Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Facebook Privacy

Privacy Concerns Are Jeopardizing Investigations Into Facebook Disinformation (fastcompany.com) 37

Posted by EditorDavid from the information-on-disinformation dept.
"An unprecedented investigation into disinformation on Facebook has hit turbulence over questions about how much data to release to outside researchers," reports Fast Company, "curtailing efforts to stem one of social media's most pernicious threats ahead of the 2020 elections."

Slashdot reader tedlistens writes: Social Science One, an unprecedented, Mark Zuckerberg-backed plan to open up Facebook's data to outside researchers -- with the aim of fighting disinformation and propaganda ahead of elections in 2020 -- has run up against privacy concerns at Facebook. A month after the funders' deadline, Facebook continues to work on treating the data with differential privacy techniques and says it hopes to publish more datasets soon. But researchers are frustrated and confused, and the backers are reconsidering their support. And lawmakers like Sen. Mark Warner, the vice chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, are growing impatient too.

"In Congress, we need to require greater accountability from social media platforms on everything from the transparency of political ad funding, to the legitimacy of content, to the authenticity of user accounts," Warner tells Alex Pasternack at Fast Company. "And if platforms refuse to comply, we need to be able to hold them responsible."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Privacy Concerns Are Jeopardizing Investigations Into Facebook Disinformation More

Privacy Concerns Are Jeopardizing Investigations Into Facebook Disinformation

Comments Filter:
  • Facebook will do anything for a buck. Feel free to lie about what you're going to use the information for too. There's little to no regulation, what is there isn't enforced, and Facebook has already shown they don't care.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by gl4ss ( 559668 )

      ah but thats the problem.

      fb's pr on this thing is already going to be fucked kind of, you see if they give the data then it's going to be used by "researchers" also known as advertisers.

      if they don't give the data they will be said to be hiding something and if they give the data then it's just the same they did before. and anonymizing that data about who it is enough that you can't use it for targeted advertising (for say, political ads and misinformation) isn't that simple I would guess.

      look the real prob

      • > usa has people who are so stupid they will believe a fake news posting about either candidate supporting 40th week abortions

        167 Democrats voted against the Partial-Birth Abortion Act of 2003. The Act bans killing a baby during birth after their head or belly button comes out. That's their actual vote - they voted for killing babies that have been mostly born already.

        Maybe that's so horrendous you don't want to believe anyone would think that's okay. The fact is, the Democrats officially voted it's fi

        • The most horrendous thing is that ANY republican would vote for women's slavery to z/e/f

          • --
            If a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that's what the mother and the family desired. And then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.
            --
            Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam, Democrat, on the bill he supports.

            Your heroes are literally advocating killing babies now.
            At one point do you decide that being a human, rather than a monster, is more important than rooti

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • That if you just drop facebook and block them altogether all of those concerns just fade away

  • Old media (Score:5, Insightful)

    by chuckugly ( 2030942 ) on Saturday November 02, 2019 @01:23PM (#59372992)

    Maybe I'm wrong but most of the fuss seems to all point back to old media wailing about their being ousted as the gatekeepers of information flow. I'm not a twitface or booker user as such but free exchange of information is pretty hard to dislike unless you've got some vested interest in not allowing information to flow.

  • Oh Good Lord (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    This entire disinformation lie is just propaganda to further enforce government control over speech and the internet.
    "dis"information is just information - like gossip and innuendo and even outright lies. it's not a crime to lie (except when under oath) - it's a crime to sell people things based on lies and misinformation "my snake-oil cures your psoriasis", "We moved the graveyard under your new house before building it".
    https://www.washingtonpost.com... PT Barnum made a successful career out of it.
    Sur

  • Who Says "Social Science One" is a Good Thing? (Score:3)

    by Kunedog ( 1033226 ) on Saturday November 02, 2019 @01:28PM (#59373010)
    Apparently they used to call themselves the "Facebook Election Commission." From their site:

    Social Science One implements a new type of partnership between academic researchers and the private sector to advance the goals of social science in understanding and solving society’s greatest challenges. Our mutually incentive-compatible approach enables academics to analyze and use the increasingly rich troves of information amassed by companies to address societal issues, while protecting their respective interests and ensuring the highest standards of privacy and data security.

    Sounds like they're demanding access to everyone's FB data. And if you object to FB sharing your data with them, then the press will (just this once) paint you as the bad guy for "jeopardizing" their "investigations."

  • Politicians who are desperate to secure their own livelihoods can become suddenly motivated to look into matters. The press is lightly regulated, mostly through elections, civil and criminal laws as well as constitutional protections. I see no reason why the owners of social media are not held to account through similar means.

  • If they cannot be a source of information without being a source of disinformation then they shouldn't exist. Let researchers do their jobs or shut down facebook.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by AHuxley ( 892839 )
      who is to say who is a "researcher"?
      People who work for the US gov? NATO? Who worked for the US gov, NATO in the past?
      A think tank? NGO? Faith group? A charity? Some philanthropist who likes their side of politics?
      An ad all about a politician's coughing fit is "disinformation" to another side of politics as it is such a powerful visual ad.
      Ask social media not to accept the ad? Quote some political "researcher" to say the ad is wrong due to the "coughing" "only" been an allergy/pneumonia...
      The go
  • Keep the data intact but randomly dispurse it; it's still valid data because nothing was added or taken away, just not row specific; RANDOM Specific;

  • When they were selling out our country to the Russians privacy wasn't a big deal. Now, trying to tame foreign influence...oww, privacy!

Slashdot Top Deals

If all else fails, lower your standards.

Close