Meta (Again) Denies Netflix Read Facebook Users' Private Messenger Messages (techcrunch.com) 28
TechCrunch reports this week that Meta "is denying that it gave Netflix access to users' private messages..."
The claim references a court filing that emerged as part of the discovery process in a class-action lawsuit over data privacy practices between a group of consumers and Facebook's parent, Meta. The document alleges that Netflix and Facebook had a "special relationship" and that Facebook even cut spending on original programming for its Facebook Watch video service so as not to compete with Netflix, a large Facebook advertiser. It also says that Netflix had access to Meta's "Inbox API" that offered the streamer "programmatic access to Facebook's user's private message inboxes...."
Meta's communications director, Andy Stone, reposted the original X post on Tuesday with a statement disputing that Netflix had been given access to users' private messages. "Shockingly untrue," Stone wrote on X. "Meta didn't share people's private messages with Netflix. The agreement allowed people to message their friends on Facebook about what they were watching on Netflix, directly from the Netflix app. Such agreements are commonplace in the industry...."
Beyond Stone's X post, Meta has not provided further comment. However, The New York Times had previously reported in 2018 that Netflix and Spotify could read users' private messages, according to documents it had obtained. Meta denied those claims at the time via a blog post titled "Facts About Facebook's Messaging Partnerships," where it explained that Netflix and Spotify had access to APIs that allowed consumers to message friends about what they were listening to on Spotify or watching on Netflix directly from those companies' respective apps. This required the companies to have "write access" to compose messages to friends, "read access" to allow users to read messages back from friends, and "delete access," which meant if you deleted a message from the third-party app, it would also delete the message from Facebook.
"No third party was reading your private messages, or writing messages to your friends without your permission. Many news stories imply we were shipping over private messages to partners, which is not correct," the blog post stated. In any event, Messenger didn't implement default end-to-end encryption until December 2023, a practice that would have made these sorts of claims a non-starter, as it wouldn't have left room for doubt.
Meta's communications director, Andy Stone, reposted the original X post on Tuesday with a statement disputing that Netflix had been given access to users' private messages. "Shockingly untrue," Stone wrote on X. "Meta didn't share people's private messages with Netflix. The agreement allowed people to message their friends on Facebook about what they were watching on Netflix, directly from the Netflix app. Such agreements are commonplace in the industry...."
Beyond Stone's X post, Meta has not provided further comment. However, The New York Times had previously reported in 2018 that Netflix and Spotify could read users' private messages, according to documents it had obtained. Meta denied those claims at the time via a blog post titled "Facts About Facebook's Messaging Partnerships," where it explained that Netflix and Spotify had access to APIs that allowed consumers to message friends about what they were listening to on Spotify or watching on Netflix directly from those companies' respective apps. This required the companies to have "write access" to compose messages to friends, "read access" to allow users to read messages back from friends, and "delete access," which meant if you deleted a message from the third-party app, it would also delete the message from Facebook.
"No third party was reading your private messages, or writing messages to your friends without your permission. Many news stories imply we were shipping over private messages to partners, which is not correct," the blog post stated. In any event, Messenger didn't implement default end-to-end encryption until December 2023, a practice that would have made these sorts of claims a non-starter, as it wouldn't have left room for doubt.
I refer you to the precedent (Score:2)
Who is the arrogant, corrupt person who called the Facebook userbase, 'dumb fucks'?
Because really, I'd trust that company about as far as I'd trust a guy with a knife demanding my wallet.
Re: (Score:1)
Who is the arrogant, corrupt person who called the Facebook userbase, 'dumb fucks'?
Because really, I'd trust that company about as far as I'd trust a guy with a knife demanding my wallet.
He doesn't give a shit about your trust, he wants your wallet. On both levels of this metaphor.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You certainly shouldn't trust Facebook.
Just like I don't use gmail to arrange the realization of my secret plans to rule the world, I don't tell Faceboot anything I want to keep secret either.
No one believes Zuckerberg (Score:1)
Re: No one believes Zuckerberg (Score:2)
We've seen this song and dance before (Score:5, Insightful)
Meta Director of Misrepresentation and Chief Spokesprick Andy Stone: "No third party was reading your private messages, or writing messages to your friends without your permission".
The part he didn't say publicly: "Pay attention, dummy, when we use the word 'permission'. Because you gave us permission to do literally anything we want with any and all of your data any time we like. You also gave us the right to give or sell your data to anybody we like for any reason at all, or for no reason at all. This is how we make money, and why, as far as we're concerned, you're nothing but part of a harvestable resource.
"Save your outrage for someone who cares. You agreed to this when you clicked "Accept" on the Terms of Service. You can read all about it on page 793, paragraph 37, subparagraph 19 of our Privacy Agreement. Now piss off. The weekly techbro party starts in five, and cattle aren't invited."
I hope vile little Andy isn't too upset that I learned BizSpeak back in high school, when I read 1984.
Re: (Score:2)
The weekly techbro party starts in five, and cattle aren't invited.
Tell me you've never attended without saying you have never attended. Lots of regulat Joes and Janes attend the tech bro parties. Be it as prostitutes, drug dealers, waiters, security, etc. We need a ton of cattle to make this a success and we are so thankful for them.
Re: (Score:2)
Some time when I feel like delivering an English lesson to a semi-literate halfwit, I'll explain the difference between working an event and attending an event. Right now, I just can't be arsed.
Re: (Score:2)
What I got from the post is that Netflix was only given permission to read your messages. With the heavy implication that Netflix never utilized that permission. That they made sure not to directly say that, only imply it, tells me what actually happened.
But even apart from the telling PR-dance, leaving data on the table is leaving money on the table. If someone's been given permission to take it, they will. Sometimes even without the permission.
Cute (Score:2)
I’m no FB fan (Score:3)
Maybe FB traded user PMs for Netflix viewing history data. That’s possible. But, hell, that probably doesn’t even violate the law, at least in the US. Once you put your info on the net, it’s in the wild. The only internet entity I even slightly trust with my data is Apple, and that’s because I pay them a big honkin wad of cash, up front, every time I buy one of their devices, and they’re motivated to sell me their next iShiny at an even higher price. With Apple, I’m the customer, not the product.
But Zuck’s explanation actually seems to make sense to me, at least as an only-slightly-knowledgeable reader. Maybe an expert could weigh in here?
Believable (Score:2)
This required the companies to have "write access" to compose messages to friends, "read access" to allow users to read messages back from friends
Facebook does not give you the option to have more than one conversation with a friend. Even if Netflix's read access is restricted to friends who you messaged from Netflix, every message you have exchanged or will exchange with that friend will be visible to Netflix. And that is assuming the best case interpretation of "read access to messages".
*No third party was reading your messages. We gave them the ability to do that, but we're sure they ignored the valuable marketing data contained in them because th
Re: (Score:2)
That's the thing with oauth: the user is the one giving the permission the third-party uses.
Re: (Score:2)
It's still totally possible to restrict the contents of the inbox. For example:
Netflix: Hey, this user (here's the token) is sending a message to this other user. I'll hold this connection for 5 minutes; if the other user answers, pass it back this way, mmkay?
Or...
Netflix: Hey, this user (here's the token) sent a message, right? Any responses?
FB: Nope, nothing since 3 minutes ago when you sent the message.
Under Oath? (Score:2)
The court documents are under oath, at least as introduced as being true.
Let's have the Facebook PR person repeat the claim under oath as well with some actual perjury consequences.
Maybe the tune stays the same but in many such circumstances the tune changes.
Sort of (Score:1)
Some years ago, a company I worked at demonstrated they could count the number of times a certain topic was discussed in private messages. This is a fact.
Re: (Score:2)
"without your persmission", "not correct", aha.. (Score:1)
So what you're saying..... (Score:2)
...is "just trust us".
Well, I for one feel safe and reassured that the companies well known for shady business practices and clever lawyer tricks has told us to trust them. It's not like they would lie to make money, after all. That would be silly and illegal!
Re: (Score:2)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Knowing in real-time what people are saying to their friends about shows and movies, and having that correlated with the ad profile Meta has on them already? Fucking gold mine.
Facebook reads private messages (Score:3)
They âoetrust meâ (Score:1)
All of it (Score:2)
A profile of every user is built, an algorithm is applied, one that ends up radicalizing some people, as a side effect. And you better believe that everything you do there is monetized and often weaponized.
And they go on little fishing expeditions with "suggestions" to see what you choose to eliminate from your feed, fine tuning their knowledge of the product. Didn