Facebook Is Going After Its Critics in the Name of Privacy
wired.com
wired.com
> Ad Observer is a browser plug-in that Facebook users voluntarily install. The plug-in scrapes (makes a copy of) every ad that a user sees and sends it to Ad Observatory, a public database of Facebook ads that scholars and accountability journalists mine to analyze what's really happening on the platform.
I agree with the sentiment, but this clearly mentions that the plugin scrapes data and sends to NYU servers. I may be wrong, but arent we taking NYU on their word that they are scraping only the ad data and nothing else? People agree to share their data voluntarily, but they are taking this add in at the face value. It may not be scraping, but can scrape. If Facebook allows third parties to scrape data (who can incentivize users any which way) where does it stop?
The question I had was, both - the independent ad analysis and the user privacy - seem important. So, what is the way both can exist? Maybe FB sharing the data by themselves? But, isnt that close to how Cambridge Analytica happened? These are grey areas, we should be debating and discussing in detail about them, not writing snide pieces with one side as the aggressor and another as victim.
Close to. But different.
Cambridge Analytica drew from Facebook’s servers. This plug-in pulls from users’ computers. Cambridge Analytica was not academically affiliated. This is legitimate research. Cambridge was closed source. This is open.
Most importantly, users are explicitly sharing their data with NYU. There is no carrot of a personality quiz to obscure the quid pro quo.
Does FB get to dictate how its users get to share their own data?
Further the comment is simply refuting one Wired article with an earlier article Wired published on the same subject in which he participated in. It's not like some crazy idea was being posited in the comment.
Lastly Dr Stillwell has made the assertion many times that the app and data he and Dr Michal Kosinskis developed for their "MyPersonality Quiz" app at Cambridge University is neither the same app or data as Aleksandar Kogan's My Digital Life" app that Kogan developed for Global Science Research and their client SCL Elections. The "MyPersonality Quiz" app was simply based on Stillwell's earlier work.
What have you provided? You have provided exactly nothing to substantiate your "strong" conclusion. It's hard to see how you yourself "got there" based on nothing other than it's just your opinion.
So key points from my perspective are (1) My app isn't the same as Kogan's app, (2) I didn't work with Cambridge Analytica, (3) Kogan was independent faculty, not part of the Psychometrics Centre.
As you've noticed from my post history, I don't usually use this website. I do, however, have an alert set up that pings me links when someone uses my name online. I have it set up so that I can attempt to correct journalists who write about me and my research group and get the facts wrong.
Hope this clarifies things
Edit: Since I'm here. I think it's critical that NYU's Ad Observatory continues and that academics have freedom to collect data and report results that might embarrass rich and powerful companies. Tweet #9 in this thread is the key one ( https://twitter.com/doctorow/status/1329873620353515520 ) - how do we know that FB's own ad library isn't good enough? Because Ad Observatory found that it wasn't reporting all instances of political ads.
You can download a release straight from there and import it into your browser. Browsers also do some reviews of the plugins that are in their stores, so every update should be tested by both Google and Mozilla (even if only superficially).
I'd say the odds of them managing to pull off scraping anything else without anyone noticing are rather slim.
Also, as an aside, the add-in records the following things: country, age, gender, language etc. and the text of the ad. Not so clear what happens when ads have personal info (or friends' names) attached like xyz likes page. Payload seems to suggest they take every bit of info so it could include that as well maybe.
If the users are opting into this, isn't that the same argument for letting them opt into the Facebook platform itself? Why must we protect them from NYU and not from Facebook?
How is it stored, is it secure, how do they anonymise it, who has access to the raw data, what happens when there is a break, is there monitoring, etc etc etc.
They are making a massive honey pot, and we just have to trust them that they are doing good job. (much like facebook....)
Again, the issue isn't the collection, its the storage, processing and disposal that really matters here.
That you can say about almost all web apps? Then almost maybe you shouldn't use the Internet, I start thinking
What say should Facebook have here though? I'd argue that when I am viewing data through my browser it's on my computer at that point. I've downloaded it so why should Facebook be allowed to decide what I can and cannot do with it any more than they can decide what I can do with my emails that I also view on my computer?
While I agree with your opinion, that data would still be Facebook/the advertisers' intellectual property and your actions could be considered infringing the terms you agreed with.
Though NYU may not have agreed to those terms, encouraging others to violate the terms and provide them the data could be considered the intellectual property damages needed to at least start a civil court case
They're not (I assume) copying the advert and storing it on their servers. I could see Facebook arguing that taking a copy of it is a violation of IP somehow.
But simply looking at the page and recording some of the meta data is the same as someone asking me on the phone "what advert did you just view?".
Would that be violating IP?
/sarcasm
I read something, now it is in my brain. Does Facebook still own it? I suspect they believe they do.
If they don’t like something you are doing, they can do whatever they like.
In addition, NYU didn't sign up to Facebook so they have no need to abide by their Terms. At least, they shouldn't have to abide by them... not sure what the laws in the US say about it.
I'm not for government intervention for things like this but the courts (I believe) have already ruled that scraping data is legit.
Edit: added that I think they shouldn't be able to have a say
It's not running on their servers at this point: It's on my computer.
Now, I don't know what the US laws exactly say about that but in terms of common sense, FB should not be allowed to make any claims to that data when it's on my computer.
Sure, they can say "well, no more data for you, you're banned" but that's a different argument.
In addition, having control over users of FB is one thing as they signed up to it and agreed to the terms but NYU didn't so I have no idea how they can even claim to enforce them especially if NYU are scraping data from the users computer (I assume they aren't making a connection to the FB servers!)
Also, not that it matters for this argument, I do not have a FB (or any social media) account: I tried it, maybe 10 years ago, and found it silly :)
Edit: Guys, this isn't Reddit! I'm all for downvotes but not drive-by downvoting... a simple "I downvoted you because..." would suffice.
Edit2: Mea Culpa! As has been pointed out, I replied to someone that wasn't actually commenting on my post... not sure how I missed that!
One thing about these addons is that you can actually take them apart and see what is going on if you don't trust that the addon is built from their github code.
I like the idea of open source code and that is helpful but there is got to be a better way. And I also believe that the research like this should be supported. All things aside, we can arrive at solutions without the need of an article like this which neither poses such questions, nor provides context.
Everything you just said here applies to Facebook themselves as much as the researchers. If we allow people to opt-in to sending data to Facebook (by creating an account), why would be against giving those same users the option to send the data somewhere else?
Yes, its exactly this.
"Facebook changes based on past scandal for the better, and this is bad. here is my 9th grade essay with no research just feeling"
Facebook _should_ be held to account.
I personally don't think that the advertising is actually that much of a problem. It all has paper trails because they have to pay. Advertising is not the worst part of facebook is its users.
for that to change facebook needs to understand that "freedom of expression" disappears when you sign the terms and agreements, which specifically limit your freedom of expression. If they actually enforced their community standards properly, the place would be much better.
Instead they carve out exceptions for celebs, based on precedence that not even employees can find.
Facebook was used to illegally infuence elections in Uk and break spending rules and because of their closed nature, nobody realised untill a whistleblower stepped forwards. Its a massive problem, and maybe we would not have Brexit without it.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-politics-44856992
A TV ad, by comparison, is aired publically and you can see it and ask who paid for it.
By the way it’s not just TV ads to consider. Mail is a huge part especially for political campaigns and NO one has visibility to that. You can’t just cherry-pick one distribution model of advertisements.
yes, the electoral commission found that. sadly its only able to issue a tiny fine. Not only that its being eroded by populists from both sides of the political spectrum. Its not really a facebook problem but an EC one.
This transgression was found by going over the accounts, not by leaks.
> A TV ad, by comparison, is aired publically and you can see it and ask who paid for it.
political TV ads are illegal in the UK. Long may it continue.
We are also supposing that facebook adverts are actually effective. They have the power to somehow corrupt a morally "good" person into someone that votes for the "other side". This is plainly nonsense.
The real issue is that facebook is a warped mirror of society. without rules and order, chaos and bad actors reign. This means "censorship" or if it were treated as the press, editorial standards.
We have Edward Bernays standard of advertising coupled with the power of Facebook available for everyone, including people who lie through their teeth to get what they wanted.
Furthermore, there is evidence Russian trolls influenced the Brexit campaign, and if that isn't enough: it was a moment in polls where leavers indeed won, but before and after the referendum it was more votes for stay and for leave.
I'm actually glad The Netherlands quit with referendum. Elections are very tough nowadays because of how easy people are influenced.
Let's be honest, none of this were a scandal if Cambridge Analytica would have worked for Hilary or the remain campaign. I dont deny all this stuff influence people, it clearly does, but that is the price you have to pay for having a society with freedom of speech and universal vote. If you want to get rid of, either you have to take more draconian censorship laws or you eliminate universal voting for adults, both cornerstones of a modern democracy.
Its the price we all paid for some of us having a dishonest ML data hoarder.
I'm involved in the integrity of elections in The Netherlands. I have a political preference, but I am able to leave that out when I manually count votes.
I also am aware of ways which undermine our democracy: electronic voting, strategic voting, and abused ML. I believe a high integrity on elections benefits society on the long term.
However given the international forecast of our societies (ie. what used to be called globalization 20 years ago), and difference in population and cheap labour, a country like Russia or China can heavily influence our society. In this case with the help of an American behemoth, but there is no reason other sources cannot be abused.
I don't have the solution to this problem. It warrants further investigation though. Hopefully before it is too late.
Brexit could only take place because the political class spent 25 years using the EU as an excuse for everything that went wrong.
The current PM spent his formative years making up stories about the EU to send back to the telegraph.
FAcebook's advertising only works (assuming that it does actually work) if people are receptive to the message. Those messages have to be thought up by someone.
Thats not facebook's fault. thats the fault of political discourse.
The Pro EU side _lost_ because they failed to follow the standard rules of election winning: Make the other side seem like they are going to make you poorer, or less patriotic (or both)
They spent their time shouting at the sceptics calling them racists. Waffling on about economics, never emotion, never empathy, Never ambition.
Much as its comforting to think that the likes of russia, google facebook and china are at fault, its really not the fault of advertising.
This doesn't gel with me... how many people saw the ads, how many times, and of those, how many were actually influenced by it?
Going by my sample size of two (my sister and my wife) they both claim that they never even look at ads that appear on screen.
I honestly am calling bullshit on the whole ad industry here... show me evidence that a significant number of people are influenced by ads that makes it worth spending money on (if unbiased data actually exists).
Are there any advertisers out there that are seeing a quantifiable return on their ad spend?
There should be more transparency around how ads are displayed on the internet.. but giving researchers full access to a user’s data and their friend’s data is a pretty poor one. Can’t a better system be designed for this?
Content, however, is very dangerous and it’s not clear what a good solution is. It’s not clear what the purpose of content is on the internet.
Something I have pointed out to others in the past, and on here too, is that the Internet existed just fine before all these ad-related sites appeared. Of course, nothing on the scale of FB, Google etc, but I'd argue that we're worse off now than before.
When you rely on advertising you then have to make sure that every piece of content works towards making the advertising worthwhile. You then maximise SEO, and clicks and focus on metrics and bullshit like engagement (whatever that means).
You have to calculate whether a blog post or article is worth doing because your sponsors now care about that: you stop making content for the love/joy/sake of the content and everything becomes bait for your ads.
20 years ago, the only ads were about punching a monkey and finding out that I was the 1 millionth visitor to a website and could click the ad to claim my prize :)
Another one (not referendum specific; my comment regarding strategic voting wasn't specific to referendum either). Say your preferential candidate is Charlie. You have no idea what other people vote. You'd vote for Charlie. However, say you know its going to be between Alice and Bob. You really don't want Bob to win. So you vote for Alice.
If you consider mass media and hype surrounding survey polls, these cause strategic voting between whoever ends up popular. Consider, for example, the way a candidate gets chosen for Republican or Democratic party. Prime example of strategic voting.
Some see these examples as opportunities to get their preference [for a candidate or political goal] in higher regard. I don't; I see these factors as factors which potentially harm the democratic outcome on the long term. Now, like Earth, democracy is strong and adaptive. It can take a bump. But it isn't endlessly going to accept stomps and beatings. Hence, I believe we need to try to maintain the integrity and authenticity.
Breaking election laws in an attempt to influence an elections outcome is still breaking election laws whatever the outcome. It doesn’t have to be entirely their doing.
Also, when your advertising is not public and only visible to subsections of people, it is more difficult to investigate what is going on. Facebook can do it themselves, but do we want to rely on a single company to do it? But when the advertising is public, it is easier to have a public discussion and have a possible backlash to it.
A publicly available clearinghouse of all targeted ads published via a service so that researchers can find out
- Every ad published
- What targeting parameters were used, other basic data about the ad
- How many impressions the ad received
- How many clickthroughs, etc
It would not include any PII of those who saw the ads, only on the ads themselves. Bonus points if we can also have some kind of GUID "advertiser_id" that would allow researchers to tie the ads back to some kind of probably-anonymized-but-maybe-not entity that published the ad. The API would be defined in the regulation so that vendors can't pull any obfuscatory fuckery.
Sunlight is the first step in stopping this.
But there's a drastic difference in effectiveness. No one would support private ownership of nuclear weapons just because everyone has fists which are weapons also.
Hyper-targeted advertising has gone off rails recently and when you can simply buy your way into any specific segment of the population without having to put it under public scrutiny, you are asking for trouble.
Btw the ad library on FB allows you to put scrutiny on those ads. In fact (some) journalists love to browse it to find a shocking ad and write a news story about it.
Unless FB is in on the scam, you cannot buy eyepairs on the platform.
If you're going to advocate for restricting free speech (by the state, no less) there had better be a great reason for it, not false claims like this one. It's a critical human right, not to be regulated lightly.
A vague desire for "cultural unity" is insufficient alone to start eroding human rights.
Is targeting knitters by advertising your knitting needles in a knitting magazine a problem in your mind?
That seems a really silly thing to want to ban, to me, and I think it will actually make enjoying advertising-supported content worse, not better.
I think good advertising shows people something that they don't already know a lot about to get them interested, knitters probably already have their channels to research about the tools they use.
If you pay for advertisement, you would not be able to target it based on personal data of the viewers.
Science goes were the data is- and data is at G,F,A . Meaning any science regarding people e.g. social sciences, psychology, behavioural studies - are effectively privatized.
Meaning, the paper of psychology grad-student who did a experiment and asked 200 people on campus is less valuable, as the internal report of some fb-data scientists, who wrote a query and a filter and send the very same question into the production database.
So if a whole branch of the sciences is effectively privatized, why do we even pretend the outside branches are anything then a publicly subsidized hobby?
Why is there no real discussion about the moral problem of privatized sciences, selling the knowledge and advantage gained as manipulation lever to politicians?
Censorship and privacy aren't opposites and I would probably argue they are largely independent or even orthogonal.
Also - what a great bit of writing - setting up a clear pattern and then breaking the pattern. Much more effective than it would have been otherwise.
> The research participants are voluntarily sharing their ads with NYU. Facebook is objecting.
much as I dislike facebook on this one, I think they actually have a point.
The NYU gives a clear statement on why they want this data (to track ads) and what data they collect, this is informed consent.
CA on the other hand obfuscated the purpose and what they collect as much as possible, pretending it was a personality/IQ quiz (something fun and benign) when in fact they harvested the data in order to create models for targeted advertising which they then used in political campaigns. This isn't informed consent.
That's a very different starting point already.
Your argument seems to be "well, if that doctor with the curious name of 'NYU' and working for a reputable facility asks you for informed consent to do a surgery to remove a cancerous mole, this doctor can in theory just be lying and cut off your leg!!!1!". CA in this context would be the back alley quack who pretends to provide you with a free non-invasive exam for skin cancer, but then steals your kidneys and sells them on the black market.
The NYU also tries to be as transparent as possible beyond the initial value proposition, including open sourcing the collection software (browser extension), again the opposite of what CA did.
Is there still a possibility of abuse by NYU? Sure, and that's why it is entirely fine to keep an eye on them, and keep holding them accountable, but for things they actually do or don't do.
However, I think trying to hold the NYU to an unachievable standard ("we need to audit everything they do independently") while at the same time not even remotely applying that same standard to FB, their FAANG buddies, and everybody else really, that's just... wat
Tell me again how you think there may be a vague security and privacy concern with the NYU voluntary ad data collection for the willing participants when Target starts selling your daughter pregnancy products (because they knew before her herself that she is pregnant), facebook detecting your face in other people's image shares and adding public tags with your name automatically, google telling you "you have visited this place 2 times in the last 10 years", or famous twitter users (or rather the new owners of their accounts) pushing bitcoin scams because twitter had their systems compromised.
This NYU project only collects data that the users want to share with NYU.
Too many threats like this from FB and other powerful entities yield unwarranted capitulation. If those powerful entities had to fear a real risk of losing a lawsuit on the topic of their baseless threat, they'd at least think before threatening and would sometimes refrain. Alas.
Those are strong words, but I'm afraid the "we as a society" are not as much of a power as one would hope. Facebook as a company might turn out to be more powerful. Facebook can bring lawsuits, PR doublespeak and over time wear down adversaries threatening their business.
I think the underlying problems need to be fixed before there can be hope of restricting what businesses like Facebook can do.
The process, IMO, already has started, with the USA and the EU launching investigations against about all the big tech companies (I think Microsoft isn’t investigated yet, but in the context of privacy, they aren’t a truly big player yet. Any new laws will apply to them, regardless)
If everyone would abandon FB, they would go out of bussiness.
People have much more power that they think they do.
They just do not know it.
The problem is those people who derive their world-view from social media platforms and buy in to all the lies and manipulation from bullies. There's pressure for accountability, and that should be a good thing, although we need to keep watch. If they oust the bullies and fake lies, good riddance. I don't need someone telling me their "Final Solution", especially without anything backing their words.
We can guess that FB employs a full-time proactive crisis management public relations team. Why? To help guess what they can get away with. But they may have underestimated NYU as an opponent.
If there is no illegal stuff, why should we criticize on this? Just because they are not mature or long enough as religion?
While these capabilities do not map 1:1 to how this plugin works it seems like a bit of a middle ground for the researchers to be able to research ads without risking privacy of people or violating terms of service.
(Disclaimer - I work at FB)
See:
https://www.facebook.com/ads/library/?active_status=all&ad_t...
https://www.facebook.com/ads/library/api/?source=archive-lan...
The library omits targeting information. The specific subject of this research. Also, Facebook has a culture and history of lying. There is public interest in auditing its disclosures.
It's great to be able to see what ads campaigns are running, but if you're a real user, who's feed is full of ads from overtly partisan news sites, clothing companies selling aggressive political gear, AND all the campaigns and SuperPACs, what does your experience look like as a whole?
Our information environment is festering. I can't speak to any given study or technique, but we need to understand this stuff.
...so you go along in the doublespeak. Please elaborate, because the article says it's without merit and also rather rich coming from Facebook.
> violating terms of service
prohibiting independent research to find if what they promise is actually true, after they have been proven untrustworthy many times?
And the link you shared doesn't have any information how ads are targeted. Stop using Privacy as a PR stunt. I trust those researcher with my data than facebook.
Be under no illusions... Facebook IS an ad company! Their product is the people that use the platform.
There is no separation.
The Facebook data feed that users interact with is the bait to harvest the data for ads... it's nothing more than that.