[uniqueuid]

I can add some details, knowing AlgorithmWatch a bit.

This is a very earnest and credible German NGO, with most of the active people coming from academia and with collaborations with highly-regarded news organizations.

An original (english) post is here: https://algorithmwatch.org/en/instagram-research-shut-down-b...

Their message is very critical of platforms, but in the international context (i.e. compared to some US books and articles), it's very restrained. I would trust them as much as the NYU team (which means: pretty much completely).

There are two important things to note here:

- Facebook did NOT shut down this research right away! AlgorithmWatch decided to end their instagram research project for fear of retribution. It's chilling effects at work. The quote in context is:

"This is why we were very surprised when, in early May 2021, Facebook asked us for a meeting. Our project, said Facebook, breached their Terms of Service, which prohibit the automated collection of data. They would have to “mov[e] to more formal engagement” if we did not “resolve” the issue on their terms – a thinly veiled threat." (from the original article)

- The tool used here is similar to the NYU project and a past AlgorithmWatch project in that it scrapes content client-side. This has great advantages to the science part (i.e. platforms can't send you fake data to fool your research), but brings the immense unresolved issue of user liability. You don't want your data donors to be liable for helping science.

Finally, there are currently many ongoing regulatory debates in the EU and AlgorithmWatch is involved in those. It seems possible that there will be some sort of required public accountability for platforms in the future.

I personally would love to see some sort of mandated accountability that provides credible researchers with data (and real data, not the social science one clusterf* that facebook set up) instead of simply handing universal keys to states' law enforcement arms.

[annadane]

I think the fact they can always claim to be hiding behind Cambridge Analytica is disgusting. They're clearly not the same

[uniqueuid]

I agree that it's frustrating how CA is used as an argument to end all arguments.

But we have to acknowledge that Facebook and other platforms are under threat of exploitation from malicious actors, that they often do want to legitimately prevent abuse and that they have to do something.

My biggest gripe is of course the laughable shallowness of the debate. I've once had a Facebook representative tell me that they can't share political ad data because the data is so large "it doesn't fit on a usb stick". Come on. That's lawyers speaking bullshit, and it's tiring.

[fsociety]

People love to meme that the regulatory action taken against FB didn’t do anything because the fine was too small.. but the truth is this is the reality from it.

[lovecg]

Exactly. This (strict enforcement of terms and conditions and locking down user data) was the desired outcome of the actions taken, and will probably result in fewer leaks down the road which is fine with me. I’m actually glad they seem to be serious about it by even going after these “controversial” cases. I frankly don’t understand what people want them to do.

[sorokod]

Very much in the spirit of regimes that would execute an inconvenient individual and then charge the family the price of the execution.

[ergocoder]

I disagree.

If they are truly not the same, then let's make FB not liable for it.

For example, if there is data leak from this, the researchers should all go to jail and FB is not at fault.

I'm sure if German government is honest and truly want to do research, they should have no problem coming up with a law like this.

For now, there is no such protection. If the research group turns out to be bad, FB again will be fucked.