Slashdot Mirror
Facebook Suspends Another Data Analytics Firm After CNBC Discovers It Was Using Tactics like Cambridge Analytica (cnbc.com)
Facebook suspended a company from its site over the weekend while it investigates claims it harvested user information under the guise of academic research, in a case with echoes of the Cambridge Analytica scandal. From a report: Facebook is suspending a data analytics firm called CubeYou from the platform after CNBC notified the company that CubeYou was collecting information about users through quizzes. CubeYou misleadingly labeled its quizzes "for non-profit academic research," then shared user information with marketers. The scenario is eerily similar to how Cambridge Analytica received unauthorized access to data from as many as 87 million Facebook user accounts to target political marketing. CubeYou, whose CEO denies any deception, sold data that had been collected by researchers working with the Psychometrics Lab at Cambridge University, similar to how Cambridge Analytica used information it obtained from other professors at the school for political marketing.
That there was another one. The issue is that a news organization needed to point it out, instead of Facebook discovering this through the analysis of their access patterns from these firms. After they realized that one was doing this, they should have been analyzing to find others immediately.
It seems the problem is the following:
* Facebook's business model is aggregating user data in order to allow marketers to "micro-target" ads at people with stuff they are most likely to click on
* Facebook is upset when other people use their APIs to get access to data of a subset of users, and then do their own analytics, presumably to allow them to buy ads at a cheaper rate.
* People are upset because a company associated, with some degrees of separation, with Trump, used the technique to find people to "target," and this is some how a "data breach" and "interference in democracy," but when Facebook gave the same type of data to the Obama or Clinton campaigns, it was "the campaign tactics of the future" and "an excellent use of technology and analytics".
So, from what I gather, the controversy is almost entirely to do with people discovering that Facebook isn't on their "side", that they're a company that exists to make money off of data about people, and that, worst of all, not just Democrats no how to do something with data. Even worse, one of the people involved as a Russian name, and that means that Putin did it with "z0mg h4x0rz" or something.
Critically, let us think -- anyone that was targeted with ads had it done because analysis of their data suggested that they were receptive, probably due to already agreeing. Therefor, what the hell difference did it make? Probably none.
Hi, my name is Mark Zuckberg, and I approve of this message.
Zuckberg/Zuckerberg in 2020.
... taking random quizzes on the internet isn't secure, is that what you are trying to tell me??
Users are idiots for truthfully filling out all of these damned questionnaires on Facebook.
Otherwise, it would be a lot of fun.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
You give the users way too much credit. People just click on anything that matches their own bias. i.e. Obama supporters happy to click away, share, answer surveys, etc that match their bias. Other groups do the same. In the end it has zero affect on anything because people to not form their ideology on FB. The last election was the perfect example of this. Good friends and family that always got along fine even with their political differences now hate each other because they will not abandon or even tone down their bias. Social media makes people dig in because there is confirmation available for any viewpoint. Anything not matching your viewpoint is fake or biased.
All of this is just more sour grapes by people that cannot accept they were wrong.
The problem here is that this isn't a problem. You can't fix this because this is how the product and business model were designed. The goal in mind is to suck as much information out of the population as possible and to slice our social groups into manageable and manipulatable chunks so as to maximize ad revenues. "I'm shocked, shocked to find that abuses of privacy on a global scale is going on here!" This model is most definitely not in the best interest of fostering healthy societies and social constructs, despite how much the Zuck et al claim to be about 'connecting the world.' Expect much more news like this from Facebook in the near future unless they are forced to change.
It is impossible to believe the Facebook did not know what was happening. They have every bit of data around their users including the variety of tracking methods which they employ so they can analyze what they get and identify what places these various users visit, where they are most likely located, etc. They could easily have stopped the Russian trolls, CA, and many others who were abusing the data which Facebook offers and the platform for communicating with others.
It's staggering to see companies so willing to sell out their country to make money. I remember a time when showing patriotism beat out personal gain. Now, we have companies like Facebook and the politicians (Republicans) in congress who put their personal agenda and gain above all else (including their own country) and it's truly depressing.
People are upset because a company associated, with some degrees of separation, with Trump, used the technique to find people to "target," and this is some how a "data breach" and "interference in democracy," but when Facebook gave the same type of data to the Obama or Clinton campaigns, it was "the campaign tactics of the future" and "an excellent use of technology and analytics".
Probably because the Obama campaign didn't use said tools to spread propaganda and blatant lies. And it wasn't a superPAC hiding the financial backing, meaning that if they got caught in a lie, it'd lead right back to them. It's a great argument for overturning Citizens United.
Great power, great responsibility, blah blah blah.
So, from what I gather, the controversy is almost entirely to do with people discovering that Facebook isn't on their "side",
Yeah pretty much. I see a lot of parallels with the cable-leaks, it revealed the exact sort of relationship that activities were complaining about and really brought the issue into the mind of the public. For like... a month or two. Don't worry, they'll forget once the next crisis comes up.
It's "unauthorized" but also protected only by the honor system. There's no technical mechanism in place to restrict how the data is stored, where, or for how long. Once they've copied it from the Facebook API and it's on their servers, it's basically protected only by the developer account terms of service and there's no manual or automated way they can even tell, remotely, if there is a breach of this compliance.