Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by throwaway_meta 1447 days ago
People that are criticizing this probably were also critical of the Cambridge Analytica scandal, but it would be useful to compare what happened there and here.

With Cambridge Analytica:

- Facebook allowed users (with informed consent) to allow external developers to access their data and limited data about their friends, in order to build social-enabled apps.

- CA exploited this to scrape basic profile data from a large number of users. It broke the ToS by doing so (in particular by using the data for purposes different than stated)

Here the same is happening:

- people are giving a third company access to their profile, which includes access to friends' data (in fact a lot more than what the app platform allowed to do)

- the company is scraping all the data.

At the time of CA, the criticism was that Facebook didn't do enough to enforce its ToS (or maybe that the data sharing should have not been allowed in the first place? But the terms were common knowledge and the attack potential became clear only in hindsight), here people are criticizing that Facebook is in fact enforcing its ToS.

Also note that strong enforcement against scraping is one of the mandates that came from the FTC settlement.

It seems inevitable that any news about Facebook/Meta is read in the worst possible light these days, even when the criticism is self-contradictory. I would expect less superficial commentary from HN.

1 comments

The real reason most people were upset about Cambridge Analytica was it revealed to the public how advertising and PR companies manipulate us. The fact they violated facebook ToS is moreso the excuse for the press covering it when they wanted to write another anti-Trump piece. If you were accusing a specific newspaper of hypocrisy based on two article I might agree. But you're referring to general public sentiment, and I really don't think most people cared or were surprised about the data collection. The shock and scandal was the realization that targeted advertising campaigns and information bubbles have the potential to sway elections.
I'm referring to the HN crowd, I'm not sure that can be equated to "general public sentiment".

I agree with your first paragraph, and my point is that it is not possible to argue at the same time that Facebook should share data more broadly and allow scraping, and at the same time be critical that Facebook allowed CA to happen in the first place.

If the CA scandal was a wake-up call, it appears it was not internalized enough for people to understand the implications of what they're suggesting in this thread?