Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Facebook Suspends Another Data Analytics Firm After CNBC Discovers It Was Using Tactics like Cambridge Analytica (cnbc.com)

Posted by msmash on from the gift-that-keeps-giving dept.

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.

8 of 83 comments (clear)

  1. The issue here isn't... by ebrandsberg · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:The issue here isn't... by MrKaos · · Score: 3, Insightful

      After they realized that one was doing this, they should have been analyzing to find others immediately.

      It's Facebook showing their sincerity to their user base by punishing the assholes that embarrassed them and threatened their only viable revenue stream.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    2. Re:The issue here isn't... by John+Jorsett · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

      How do you know they weren't already aware and just keeping it under wraps until CNBC forced their hand? It's pretty clear that FB, facing withering criticism, regulation, and potential legislative action, isn't motivated to be open about what it knows or does.

    3. Re:The issue here isn't... by ebrandsberg · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Honestly, it is irrelevant. They have the data on who accessed what, and should be able to data-mine out the bad actors faster and easier than any news organization can, since they have access to the data. If they want to show that they can be trusted, THEY should be the ones discovering these players, cutting them off, and making it public. The fact that anybody at this point in time can discover something like this means they are either a) not looking for bad actors or b) they know who they are, and want to keep the $$ flowing in despite this, until someone forces them to make it public. Either way it means they aren't doing what they should be doing and should be smacked with the full power of congress.

  2. Re:Unauthorized? by bsDaemon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  3. Re:Hi, I am Mark Zuckerberg. I invite you to like by Mark+Zuckberg · · Score: 3, Funny

    Hi, my name is Mark Zuckberg, and I approve of this message.

    Zuckberg/Zuckerberg in 2020.

  4. It's a feature, not a bug by complexanimal · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  5. Re:Unauthorized? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.