4 ms·

Amazing how since Facebook became so large they now get attacked on 2 sides of every issue. 1. First the consensus was that Facebook should allow easy data exp

Amazing how since Facebook became so large they now get attacked on 2 sides of every issue. 1. First the consensus was that Facebook should allow easy data exports 2. Then CA happened and data sharing should be prohibited, now this from the FTC with more flip flopping. 3. Facebook should be E2EE vs the government saying they shouldn't 4. Facebook should moderate content vs not moderate content These are all complex issues and most of them apply to the internet as a whole.

rightisleft 5y ago
They could try not collecting the data in the first place
marricks 5y ago
Great reason for them to be broken up in to a thousand tiny pieces. No company should get this large (including Google, Apple, Microsoft...)
- geoduck14 5y ago
  I'm all about breaking them up- but I think it actually means we will have this same conversation with each NEW fb.
supercanuck 5y ago
At no point was Cambridge Analytica an academic public research institution.
- tschellenbach 5y ago
  So some people should be allowed to harvest your data and not others? If you allow it they will sooner or later give access to the wrong firm. People have to perform these checks, API access credentials can fall into the wrong hands. Im not defending facebook, but obviously bound to go wrong eventually if they allow some apps to scrape the data.
  - mcguire 5y ago
    AdObserver does not "harvest your data", unless "you" are an advertiser on Facebook. Some people are allowed to send you a bill for water and power. Some people are allowed to deliver your mail. Some people are allowed to write you traffic tickets. Others are not.
  - supercanuck 5y ago
    "some people"
matheusmoreira 5y ago
End-to-end encryption is not a complex issue. That's what governments would have us believe. The truth is they just don't like how encryption in general subverts their power. That's why it should be standard in every single messaging platform. Consequences be damned.
Retric 5y ago
(2) Data sharing with unrelated 3rd parties has nothing to do with (1) data exports to users. It’s like suggesting Gmail adding IMAP is the equivalent to sending all your emails to anyone for a nominal fee.
- tschellenbach 5y ago
  data exports to users is what CA exploited to harvest the data. (they tricked your friends into handing over data about you)
  - Retric 5y ago
    No, the app “collected the personal data of the users’ Facebook friends via Facebook's Open Graph platform.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook–Cambridge_Analytica_data_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook–Cambridge_Analytica_d... Facebook's Open Graph platform simply isn’t a personal data export feature. Exporting your profile should reasonably include lists of friends, but shouldn’t include all of your friends info especially to share to a third party without informing you.
blendergeek 5y ago
> Then CA happened and data sharing should be prohibited, now this from the FTC with more flip flopping Here is a direct quote from the FTC's letter: "The FTC is committed to protecting the privacy of people, and efforts to shield targeted advertising practices from scrutiny run counter to that mission." How is this "flip-flopping" by the FTC? The FTC wants to protect the privacy of individuals but has no interest in protecting the privacy of large corporations. That is and has been the stance of the FTC. The Cambridge Analytica event involved an advertising company exfiltrating data from individuals and their friends (under the guise of a "game") in order to use the data to target new ads. NYU was explicitly asking individuals to share some information about advertisers (corporations) and was entirely up front about everything. These two events should not be confused (which is what the FTC is explaining in this letter). Can you show me the FTC in the past defending the privacy of advertisers?
- edmundsauto 5y ago
  Didn’t CA also start as an ostensible research project that turned nefarious?
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
mcguire 5y ago
Do you not see a difference between Cambridge Analytica and AdObserver?

rightisleft 5y ago

They could try not collecting the data in the first place

marricks 5y ago

Great reason for them to be broken up in to a thousand tiny pieces. No company should get this large (including Google, Apple, Microsoft...)

geoduck14 5y ago
I'm all about breaking them up- but I think it actually means we will have this same conversation with each NEW fb.

supercanuck 5y ago

At no point was Cambridge Analytica an academic public research institution.

tschellenbach 5y ago
So some people should be allowed to harvest your data and not others? If you allow it they will sooner or later give access to the wrong firm. People have to perform these checks, API access credentials can fall into the wrong hands. Im not defending facebook, but obviously bound to go wrong eventually if they allow some apps to scrape the data.
- mcguire 5y ago
  AdObserver does not "harvest your data", unless "you" are an advertiser on Facebook. Some people are allowed to send you a bill for water and power. Some people are allowed to deliver your mail. Some people are allowed to write you traffic tickets. Others are not.
- supercanuck 5y ago
  "some people"

matheusmoreira 5y ago

End-to-end encryption is not a complex issue. That's what governments would have us believe. The truth is they just don't like how encryption in general subverts their power. That's why it should be standard in every single messaging platform. Consequences be damned.

Retric 5y ago

(2) Data sharing with unrelated 3rd parties has nothing to do with (1) data exports to users. It’s like suggesting Gmail adding IMAP is the equivalent to sending all your emails to anyone for a nominal fee.

tschellenbach 5y ago
data exports to users is what CA exploited to harvest the data. (they tricked your friends into handing over data about you)
- Retric 5y ago
  No, the app “collected the personal data of the users’ Facebook friends via Facebook's Open Graph platform.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook–Cambridge_Analytica_data_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook–Cambridge_Analytica_d... Facebook's Open Graph platform simply isn’t a personal data export feature. Exporting your profile should reasonably include lists of friends, but shouldn’t include all of your friends info especially to share to a third party without informing you.

blendergeek 5y ago

> Then CA happened and data sharing should be prohibited, now this from the FTC with more flip flopping Here is a direct quote from the FTC's letter: "The FTC is committed to protecting the privacy of people, and efforts to shield targeted advertising practices from scrutiny run counter to that mission." How is this "flip-flopping" by the FTC? The FTC wants to protect the privacy of individuals but has no interest in protecting the privacy of large corporations. That is and has been the stance of the FTC. The Cambridge Analytica event involved an advertising company exfiltrating data from individuals and their friends (under the guise of a "game") in order to use the data to target new ads. NYU was explicitly asking individuals to share some information about advertisers (corporations) and was entirely up front about everything. These two events should not be confused (which is what the FTC is explaining in this letter). Can you show me the FTC in the past defending the privacy of advertisers?

edmundsauto 5y ago
Didn’t CA also start as an ostensible research project that turned nefarious?

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

mcguire 5y ago

Do you not see a difference between Cambridge Analytica and AdObserver?