3 ms·
> There's a bit of a difference between getting data for public interest purposes and getting it for making profits. I'd say what Cambridge Analytica did was
by tablespoon 5y ago
> There's a bit of a difference between getting data for public interest purposes and getting it for making profits.
I'd say what Cambridge Analytica did was worse than that: they weren't transparent about their purposes, which was to manipulate people. AdObserver seems like they're being transparent, not trying to manipulate anyone, and working for the public interest.
- bryan_w 5y agoThe Cambridge Analytica data started off as a university research project too...until the data was sold. FB got a $5 billion fine for being duped in 2015. It doesn't surprise me they are trying to prevent that again
- tablespoon 5y ago> The Cambridge Analytica data started off as a university research project too...until the data was sold. The other salient factor is Cambridge Analytica's Facebook data was on individuals, AdObserver's data is on ads. There's no privacy issues with it at all, and there are serous public policy issues with giving advertisers "privacy" like individuals have. > FB got a $5 billion fine for being duped in 2015. It doesn't surprise me they are trying to prevent that again I highly doubt that's the actual reason they're doing this, though that might be their PR rationalization for these actions. It's far more likely they're really doing this because they hate outside scrutiny that they can't stage manage. They want to be able to tell the story that they're effectively combating problems X, Y, and Z; and they don't want anyone to have the data to refute them if they're not actually doing that.