about that but in terms of common sense, FB should not be allowed to make any claims to that data when it's on my computer. Sure, they can say "well, no more data for you, you're banned" but that's a different argument. In addition, having control over users of FB is one thing as they signed up to it and agreed to the terms but NYU didn't so I have no idea how they can even claim to enforce them especially if NYU are scraping data from the users computer (I assume they aren't making a connection to the FB servers!) Also, not that it matters for this argument, I do not have a FB (or any social media) account: I tried it, maybe 10 years ago, and found it silly :) Edit: Guys, this isn't Reddit! I'm all for downvotes but not drive-by downvoting... a simple "I downvoted you because..." would suffice. Edit2: Mea Culpa! As has been pointed out, I replied to someone that wasn't actually commenting on my post... not sure how I missed that!
    - 6y ago

konjin 6y ago

I'm curious, who is on the other side of the debate here? Because I've seen more people argue for a flat earth than a non-evil facebook.

EarthLaunch 6y ago
There are several arguments to be made for a non-evil Facebook. But people are unlikely to engage with a starting comparison like that. Perhaps that's why you haven't see any opposing arguments.
- konjin 6y ago
  Please do.