It all comes down to profits. The media companies need the data. And I would argue that most people aren't sharing information directly with publishers on the internet, it all goes through Facebook and Google (the companies they are criticizing).
The price gouging is a whole other issue...which is a by-product of the availability of this data.
If Facebook/Google are really gathering our data to enhance advertising, it isn't helping the end user. Although it could, if they shifted their focus from ad revenue to user experience (not gonna happen).
This information is certainly very important for advertisers. However, if you shop on websites with Google analytics, etc. Google will have the exact same information, combined with the rest of the information it's able to collect.
Only focusing on Facebook's scandal shifts attention away from the real issue, which is tracking on the internet in general. Most people aren't aware of the extent to which they are sharing information.
Focusing on Facebook gives the benefit of focus. Techies have been warning people for years about tracking on the internet, but “tracking on the internet” is a vague premisse.
It’s by bringing the actions of popular bad actors to light that we’ll raise awareness to the rest. People need something tangible that they see is affecting them, and Facebook’s scandal is just that.
> It’s by bringing the actions of popular bad actors to light that we’ll raise awareness to the rest.
What usually happens is that the one "bad actor" gets turned into a "bad apple," convincingly repents, is renamed, or is dismantles, other companies have a quiet period during the media frenzy to avoid being the next focus, then continue with impunity.
If focusing on facebook brings legislative changes, then good. If focusing on facebook just punishes facebook, who cares?
> If focusing on facebook just punishes facebook, who cares?
Everyone. Punishing one single bad actor (and one of the biggest, at that) is indisputably better than punishing zero. By having one answer by the consequences of their actions, the others see the same can happen to them.
The math is simple. A bunch of little people against multiple tech giants. There’s no way the people have a chance to deal with all the giants at once. One at a time, maybe.
Focusing on Facebook exclusively (for now) will give the public a real, indisputable, concrete example on why data mining is terrifying. If you start babbling on how "everyone's doing it" then you take away much of the importance and seriousness of the topic. People start going "you didn't know that? Of course they do" and "yeah, what can you do about it, right?" and just shrug the issue away.
But with the specifics of Facebook and CA, you know that something can be done, and that not everyone has been doing it the same way and at the same magnitude.
Even if it's just Facebook, it's a step forward. You can't expect to take down all internet giants at once.
The problem is when you lose all technical details and are just left with who you think is good and who is evil.
We should be asking, how do other companies share their data? How much info does someone publishing to each app store get? What do third-party vendors on Amazon get? What do advertisers get?
Also, how much did direct marketers already know before the Internet came along?
It's not news that Facebook is gathering and storing TONS of information about its users (and even non-users). Google, Amazon, Apple, Microsoft are all guilty of the same thing.
I thought Apple was pretty good about respecting user privacy. If you opt out of sharing analytics with Apple, what information to they still gather and store?
When you create an Apple ID, apply for commercial credit, purchase a product, download a software update, register for a class at an Apple Retail Store, contact us or participate in an online survey, we may collect a variety of information, including your name, mailing address, phone number, email address, contact preferences, and credit card information.
When you share your content with family and friends using Apple products, send gift certificates and products, or invite others to participate in Apple services or forums, Apple may collect the information you provide about those people such as name, mailing address, email address, and phone number. Apple will use such information to fulfill your requests, provide the relevant product or service, or for anti-fraud purposes.
In certain jurisdictions, we may ask for a government issued ID in limited circumstances including when setting up a wireless account and activating your device, for the purpose of extending commercial credit, managing reservations, or as required by law.
It all seems perfectly reasonable. If you buy something, they need your credit card info, etc...
The problem is that most companies sell that information on to other parties. I've read on the interwebs that Apple doesn't, but I'd feel better if I could see it in a web page or something more concrete.
What is the actual difference between Google/Facebook and "third parties"? Google actively uses information it gets about me in ways I don't approve of, and generally can't opt out of without stopping use of the services entirely.
Sure, Cambridge Analytica was using the data to influence an election, but Google is not shy about it's own social activism, and it's efforts to manipulate users into seeing it's view of the world.
Google's only protective of our data for selfish reasons: If you sell our data outright, the third party doesn't have need of you anymore, but if Google maintains a tight hold on the data, Google can continually sell the ability to make use of it (through Google's advertising services and the like) over, and over, and over.
Google keeps a tight hold on the data, whereas Facebook had APIs that allowed FB-apps to crawl segments of the FB graph. By doing that thousands of times, apps could export a large part of the data, and FB lost control over how the data could be used. By contrast, Google retains control.
I understand your point that we as end-users don't have any control over the way the data is used in either case. But I do think there is a material difference between the two scenarios.
I just don't see why "Google retaining control" is a positive, when Google is as hostile an actor as Cambridge Analytica. If companies are going to use data to sway public opinion and tailor advertising, how much does it really matter which company is doing it?
What makes Cambridge Analytica worse than Google, specifically? Is the distinction you can draw between the two objective, or subjective to your personal view (or political party)?
(From what I've found, most people upset with "all political parties are the same" are people who belong to one, and are upset that they get grouped in with people who do the exact same things they do. Not "all political parties" are the same, but the two of them I deal with as a US citizen definitely are.)
I would argue both Google and many other data collection based companies do this as well. Data is collected under the auspices of being able to "provide you with better services", even though the actual purpose is to target ads to you more accurately. (They may have better legal disclaimers and statements of how data will be used stuffed in their EULAs nobody reads, but I don't feel that's much less deceptive in reality.)
Retaining control is a positive because it allows you to change your mind and change what's being done with the data--or for that matter for legislation to limit wat you may do with the data.
Once the data is out of your control, there is no longer any way to control what is done with it. Don't think that Cambridge Analytics are the only ones who did this and who have this data. Shutting down CA won't stop the exported FB data from being put to all sorts of uses.
Isn't part of the complaint that Cambridge Analytica was instructed to delete the data by Facebook, and claimed they did, but in fact, that they did not?
What is to say Facebook itself or Google can't operate in the same way?
I'm personally more concerned with the sheer volume of information that Google/Facebook/whoever collects about me. The Cambridge Analytica scandal shouldn't have surprised anyone that is remotely concerned with privacy. If the data is collected and stored, it's creates vulnerabilities to be hacked/leaked.
In which way have Google, Amazon, or Apple had any known breaches like this or even FB back in 2008 having API security "leaks" where everyone could pull down the entire graph?
Facebook is a pioneer in letting others dip into their vast treasure trove with doe-eyed innocence and many apologies.
The parent said "gathering and storing". While facebook is a lot more loose about who they give that data to it's still worth taking a long hard look at what data you want these companies to have, and consider how they are using it today and what they might be using it for or who they might expose it to tomorrow.
I wouldn't say I've changed my career to become a writer. However, I've shifted directions and have began writing a ton more as part of my career.
I'm in marketing, and before was focused quite a bit on social media content which was just quick little snippets accompanied with a photo. Now I write mainly long form content for blogs.
I agree. However, people feel comfortable because they are online with billions of other people. They feel less threatened because their information is hidden within the info of the other billion people using the internet.
