Or is it the response we would have seen out of CA, if they had been stopped before 2016?
Or is it the response we would have seen out of CA, if they had been stopped before 2016?
How do you guarantee it is just a research group?
Didn't Cambridge analytics look innocent as well in the beginning?
Looks a bit like they selected a name hinting to a connection with a world class university.
Again a mistake happened in the past. FB learns to not trust random research group upfront.
If you want to compare them, then the analogy is more like: "This is the German version of Mozilla doing research on Facebook's Ad library" (which Mozilla found to be severely flawed some years ago).
Surely the regulation should be non-controversial since the researchers are 100% trustworthy like you mentioned.
Unless there is such protection, FB is still liable.
For FB, if the researchers turn out to be good, FB will benefit nothing. If the researchers turn out to be bad, FB will be fucked. I wouldn't want to play this game either.
I 100% agree with your sentiment, but I think the answer is incredibly complex.