3 ms·

And not a single mention of the fine that Facebook got for giving access to this data for someone elses "work". The work that Guardian gleefuly led the assault

by izacus 5y ago

And not a single mention of the fine that Facebook got for giving access to this data for someone elses "work". The work that Guardian gleefuly led the assault on and also widely reported (with good reason! Cambrige Analytica was a huge privacy issue). So not recognising the fine is disingenuous hypocritical crock and far from trustworthy reporting. Guardian, do better.

zdragnar 5y ago
Expecting the Guardian to do better would be like expecting the NYT to do better- pretty pointless. They have specific agendas, and the stories are written to conform to the narrative. As an aside, I don't use Facebook at all, and wouldn't trust them with my dog's name either.
uniqueuid 5y ago
As others here have pointed out, you are conflating two very different things. Cambridge analytica deceived people to steal and sell data, and to invisibly manipulate them. These NYU researchers are scientists, whose entire work is only valuable if put into the open, and who are boud do law and supervised by many checks and balances - soft and hard ones. It must be possible to study platforms, and for people to volunteer their data with informed consent to science. Otherwise the entire mechanism of "self-observation" of society falls apart. So yes, it would be good to mention the caveat that Facebook does need to protect users. But no, that's almost entirely not the issue here.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
newbie789 5y ago
I’m not 100% familiar with the Cambridge Analytica situation, but wasn’t their tooling based around user data rather than just keeping track of ads? From the article: > Facebook claimed that we were violating its terms of service, that we were compromising user privacy, and that it had no choice but to shut us down because of an agreement it has with the Federal Trade Commission. All of these claims are wrong. Ad Observer collects information only about advertisers, not about our volunteers or their friends, and the FTC has stated that our research does not violate its consent decree with Facebook. If these NYU researchers have in fact created an identical system with identical strategies and goals, and are lying blatantly in the Guardian, that should be big news! I’m somewhat skeptical about the equivalence here.

by izacus 5y ago

zdragnar 5y ago

Expecting the Guardian to do better would be like expecting the NYT to do better- pretty pointless. They have specific agendas, and the stories are written to conform to the narrative. As an aside, I don't use Facebook at all, and wouldn't trust them with my dog's name either.

uniqueuid 5y ago

As others here have pointed out, you are conflating two very different things. Cambridge analytica deceived people to steal and sell data, and to invisibly manipulate them. These NYU researchers are scientists, whose entire work is only valuable if put into the open, and who are boud do law and supervised by many checks and balances - soft and hard ones. It must be possible to study platforms, and for people to volunteer their data with informed consent to science. Otherwise the entire mechanism of "self-observation" of society falls apart. So yes, it would be good to mention the caveat that Facebook does need to protect users. But no, that's almost entirely not the issue here.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

newbie789 5y ago

I’m not 100% familiar with the Cambridge Analytica situation, but wasn’t their tooling based around user data rather than just keeping track of ads? From the article: > Facebook claimed that we were violating its terms of service, that we were compromising user privacy, and that it had no choice but to shut us down because of an agreement it has with the Federal Trade Commission. All of these claims are wrong. Ad Observer collects information only about advertisers, not about our volunteers or their friends, and the FTC has stated that our research does not violate its consent decree with Facebook. If these NYU researchers have in fact created an identical system with identical strategies and goals, and are lying blatantly in the Guardian, that should be big news! I’m somewhat skeptical about the equivalence here.