
Mozilla Raises Concerns Over Facebook’s Lack of Transparency - Manu1987
https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2019/01/31/mozilla-raises-concerns-over-facebooks-lack-of-transparency/
======
buboard
Facebook is right to point out here that scraping data from their users'
logged-in pages puts their privacy at risk and makes Facebook liable for it,
even if there is consent (as happened in the cambridge analytica thing). There
is clearly a conflict with EU's own laws here.

Also, don't forget that EU elections are nothing like federal elections, these
are local elections which reflect each country's national politics rather than
anything EU-wide. And, based on previous elections, i have found individual
candidates themselves to be major violators of anti-spam laws.

~~~
annadane
Sorry, did you mean Mozilla is right to point out?

~~~
buboard
no, facebook.

------
wtmt
This was Facebook's statement to Propublica [1]:

> “We regularly improve the ways we prevent unauthorized access by third
> parties like web browser plugins to keep people’s information safe,”
> Facebook spokesperson Beth Gautier said. “This was a routine update and
> applied to ad blocking and ad scraping plugins, which can expose people’s
> information to bad actors in ways they did not expect.”

Seriously, after all the scandals with third parties where action wasn't taken
in a timely manner, it's clear that Facebook will do something if and only if
it benefits from it.

Like with ad blockers, can't these extensions change this into an arms race
where it becomes futile for Facebook to keep fighting them? Or are these
organizations restraining themselves, hoping that Facebook will somehow change
its mind?

[1]: [https://www.propublica.org/article/facebook-blocks-ad-
transp...](https://www.propublica.org/article/facebook-blocks-ad-transparency-
tools)

~~~
bad_user
I understand the privacy concerns, the problem being that Facebook's ads
targeting has no transparency, which is very problematic for issues of public
interest.

For elections for example I'd like to be able to see what parties or what
politicians are paying for Facebook ads, what demographics are they targeting
and with what ads.

If Facebook exposed this data, it wouldn't be a privacy issue.

~~~
lclarkmichalek
Some of what you want might be available here:
[https://www.facebook.com/ads/archive/](https://www.facebook.com/ads/archive/)
([https://www.facebook.com/business/help/2405092116183307](https://www.facebook.com/business/help/2405092116183307)).

(work for fb)

------
wil421
Elections were the breaking point for me on Facebook. I didn’t post much
myself but my family and friends do. After seeing the amount of blatantly
false information being passed by both political sides I finally had enough.
This was 2016, after what I’ve learned last year I really what to delete my
account instead of having it deactivated.

~~~
RandallBrown
Are you saying that Facebook should decide which news is false or that you're
just done with using social media to find news in general?

~~~
DavidHm
I find myself somewhat unimpressed by arguments like "Facebook / Google"
should not be deciding what is false.

They already are - or rather, they are deciding what is visible and prominent,
and what isn't. When you share a post, Facebook's algorithm determine what
visible it has for each of your friends - whether it's on top of their feed,
lower, or completely invisible.

At this point it seems more and more likely (though probably not proven) that
those algorithms are skewed to promote content that gets high chances of
engagement - and that means content that provokes outrage or rage is more
likely to be visible than a long-form, balanced conversations.

So in short - Facebook is not (and should not) be the arbiter of truth. But
surely it's not unreasonable to ask that they don't actively promote
incivility and (literally, uncontroversially) blatantly fake news?

~~~
moosey
I imagine that, at some point, any specialized management of a 'social feed'
will be considered human experimentation that generally leaves the people
consuming it to be worse off mentally and emotionally. We already know that
Facebook has done what are considered experiments against the wellbeing of
users, but there is no real gap between that and trying to adjust the behavior
of users in order to keep them on the site. Once that adjustment has been
made, then a closed-source curated social feed becomes illegal, as it should
be, IMO.

I think that the only way to manage a social feed is for it to be really dumb:
blocks, maybe best friends, etc. Of course, once you do that you've basically
returned to email.

------
skuhl
This ProPublica article has more information:
[https://www.propublica.org/article/facebook-blocks-ad-
transp...](https://www.propublica.org/article/facebook-blocks-ad-transparency-
tools)

------
bad_user
> _It also prevents any developer, researcher, or organization to develop
> tools, critical insights, and research designed to educate and empower users
> to understand and therefore resist targeted disinformation campaigns._

Is Mozilla building some sort of visualization tool for the marketing done on
the upcoming EU elections?

~~~
pmyteh
Maybe, maybe not. But I have a number of academic colleagues working on
marketing/news/misinformation on online platforms, and Facebook has _always_
been a problem for analysis. It's next to impossible to get raw data unless
you're Facebook, which makes investigating these questions very difficult.

For comparison, Twitter is comparatively easy to work with (though getting
harder as time goes on) and Reddit is very open. This is one reason why there
are lots of papers based on Twitter data and very few based on analyses of
Facebook.

~~~
bad_user
Any legitimate reasons for not allowing access to raw data? Could it violate
people's privacy for example?

~~~
SiempreViernes
I'm sure it could, but of course you can always anonymise data first. In any
case it seems a bit rich for _facebook_ to restrict access due to privacy
concerns, in reality the issues is likely that reason is simply that academics
can't pay as well as ad agencies.

~~~
lvh
Data anonymization is an incredibly complex problem and de-anonymization is an
entire subfield. I’m by no means a Facebook apologist, but “we don’t trust our
ability to deanonymize data so it would be suitable to publish” rings true.

------
austincheney
It is the very nature of online advertising to stalk usage behavior akin to
spyware and be completely opaque about it. It is horribly subjective to single
out Facebook for it when all online advertisers are basically doing the very
same things.

The only difference between Facebook and other ad agencies is that Facebook
has a structured system in place inviting better PII and relationship data
submitted directly by the users. While people demonize Facebook for this
behavior other ad agencies would kill to be in that position.

~~~
AlexandrB
> It is the very nature of online advertising to stalk usage behavior akin to
> spyware and be completely opaque about it.

No, it's not. Online ad space is like any other ad space, and advertising has
existed for decades with only minimal information about who views it. The only
difference with online advertising is that there are no longer technological
limitations to tracking everything. Something that's much harder to do with a
billboard or a newspaper ad. Since Since this is the case, it's up to voters
to insist on legal limits on tracking instead. But advertising will be fine
either way.

~~~
austincheney
Just because online advertising is different from billboards in that
billboards don't stalk me doesn't in any ways redeem online advertising.

I have worked that business before and written that code for Travelocity. I
created Travelocity's most successful advertising code before they were
consumed by Expedia (an annoying popunder that achieved click-through rates of
14%). I later worked as the developer on their analytics team and worked hand-
in-hand with their media (advertising) team. The name of the game is
experimentation and analysis. The more data you have on a user the more
accurate and targeted your decisions can be about that user. Spyware is
absolutely the name of the game.

------
cmurf
In the U.S., Facebook is allowed to lie, and to propagate lies of others. On
what basis is Facebook required to be any different than the National
Enquirer? The limitation is defamation, but in a political context defamation
doesn't apply.

Mozilla's letter is to the European Commission, and as such I recognize
different laws between the U.S. and E.U. are relevant.

However, the most simple test for double standard is to flip the narrative
around: imagine a truth that makes many people angry to hear, and imagine that
unpopular truth being put into an ad, and imagine the people arguing for ad
targeting methods to be revealed are people who want to protect people from
truth in order to allow them to keep on believing lies.

I appreciate the importance of developing tools to fight disinformation
campaigns. But on what basis can any person or company be compelled to reveal
their advertising methodology? What is public interest in a political ad
campaign context where literally everyone involved is claiming moral high
ground?

I think regulating speech is a trap, and people need to consider the double
standard. What happens when your truth becomes difficult or impossible to
disseminate, because it makes most people angry to hear? You really think all
angry people need their emotional state coddled? Why protect them from
becoming angry? This is why we need to do better in school teaching coping
skills, and critical thinking.

------
fxfan
As a fan of Firefox (see username) and user since 2006, and as someone who
doesn't like fb- maybe Mozilla should start by being more transparent about:

1) why they don't install ublock origin by default

2) why they install pocket by default

3) why they keep doing ad-experiments?

Mozilla needs to stop pretending they are some saints. But thanks for calling
fb out.

~~~
xfitm3
Mozilla is trying to find a way to sustain itself outside of Google. I don't
fault them for that. They need money just like any other company.

~~~
jopsen
Mozilla is a non-profit, not like any other company!

That said I strongly support their work... Disclaimer: I used to work at
Mozilla.

~~~
freehunter
Non-profits still need money to pay their bills...

~~~
jopsen
Yes, but not like _any_ other company.

------
dalbasal
Political advertising is something that FB should have tackled closer to the
stem.

First, they should have considered banning it entirely. I'm sure they had such
conversations around (eg) tobacco, arms, alcohol, medicines and such. FB are
far from immune to the fiduciary imperative, but they are very profitable.
They were in a position to turn away potentially problem-making revenue. In
hindsight, IMO, that would have been the better choice.

If they are going to do political advertising, they should be channeling &
(internally) regulating it differently. Separate rules. ID your advertisers,
and enforce local election rules by jurisdiction, like election day ad bans.
Report on (or verify) spending, if local laws require it. Similar systems
exist for licensed/regulated markets like financial services. You can't just
start advertising savings accounts.

Without doubt, transparency should be part of the special rules for political
ads.

On the bigger questions, to me, GDPR-like regulation is _not_ the answer. Some
parts, like reporting on breaches, are good. Other parts, like the emphasis on
creating agreements between users and websites, are (IMO!) wrong. These things
are contracts. The mental bandwidth required to understand a cookie policy and
make informed is far too great.

Transparency is, potentially, an alternative.

~~~
rock_hard
Political ads are not inherently bad though. Ads in general are not actually.

Ads help political candidates to get the word out...i think that’s useful and
I think it’s awesome that Facebook didn’t go the route of less resistance
(banning political ads) here and rather is trying to get this right!

Political ads a a tiny slice of FBs revenue...so I don’t believe they are
profit motivated here.

$1B was spend on digital ads in the 2016 presidential runs and Facebook has a
19.6% market share so probably pulled in about $196M which is about 0.35% of
their annual revenue...so I don’t think they are in it for the money at all

~~~
dalbasal
>>Political ads are not inherently bad

Are they inherently good?

In any case, I didn't say they _had_ to ban them, though I think in hindsight
they should have considering (as you say) that they could afford to.

Since they decided not to, then they should have treated political ads more
responsibly. For example, only a candidate can run a political campaign. No
anonymous advertisers.

