Facebook has sent a cease-and-desist letter to researchers
twitter.com
twitter.com
=================
Absolutely preposterous takedown demand. Facebook doesn't get to dictate what software I run on my own client devices, including browser plugins, or even what browser I use. If I want to install a plugin that sends a screenshot or data of every advertisement I receive, to a third party of my choice, that's up to me. Or maybe I want to install ublock origin and see no ads.
It sounds like they're complaining because they have no way of detecting this or preventing it on the user client end, thankfully, because of the way browsers are architected to prevent a website from screwing with the software on your computer. The only way fb could detect or block this would be to force users to install their own fb-written browser plugin, with extensive permissions required.
Obviously fb has a high level of motivation to get every user to use their officially app-store-published android or ios app, where the whole experience is centrally controlled, and such a plugin is impossible to use. Rather than having the user browse facebook in Firefox or Chrome or Edge.
If I can display something on my own computer screen it's my right to choose to share it however I damn well please.
Which way is it? Should they let people do whatever they want with their accounts as you suggest, and risk a repeat of the CA fiasco? Or try to proactively stop it like they are now?
Yes.
This is a an extension developed by researchers asking users to install it on their machines and used exactly as advertised: scrapes advertisement data that facebook shows them.
This data is from a browser extension, developed by researchers at NYU, hosted by those researchers, which scrapes the FB site after being installed by a user.
IMO the situations are pretty analogous.
Here data is collected about what Facebook does, what a corporation does.
They don't seem similar.
No, they should assume all the data they serve about people is being collected and indexed by all the people they serve it to, and then restrict what they serve accordingly. Suing people for asking their computers to record what Facebook served them is insane.
https://ftalphaville.ft.com/2020/10/06/1602008755000/ICO-s-f...
The more I learn about CA and this so-called "fiasco", the more I realize other companies know far more and actively did far more than CA did.
They were an easy scapegoat for Hillary Clinton losing what should have been the easiest Presidential election win in American history.
The fact someone made a few hundred thousand - million off a documentary is even more pathetic.
Maybe not the best usage of the word scraping.
CA had access to the data without having to scrape the front end.
For this extension, it is by consent of the user
For scraping, I agree. Facebook should try their best to stop people accessing personal data of people they don't know. They do make reasonable attempts, it's less than trivial to set up fake accounts on scale but not impossible. Their "bulk uploads" feature is designed in such a way that it doesn't link email addresses to profiles (or at least as easily), unlike LinkedIn and Twitter. Saying that, it's up to the user to set their privacy settings but I would much prefer the defaults (if they still aren't, I don't use FB) were automatically set to non-public. I've seen an implementation that used headless browsers and thousands of FB accounts to scrape millions of profiles.
> Should they let people do whatever they want with their accounts
That CA didn't have the consent of users was the scandal.
“Meanwhile: the NYU app has access to friend data in your feed and friend data is also in the ads it scrapes. And it replaces an actual security model with our trust that NYU are nice people and won't abuse this access. That is exactly how Cambridge Analytica happened.”
Or they could partner with NYU, offer technical insight to maintain integrity and privacy (me stifles laughter) and do everything to support researchers who potentially could help build trust in their platform.
Going after this group just isn't a good look if you're Facebook. If there are valid concerns then don't start with a Cease and Desist.
Some research just isn't worth the risk, but as an outsider, I'm not in a place to make that judgement. NYU could also insure against data breaches; in that case, we might get some good security audits.
So could any browser extension with the ol' "read and modify your data on \*" permission. Or any browser. Or any third-party Facebook client.
There is a difference between being technically capable of doing a thing and actually doing the thing- especially in cases where the software authors are well-known and relatively easy to hold accountable. To say otherwise is a little bit goofy!
Like a certain lecturer and senior researcher at University of Cambridge?
They are just doing it more economically then sending a person. This is entirely unlike CA, which effectively, sent a person to go through all participants available information as quickly as possible while they weren’t looking and store a copy of everything.
The NYU project is probably on the level, but "they're probably on the level" isn't a very good security model at Facebook's scale.
More to the point, the FTC's 2019 Consent Decree [1] makes it fairly clear that FB is responsible for third parties' access to its users' data — and it would be prudent (from FB's point of view) to interpret this responsibility as also covering browser extensions.
[1] https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/c4365facebo...
It also happens at a different layer of abstraction. Cambridge Analytica extracted data through the permissions framework that Facebook itself implemented.
Facebook's interest in its users' data doesn't need further explanation after you see that most of their profits derive from their control over it. The same control that allowed the profitable mass political targeting that these researchers are trying to study.
There is no way for Facebook or anyone else to prove that the current or a future version of the NYU's extension won't scrape more data than people agreed to.
They don’t. They don’t, at the least, care about anyone’s data - they just phrase it that way to sound legitimate because saying “we want no oversight whatsoever” sounds whiny, and it is. (And so does what they ARE claiming to anyone who understands the technical side).
I apologize for wasting peoples time, but I can't resist taking the low hanging fruit here.
Facebook is malware.
How so? The extension is open source, anyone can audit it.
This is in stark contrast to CA. "They're probably on the level" because they have entire systems in place to keep them there.
Aleksandar Kogan was a lecturer at Cambridge who then built his own app based on Stilwell's and Kosinki's app and work. Aleksandar then turned around and sold his version to SCL - the parent of Cambridge Analytica. And the reason that Cambridge Analytica wanted his app was because it worked under the social network’s pre-2014 term of service which allowed app developers to harvest data not only from the people who installed the app as well those people's friends.
Stillwell also denied Kogan's request for access to to his and Kosinskis myPersonality dataset. So No the Cambridge Analytica data did not come from Cabridge University or the Psychometrics Center.
The NYU Ad Observatory's data is completely public and the intended audience of that data is journalists and researchers doing analysis of online political advertising. This is the polar opposite of clandestinely harvesting user data in order to manipulate people.
So no it's not "exactly" the same situation but rather the exact opposite.
"That data was acquired via “thisisyourdigitallife,” a third-party app created by a researcher at Cambridge University's Psychometrics Centre. Nearly 300,000 people downloaded it, thereby handing the researcher—and Cambridge Analytica—access to not just their own data, and their friends' as well."
https://www.wired.com/amp-stories/cambridge-analytica-explai...
re: "the exact opposite", you are putting a lot of weight on the intention behind this use. After the public response to CA you might appreciate why FB is going to strictly apply the rules.
But I generally agree that users running an extension in their own browser is a different situation than an app developer subject to the FB ToS and am not sure why FB would be allowed to block this.
Kogan's app was based on the myPersonality app which was developed by Kosinski and Dr David Stillwell who did work at the Psychometrics Lab and denied Kogan access to their dataset. Cambridge Analytica and Cambridge University are not the same thing at all. So there is no comparison to NYU and Cambridge Analytica or Cambridge University for that matter.
Saying I'm "putting a lot of weight on the intention behind this use" is kind of a bizarre statement considering the data is literally available to everybody. See:
https://adobserver.org/ad-database/
The Project also clearly states:
">If you want, you can enter basic demographic information about yourself in the tool to help improve our understanding of why advertisers targeted you. However, we’ll never ask for information that could identify you"
And to that end the code for the plugin that the Ad Observatory project is used also freely available:
https://github.com/OnlinePoliticalTransparency/social-media-...
How much more transparent can you get than that? The goal of the Ad Observatory project is literally to try to understand how we are being targeted and manipulated. How is this in anyway the same as the secret harvesting of data by a political consultancy that billed itself as providing "election management" services?
To the grandparent: A researcher selling IRB-protected data would be effectively ending their academic career and opening themselves up to a mountain of legal trouble from the university and anyone who participated in the trial.
WHAT they were doing with the data was not transparent. HOW they were doing the data collection was completely transparent.
The worst of both worlds. Which is to say—we're saying the same thing.
Univeristy research projects such as these go through extensive review. the univeristy is basically putting their name on the line for any research project that happens under their watch.
I'm not sure what you're advocating for. Is it that Facebook shouldn't be researched because they do not allow it? Not very sound reasoning to me.
Rsearchers can get access to anyone's Facebook data if people enable it? What about the ones in chinese universities? Or just respected universities? Which universities is that? How do we decide?
You're missing the point. There needs to be a black and white line, and whatever Facebook allows they're always being demonised, nobody gives them the benefit of the doubt.
Yes. Where is the problem?
This collection can happen manually, within the users’ regular and fully authorized use, without facebooks involvement, and in fact without any ability for them to figure out that it happens.
That it happens through a browser extension (which they may or may not be technically able to detect) should not change legality or legitimacy.
All these big data-harvesting companies (FB, Google, etc.) start with the false premise that well-informed users have affirmatively chosen to trust that company with their private data.
This was _exactly_ the issue with CA, data for academics with an IRB laundered into a for-profit entity.
Cambridge Analytica and the researchers when they were working for it never claimed to be doing UofC research; if they did, UofC could and should have applied an academic (and possibly legal) baseball bat to their collective face. In fact, when Kosinski did try to use the data as part of his UofC related research, the UofC IRB denied it.
If there is any evidence that CA/SCL/Kosinski said the data collection was affiliated with UofC, I cannot find it. And when Kosinski attempted to use the data in his research, the UofC IRB denied it.
In this case the data collection is by the NYU AdObservatory project, meaning the data collection and its use (should) have to go through the IRB.
https://adobserver.org/privacy-policy/
And, unlike Facebook which sucks up an ever increasing amount of data on you, this project takes only basic demographic information (age group, gender, ethnicity) and what ads that you're shown. No personal data is retained by NYU.
This is entirely unlike an FB app like CA’s that had full unadulterated access to anything the user might browse.
So there is no way for NYU to not have access to friend data if they want access to ad data.
>...UK Information Commissioner’s Office has published the findings of its three-year investigation (predating the scandal) into the matter, which concluded there was no illegal electoral interference whatsoever...In other words, the data was commercially available and concerned US voters. The only ‘special sauce’ in CA’s model was the hyperbole of its sales people..." [1]
the left has pushed a false narratives and misinformation making Cambridge Analytica, like Russia, the convenient scapegoat for all the things. The same tricks are in play now with Hunter Biden's laptop coverage, which is non-existent from MSM
[1] https://telecoms.com/506834/uk-information-commissioner-conf...
If I'm understanding Alex right, he's saying that Facebook's 2019 FTC consent decree requires them to limit the personal information collected by apps on the platform.
This comment by /u/XMPPwocky cannot be displayed because of a security problem with your device. If this error persists, reinstall your operating system or replace your device.
Technical details: "An enclave could not be verified due to a problem with its digital certificate" (E_BAD_ENCLAVE_SIG).
Logging info:
Local: Success (monotonic counter 5 increment OK)
Remote: Success (200 OK in 0.113s)
(1)FB has consistently refused to publish anything about how the ads are targeted.
(2)The NYU researchers have tried to fill that gap, offering the Ad Observer plug-in to users who want to voluntarily donate the ads they see — along with the limited targeting data FB displays to users.
(3)Here’s where things get troubling: Facebook is now trying to shut down the Ad Observer plug-in, saying that it violates Facebook’s terms of service by automating the collection of data that Facebook shows to its users.
You trust NYU, OK fine. Can I give the same information about you to pro-Trump researchers?
>What legal obligation do they have to keep the information you shared private?
Those exact same questions can very well be asked of the whole Cambridge Analytica scandal, and yet some people will give different answers to those two scenarios.
Cambridge Analytica app was explicitly asking users for permission to access their data and data their friends publicly shared with those users. The first one is obviously ok, but the latter was what people had issues with, and I don't see how it is different here.
As for what legal obligations your friends have to keep your information private, I don't think they do. However, Facebook does have the obligation to not share info of users who didn't explicitly consent to it with third party apps, according to this order from FTC issued in 2019[0]. And third party apps that share not only your FB info, but that of your friends (who do not use those third-party apps), definitely fall under this.
0. https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/c4365facebo...
But Facebook is not sharing info of users' friends. Users are sharing information about their friends.
If a user should not be able to access particular information about their friends, then the onus is on Facebook to restrict that access. It was Facebook's fault for exposing excessive data to users' friends during the Cambridge Analytica scandal and it's their fault for doing the same thing now.
Facebook needs to clean up their own mess instead of suing research groups for taking advantage of it.
I don't follow this logic at all. The data shown to users' friends is the same data that is shown to them now. Which is usually all their public photos (nothing from private albums), the friend list (if they didn't make it private), etc., only the stuff that friends are expected to be able to access (and still can). And on the list of permissions on the permission request page, the app had a separate line for "friends' info" specifically (just like it has for every single permission requested), so there was nothing sneaky about it. The CA app asked users to provide them the same data about their friends that they can see in the browser by visiting their friend's page (and page only, nothing private or your messages with them; basically, only the info that everyone in the same security group that you are in sees). The exact same set of data that the browser extension this whole thread is about is accessing.
With that error corrected, it sounds like you are arguing for the case that FB was not at fault during the CA scandal because of all those logical reasons you brought up, and then conclude that FB was at fault and CA was in the clear.
I am reserving my own judgement on who was at fault, but I hope you can see why your reply left me (and likely some other people) confused.
As a cherry on top, CA didn't acquire the data directly from the app, as it wasn't their app. They got the data later on from a research team at Cambridge University's Psychometrics Center, which was the one originally collecting it. Sounds eerily similar to the scenario at hand.
I'm not missing anything here, right?
If the third party should not have access to the data, then neither should the friends who gave it to them. Facebook is responsible for allowing the users access to the data.
If users should have access to the data, then it's the friends' fault for agreeing to be Facebook friends with those users in the first place. Alternatively, it's Facebooks fault for not making it clear what data is made available to friends.
Either way, I don't see how this is a problem with thr research group.
I guess you could argue that the data was still technically owned by the friends and therefore the users had no right to give it away. In which case the fault belongs to the users.
Which is a valid take, not trying to say that your logic doesn't make sense. It does. But it is literally no difference in terms of what happened during the CA scandal, so all the same rules apply here. If you are ok with this group of researches and think they did nothing wrong, and that FB should have let them have the data, then the CA situation was a perfect happy road scenario for you. Because in that case, CA just got that data, and FB didn't stop them. Win-win, right?
Also, regardless of how valid this take is, FB was ordered by FTC to prevent third party sharing of friend data like that from happening. So FB's hands are kinda tied on this one.
If said friend takes a pic of you and records everything you say in real life and gives that to researchers (or "pro Trump" people), you wouldn't go after your or their landlord claiming they "allowed this to happen", nor would you go after the city where it happened, would you? (your friend is voluntarily participating, knowing what they are doing)
Now if the researchers tricked your friend into giving them information about you somehow, then you'd go after your researchers. But do not expect your landlord to go after those researchers for you. (NYU researchers misinforming participants about the scope of their data collection)
Now if your friend abused a camera that was sneakily installed by your landlord to obtain that information, then you might go after that landlord (Cambridge Analytica on Facebook)
But I don’t remember the TOS says “you promise not to let anyone see the ads we show you” (remember this isn’t the user data that’s being collected)
Unfortunately, Facebook has a history of changing data permissions that have caused info to be shared in ways users didn't intend.
(Usually because detection and enforcement is absolutely unreasonable)
It is the FB users who signed the EULA and use "unapproved" user-agent to access FB services and to voluntarily share the data (isn't FB a sharing platform btw?) in "unapproved" way. Thus FB should go after the real violators - their users. I wonder why FB didn't do it ...
I mean i can write any stupid EULA, yet until you agree to it my C&D based on that EULA is just my personal hallucinations, and even if you agree to it, your communication/business/etc. partners don't magically become bound by it too.
However, for the sake of discussion, I'll start out with the fact that a privately owned website is not an example of shared public infrastructure. Think water, electricity and other basic staples of civilization... Facebook is not an example of that.
And don't worry soon enough Amazon themselves will insert themselves between you and 911 https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/publicsector/modernizing-911-to...
Edit: I would like to point out my original parent comment that started all of this was in the context of FAANGs not just Google/Facebook
Fair enough. I'm sure I use some web sites that are hosted on AWS, I did not consider that.
> Same with Facebook and their trackers, unless you block them.
That may be (though I block at least some of them), but that's hardly equivalent. I don't depend in any way on Facebook tracking me. If they stopped, I would certainly not suffer from it.
I use online messaging and online communication more than I use the telephone network.
To me, and many others, these online platforms are as or more essential than the phone system, which is already covered by common carrier laws.
That's why your local grocery store can ban you even if food is necessary for your survival, because you didn't lose access to other sources (stores).
That's your choice, you don't have to use any particular online messaging service. My cousins communicate over steam more than over SMS, that doesn't mean steam is a utility.
I think that these large communication platforms absolutely resemble other large communication platforms that are currently covered by common carrier laws.
Specifically, a lot of the functionality that these platforms provides, fulfills a usecase that is similar to the phone network.
And the phone network is both a large communication platform, and is all covered by common carrier laws.
The laws need to be updated to recognize that many of the online communication platforms are now as important as the phone system, and therefore should be covered by our existing common carrier laws.
If my phone company decides who I can call, then I got issues. I can't trivially change carrier however I want.
If a website arbitrarily bans all kind of people it will soon be their own problem as people leave with a single click.
More specifically, I do not need linkedin, Facebook and co at all to communicate with people over the internet, stuff like P2P software never went away.
> If a website arbitrarily bans all kind of people it will soon be their own problem as people leave with a single click.
False. I use facebook for communicating with people more often than I use the phone network.
Being banned from facebook would have a much larger effect on me, and many others, than being banned from ever making phone calls again, due to the fact that we use facebook for the vast majority of our online communication.
Because the law doesn't protect convenience in these contexts.
As in it would be much more difficult to replace Facebook as a communication platform for me than it would be for me to be banned from making phone calls ever again.
So facebook is more in the category of "can not replace" than being able to make phone calls.
If I ask you to meet me at the bar and you're banned from the bar I've selected, it's not the bar's problem.
I am saying that the problems of getting kicked off of a facebook are larger than that of getting kicked off of the communication utility that is phone calls.
And this is due to things like network effect.
And these issues and prevention that make it difficult for people to switch is larger on facebook than it is for phone calls.
So the "physical prevention" is larger for facebook than it is for phone calls.
Not being able to use the phone cuts you of from a lot of services where no option exists.
Nah, it really doesn't when compared to something like getting banned from facebook.
I make way more video calls with people than I make phone calls. And probably around 50% of my communication is done over FB message.
It would be way less of a problem to get banned from making phone calls for me and for many other people.
They have nothing in common except the "communication" label.
> Specifically, a lot of the functionality that these platforms provides, fulfills a usecase that is similar to the phone network
They don't. The "phone network" is what provides access to the internet, a website is not a phone company, it sits at a higher level of abstraction. That's like saying a popular TV show is a broadcast network because everyone watches that show.
> online communication platforms are now as important as the phone system
That's not true. If the top 10 most popular websites on the internet disappeared overnight there would still be many thousands of ways to communicate over the internet.
Sure they do. They have usecases in common.
There are many ways that I communicate with people, online, that has now entirely replaced me calling those people up on the phone.
That is how they are similar. They are similar in that online services are, in many cases, direct or indirect substitutes for the same exact usecase.
> They don't
They absolutely do. The shared functionality is that I no longer use phone companies anymore, and I instead use online services for that same exact content.
> That's not true.
It absolutely is true. To explain what I mean, I would say that I would truly rather be banned from the entire phone network than to be banned from something like facebook.
This is because I legitimately use facebook for communication more often than I use phones. Therefore, being banned from facebook would have a larger impact on my life than being banned from ever making a phone call again.
That is how facebook is more important than the phone network.
It is more important in that being banned from facebook would have a larger effect on my life than being banned from make phone calls ever again, due to the fact that I use facebook much much more for communication.
If you use Facebook as your primary communication platform I can see how getting banned from Facebook would be very inconvenient, unfortunately, the fact that you would rely on Facebook in such a manner doesn't change the reality that Facebook is just one website, while a phone network is fundamental infrastructure that underpins internet connectivity. For the vast majority of Facebook users losing access to the phone network would mean losing access to not just Facebook, but everything on the internet. You might have grown accustomed to thinking of Facebook as something more than just a website, but that conception is simply wrong, the idea that Facebook is comparable to the network that Facebook runs on is categorically incorrect.
It is the reality of the situation that a whole lot of people rely on facebook in such a manner, and because of the network effect they would be unable to convince all of their friends and family to switch to other platforms.
One person cannot defeat platform locking and network effects.
> while a phone network is fundamental infrastructure
Not really. It would be easier for me to never call someone's phone number again, than to get rid of other communication platforms that I use.
You're just wrong. The overwhelming majority of people use a variety of communication services like e-mail, imessage/sms and many others, and this is common knowledge, people who only use Facebook for communication are frankly extremely rare.
I am saying that they rely on it more for communication than they do on phone calls.
I communicate with people much more over Facebook than I do through actual phone calls, and it would be less of a problem to be banned from ever making phone calls again than it would be to be banned from facebook.
Nobody is talking about phone calls and you know it. It doesn't matter that you use Facebook more than anything else, it doesn't change what Facebook actually is. If you use discord or slack to do most of your communicating that doesn't mean they become utilities, that's just your personal preference.
Literally I was the one to bring up this example in the very beginning. It was my example, that I chose at the start. So yes, that is relevant.
The fact of the matter is, that me being banned from ever making phone calls again would absolutely be a larger problem for me, and many other people, than if we were banned from using facebook.
> It doesn't matter that you use Facebook more than anything else
Of course it does. It is a point of comparison, so as to show that it would be a bigger problem to be banned from facebook than it would be to be banned from making phone calls.
> that's just your personal preference.
I can assure you that there are many people for whom it would be a bigger problem to be banned from facebook than to be banned from making phone calls.
It's not relevant because you're ignoring the fact that "the phone network" doesn't primarily mean "phone calls" it primarily means "internet access".
> The fact of the matter is, that me being banned from ever making phone calls again would absolutely be a larger problem for me
Yes, you keep repeating that over and over again (3 times in this response) but what you don't seem to understand is that nobody is forcing you to rely exclusively on a single website for all your communications, that is a self-imposed restriction that isn't meaningful when trying to decide if a website meets the definition of a utility.
That does not change the fact that it would be a bigger problem for me to be banned from facebook than it would be for me to be banned from making phone calls, lol.
So when you say this "nobody is forcing you", you are ignoring the fact that they would be forcing a problem on me that would be larger than if I were banned from making phone calls.
So yes. They would be forcing an issue on me that would be larger than if they banned me from making phone calls.
> ignoring the fact that "the phone network"
Phone systems have fallen under utilities laws since before the internet existed. Therefore the analogy to phone calls is relevant.
You can look at home phone line systems. A home phone lines, that gives zero internet access, still falls under utilities laws.
Are you aware that a landline, that gives zero internet access, would still have to follow utilities laws? Just want to make sure you are aware of that.
> meets the definition of a utility
A perfectly reasonable thing to do is compare it to how much a problem it would be to switch from a different utility.
A landline, that has no internet access, is a utility. It falls under utilities laws, even if the singular only thing that it does, is make phone calls, without any internet access. Phone calls, without internet, is a utility.
And switching away from the system that only allows you to make phone calls, and has no internet, and is therefore a utility, would be easier than switching away from facebook.
If I decide Facebook and all it's products are trash I can pretty trivially not use any of them. If I dislike all social media I can choose not to engage with it at all. I would have a much harder time going without electricity or water.
Social media feels somewhere between a public commons and print media, and it's acting more and more like print media all the time. I'm seeing this election the banning of certain sources like the New York Post and the editorialization of what people say with friendly links to approved "non-partisan fact checkers" who are essentially opinion columnists that cite more sources.
Netflix is about as close to a public utility as the local movie theatre, which is to say, nowhere close.
Thank you for taking the time to write in and share
your concerns.
We hear you and understand how important this issue is
to developers. As a communication company we want to
make sure we don't put our customers and their data at
risk, and it's something we take very seriously. We
provide a full-featured platform with many avenues for
improving user experience while working with Slack, but
we need to also provide the security and privacy
controls business owners, IT administrators, and users
expect. We're happy to continue the conversation about
UX improvements and future extensions to the platform.
This is something we'll keep working on as we listen to
feedback from the developer community.
That is a cop out and you know it. An it administrator
or corporate is not using this extension and they would
lock down their users from installing BROWSER
extensions if they thought that was a security risk.
Thanks for getting back to me. I appreciate your
thoughts on this matter.
I'd like to pose a hypothetical to you if you don't
mind! Bearing in mind Slack is a product designed to
help teams work together and is geared towards business
and enterprises — imagine for a second we're working
with an enterprise considering adopting Slack and their
security team comes across this extension (or something
like it) — and identifies it as a
security/privacy/reliability concern. Our job is to
alleviate these concerns. They expect better from us
and we're doing our best to meet and even exceed those
expectations. We're certainly not perfect and we can
always do better — for businesses big and small and for
developers.
It is important to note here, we're learning from this
experience. We're working with the developer to find a
middle-ground which is beneficial to everyone involved.
We're reevaluating our processes for these situations.
We're listening to feedback from users such as yourself
and identifying areas we could improve.
I understand this has been a disappointing and
frustrating situation and I do apologise for any
difficulty it has caused you. I promise you, we're
working on it. I for one am very excited to see what
comes from this. It's been a learning opportunity for
us all.
Let me know if you have any questions, or suggestions.
I'm here to help!For context, GFN lets you essentially rent a virtual machine in the cloud, where you can log in with your own Steam account and play the games that you've already purchased. For whatever reason, game publishers saw it appropriate to demand GFN to stop offering this service. And, more baffling, some users actually suported the publisher's actions. Just to make it clear, GFN is not letting you play games you do not own, they're simply letting you rent hardware on which to play games you've already purchased on Steam.
Here is one of the game devs explaining why they asked GFN to remove the game from their platform (and subsequently getting slammed by gamers): https://mobile.twitter.com/RaphLife/status/12341813158402293...
So the lack of license argument doesn't make sense. At best they can put an explicit term in the license that the game can't run from servers you rent access to, or equivalent. But then that has to already be in the license.
That seems rather questionable. It is probably the snarkiest tweet I have ever read.
Mind, I'm saying 'technically'. Ethically, I think Facebook (and other big social tech) should be researched more. In legal ways, this is how they should handle this.
Hell, today's AT&T has more market share than Bell Systems did before it was split up.
EU, on the other hand, appears to be slowly progressing towards the goal of breaking up tech monopolies. Leaked plans would shake up the tech quite a bit: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/10/eu-vs-big-tech-leaked-...
Who governs information and speech online? Washington DC or Silicon Valley?
To do what? What does that mean?
Only with pushback did they relent somewhat.
In my opinion you don't really need to do the NYU study. Intellectually honestly, many political ads will disproportionately appear in front of users with different demographics than their census tracts, regardless of their targeting parameters. In my experience many of the demographics of users in many software products are arbitrary, telling you nothing about the content and much more about acquisition channels and technology usage patterns at a particular point in time.
As far as I know, Facebook allows some targeting parameters for political ads. So they should publish how often those targeting parameters are selected. Great, advocate for that.
Intellectually honestly, that will conclusively show that ad buyers have a wide diversity of targeting parameters that, in aggregate, represent a complex mix of objectives oftentimes only adjacent to a specific election. Almost certainly Facebook already looked at this and found that geography, gender, age and proxies for user's race (like "multicultural affinity") are among the top choices, and that looks bad, even though it may be an important part of all ads targeted anywhere.
Is NYU's study going to have enough power to measure targeting in an intellectually honest way? They can certainly write something descriptive.
That descriptive, "Well here are some ads we looked at, and some of them disproportionately appeared in front of users with e.g. this ethnicity more often than others, which we editorially chose" - I can see how that is a lose-lose for Facebook.
How about don't have political ads at all, if this question is so difficult to answer...
> In a letter sent Oct. 16 to the researchers behind the NYU Ad Observatory, Facebook said the project violates provisions in its terms of service that prohibit bulk data collection from its site.
Remember, one is presumed innocent/not liable until proven otherwise, not when you get a C&D (or get arrested, or get sued, for that matter).
That's the key point here. The researchers are not a party to Facebook's terms of service. The user installing the add-on may be, but that does not bind the add-on developer. (This is called "privity" in law; contract constraints do not obligate third parties who didn't agree to the contract.)
Facebook could disconnect Facebook users using the add-on, if they can detect them. That would be a bad PR move.
Unless the researchers have their own personal FB accounts. You know, like 3.1 billion other people.
Its a Terms and Conditions violation. Ok, I get that. But, at what point did the developers of this application ever agree to any terms and conditions? Its not like its accessing data via the API, or requires some kind of privileged access levels.
Morals, ethics, security, whatever aside; I just don't understand the legal angle Facebook is using here.
The people who are taking over these companies, those people I'm afraid of because they are political and their first instinct is to push ideology and censorship.
I think mobile app development would have been a different experience if people had the convictions similar to their 90s parallels that made GNU, WWW or Linux foundations possible and lasting.
The paper "Protocols, Not Platforms: A Technological Approach to Free Speech, Masnick 2019" underscores the difference.
Google was benevolent (or at least seemed that way) until they had any competition, at which point they threw out the “don’t be evil” motto, but same guys (page, brin, Schmidt) were still at the helm.
Wasn’t following twitter closely, but Dorsey is still running it - same guy.
It’s the same guys, not some “nefarious guys taking over”.
Large alliances spanning countries and multiple institutions, hundreds of researchers working in tandem. Thats the best way to tame a beast this large.
Same goes for regulators/legal strategies/journalism etc. Associations and alliances are key.
This seems like a pretty big stretch.
What to do, what to do.
[1] Brings to mind the hit-piece: "The Making of a YouTube Radical - The New York Times" article. But there is an ongoing effort to continue pushing Facebook, Twitter and YouTube into more and more censorship of anyone deemed on the right and the Overton window keeps getting smaller and smaller. The situation with the Hunter Biden laptop story and NYPost is absolutely bonkers. Not only do journalists at mainstream center/center-left news outfits not care that Twitter and Facebook outright decided that the story is false and therefore shouldn't be shared by anyone and banned the account of their colleagues at NYPost .. but worse, actually applaud it and justify it.
[1] https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2020/09/10/facebook... [2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/elections/debat...
Bull.
America is a country where any given election 50% vote Democrat and 50% vote Republican. Look at the chart. Look at the total number of left-wing vs right-wing sites. I bet if you add those up, total left-wing engagements will dwarf the number of total right-wing engagements. Looks to me that engagement is skewed towards left-wing, it's just that there are way more left-wing outfits so individual share is lower. Which makes sense, there is one major right-wing news network, Fox News, there's like 10 that are center-left/left wing which have to share the audience.
The most engaged with articles on HN are technology-related. That fact does not magically prove that there is also zero moderation of technology-related articles.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24874602 on the WSJ (linked in tweet here) story https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-seeks-shutdown-of-nyu-... (paywalled)
Politico: https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/23/facebook-block-tran...
And they have the face to even WRITE IT!
Just say no.
"Please don't fulminate."
"Please don't use uppercase for emphasis. If you want to emphasize a word or phrase, put asterisks around it and it will get italicized."
[1] https://www.lawfareblog.com/lawfare-podcast-maria-ressa-weap...
Cambridge Analytica was very similar—it was a third-party using an API for its intended purpose (with the user's consent) and then doing questionable things with the data, yet that did not stop the world from raking FB through the coals.
And it does not matter that CA was using FB's API and platform. In both cases there was user consent to provide the data.
The wrongness doesn't change just because in this particular case the framing is "poor researcher vs evil Facebook"