The richness of the irony in your question makes me wonder about your level of sarcasm.
On one hand, its pretty reasonable to say that absolutely nothing changed at facebook. We are all witnessing the effects of latency.
On the other hand, the change(s) that has ushered in this uptick in negative opinions in regards to Facebook will likely be the source of vigorous debate for some time.
For one, this is just the latest example of habitual behavior on Facebooks part, selling third parties more access to personal data than the persons referenced are comfortable with. The response every single time has been for Facebook to say roughly "We agree in principle that we slightly messed up, and as our more than adequate self imposed penance, we will solve this problem in secrecy with the completely untested technology that we've been working super hard on ever since we discovered this problem 2 years ago, but only acknowledged publicly as a strategic move when no better alternative existed to preserve our viability as a corporation".
Additionally, the data subjects do not generally understand the power imbued to the purchaser of that data at the point they give away that data. Further, they possibly are giving up the legal right to any privacy stemming from what that data may tell third parties.
In the context of all of these generally nebulous problems, is the growing news story involving Cambridge Analytica's alleged use of Facebook's data, the Presidents use of both of those, and the extent to which it can be argued that voter outreach crosses a line in to deceptive psychological manipulation.
Its what folks in scientific fields refer to as evidence that supports, as opposed to weakens, a falsifiable hypothesis.
On one hand, its pretty reasonable to say that absolutely nothing changed at facebook. We are all witnessing the effects of latency.
On the other hand, the change(s) that has ushered in this uptick in negative opinions in regards to Facebook will likely be the source of vigorous debate for some time.
For one, this is just the latest example of habitual behavior on Facebooks part, selling third parties more access to personal data than the persons referenced are comfortable with. The response every single time has been for Facebook to say roughly "We agree in principle that we slightly messed up, and as our more than adequate self imposed penance, we will solve this problem in secrecy with the completely untested technology that we've been working super hard on ever since we discovered this problem 2 years ago, but only acknowledged publicly as a strategic move when no better alternative existed to preserve our viability as a corporation".
Additionally, the data subjects do not generally understand the power imbued to the purchaser of that data at the point they give away that data. Further, they possibly are giving up the legal right to any privacy stemming from what that data may tell third parties.
In the context of all of these generally nebulous problems, is the growing news story involving Cambridge Analytica's alleged use of Facebook's data, the Presidents use of both of those, and the extent to which it can be argued that voter outreach crosses a line in to deceptive psychological manipulation.
Its what folks in scientific fields refer to as evidence that supports, as opposed to weakens, a falsifiable hypothesis.