The Great Hack: A film that goes behind the scenes of the Facebook data scandal | Hacker News Reader

The Great Hack: A film that goes behind the scenes of the Facebook data scandal

theguardian.com

64 pointsmolteanu20 comments

I remember that a little while after it first came out that Cambridge Analytica had abused Facebook data, an insider (from Facebook?) wrote a piece about how it was even worse before. That companies used to be able to siphon off much larger quantities of private data using APIs or bypassing various restrictions before Facebook restricted this further, and iirc that this was used by Obama's campaign team.

Looks like this isn't part of this documentary. Anyone recall this piece, and if anything more came of it?

That’s not the subject of the documentary. Why would they talk about Obama?

For one, it's common to discuss closely related topics in threads like these.

I also believe that the topic of surveillance capitalism would get a better reception if it was less partisan. There's a lot of talk about Trump in there, but if companies before the Cambridge Analytica scandal were already abusing vast quantities of Facebook data, including for political ends, that is relevant context that's apparently left out.

Obviously, focusing on "the Russians" narrative is going to get the anti-Trump collective riled up, and as we all know if there is one thing that is good for business, its riled up reactive people. Especially Americans, who never lose a chance to revert to a Cold War mentality when their feelings are hurt.

But, consider this: maybe after the outrage bubble that this movie will trigger is burst, there'll be room for a sequel - and then it'll be Obama's turn.

What’s partisan about it? It’s discussing a singular topic.

You're not wrong, but I think it's a missed opportunity. At least for this article, which does discuss other things beyond just the documentary.

What opportunity? To rile up partisan political fervour?

It’s quite simply not the subject at hand.

I just said I'd prefer less partisan stuff, and you accuse me of wanting more? Does not follow.

> That companies used to be able to siphon off much larger quantities of private data using APIs or bypassing various restrictions before Facebook restricted this further, and iirc that this was used by Obama's campaign team.

True, but the actions of the Obama campaign and Cambridge Analytica were significantly different in terms of disclosure and action. This seems like a good non-partisan summary[1]:

> But in Obama’s case, direct users knew they were handing over their data to a political campaign. In the Cambridge Analytica case, users only knew were taking a personality quiz for academic purposes. The Obama campaign used the data to have their supporters contact their most persuadable friends. Cambridge Analytica targeted users, friends and lookalikes directly with digital ads. Whereas the data gathering and the uses were very different, the data each campaign gained access to was similar.

[1] https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/mar...

Thanks for the link. Unfortunately I didn't save the article I was referencing, but if I recall correctly it talked about obtaining data without the users being aware of it.

Great movie.

Assuming that data is basically a tool for doing PsyOps, it certainly puts the social networks operated by for example Chinese companies in a different light. That would mean total control.

Could you imagine if the Silicon Valley companies were obligated to share their data troves with the American government?

I understand now why every little shithole in China (e.g. my parents in law's small village) have better Internet fiber connections than I will ever have in Scandiavia.

At a specific part of the trailer, I believe it is said that: "Last year(?) data surpassed oil in value. Data is the most valuable asset on Earth".[1]

Being a trailer it is natural that no actual proof is provided, but is there any credit to this claim?

[1] https://youtu.be/CAMoPbj3jQE?t=67

They probably include the value of companies like FB and Google whose primary product relies on third party data. Other than that, I doubt data brokerage is worth more than a couple of billions, at most.

A quick Google search: https://www.economist.com/leaders/2017/05/06/the-worlds-most...

Can I take an intent and swallow the blue pill to chill ?

Sometimes I think that all "Facebook scandals" "data breaches news" "surveillance capitalism" is just pieces of a layer of control that always existed since humanity. This layer function as a "useful revolt channels" that maintains status quo : Empowered humans dictate how information flows.

I mean information was controlled before:

- in tribes by "the druids"

- Tsars, emperors, pharaoh etc and theyr closed near ecosystem of humans

- middle age by religion and nobility and books

- since industrial revolution, by capitalists by mass media

- now it's big tech and "the data" (and netflix beeing part of it)

so what is exactly new here ? Empowered humans dictate how information flows. Like before. Like in the future. the more things change, the more they stay the same," (Les Guêpes, July 1848).

This is indeed how it has been, but concessions like the rule of law and vaguely representative democracy were very hard won, and if not protected will slowly be clawed back.

You are talking about hypernormalisation.

TBH only recently have people been able to do this due to how media works.

I think the difference is the sheer amount of personal data. In the era of the Tsars they tightly controlled what was reported in newspapers about war efforts etc, but that had nothing to do with everyday citizens.

These days, Facebook holds an enormous about of information about all of us, and lets advertisers (including political ones) use it.

A company like Cambridge Analytica could show me an ad saying "Candidate X supports position Y!", knowing that I too support Y. It could then show my neighbor, who is against Y, an ad saying "Candidate X is against Y". And if there's no oversight no one would be any the wiser. That feels significant to me, even if it is a progression of existing trends.

Your argument is so general that it can be applied to almost anything. All the examples you give are very different, if you examine them. Books and mass media were revolutionary and both reguired a lot of new rules and regulation.

It is not given that new technologies will be used in fair and sustainable ways. Facebook scadal is a result of people beginning to think digital technologies more critically. That seems like a healthy thing to me.

I still don't fully understand, what can people do with this kind of data at scale, esp. for politics. Can anyone share some concrete examples? Sure, maybe data can tell that I'm pregnant, so I will start seeing baby products, but how does it help getting some political outcome (e.g make someone elected)?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com