Kansas Crimson

oh damn

https://www.foxnews.com/media/ken-burns ... zuckerberg

Burns makes some great documentaries.

And Facebook is horrible.

Zuckerberg might have the most punchable face in the history of faces.

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=3877

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=3899

Oh the irony

https://www.npr.org/2021/08/04/10247910 ... tics-cry-f

ousdahl wrote: ↑Thu Aug 05, 2021 8:17 am Oh the irony

https://www.npr.org/2021/08/04/10247910 ... tics-cry-f

No one had a problem with social media booting Donald Trump for violating the Terms of Usage of the platform so I am not sure why anyone should complain about this.

not sure those two things are the same

ousdahl wrote: ↑Thu Aug 05, 2021 10:14 am not sure those two things are the same

Why is that? They created some sort of plug in to allow them to mine data from the platform, which is a violation of the terms of usage. Trump was banned from Twitter for violating the terms of usage.

The methods of violations are different but the result is the same. You OK with companies being allowed to create plug-ins to data mine your social media usage? I am not.

Did you read the article?

The researchers are using a public browser extension to study publicly shared data. And Facebook says they have privacy concerns about it (lulz). In other words, Facebook is banning Facebook researchers for behaving too much like Facebook.

And you’re trying to equate that to inciting violence and threatening public safety. Yeah, sure, I bet there’s some language in the terms of service that Facebook can use to their advantage. But to equate the two seems like an oversimplification.

dude. Who better than facebook to understand how dangerous it is to have someone else acting like facebook?

ousdahl wrote: ↑Thu Aug 05, 2021 10:46 am Did you read the article?

The researchers are using a public browser extension to study publicly shared data. And Facebook says they have privacy concerns about it (lulz). In other words, Facebook is banning Facebook researchers for behaving too much like Facebook.

And you’re trying to equate that to inciting violence and threatening public safety. Yeah, sure, I bet there’s some language in the terms of service that Facebook can use to their advantage. But to equate the two seems like an oversimplification.

Yes, I read it. It is not a "public browser extension". It was created by this group and made available to Facebook users.

"The researchers at the NYU Ad Observatory launched a tool last year to collect data about the political ads people see on Facebook. Around 16,000 people have installed the browser extension. It enables them to share data with the researchers about which ads the users are shown and why those ads were targeted at them."

How does it determine "why those ads were shown"? My guess is that it looks at every post you make and searches for key words that would have resulted in those ads being targeted to the user. You don't see that as a potential privacy issue if the users didn't understand exactly what it was they were agreeing to when they installed the extension? The nest user who reads the terms of usage of an extension they install will be the first one.

You seem to be saying that because you approve of the work they are doing, you approve of the fact that they violated the Terms of Usage to do it. Do I think that what they are doing could be useful? Sure. Do I have a problem with Facebook shutting them down? No. Facebook got a $5 billion fine for allowing Cambridge Analytica to scrape data from their site to do analysis. I can understand their desire to not find themselves in a similar situation.

Ousdahl is the simone biles of kcrim. The twists, the spins, he does have trouble with sticking the landing though.

Burn it all. Social media is a virus. Except kcrim, of course....

twocoach wrote: ↑Thu Aug 05, 2021 11:01 amHow does it determine "why those ads were shown"? My guess is that it looks at every post you make and searches for key words that would have resulted in those ads being targeted to the user. You don't see that as a potential privacy issue if the users didn't understand exactly what it was they were agreeing to when they installed the extension? The nest user who reads the terms of usage of an extension they install will be the first one.

That's not really for Facebook to police but it isn't even the issue here.

FB is within their right to do this because the extension collects data from the advertisers (ID's, photos)--the extension goes a layer too deep.

FB uses cookies and app tracking data to target ads. The extension users can also share that with the developers and FB should not have any problem with that. It would be trickier if the extension was somehow cracking the algorithm and mining the exact cookie/data point that FB uses to target the ad, but that's not what FB said it was doing.

But there is certainly irony in FB getting bent out of shape over this. It is cherry picking when they care about privacy.

CrimsonNBlue wrote: ↑Thu Aug 05, 2021 11:09 am

twocoach wrote: ↑Thu Aug 05, 2021 11:01 amHow does it determine "why those ads were shown"? My guess is that it looks at every post you make and searches for key words that would have resulted in those ads being targeted to the user. You don't see that as a potential privacy issue if the users didn't understand exactly what it was they were agreeing to when they installed the extension? The nest user who reads the terms of usage of an extension they install will be the first one.

That's not really for Facebook to police but it isn't even the issue here.

FB is within their right to do this because the extension collects data from the advertisers (ID's, photos)--the extension goes a layer too deep.

FB uses cookies and app tracking data to target ads. The extension users can also share that with the developers and FB should not have any problem with that. It would be trickier if the extension was somehow cracking the algorithm and mining the exact cookie/data point that FB uses to target the ad, but that's not what FB said it was doing.

But there is certainly irony in FB getting bent out of shape over this. It is cherry picking when they care about privacy.

I just took it as "we don't like to pay $5 billion fines and would like to avoid anything that might result in another one".

twocoach wrote: ↑Thu Aug 05, 2021 11:16 am

CrimsonNBlue wrote: ↑Thu Aug 05, 2021 11:09 am

twocoach wrote: ↑Thu Aug 05, 2021 11:01 amHow does it determine "why those ads were shown"? My guess is that it looks at every post you make and searches for key words that would have resulted in those ads being targeted to the user. You don't see that as a potential privacy issue if the users didn't understand exactly what it was they were agreeing to when they installed the extension? The nest user who reads the terms of usage of an extension they install will be the first one.

That's not really for Facebook to police but it isn't even the issue here.

FB is within their right to do this because the extension collects data from the advertisers (ID's, photos)--the extension goes a layer too deep.

FB uses cookies and app tracking data to target ads. The extension users can also share that with the developers and FB should not have any problem with that. It would be trickier if the extension was somehow cracking the algorithm and mining the exact cookie/data point that FB uses to target the ad, but that's not what FB said it was doing.

But there is certainly irony in FB getting bent out of shape over this. It is cherry picking when they care about privacy.

I just took it as "we don't like to pay $5 billion fines and would like to avoid anything that might result in another one".

There are some big distinctions to the Cambridge Analytica fiasco--but the takeaway from that was that the fine was a very small slap on the wrist to FB.

I think both sides are right.

Facebook can point to their terms of service and their CYA measures.

NYU can argue that Facebook is trying to shield itself from scrutiny, and that such research wouldn’t be necessary if Facebook was a little more transparent in the first place.

Either way, the point of irony stands. Don’t act like Facebook on Facebook.

And man, never underestimate the willingness of average joes to step up and argue in favor of letting giant corporations do whatever they want.

Never underestimate the ability of ousdahl to sling hot takes without any sort of thought to try and create "discussion" and then fall back on "man, you guys just love corporations, temporarily embarrassed millionaires, i was just joking anyways"

ousdahl wrote: ↑Thu Aug 05, 2021 11:29 am And man, never underestimate the willingness of average joes to step up and argue in favor of letting giant corporations do whatever they want.

If I create a company, I would like to think that I am able to create a Terms of Service and be allowed to enforce them. The size of a company is irrelevant to the discussion for me but I assume you'd feel opposite if it was a local shop that took the same action.