
Facebook Will Cut Off Access to Third Party Data for Ad Targeting - cctt23
https://techcrunch.com/2018/03/28/facebook-will-cut-off-access-to-third-party-data-for-ad-targeting/
======
bogomipz
I think the last paragraph is the most important one:

>"Facebook clarified that it will still work with companies like Experian and
Acxiom in order to measure ad performance and provide metrics, although it
will also be conducting a review of those ongoing relationships."

These FB announcements the last couple of days seem little more than grooming
for possible upcoming appearances in front of legislators. They can point to
this and the surface-level app redesign and say they've "already" taken
efforts to shore up concerns.

I think most people have no idea that FB and Experian - a consumer credit
reporting agency have been sharing data at all. Where was that explained in
the app redesign that was trotted out yesterday?

It's worth reading how Acxion who facing similar pressures recently handled
their own superficial offering of "transparency":

[https://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/05/technology/acxiom-lets-
co...](https://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/05/technology/acxiom-lets-consumers-
see-data-it-collects.html)

~~~
philipodonnell
I would really like to know what data they are sharing with Experian.

If its just helping them target ads then they should explain why Experian is
allowed to continue, but I am more concerned with Experian being "creative"
with Facebook's tools and incorporating some of that into their credit scoring
models.

~~~
mbrumlow
I am guessing it is something even worse. Like, Experian uses Facebook data to
adjust credit scores. And some time in the near future your credit score will
suck if you don't have a social media footprint.

~~~
Slansitartop
> And some time in the near future your credit score will suck if you don't
> have a social media footprint.

People will just create fake accounts that "like" things like "saving money"
and "paying off debt."

~~~
mechhrt
Sure but anyone judging your credit score isn't looking for that. "Paying off
debt but not too quickly" or "Carrying enough debt to accrue interest without
defaulting" are more likely what they would want to see.

------
chicob
I still don't see anyone addressing the elephant in the room: corporate,
extensive personal data harvesting must stop.

If this is Facebook's business model, Facebook must go.

No one would allow the kind of pervasive intrusion put in practice by Facebook
(and others) by the part of governing bodies, the police or the military. So
why are we still allowing marketing companies to do it? Why are willing to let
credit, insurance and health companies access our data in order to know us
better than ourselves? When is this the price of a "better user experience"?
It is disingenuous to say that people simply "agreed to this". No one can
expect the average user to fully comprehend the inner workings of the modern
web, and to what extent their data is being used, or even to keep up with
changing terms of use for every single service.

Some, like Tim Cook, are starting to address the issue but not as directly as
one would expect.

~~~
matte_black
If a credit company doesn't know who you are they will not loan you even one
dollar. If an insurance company doesn't know who you are they will charge you
the maximum to account for the risk. If a health company doesn't know your
data they can't accurately diagnose trends in your health. Still want to play
this game?

~~~
jacquesm
If a credit card company or health company relies on a social media entity to
decide whether to give you credit or to be able to accurately diagnose your
health then they have other problems.

None of that needs Facebook.

Still want to play this game?

Credit card companies were extending people credit and doctors were making
accurate diagnoses long before the internet came along, they are definitely
not a necessity for the functioning of society in ways that really matter.

~~~
matte_black
Can you say that with any certainty? You don't know what you can do with data
really until you have it all available at your disposal.

~~~
jacquesm
Yes, I can say that with certainty. Anything a credit card company will do
when they have access to aggregate data is done to benefit the credit card
company, not the customers. And anything healthcare providers can do when it
comes to making diagnoses is either on an individual basis, in which case
access to my social media data would not matter _or_ it is part of a study in
which case there should be proper controls.

If you wish to argue that there are direct benefits to consumers from either
giving credit card companies or health care providers access to your social
media data then the the onus is on you to prove this.

~~~
matte_black
The onus isn't on me to prove anything. The OP was against harvesting of data
in all forms, not just social media.

That means no credit, insurance, or health related data collection of any kind
at all.

What do you think of _that_?

~~~
jacquesm
Your thesis is that without credit, insurance or health data collection those
entities will not be able to function.

The world is a lot larger than just the United States and in other places
banks, insurance companies and healthcare providers function just fine even if
they do not have the data gathering capabilities that are considered 'normal'
in the United States.

So there's what I think of 'that', data collection is not a pre-requisite for
any of this.

~~~
ameister14
Easy access to credit the way it runs in the US isn't universal, and most
places it is are currently dealing with the same data collection issues.

Partitioning the data and more heavily regulating the credit industry may be
part of a solution.

Where do healthcare providers function well with less data than those in the
US? I'm not experienced enough with the healthcare industry and
nationalization of healthcare data to know, so if you have examples I'd really
appreciate it.

~~~
jacquesm
The US is about as bad as it gets when it comes to healthcare. Good examples
for healthcare run in a way that it does not break the bank and provides a
high level of care are Canada and France, other Western European countries to
greater or lesser degree depending on how much privatization has been going
on.

~~~
ameister14
Sure, as far as money is concerned - what about data collection and
management, though? Isn't that what we were talking about?

------
clay_the_ripper
I might catch some flak for saying this, but as a marketer this is a pretty
significant change and will make running campaigns more difficult.

Also, I don’t really see how this does much to protect anyone’s privacy, this
mostly just makes running effective campaigns more complicated and expensive.
The data is still being collected and sold, now you can’t just get it directly
through Facebook anymore.

~~~
jacquesm
> I might catch some flak for saying this, but as a marketer this is a pretty
> significant change and will make running campaigns more difficult.

Excellent.

> Also, I don’t really see how this does much to protect anyone’s privacy,
> this mostly just makes running effective campaigns more complicated and
> expensive.

If you don't have access to data you shouldn't have access to that improves
privacy. Exchanges leaking data which then gets cached is a huge privacy
issue, allowing third parties to link up this data with data they already have
is absolutely terrible. Data files in isolation are bad enough, allowing the
joining of disjoint datasets is about as bad as it gets when it comes do de-
anonymizing people.

> The data is still being collected and sold, now you can’t just get it
> directly through Facebook anymore.

Good. Not _all_ data will still be available, and hopefully some more of these
holes will be closed soon to make it even harder to make running highly
targeted campaigns more difficult.

From where I'm sitting the sooner marketeers lose the capability to run
targeted campaigns the better, and every little bit helps.

On the plus side: your budgets will go up to reach the same effect so why
complain?

~~~
adotjdotr
No, no and no.

I've worked on every single vertical and 3rd party data / Partner Categories
is rarely used by big or small advertisers a like.

The cost of the advertising increases i.e. higher CPMs for using this data.
I've spent north of $40ml across all digital ads with a large chunk being on
$FB and it isn't the main kind of targeting that is used and its the most
expensive kind as well.

I am not hugely convinced this will dramatically affect $FB given there are so
many other targeting options out there it isn't much of a concern in my eyes
just a shame this is one avenue that will now be closed but its one of so many
marketers can use.

~~~
jacquesm
So, your point is it should be allowed to continue because it doesn't matter
anyway? Then there is no loss. On to the next until it starts to hurt.

------
troydavis
LinkedIn offers a similar product, which they call "Contact Targeting" with
data integration. From
[https://www.linkedin.com/help/linkedin/answer/85809?lang=en](https://www.linkedin.com/help/linkedin/answer/85809?lang=en):

> Contact targeting is a LinkedIn Marketing Solutions feature that allows
> advertisers to upload lists of contacts to include as part of their target
> audience for ad campaigns. If you have already interacted with a company and
> provided them with your contact information (e.g. to sign-up for a
> newsletter or webinar), they may include you in a target audience for a
> LinkedIn ad campaign using contact targeting.

It's part of "Matched Audiences":
[https://www.linkedin.com/help/linkedin/answer/81195](https://www.linkedin.com/help/linkedin/answer/81195)

Twitter's rough equivalent is called "Tailored Audiences," though as far as I
know, it relies only on hashed email addresses and device IDs uploaded
directly by the advertiser, not data appending companies:
[https://developer.twitter.com/en/docs/ads/audiences/overview](https://developer.twitter.com/en/docs/ads/audiences/overview)

TechCrunch doesn't say exactly what part of Facebook's product will be rolled
back - uploading any hashed user lists? hashed user targeting only when done
by third-party data appenders? only when based on offline events? - so it's
hard to tell how far Facebook is going.

~~~
ikeboy
Facebook is still keeping this. If the advertiser provides your info to
Facebook they can target you. They are getting rid of the ability to target
you based on data Facebook purchases from third parties - e.g. you buy
something in a Sephora store, Facebook buys transaction info from your
bank/visa/"brokers" and then tags you as "bought beauty in last 30 days", then
a brand targets that tag and you see an ad you wouldn't have seen otherwise.

And yes, there's a specific Facebook targeting category for "bought beauty
last 30 days", or was before this change.

~~~
troydavis
Thanks. I just updated my comment to make it clear that TechCrunch doesn't say
exactly what part is being removed.

If you're correct, the part they're rolling back is relatively small.

~~~
AznHisoka
It is actually not that small. Facebook has a lot of info on what you like but
relatively few info on _what you buy_ offline. A lot of that data is kept by
credit card/reward card companies, which then sell them to Acxiom and others
(how nice of them!)

~~~
politician
There's a huge market for grocery store purchase history from those loyalty
cards everyone uses.

~~~
jacquesm
Which is why I don't have one of those but I make myself no illusions about
the grocery company being able to track me anyway based on the bank card used
to pay for the groceries.

------
davemel37
One possible conspiracy... Facebook stock has dropped a bunch, site usage is
down 24% and advertisers are leaving left and right... anounce these audience
segments will be gone in 6 months but advertisers can A, reach them now and B,
build first party audiences off this data by advertising to specific segments
just to cookie folks... and the next two earnings calls show a big increase in
ad spend!

------
marcinzm
I wonder if this just means they know so much about people from first-party
data they've collected (including their share buttons on other sites) that the
additional performance gains from third-party data weren't worth much.

~~~
ryanwaggoner
Maybe they used the partner data as ML training data and now they don't need
it anymore :)

~~~
paulie_a
Maybe they will be slightly better than the emails in my spam folder

For the amount of data Facebook collects, the quality of advertising they
provide is pretty much garbage. Late night tv infomercial quality.

------
davemel37
Honestly, I think this is a fallout of third party data being too expensive
relative to the increase in performance more than anything else... middleware
ad tech and data sellers are a failed experiment that has been a net negative
for advertisers, users and publishers..all it did was just enrich some bloated
ad tech startups to steal a piece of the pie...its a scam that floated on
smoke and mirror attribution models...and advertisers who actually control
their budgets have smartened up finally...its artificially propped up by
agencies incentivized to spend more and make their clients look good in a
powerpoint and colorful excel sheet...without true accountability to REALITY!
I think we will see many more hits to the third party data world and ad tech
that promises richer targeting without really serving the users or advertisers
by enabling them to deliver better value...versus just paying twice for
customers they would have anyways short of the third party selling your
customers to your competitors...its a shell game and its finally coming
crashing down!!! GOOD RIDDANCE!

------
kristianc
This is a fairly major change, and will have some fairly significant impacts
on the AdTech industry. I'd go as far as saying this was the first really
meaningful fallout from the CA scandal.

I'd hazard a guess that not many ordinary users are even aware that retailers
can upload their email addresses into Facebook and create targeting segments
from them.

As to what these changes do to the AdTech industry is anyone's guess.
'Onboarding' email addresses is basically LiveRamp's business model.

~~~
davemel37
I highly doubt this had anything to do with CA, outside of some PR timing...
third party data is stale and expensive and advertisers were already
complaining of costs on FB... this will make it cheaper for mom and pop
advertisers and scare away the affiliate marketers mostly.. facebooks owm data
and first party audience data is still open season and where the ad dollar
shift has been happening anyways...

This was a smart biz decision and CA was just a convenient opportunity to roll
out without too much backlash IMHO.

------
baxtr
Facebook is to me a clear case, where missing company values created a huge
mess. What are the core values/core beliefs of Facebook? I firmly believe that
other than anything else a set of core values determines the long term fate of
companies. Of course, it’s not enough to merely have a set of beliefs that
you’ve put up nicely on the wall, but, rather, top management must speak and
act according to these principles.

~~~
kushti
The very core principle of any public corporation is to show positive metrics
to its shareholders during board meetings.

~~~
baxtr
That is a goal, not a principle to operate by. An no, this is not just
semantics.

------
partycoder
Facebook policies are very sneaky. Rather than defaulting them to something
restrictive, their defaults are very permissive.

I would not be surprised if this thing is undone later.

------
jedwhite
I believe this is related to GDPR, which isn't clear in the article.

This is the information from Facebook (via Dennis Yu from Blitz Metrics):

// from Facebook:

Although I have spoken with many of you just today and yesterday, I wanted to
make you immediately aware of an update we received to third-party targeting,
late this afternoon.

We have a responsibility for the use of data on our platform - and we want to
ensure that people have transparency and control over how their information is
used. Over the past week, we announced important changes to reduce the amount
of data that apps can request from users and ensure that people have more
control over their information on Facebook. Now, to build on these efforts, we
are going to be more restrictive in the way that we use data for advertising
on our platform, particularly as it relates to information from third-party
data providers.

Specifically, over the next six months, we will remove the ability to use
Partner Categories, a targeting solution that enables third-party data
providers to offer their targeting directly on Facebook. While leveraging
third-party data is a common industry practice and we've put good protections
in place, we believe this step will help improve people's privacy on Facebook.

We understand this may impact your advertising efforts on our platform, and we
will work with you through this transition. In an attempt to minimize
disruption, we will allow time for you to update your targeting. In light of
the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in the European Union, we have
created a timeline to comply with the regulation:

· May 10: After this date, you will no longer be able to create or edit
campaign using Partner Categories built on audiences from the UK, Germany, and
France; however, they will be allowed to continue running until May 24.

· May 25: We will no longer deliver to Partner Categories built on audiences
from the UK, Germany, and France, and these targeting options will no longer
be available for use on our platform. You will notified to update any
targeting containing impacted Partner Categories before this date.

· June 30: Last day for creating new or editing existing campaigns using non-
EU Partner Categories; they will be allowed to run until September 30.

· October 1: All other Partner Categories will no longer be available as
targeting options on our platform and we will stop delivering against these
audiences. You will be notified to update your targeting by this date.

Protecting people’s information is the most important thing we do. You can
expect to hear more from us in the coming weeks as we continue to work to make
our platform safer.

~~~
jacquesm
What's so special about the UK, Germany and France that doesn't hold for the
other 25 member states of the EU?

~~~
kasey_junk
They are unwilling to pull out of those three? They have actual corporate
presences there making it easier to penalize? They have actual assets there?

All of those things are being asked by adtech lawyers right now in planning
for the future EU data regimes.

------
shafyy
Not sure what this really means, but it's impressive how many measures FB is
publicly taking that seem to improve the privacy of users. Again, not sure if
it really does, but it sure makes it seem like it does.

Great tactical game by Facebook.

~~~
domevent
It feels a lot more like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic to me.

------
dschuetz
It's a step in the right direction, but still I don't trust Facebook making a
decision like that. In the end they'll just replace it with something else
which might turn out even worse than before. You cannot make money selling
user data by cutting off data channels to your third party customer base. So,
I'm waiting. Off Facebook.

------
imcqueen
I know it's been tried many times unsuccessfully, but with the benefit of
hindsight now would you have preferred to pay a nominal annual fee for the
handful of currently free services that you really like?

I realize we're likely too far gone now, but it's fundamentally an issue that
we aren't paying for these ad-supported services, so the companies gravitate
toward serving the interests of the entities that are paying them.

That's not a justification or reflection of my opinion about privacy and
ethics around the use of data, just a thought around removing the problem from
the equation all together.

I guess my real question is, if you remove the profit seeking component of the
data discussion does the bad behavior completely go away? Definitely
interested in other opinions.

------
gaius
But Facebook themselves still gather and keep the data? If so this is mere
window dressing

------
SeriousM
Pfff, so? These companies have the data already, and if not, they have long 6
months to get them. This only tells me that Facebook is trying to act as we
wish to yet acting as it always did.

------
nitwit005
I would assume the issue was that they had to give these companies data in
order to match up a facebook user with an ID in the third party systems. See,
for example, BlueKai's integration documentation:
[https://docs.oracle.com/en/cloud/saas/data-
cloud/dsmkt/integ...](https://docs.oracle.com/en/cloud/saas/data-
cloud/dsmkt/integrating-oracle-bluekai-platform.html)

------
rqs
Well, as a Dumb fuck[0], I completely believe in Facebook will take all the
necessary steps to protect my privacy.

[0]
[https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Mark_Zuckerberg](https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Mark_Zuckerberg)

And of course you can down vote, but we will meet again in the next Facebook
scandal :)

------
chatmasta
So does the mean you can no longer import a list of emails / Facebook IDs for
lookalike audience creation?

------
gcatalfamo
Thanks to functional analphabets
([https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_illiteracy](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_illiteracy))
the advertising world is becoming much less interesting.

------
oh-kumudo
I think this is a welcome gesture, someone has to draw the line. Data
shouldn't be a bargain.

------
slowandlow
This won't stop the regulations coming their way. Facebook had the chance to
prove they could be trusted but squandered it and may have ruined it for the
tech industry. They know this and it's why they hired Washington lobbyists.

------
davemel37
This will actually make facebook ads cheaper...many people dont realize that
facebook charges you a markup for some of these targeting audiences.

------
adamiscool8
What are the odds they've already managed to extract and associate all the
Partner Categories data for their own use?

------
vgy7ujm
Zuck has to go.

------
rednerrus
The ads on Instagram are pretty amazing. I find myself wanting to buy 80% of
the products they try to sell me.

~~~
quadrangle
Get an adblocker

~~~
bpicolo
Most instagram usage is mobile, where you don't get that flexibility
(especially on iOS)

~~~
quadrangle
This fact is at the heart of what is wrong with non-FLO software and the whole
trend of technology today.

I left Apple (previously only a Mac user) several years ago over this. It's
not merely the issue of ads (which is not to be understated, ads are ruinous,
at the heart of tons of problems). The way power structures work in these non-
FLO walled-gardens amount to an effective sabotage of the entire potential for
FLO software overall.

------
oh_sigh
I believe there is a saying about horses and gates which would be apposite.

------
avoidit
Before I went to read the article, I wondered if they would define first and
second party here. And they do:

Quote from the article: "In order to leverage the deep pool of data Facebook
collects on users, the company mixes information that it obtains from users
themselves (Pages a user liked, for instance) with information from
advertisers (membership status in a loyalty program, for example) and with
data obtained from third party providers."

It is super interesting that they have _no terminology at all_ for data
collected via shadow profiles. I propose "zeroth party" data - they are shadow
profiles after all. :-)

------
mtgx
You know how Facebook keeps saying "we never sell your data"? It was
_bartering_ it with data brokers all this time.

The only reason they're even taking this step is because they _know_ there are
many other companies that could get just as much if not more data about its
users as Cambridge Analytica did _from the data brokers_ that partnered with
Facebook.

This would be true especially now that the "cat is out of the bag" so
potentially many other malicious groups/rival states could be trying to do the
same thing as CA did.

Facebook simply saw the inevitable: Cambridge Analytica multiplied by 100 in
its future.

But one question remains: has Facebook made sure that the data brokers
_deleted all of the FB data_ , and did they just ask them to "certify" this,
as they did with CA in 2015, or did FB audit these companies? (as Zuckerberg
committed to do recently with all the companies they suspect of abusing its
policies?) Did FB audit Palantir, too, and its use of Cambridge Analytica's
data?

[https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/27/palantir-worked-with-
cambrid...](https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/27/palantir-worked-with-cambridge-
analytica-on-the-facebook-data-whistleblower.html)

~~~
kolmogorov
they did not sell data to brokers. they bought data from brokers.

