World, Writing, Wealth discussion

31 views
Wealth & Economics > Facebook data scandal

Comments Showing 1-50 of 63 (63 new)    post a comment »
« previous 1

message 1: by Nik (new)

Nik Krasno | 13528 comments Yeah, it's a hot topic now and something like 50 bil's of its value were wiped away during just days. For those who's unaware and want to familiarize themselves, here is one of the possibilities:
http://money.cnn.com/2018/03/20/techn...

Seeing how drastically scandals influence the value, standing, stability and perception of those gigantic corporations, one may think aren't many of them just Colossuses with the feet of clay? What do you think?


message 2: by Ian (new)

Ian Miller | 9532 comments Facebook has no other business than advertising placed around data, so if the feeling is that the data is likely to be compromised, advertisers run. But my feeling is this will blow over. Share prices are like reef fish - as soon as something moves down, everyone sells. Computer trading, where it is programmed to cut losses does not help.


message 3: by Graeme (new)

Graeme Rodaughan MySpace who?


message 4: by Matthew (new)

Matthew Williams (houseofwilliams) I posted this in another thread, but its nothing if not relevant.

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018...


message 5: by Scout (new)

Scout (goodreadscomscout) | 5382 comments I'm not worried. I have a Facebook page, but I gave them no true information about myself, and I never post. I checked to see what info they had on me, and the only thing there was my false birth date and that I'm a conservative, which is too simple a categorization for my beliefs. Regardless, no propaganda will influence my ideas. I'm just glad I didn't invest. I've been looking for a sure thing, but this proves there's not a sure thing.


message 6: by Ian (new)

Ian Miller | 9532 comments Scout, my view is that I am gong to make my vote on the basis of what the candidates say - not what various emails or ads say - and people did that, there would be no problem. Actually, we don't know that this did not happen. There is no reason, in my view, to be sure that Hillary did not lose because she was the worst candidate.


message 7: by Scout (new)

Scout (goodreadscomscout) | 5382 comments Well, I'd have to say that she was the worst candidate. I'd have considered Biden if he had run. But never, never Hillary. I know Biden regrets his decision not to run.


message 8: by M. (new)

McPhaul M. | 1 comments Really Biden! WOW...


message 9: by Holly (new)

Holly (goldikova) Ian wrote: "Scout, my view is that I am gong to make my vote on the basis of what the candidates say - not what various emails or ads say - and people did that, there would be no problem. Actually, we don't kn..."

When a candidate's lips are moving, they are lying.

I tend to base my vote more on the candidate's past performances and/or voting record if the candidate was previously involved in legislative activity.


message 10: by Michel (new)

Michel Poulin Well, the USA has a President that tweets daily, keeps contradicting his cabinet members and close advisors, is a pathological liar and says one thing one day and says the contrary the next day (habitually via tweet). So much for relying on what politicians say.


message 11: by Graeme (last edited Mar 22, 2018 03:21PM) (new)

Graeme Rodaughan What Social Media/Trad Media users need to understand is they are not the customers - they're the product.

The people paying big money to access targeted advertising to the user base are the customers.

Look at this chart, Google and Facebook dominate the advert spend online.
Courtesy of: Visual Capitalist


If Facebook gets smashed - the big winner is probably Google who will vacuum up the advertisers leaving Facebook.


message 12: by Graeme (new)

Graeme Rodaughan
Courtesy of: Visual Capitalist


Check out the total revenue numbers and the evolution of the market.


message 13: by Graeme (new)

Graeme Rodaughan The thing is anyone building a Facebook App has the opportunity to gather user data - and of course, they did exactly that.

"Facebook took a 30% cut of payments made through apps, but in return enabled their creators to have access to Facebook user data."

REF: https://amp.theguardian.com/news/2018...


message 14: by Graeme (last edited Mar 22, 2018 07:22PM) (new)

Graeme Rodaughan Matthew wrote: "I posted this in another thread, but its nothing if not relevant.

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018..."


Matthew - in all honesty, CA are an international company HQ in the UK, they will have links all over the world. The fact they have links to "Russians," is not surprising. They also have links to Nigerians...

"Cambridge Analytica was hired by a Nigerian billionaire to support the re-election of Jonathan and run a fierce campaign against his rival, opposition leader Muhammadu Buhari"

REF: https://www.timesofisrael.com/israeli...

Nigerian billionaires and emails - the plot positively thickens and the mind boggles at the possibilities.

These events would be considered farcical if invented by a novelist.


message 15: by Graeme (new)

Graeme Rodaughan Cambridge Analytica.

From their website they perform two functions.

Commercial: Data Driven Marketing
Political: Data Driven Campaigns.

"Data drives all we do. Cambridge Analytica uses data to change audience behavior. Visit our Commercial or Political divisions to see how we can help you."

REF: https://cambridgeanalytica.org/

Offices in New York, London, Washington, Brazil and Malaysia. (... Moscow seems to be missing????)

CA Commercial case studies are at https://ca-commercial.com/casestudies and provide some insight into what they are selling.


message 16: by Graeme (last edited Mar 22, 2018 09:06PM) (new)

Graeme Rodaughan I think this is fascinating.

"That’s because the more than 1 million Obama backers who signed up for the app gave the campaign permission to look at their Facebook friend lists. In an instant, the campaign had a way to see the hidden young voters. Roughly 85% of those without a listed phone number could be found in the uploaded friend lists. What’s more, Facebook offered an ideal way to reach them. “People don’t trust campaigns. They don’t even trust media organizations,” says Goff. “Who do they trust? Their friends.”"

REF: http://swampland.time.com/2012/11/20/...

And backed up by Carol Davidsen, former director of integration and media analytics for Obama for America (2012 campaign).

"Facebook was surprised we were able to suck out the whole social graph, but they didn’t stop us once they realized that was what we were doing."

and

"They came to office in the days following election recruiting & were very candid that they allowed us to do things they wouldn’t have allowed someone else to do because they were on our side."

REF: https://twitter.com/cld276/status/975...

And before Matthew retorts with "Whataboutism..." :: The point I'm making is that exploitation of social media data, with or without end user consent, was making a statistically significant change in voting behavior for anyone with the capacity to access the data and use it as far back as 2012.


message 17: by Philip (new)

Philip (phenweb) Graeme wrote: "I think this is fascinating.

"That’s because the more than 1 million Obama backers who signed up for the app gave the campaign permission to look at their Facebook friend lists. In an instant, the..."


Good point but since 2012 the amount of data, the number of users and the analytical capability have all increased. Now AI and rules based automation are adding deep levels of data mining to the process. Facebook by sheer scale is one thing but if you rally want data mining take a look at the credit reference agencies and who they sell their data to but also where they get their data from due to their privileged roles.


message 18: by Graeme (new)

Graeme Rodaughan An excellent point Philip.


message 19: by Nik (new)

Nik Krasno | 13528 comments I don't mind being sold to Nigeria, but where are my royalties from these transactions?


message 20: by Ian (new)

Ian Miller | 9532 comments In defence of my statement, I listen to what the politicians are saying, that does not mean I believe them! Catching lies is the first step in not voting for them. Of course both sides usually tell a number of porkies, so I have to go a bit deeper in the analysis. I just can't see myself voting base don Facebook ads.

As for Cambridge Analytica, apparently they have also taken on John Bolton, or so one claim has been made.

Nik, good luck with the royalties. Getting them from Nigeria can be a problem - most Nigerian emails, etc, result in cash going the other way and then disappearing!


message 21: by Philip (new)

Philip (phenweb) Ian wrote: "In defence of my statement, I listen to what the politicians are saying, that does not mean I believe them! Catching lies is the first step in not voting for them. Of course both sides usually tell..."

I'm surprised to hear that about Nigeria, they are always asking me for help disbursing income for which I'll be paid a fortune in commission. Then of course the politicians are always promising better services for lower taxes. They may be related.


message 22: by Scout (new)

Scout (goodreadscomscout) | 5382 comments :-)


message 23: by Leonie (new)

Leonie (leonierogers) | 1579 comments Philip wrote: "Ian wrote: "In defence of my statement, I listen to what the politicians are saying, that does not mean I believe them! Catching lies is the first step in not voting for them. Of course both sides ..."

I just received another email about those fortunes that seem to be lying around there, just waiting for me to help distribute them... I seem to have accidentally deleted the email, somehow though.

I'm with Ian - I listen, read, and make my decision that way.


message 24: by Graeme (new)

Graeme Rodaughan Here is a very interesting summary of precisely what facebook and Google store...

REF: TWITTER: https://twitter.com/iamdylancurran/st...

He makes all the points, I would make.


message 25: by Alex (new)

Alex (asato) What do you think about the Facebook CEO sending his underlings instead of going himself to the UK Parliament's investigating committee? A misstep or part of a calculated strategy?


message 26: by Graeme (new)

Graeme Rodaughan I think the backlash has surprised him, and he may not be handling it well.

BTW: Mr Z started liquidating his own shareholdings last year...


message 27: by Graeme (new)

Graeme Rodaughan What the revelations above make abundantly clear is that all anyone needs is one malicious google or facebook employee with an axe to grind and everything about your online existence can be made public at anytime, or exploited for malicious purposes.

As to what to do? I shrug my shoulders - I'm literally trying to increase my public visibility...


message 28: by Michel (new)

Michel Poulin This all supports the reasons why I never went on Facebook or Twitter: if you give some data on the Internet, then forget about that data staying confidential, because somebody is liable one day to either sell that data, share it with unauthorized persons or hack it.


message 29: by Graeme (new)

Graeme Rodaughan Hi Michel,

Perhaps you're the wisest one here.

I still view the benefits of 'social visibility,' to outweigh the risks (however, am I simply whistling past a graveyard?)

Something I think that may mitigate the whole problem is the 'anonymity within a crowd effect,' i.e. why would someone in particular target me - even though they can.

I really don't know. The risk/benefit trade off is difficult to calculate as both risks and benefits are difficult to clarify.

It's mud - murky and dark.


message 30: by Alex (last edited Mar 27, 2018 09:37PM) (new)

Alex (asato) Don't forget that FB also owns Instagram and Whatsapp.

Also, it seems like the EU takes care of its citizens' privacy more than the US government does of me. In May 2018, they're instituting regulation to make the individual the owner of their data and the company has to ask you to opt in to the company's data collection of your data--not the other way around like it is now. And, if the company doesn't notify the government authority within 72 hours of a data breach, then they could get fined up to 4% of their annual revenue or €20 million.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/24/te...

Edit:
FB stock
16 Mar 2018 = 185.09
27 Mar 2018 closed = 152.22
% loss = 17.75%

Not far from its 52w low = 137.6


message 31: by Graeme (new)

Graeme Rodaughan Interesting.


message 32: by Nik (new)

Nik Krasno | 13528 comments Alex wrote: "What do you think about the Facebook CEO sending his underlings instead of going himself to the UK Parliament's investigating committee? A misstep or part of a calculated strategy?"

He might end up traveling around the globe. Don't know how it is, but it shouldn't be a one-man show


message 33: by Ian (new)

Ian Miller | 9532 comments I think Mr Z is right about not travelling everywhere. If he has staff in the UK, let one of them face up. As for me, yes, I am on Facebook, but largely as Graeme noted, to increase visibility. I really don't care if someone hacks my Facebook account or uses the data there. What they will find is a collection of interesting reposts, information on my attempts to sell books, and information on my interests in physics and chemistry, and frankly, they are welcome to that.


message 34: by Graeme (last edited Mar 29, 2018 02:29PM) (new)

Graeme Rodaughan The ripples in the pond.

[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl... : FB to change access to their user data product is hitting the companies that broker the data, as per

"As part of the changes that will be rolled out over the next few weeks, Facebook said it will no longer let advertisers use information from third-party data brokers, like Acxiom Corp. and Epsilon Data Management LLC, in targeting of ads on its system."


[2: The Ripple] Impact on Acxiom share price: REF: https://www.bloomberg.com/quote/ACXM:US hit the '1M' view on the chart and you can see that its share price has just fallen off a cliff. (down 19% today - but the view is temporary.... as the market will move on). This fall is $100s of millions of dollars in market cap for Acxiom.

The implication: User data harvested by facebook has been (is) worth a fortune to those who can access it and broker it to other parties.

If FB really has to back off on making their user data product available to others - what's their actual business model?


message 35: by Ian (new)

Ian Miller | 9532 comments One argument is that Facebook is free to use, therefore since you pay nothing to Facebook to display your data, you have no contractual restriction on their use of it. You put it there, it is their's to use.


message 36: by Philip (new)

Philip (phenweb) Ian wrote: "One argument is that Facebook is free to use, therefore since you pay nothing to Facebook to display your data, you have no contractual restriction on their use of it. You put it there, it is their..."

That's effectively what their Ts and Cs state. The same is true of everything on Goodreads, Linked-In and so on.


message 37: by Nik (new)

Nik Krasno | 13528 comments On my T&C, I never said I was free. Users are valued per capita and Face, In and others are worth nothing without us. It would be more fair to have a revenue share system and pay us whenever we are sold to any willing buyer -:)
I claim here an inalienable right and entitlement to get paid for the privilege to target us with advertising


message 38: by Ian (new)

Ian Miller | 9532 comments Nik wrote: "On my T&C, I never said I was free. Users are valued per capita and Face, In and others are worth nothing without us. It would be more fair to have a revenue share system and pay us whenever we are..."

Did you read the small print, Nik? I assure you if you take them to court to collect your inalienable right and entitlement you will be whistling in the wind.


message 39: by Scout (new)

Scout (goodreadscomscout) | 5382 comments I'm thinking I'll be more circumspect when posting on Goodreads. I've never given much thought to this before. I don't post on Facebook or Instagram, so I've always felt safe. But should I be more careful here?


message 40: by Ian (new)

Ian Miller | 9532 comments I wouldn't worry about it. You haven't said anything I know of that would be regarded as "out of court", and compared with some posts on US websites, you are outright mild.


message 41: by Scout (new)

Scout (goodreadscomscout) | 5382 comments Well, that's a relief :-)


message 42: by Graeme (new)

Graeme Rodaughan The thing is **not** start talking about buying 1/2 a tonne of fertilizer, and a drum of diesel, etc, etc...


message 43: by Ian (new)

Ian Miller | 9532 comments If you were going to buy half a tonne of fertiliser and a drum of diesel, and the Feds find out, make sure the fertiliser was superphosphate :-)


message 44: by Graeme (new)

Graeme Rodaughan Yes. (Chuckle).


message 45: by Scout (new)

Scout (goodreadscomscout) | 5382 comments :-) You guys are now on the watch list!


message 46: by Graeme (new)

Graeme Rodaughan Now all we have to do is add the keyword, "target."

Whoops!


message 47: by Scout (new)

Scout (goodreadscomscout) | 5382 comments Duck and cover :-)

Really, though, you guys. Don't you feel like everything you post and every move you make can be tracked? I'm thinking about buying a 1955 Chevrolet and ditching my cell phone.


message 48: by Ian (new)

Ian Miller | 9532 comments If Scout is right, it might be a waste of time my applying for a visa to visit the US, maybe????


message 49: by Nik (new)

Nik Krasno | 13528 comments This thread has 28 views: we can 'safely' assume that about 20 belong to intel services, like CIA, FSB, FBI, MIs, etc, which leaves about 8 for fair group members -:) Now, that I've added the above abbreviations the thread may become even more discoverable -:)


message 50: by Philip (new)

Philip (phenweb) Unless we are also masquerading as real users....

Thought I would add a book link on a book site!

The Unlikely Spy


« previous 1
back to top