Senators Press Facebook for Answers About Why It Cut Off Misinformation Researchers (techcrunch.com) 46
Facebook's decision to close accounts connected to a misinformation research project last week prompted a broad outcry from the company's critics -- and now Congress is getting involved. From a report: A handful of lawmakers criticized the decision at the time, slamming Facebook for being hostile toward efforts to make the platform's opaque algorithms and ad targeting methods more transparent. Researchers believe that studying those hidden systems is crucial work for gaining insight on the flow of political misinformation.
The company specifically punished two researchers with NYU's Cybersecurity for Democracy project who work on Ad Observer, an opt-in browser tool that allows researchers to study how Facebook targets ads to different people based on their interests and demographics. In a new letter, embedded below, a trio of Democratic senators are pressing Facebook for more answers. Senators Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Chris Coons (D-DE) and Mark Warner (D-VA) wrote to Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg asking for a full explanation on why the company terminated the researcher accounts and how they violated the platform's terms of service and compromised user privacy. The lawmakers sent the letter on Friday.
The company specifically punished two researchers with NYU's Cybersecurity for Democracy project who work on Ad Observer, an opt-in browser tool that allows researchers to study how Facebook targets ads to different people based on their interests and demographics. In a new letter, embedded below, a trio of Democratic senators are pressing Facebook for more answers. Senators Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Chris Coons (D-DE) and Mark Warner (D-VA) wrote to Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg asking for a full explanation on why the company terminated the researcher accounts and how they violated the platform's terms of service and compromised user privacy. The lawmakers sent the letter on Friday.
No great mystery (Score:3, Insightful)
... who work on Ad Observer, an opt-in browser tool that allows researchers to study how Facebook targets ads to different people based on their interests and demographics
Uh huh. FB's attitude towards such things is well known, as the summary states: "Facebook [...] being hostile toward efforts to make the platform's opaque algorithms and ad targeting methods more transparent." If FB wanted that algorithm to be transparent, they would have disclosed the details. Instead, FB would like this to remain a trade secret, which is not unreasonable. It has nothing to do with FB trying to thwart efforts to research misinformation specifically.
Re:No great mystery (Score:4, Insightful)
For different values of political misinformation depending on who happens to be in power at the moment.
Re: (Score:2)
you are a fucking idiot
Even a broken clock is correct twice a day. And OP is right. "Political misinformation" is extremely subjective and definitely depends on which party is holding the reigns.
Re: (Score:3)
Even a broken clock is correct twice a day. And OP is right. "Political misinformation" is extremely subjective and definitely depends on which party is holding the reigns.
Sorry, no, the OP is a complete idiot because their point is irrelevant. Even with a subjective definition for "political misinformation", you can still make objective measurements about its flow, which is what the paper is about and what facebook doesn't want them to measure..
Re: (Score:2)
what facebook doesn't want them to measure..
What Facebook does and does not want to measure is irrelevant. If a private entity decides to not allow another private entity to enter its (virtual) property, then that's it. End of discussion. Facebook is not public property.
Of course, it always starts with "for the children", or "to measure political misinformation".
We both know that in 2020 "political misinformation" meant "anyone who disagrees with Trump". In 2021 that changed to "anyone who disagrees with CNN".
Re: (Score:2)
What Facebook does and does not want to measure is irrelevant.
Right, that's why we should be upset when they ban researchers from their platform. Glad we are all on the same page.
We both know that in 2020 "political misinformation" meant "anyone who disagrees with Trump". In 2021 that changed to "anyone who disagrees with CNN".
Again, who cares. They are researching how information flows. Facebook is banning the research. All of this junk about Trump and politics is completely irrelevant to the fact that Facebook doesn't want researchers to reveal how information flows through their platform.
Re: (Score:2)
Lying is lying, even if it agrees with your politics.
Re: No great mystery (Score:2)
Example?
Re: (Score:1)
I notice most of CNN's "flaws" are excess sensationalism, not so much lying or bias. They want to make money above all else.
Re: No great mystery (Score:2)
Having spent some time at a university, I can tell you researchers are motivated by the search for knowledge. Sure, there are always humanities lectures who spout out political diatribes.
I don't think that's what we are looking at here. These people are likely trained in statistics and research methods. They are out there to get to the bottom of something.
I therefore conclude you are either ignorant or a shill.
Re: (Score:2)
For different values of political misinformation depending on who happens to be in power at the moment.
Possibly. I remember when having long hair, or a beard, or stating a left-of-center opinion would get a person fired, shunned or ostracized. The pendulum swings. I'm not saying it's right, but it's very human.
Re: (Score:2)
Know what? In this article, that's still how the NYU researchers are described. The connection to "political misinformation" seems to be an uncited assertion by the author.
Re: (Score:3)
> It has nothing to do with FB trying to thwart efforts to research misinformation specifically.
I think the bigger problem is that Facebook's algorithms work extremely well with misinformation but any tweak that reduces their misinformation value results in a reduction in their general value to Facebook and will produce lower revenue.
I'd like to give Facebook credit for trying, but I suspect they have just given up on fixing the algorithms (if they even do know how they work, really) and are relying on b
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:No great mystery (Score:4, Insightful)
The recipe for Coke is a trade secret, which Coke would like to remain a trade secret. This is not unreasonable.
However, I can purchase a can of Coke and do any sort of chemical analysis I wish on the contents to try to determine the formula.
The researchers are actually doing black box analysis, they are not asking FB to open up their algos. It's the equivalent of analyzing a can of Coke. FB is doing the equivalent of saying, "No Coke for you!"
I remember ... (Score:4, Interesting)
... when even a hint of a "chilling effect" on speech was a no no. Really.
But now ... "Nice speech platform you have there ... shame if something should happen to it ... pay no attention to the fact that I am a Senator ... well pay no public attention to that anyway ... "
Re:I remember ... (Score:4, Informative)
The American Freedom of Speech isn't that free, they are indeed limitation and presidents set with that limit. We have Slander and Libel Laws and other rules as well...
From Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]
In the defamation case Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (1974), the Supreme Court said that there is "no constitutional value in false statements of fact".[12] However, this is not a concrete rule as the Court has struggled with how much of the "speech that matters" can be put at risk in order to punish a falsehood.[13]
The Supreme Court has established a complex framework for determining which types of false statements are unprotected.[14] There are four such areas which the Court has been explicit about. First, false statements of fact that are said with a "sufficiently culpable mental state" can be subject to civil or criminal liability.[15] Second, knowingly making a false statement of fact can sometimes be punished. Libel and slander laws fall under this category. Third, negligently false statements of fact may lead to civil liability in some instances.[16] Lastly, some implicit statements of fact—those that have a "false factual connotation"—can also fall under this exception.[17][18]
There is also a fifth category of analysis. It is possible that some completely false statements could be entirely free from punishment. The Supreme Court held in the landmark case New York Times v. Sullivan (1964) that lies about the government may be protected completely.[19] However, this category is not entirely clear, as the question of whether false historical or medical claims are protected is still disputed.[20]
In addition, false statements made under penalty of perjury are subject to legal sanctions if they are judged to be material.[21]
The 1988 decision in Riley v. National Federation of the Blind of North Carolina struck down a license requirement and limits on fundraising fees for telemarketers as unconstitutional and not narrowly tailored enough to survive First Amendment scrutiny. But the 2002 decision Illinois ex rel. Madigan v. Telemarketing Assoc., Inc. upheld an Illinois telemarketing anti-fraud law against claims that it was a form of prior restraint, affirming consumer protection against misrepresentation was a valid government interest justifying a free speech exception for false claims made in that context.
The 2012 decision United States v. Alvarez struck down part of the Stolen Valor Act of 2005, which prohibited false claims that a person received a military medal.
Social Media with Facebook being a big offender of promoting and propagating fake news is indeed troublesome. It is one thing to say just show a post from a random person on a news feed, compared to promoting content and making advertising choices off of.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You have a funny memory (Score:5, Interesting)
Go look up a YouTuber named Telltale who runs an atheist rights YouTube channel. He complained about his daughter being taught religion in school and got ran out of town. You can find videos of him talking about it. It didn't even make the national news.
And just because I want burn some karma I will point out that the former president of the United States wanted to change libel law so he could sue journalists with impunity and silence them. While we're on the subject of lawsuits go look up John Oliver's videos about coal Baron Bob Murphy. Especially the follow-up video with the musical number. It's everything you could ever hope for and so much more.
I guess my point is even if you are an honest to God free speech warrior you have much bigger fish to fry than Facebook. It's funny that the Free speech warriors only ever seem to care when misinformation is under attack and right-wing politicians are being removed for that misinformation. It's almost as if the Free speech warriors have an agenda...
Re: (Score:3)
"...to get things banned..."
Yes, "Cancel Culture" has a long, long history, and goes by different names.
Also, I decided to flup on your Oliver and the Coal Baron comment, as I didn't pay much attention to it at the time. While I haven't gotten to the musical number yet, I noticed this on WP:
"On October 5, 2016, Arch Coal emerged from Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.[11] In October 2018, Westmoreland Coal Company filed for bankruptcy protection.[12][13][14] On May 10, 2019, the third largest U.S. coal compa
Re: (Score:2)
Cancel culture isn't really a thing. It's another satanic panic. A distraction from more pressing issues. The point is we're worried about Mr potato heads dick and some moderately racist children's books instead of things like the 600,000 dead from covid what are the effect
Re: (Score:2)
Is that a fair and accurate description of what was being called for in the libel law change?
Re: (Score:2)
I remember some people's careers being destroyed by some jackass named McCarthy. I amazes me what people take for granted, and get away with nowadays.
Re: (Score:2)
So understanding how their algorithms work leads to a chilling effect? Does not compute.
If you were trying to make some other point, or discuss some other Congressional hearing, you didn't.
Re: (Score:2)
When/where is this time you are remembering? I can't think of a time in all history when it was true in any country that I'm well enough informed about to have an opinion.
When I was a kid I didn't know about propaganda and censorship, but I started noticing it around 14, even though I wasn't directly affected. Then I read about "the good old days" when I was younger, and I noticed that censorship and repression were happening, I just hadn't been noticing.
Re: I remember ... (Score:2)
I'm confused. The chilling effect was Facebook shutting down the university researchers. That was so chilly it is best described as frosty. The frosty effect. Zuck the snowman. Brrrr.
Re: (Score:2)
I remember when expressing a non-conservative viewpoint could get you fired or worse.
Obligatory "private company" post (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes but. If FB is using the US government as the source of truth and the US government is actively and knowingly participating in this banning 'misinformation' process then no. At that point FB is an agent of the US government.
Re: (Score:2)
sure, but said private company receives special legislative 230 protection that allows their business to thrive, said consideration can be withdrawn especially when such protection is predicated on the notion that they are just a platform. We can take away these special protections while Facebook remains as private as ever.
I mean... (Score:2)
Advertisement is misinformation.
Or rather, the more honest sorts of advertisement don't pay as well on their particular platform.
Because the more honest companies don't have to pay for people to communicate their information, so they don't output as much money in general.
The other companies make Facebook their bank.
Nothing can be permitted to challenge that logical heart and lifeblood of Facebook.
Oh, and customers willing to sit through openly insulting political dribble make the best marks. Really soften
Re: (Score:1)
But FB helped foster a coup attempt. The fun and games are over, somebody lost an eye.
Re: (Score:2)
So, why are hilary, cnn, msnbc, oprah, the insipid early morning and late evening talk shows and their hosts not banned yet?
Maybe because nobody with an ounce of brain functioning pays attention to them anymore?
( ;-) Badah-CHING! Thank you, thank you. I'll be here all week.)
The pendulum swings both ways (Score:1)
FB cut off access that was used by the Trump campaign in 2016 so they just want to appear to be even-handed given that only Democrat senators are complaining about this. Just a theory. Your mileage may vary based upon your biases.
Cut off your critics? Monopoly norm (Score:2)
Well we asked for it. Repeatedly. (Score:1)