Facebook Tells Academics To Stop Monitoring Its Political Ads (theregister.com) 63
couchslug shares a report from The Register: Facebook has ordered the end to an academic monitoring project that has repeatedly exposed failures by the internet giant to clearly label political advertising on its platform. The social media goliath informed New York University (NYU) that research by its Tandon School of Engineering's Online Transparency Project's Ad Observatory violates Facebook's terms of service on bulk data collection and demanded it end the program immediately. The project recruited 6,500 volunteers to install its AdObserver browser extension that collects data on the ads that Facebook shows them personally. It sends the information to the American university, allowing it to perform a real-time check that Facebook is living up its promise to clearly disclose not only who paid for political ads shown on the platform but also how much and when the adverts would be shown.
The Facebook Ad Library is a public collection of all adverts running on Facebook, and any not suitably labeled are flagged up by the university project using data obtained via the AdObserver extension. Facebook didn't like this one bit, and responded with a warning letter on October 16, the Wall Street Journal first reported. The Silicon Valley titan wants the academic project shut down and all data deleted by November 30. It seems the researchers aren't backing down. On October 22, they published the latest research showing 12 political ads that had slipped under the radar as non-political on Facebook, some of which are still running.
The Facebook Ad Library is a public collection of all adverts running on Facebook, and any not suitably labeled are flagged up by the university project using data obtained via the AdObserver extension. Facebook didn't like this one bit, and responded with a warning letter on October 16, the Wall Street Journal first reported. The Silicon Valley titan wants the academic project shut down and all data deleted by November 30. It seems the researchers aren't backing down. On October 22, they published the latest research showing 12 political ads that had slipped under the radar as non-political on Facebook, some of which are still running.
WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO HIDE, FACEBOOK? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO HIDE, FACEBOOK? (Score:4, Funny)
This is like a TV network trying to fire Neilsen Ratings... if there's nobody independent auditing their ads, why should they be placed?
Is it enforceable? (Score:4, Insightful)
Am I aloud to write a book and say that criticizing it violates the terms of service that I printed on the back cover?
I suspect (and hope) that they are not enforceable. More importantly, I doubt whether Facebook would actually try to prosecute this. So the university should just ignore the message.
Some hotels have tried to put criticizing them against their terms of service, but I think those were thrown out of court.
Re: (Score:2)
Am I aloud to write a book and say that criticizing it violates the terms of service
Poor analogy. Facebook is not banning criticism. They are banning bulk data collection.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Am I aloud to write a book and say that criticizing it violates the terms of service
Poor analogy. Facebook is not banning criticism. They are banning bulk data collection.
The specific criticism of Facebook is that there are very specific adverts that are very carefully and dangerously targeted. Adverts for white supremacy were shown to black people in the USA which will drive their existing reasonable fear of racism so that it becomes unreasonably strong. Adverts for Black Lives Matter protests, suggesting anti-white violence have been targeted at white racists who already believe that their entire culture is threatened.
These adverts are very rare and were targeted very ch
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, come on, as though people would try and influence voters like that.
Hmm. Ok, yes, you're right. They would. I thoroughly support academic analysis of this.
Re: (Score:3)
Would, and have been doing so for a while now. There was an interesting TED talk a while back on how the Brexit vote was strongly swayed by exactly that sort of tightly-targeted micro-advertising campaign spreading outright lies. And there's some evidence that Trump got elected in part due to similar campaigns, but nobody was watching closely enough at the time to be able to say for sure.
One of the big problems with such campaigns is that as soon as the mark closes their browser window, there's no longer
Re: (Score:2)
Is it bulk collection though? Does the extension actively access things or does it just look at what Facebook sends the user?
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Is it enforceable? (Score:5, Informative)
I doubt they could even make the case that these volunteers violate the ToS, or that the plugin does. The nature of the data being collected and what is being done with it probably doesn't meet any standard of "illegal bulk data collection" either, and even if it would, this is a matter between NYU and the volunteers; FB isn't involved.
Maybe they can file defamation charges. But they'd have to show that the publications are inaccurate.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Interference with what, exactly?
What they're doing in no way prevents fakebook from doing business in any manner. The ads are still being sold, served, and viewed. Everything is being done outside of the normal course of fb's business.
It would be one hell of a stretch for fb to claim that criticising their business practices constitutes a tort. Even their C&D to the university claimed violation of contract, not a tort.
Incitement to offend (Score:2)
I think your line is wrong, because if the users were in fact guilty of violation then NYU is inciting them to offend.
But whether anyone can prevent others from monitoring them and criticizing them based on "terms of service" is very dubious. There were cases where hotels tried to suppress criticism in that way which were thrown out.
But it would be a lawyers picnic.
Re: (Score:3)
Am I aloud to write a book and say that criticizing it violates the terms of service that I printed on the back cover?
Only if it's an audiobook.
DUPE (Score:3)
If they do, they're not doing a very good job of paying off the Slashdot editors, since this story was just posted on Saturday. [slashdot.org]
JOIN HERE! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
The last time Facebook allowed academics to collect data, Cambridge University did just that and it was later used by Cambridge Analytica. Which caused no end of public outrage, targeted on Facebook itself: "how could you give our precious data to someone?!!1111"
So yes, Facebook tries to hide "something", user's data to be precise. Because people obviously can't be trusted to own consequences of their own actions.
Facebook "terms of service" (Score:5, Insightful)
This whole thing just makes me laugh. Facebook can write their terms of service to allow them to sell your data to advertisers to send you targeted political advertising, but it is a violation of those same terms to monitor what ads are actually served to you. Users are nothing more than livestock. Log the ferk off, this is a social sickness.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Check out Adnauseam [adnauseam.io]. I believe it's exactly what the doctor ordered.
*nods head* 'Doctor.'
Re: (Score:2)
Log the ferk off
Yeah I would but ... https://games.slashdot.org/sto... [slashdot.org]
6,500 volunteers. (Score:4, Insightful)
This is funny as hell. If Farcebook want to take action, then the only people they have contract with is the 6,500 volunteers who installed a browser extension. The Academics are free to keep doing whatever academic research they want.
I wonder if Farcebook even have the means to determine which of their users constitute the 6,500 volunteers who installed a browser extension, such that they could take definitive action against their own user base.
Re: (Score:3)
I think the government regulators should pursue facebook on the mislabeling and use FB's attempt to interfere with the research should cause the inference to be accepted that FB's conducting and attempting to conceal knowing, willful, deliberate violations, and that many more will exist beyond the 12 presented - therefore, allow a massively larger estimate to be taken as the number of violations, fine them the absolute for consumer-deceptive advertising on each estimated violation - it ought to be a fine
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder if Farcebook even have the means to determine which of their users constitute the 6,500 volunteers who installed a browser extension, such that they could take definitive action against their own user base.
And that action would be what, hide ads from those users? I suspect that would increase the number of volunteers by a large factor.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, this is quite ironic considering that Facebook collects information about millions (billions?) of people without their consent.
Re: (Score:3)
Outlaw Facebook (Score:5, Insightful)
It is the only solution.
Re:Outlaw Facebook (Score:5, Funny)
Nuke the entire website from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
Hey Facebook! (Score:4, Insightful)
Wizard of Oz: Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!
That didn't work with Dorothy and Toto either ...
It's funny. (Score:5, Funny)
"We do not consent to you checking if what we do is illegal! Our policy forbids checking our honesty!"
Dear Facebook. Eat a bag of dicks. (Score:3)
You are being watched.
Don't like it?
TOUGH SHIT.
Hey, fuck 'em! (Score:2)
It's only reverse cookies and tracking.
Tell facebook (Score:4, Insightful)
...to go eat a big bag of dicks.
Just for that, I might do my own 'research' of Fuckbook's political ads, and post my very biased 'findings' far and wide. Though the slams will be mostly against Fuckbook than the ads in question.
DUPE? (Score:3)
https://tech.slashdot.org/stor... [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: DUPE? (Score:2)
Re: DUPE? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No ads option if you don't agree? (Score:5, Funny)
Perhaps Facebook should just stop showing ads to anyone who they suspect might share that ad with anyone else. Better yet, maybe a voluntary user setting, if a user sets it, they don't agree to the non-sharing part of the ads terms, therefore don't show them any ads at all.
Re: (Score:1)
Perhaps FB is worried other data may be exposed (Score:2)
What if someone is paying FB for advertising, they claim they showed the ad millions of times, yet none of the 6500 volunteers have ever logged seeing it?
FB is worried other data may be exposed (Score:2)
That's a real concern of advertisers, and has caused lawsuits.
For example, against Rubicon by The Guardian for taking payoffs, as described at https://digiday.com/media/glov... [digiday.com]
Facebook ... (Score:2)
Who the heck does Facebook think they are? (Score:2)
OK... It's obvious they think they're God's gift to the Internet but it's still worth asking them: Who the heck do you people think you are?
Why should anyone stop monitoring public data? (Score:3)
This is publicly available data. Why should anyone stop monitoring it?
I started boycotting where it matters - on the stock market.
Re: (Score:2)
So it goes. (Score:3)
"A sign post on the road to something, but I forget what"
Anyway, scraping... (Score:2)
Facebook is laughable, of course. But this is only a smaller aspect of a larger issue, which we can (only slightly incorrectly) put under the general term "scraping".
If a website serves you information, they can hardly claim that the information is secret. If information is available on a public URL, then the information is yours, to do with as you please. If the information is only served after you log in, but (as in this case) there is no enforceable ToS violation, the information is yours, to do with as
This is actually fb telling academics ... (Score:1)
.... they're doing a hell of a good job. Don't stop monitoring!
The real problem (Score:2)
Now if we can just figure out which posts here are real and which are troll farm posts trying to sway public opinion. Ads are obviously ads, even if they don't have a tag saying who paid for it.
Show all the ads (Score:2)
Google shifted 2.6 millions votes to Clinton 2016 (Score:1, Informative)
An independent study by (a Democratic Clinton supporter) Dr. Robert Epstein shown conservatively Google shifted 2.6 millions of votes to Clinton in 2016 – what level of 'Donation' is that .. how much would a campaign pay for that?
“Dr. Robert Epstein: Google's Search Engine Was Able to Manipulate Votes in 2016 'On a Massive Scale'”
by Trump War Room
https://youtu.be/GDruVrgVmZ0 [youtu.be]
https://www.facebook.com/Steve... [facebook.com]
https://adobserver.org/ (Score:2)
How many? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They missed 12 ads out of how many?
Thirteen??
FB is a private company that can do what it wants. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The academics aren't accessing Facebook, the volunteers are and reporting back to the academics what Facebook is serving up to them. I'm pretty much of the opinion that FB should STFU as what they do on a daily basis to millions of users is 100x more egregious.
Seems the Zuckheads ... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)