Mark Zuckerberg Change his Testimony
Facebook Just Tapped the Next Mark Zuckerberg
Mark Zuckerberg reorganized leadership of Facebook's product groups.
Yichuan Cao/SIPA/AP
Chris Cox Is the New Mark Zuckerberg
If
there were ever a question as to who would step in to fill Zuckerberg’s
shoes should something happen to him, it has been resolved. With his
new role as head of the company’s family of apps—Instagram, WhatsApp,
Messenger and the tried and true Big Blue (aka Facebook)—Facebook’s
chief product officer is stepping out as the leader he has long been
internally. Anyone paying close attention knows this already.
Cox,
who is very close friends with Zuckerberg, dropped out of a Stanford
graduate program to join Facebook in 2005. He’s done a lot of jobs
since. When I first met him in 2008, he was the 25-year-old head of
resources who zipped around the office on a ripstik. An engineer by
training, he helped invent news feed and was the star of the video
Facebook showed investors
in the run-up to its initial public offering. Cox is a brilliant public
face for the company because he pairs engineering rigor and Facebook
history with an emotive voice that Zuckerberg sometimes lacks. (Check
out his F8 keynote from 2011 to see this in action.)
Cox’s
new role also suggests Facebook will integrate Instagram and WhatsApp
more deeply into the company, now that they’re organizationally closer
to Messenger and Facebook. This may have contributed to WhatsApp
cofounder Jan Koum’s departure last month.
Javier Olivan Just Got a Lot More Important
Of Zuckerberg’s three direct reports on the product side of the business, Olivan is the only one not currently on Facebook’s leadership page.
The Spanish native arrived at Facebook after finishing his Stanford MBA
in 2007 to run international growth, when the company had just 40
million users, most in the United States. The growth team is Facebook’s
Navy SEALs, a special-operations force brought in when the company sees
potential for a feature to take off and the stakes are high.
Historically, most teams at Facebook have included one of Olivan’s
direct reports.
Olivan’s responsibilities now
include ad products, analytics, and a group called “integrity, growth,
and product management.” One could also read this as one way Zuckerberg
is demoting ad products. Mark Rabkin, who is in charge, now reports to
Olivan.
Controversy Won't Stop WhatsApp’s New Boss
Unlike its Instagram acquisition, Facebook’s acquisition of WhatsApp was never a great culture fit. Koum promised to keep WhatsApp ad-free, then sold it to an ad company. In March, cofounder Brian Acton, who’d already left Facebook to start a foundation, advised his 35,000 Twitter followers to #Deletefacebook. Then last month, Koum announced he was leaving his post as WhatsApp’s CEO and stepping off Facebook’s board.
Now
Chris Daniels, a seven-year Facebook veteran, steps in to replace Koum,
eschewing the title as CEO of WhatsApp for a vice president title. It
will be on Daniels, who will report to Cox, to sort out a business for
the messaging service. He’s got the experience to take on the challenge.
Until recently, Daniels ran Facebook’s internet.org initiatives around
expanding access in developing countries. The largest of these projects
is Free Basics, an app that offers access to free web services. Although
telecom companies rejected the idea of partnering with Facebook to
provide the Free Basics app early on—and India banned it in 2016—more than 80 carriers partner with Facebook to offer the service.
Facebook Probably Has a Blockchain Plan
David
Marcus, who ran Facebook’s Messenger app, will now lead a team of fewer
than a dozen people dedicated to blockchain technology. Kevin Weil, who
was in charge of product at Instagram, is joining him along with James
Everingham, who was in charge of engineering there. (WIRED’s Erin
Griffith and Sandra Upson have some thoughts on what this means.)
A
board member of cryptocurrency wallet Coinbase with a lot of payments
experience, Marcus has a history of leaving large posts to take up
seemingly small projects. He was CEO of PayPal in 2014 when he left to run Messenger.
The move was a head-scratcher: At the time, Messenger was a tiny
messaging app that had failed to take off as an email replacement. But
Zuckerberg had a plan to transform Messenger into a better version of
WhatsApp (which, it should be said, he’d just bought), one that
businesses could harness to reach users in new ways.
Messenger’s Chief is a Growth Expert
Replacing
Marcus at Messenger is Stan Chudnovsky. He’s one of the newer members
of the leadership bench, having arrived at Facebook in 2014. Like
Marcus, Chudnovsky is a serial entrepreneur; he sold his last company,
the software startup IronPearl, to PayPal before it was a year old.
Chudnovsky’s nascent startup had been building growth tools for
companies, and at PayPal he was head of growth. At Messenger, Chudnovsky
worked closely with Marcus to grow Messenger into a service with more
than 1.3 billion monthly active users.
There Are Almost No Women Here
A shamefully obvious aspect of the image of the org chart that Recode pieced together
earlier this week is the paucity of female faces. In fact, there’s only
one: Naomi Gleit, who now runs “integrity, growth and product
management.” Gleit, who is Facebook’s longest tenured employee (she was
#29), has long been part of the growth team at Facebook and was until
recently the company’s “vice president of social good.” Gleit is a
force to be reckoned with, no doubt. But this new structure raises
questions about Zuckerberg’s commitment to building an inclusive
workforce. For as much as the company has benefitted from the work its
chief operating officer, Sheryl Sandberg, has done personally to promote
women, it should be unacceptable for Zuckerberg to fill 13 of the
company’s 14 most critical technical positions with men.
__________________________________
Facebook is making its biggest executive shuffle in company history
WhatsApp, Messenger and Facebook’s core app are getting new leaders as part of a massive executive reorg.
By
____________________________________
Facebook Replaces Lobbying Executive Amid Regulatory Scrutiny
Image
WASHINGTON
— Facebook on Tuesday replaced its head of policy in the United States,
Erin Egan, as the social network scrambles to respond to intense
scrutiny from federal regulators and lawmakers.
Ms.
Egan, who is also Facebook’s chief privacy officer, was responsible for
lobbying and government relations as head of policy for the last two
years. She will be replaced by Kevin Martin on an interim basis, the
company said. Mr. Martin has been Facebook’s vice president of mobile
and global access policy and is a former Republican chairman of the
Federal Communications Commission.
Ms.
Egan will remain chief privacy officer and focus on privacy policies
across the globe, Andy Stone, a Facebook spokesman, said.
The
executive reshuffling in Facebook’s Washington offices followed a
period of tumult for the company, which has put it increasingly in the
spotlight on Capitol Hill. Last month, The New York Times and others
reported that the data of millions of Facebook users had been harvested by the British political research firm Cambridge Analytica. The ensuing outcry led Facebook’s chief executive, Mark Zuckerberg, to testify at two congressional hearings this month.
Since the revelations about Cambridge Analytica, the Federal Trade Commission has started an investigation
of whether Facebook violated promises it made in 2011 to protect the
privacy of users, making it harder for the company to share data with
third parties.
At the same time,
Facebook is grappling with increased privacy regulations outside the
United States. Sweeping new privacy laws called the General Data Protection Regulation
are set to take effect in Europe next month. And Facebook has been
called to talk to regulators in several countries, including Ireland,
Germany and Indonesia, about its handling of user data.
Mr.
Zuckerberg said told Congress this month that Facebook had grown too
fast and that he hadn’t foreseen the problems the platform would
confront.
“Facebook is an idealistic
and optimistic company,” he said. “For most of our existence, we focused
on all the good that connecting people can bring.”
The executive shifts put two Republican men in charge of Facebook’s Washington offices. Mr. Martin will report to Joel Kaplan, vice president of global public policy. Mr. Martin and Mr. Kaplan worked together in the George W. Bush White House and on Mr. Bush’s 2000 presidential campaign.
Facebook
hired Ms. Egan in 2011; she is a frequent headliner at tech policy
events in Washington. Before joining Facebook, she spent 15 years as a
partner at the law firm Covington & Burling as co-chairwoman of the
global privacy and security group.
Facebook
is undergoing other executive changes. Last month, The Times reported
that Alex Stamos, Facebook’s chief information security officer, planned to leave the company after disagreements over how to handle misinformation on the site.
_____________________________________
Google Knows Even More About Your Private Life Than Facebook
________________________________________
Facebook releases long-secret rules on how it polices the service
MENLO PARK, Calif. (Reuters) - Facebook Inc (FB.O)
on Tuesday released a rule book for the types of posts it allows on its
social network, giving far more detail than ever before on what is
permitted on subjects ranging from drug use and sex work to bullying,
hate speech and inciting violence.
Now, the company is providing the longer document on its website to clear up confusion and be more open about its operations, said Monika Bickert, Facebook’s vice president of product policy and counter-terrorism.
“You should, when you come to Facebook, understand where we draw these lines and what’s OK and what’s not OK,” Bickert told reporters in a briefing at Facebook’s headquarters.
Facebook has faced fierce criticism from governments and rights groups in many countries for failing to do enough to stem hate speech and prevent the service from being used to promote terrorism, stir sectarian violence and broadcast acts including murder and suicide.
At the same time, the company has also been accused of doing the bidding of repressive regimes by aggressively removing content that crosses governments and providing too little information on why certain posts and accounts are removed.
New policies will, for the first time, allow people to appeal a decision to take down an individual piece of content. Previously, only the removal of accounts, Groups and Pages could be appealed.
Facebook is also beginning to provide the specific reason why content is being taken down for a wider variety of situations.
Facebook, the world’s largest social network, has become a dominant source of information in many countries around the world. It uses both automated software and an army of moderators that now numbers 7,500 to take down text, pictures and videos that violate its rules. Under pressure from several governments, it has been beefing up its moderator ranks since last year.
Bickert told Reuters in an interview that the standards are constantly evolving, based in part on feedback from more than 100 outside organizations and experts in areas such as counter-terrorism and child exploitation.
“Everybody should expect that these will be updated frequently,” she said.
The company considers changes to its content policy every two weeks at a meeting called the “Content Standards Forum,” led by Bickert. A small group of reporters was allowed to observe the meeting last week on the condition that they could describe process, but not substance.
At the April 17 meeting, about 25 employees sat around a conference table while others joined by video from New York, Dublin, Mexico City, Washington and elsewhere.
Attendees included people who specialize in public policy, legal matters, product development, communication and other areas. They heard reports from smaller working groups, relayed feedback they had gotten from civil rights groups and other outsiders and suggested ways that a policy or product could go wrong in the future. There was little mention of what competitors such as Alphabet Inc’s Google (GOOGL.O) do in similar situations.
Bickert, a former U.S. federal prosecutor, posed questions, provided background and kept the discussion moving. The meeting lasted about an hour.
Facebook is planning a series of public forums in May and June in different countries to get more feedback on its rules, said Mary deBree, Facebook’s head of content policy.
FROM CURSING TO MURDER
The longer version of the community standards document, some 8,000 words long, covers a wide array of words and images that Facebook sometimes censors, with detailed discussion of each category.Videos of people wounded by cannibalism are not permitted, for instance, but such imagery is allowed with a warning screen if it is “in a medical setting.”
Facebook has long made clear that it does not allow people to buy and sell prescription drugs, marijuana or firearms on the social network, but the newly published document details what other speech on those subjects is permitted.
Content in which someone “admits to personal use of non-medical drugs” should not be posted on Facebook, the rule book says.
The document elaborates on harassment and bullying, barring for example “cursing at a minor.” It also prohibits content that comes from a hacked source, “except in limited cases of newsworthiness.”
In those cases, Bickert said, formal written requests are required and are reviewed by Facebook’s legal team and outside attorneys. Content deemed to be permissible under community standards but in violation of local law - such as a prohibition in Thailand on disparaging the royal family - are then blocked in that country, but not globally.
The community standards also do not address false information - Facebook does not prohibit it but it does try to reduce its distribution - or other contentious issues such as use of personal data.
________________________________________
Facebook may face billions in fines over its Blocking Tag features
A federal judge ruled in favor of a class action lawsuit certification
By
Facebook could face billions of dollars in fines after a federal judge ruled
that the company must face a class action lawsuit. The lawsuit alleges
that Facebook’s facial recognition features violate Illinois law by
storing biometric data without user consent.
The lawsuit involves Facebook’s Tag Suggestions tool,
which identifies users in uploaded photos and suggests automatic tagging
of your friends. The feature was launched on June 7th, 2011. According
to the suit, the complainants allege that Facebook “collects and stores
their biometric data without prior notice or consent in violation of
their privacy rights.” Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) requires explicit consent before companies can collect biometric data like fingerprints or facial recognition profiles.
It should be noted that Facebook has since also added a more direct notification
alerting users to its facial recognition features, but this lawsuit is
based on the earlier collection of user data. With the order, millions
of the social network’s users could collectively sue the company, with
violations of BIPA incurring a fine of between $1,000 to $5,000 each time someone’s image is used without permission.
In the court order, Judge James Donato wrote:
“A class action is clearly superior to individual proceedings here. While not trivial, BIPA’s statutory damages are not enough to incentivize individual plaintiffs given the high costs of pursuing discovery on Facebook’s software and code base and Facebook’s willingness to litigate the case...Facebook seems to believe that a class action is not superior because statutory damages could amount to billions of dollars.”
The Tag Suggestion feature works in four steps: software
tries to detect the faces in uploaded photos. Once detected, Facebook
computes a “face signature” — a series of numbers that “represents a
particular image of a face” based on your photo — and a “face template”
database that the system uses to search face signatures for a match. If
the face signature matches, Facebook then suggests the tag. Facebook
doesn’t store face signatures and only keeps face templates.
Facebook says its automatic tagging feature detects 90
percent of faces in photos. The lawsuit claims about 76 percent of faces
in the photos have face signatures computed. Tag suggestions are
available in limited markets. It is primarily offered for users in the
US with the option to turn the feature off.
A lawyer for Facebook users, Shawn Williams, told Bloomberg:
“As more people become aware of the scope of Facebook’s data collection and as consequences begin to attach to that data collection, whether economic or regulatory, Facebook will have to take a long look at its privacy practices and make changes consistent with user expectations and regulatory requirements,” he said.
Facebook also launched a new feature back in December that notifies users when someone uploads a photo of them, even if they’re not tagged. In a statement to The Verge, Facebook
said, “We are reviewing the ruling. We continue to believe the case has
no merit and will defend ourselves vigorously.” Facebook also says it
has always been upfront about how the tag function works, and users can easily turn it off if they wish.
________________________________________
Facebook points finger at Google and Twitter for data collection
“Other companies suck in your data too,” Facebook explained in many, many words today with a blog post detailing how it gathers information about you from around the web.
Facebook product management director David Baser wrote, “Twitter, Pinterest and LinkedIn all have similar Like and Share buttons to help people share things on their services. Google has a popular analytics service. And Amazon, Google and Twitter all offer login features. These companies — and many others — also offer advertising services. In fact, most websites and apps send the same information to multiple companies each time you visit them.” Describing how Facebook receives cookies, IP address, and browser info about users from other sites, he noted, “when you see a YouTube video on a site that’s not YouTube, it tells your browser to request the video from YouTube. YouTube then sends it to you.”
It seems Facebook is tired of being singled-out. The tacked on “them too!” statements at the end of its descriptions of opaque data collection practices might have been trying to normalize the behavior, but comes off feeling a bit petty.
The blog post also fails to answer one of the biggest lines of questioning from CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s testimonies before Congress last week. Zuckerberg was asked by Representative Ben Lujan about whether Facebook constructs “shadow profiles” of ad targeting data about non-users.
Today’s blog post merely notes that “When you visit a site or app that uses our services, we receive information even if you’re logged out or don’t have a Facebook account. This is because other apps and sites don’t know who is using Facebook. Many companies offer these types of services and, like Facebook, they also get information from the apps and sites that use them.”
Facebook has a lot more questions to answer about this practice, since most of its privacy and data controls are only accessible to users who’ve signed up.
Whenever
a company may be guilty of something, from petty neglect to grand
deception, there’s usually a class action lawsuit filed. But until a
judge rules that lawsuit legitimate, the threat remains fairly empty.
Unfortunately for Facebook, one major suit from 2015 has just been given that critical go-ahead.
The case concerns an Illinois law that prohibits collection of biometric information, including facial recognition data, in the way that Facebook has done for years as part of its photo-tagging systems.
BIPA, the Illinois law, is a real thorn in Facebook’s side. The company has not only been pushing to have the case dismissed, but it has been working to have the whole law changed by supporting an amendment that would defang it — but more on that another time.
(Update: Although Facebook’s own Manger of State Policy Daniel Sachs co-chairs a deregulatory tech council in the Illinois Chamber of Commerce that proposed the amendment, the company maintains that “We have not taken any position on the proposed legislation in Illinois, nor have we suggested language or spoken to any legislators about it.” You may decide for yourself the merit of that claim.)
Judge James Donato in California’s Northern District has made no determination as to the merits of the case itself; first, it must be shown that there is a class of affected people with a complaint that is supported by the facts.
For now, he has found (you can read the order here) that “plaintiffs’ claims are sufficiently cohesive to allow for a fair and efficient resolution on a class basis.” The class itself will consist of “Facebook users located in Illinois for whom Facebook created and stored a face template after June 7, 2011.”
The Cambridge Analytica scandal emerged from Facebook being unable to enforce its policies that prohibit developers from sharing or selling data they pull from Facebook users. Yet it’s unclear whether Apple and Google do a better job at this policing. And while Facebook let users give their friends’ names and interests to Dr. Aleksandr Kogan, who sold it to Cambridge Analytica, iOS and Android apps routinely ask you to give them your friends’ phone numbers, and we don’t see mass backlash about that.
At least not yet.
Facebook product management director David Baser wrote, “Twitter, Pinterest and LinkedIn all have similar Like and Share buttons to help people share things on their services. Google has a popular analytics service. And Amazon, Google and Twitter all offer login features. These companies — and many others — also offer advertising services. In fact, most websites and apps send the same information to multiple companies each time you visit them.” Describing how Facebook receives cookies, IP address, and browser info about users from other sites, he noted, “when you see a YouTube video on a site that’s not YouTube, it tells your browser to request the video from YouTube. YouTube then sends it to you.”
It seems Facebook is tired of being singled-out. The tacked on “them too!” statements at the end of its descriptions of opaque data collection practices might have been trying to normalize the behavior, but comes off feeling a bit petty.
The blog post also fails to answer one of the biggest lines of questioning from CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s testimonies before Congress last week. Zuckerberg was asked by Representative Ben Lujan about whether Facebook constructs “shadow profiles” of ad targeting data about non-users.
Today’s blog post merely notes that “When you visit a site or app that uses our services, we receive information even if you’re logged out or don’t have a Facebook account. This is because other apps and sites don’t know who is using Facebook. Many companies offer these types of services and, like Facebook, they also get information from the apps and sites that use them.”
Facebook has a lot more questions to answer about this practice, since most of its privacy and data controls are only accessible to users who’ve signed up.
Judge says class action suit against Facebook over facial recognition can go forward
The case concerns an Illinois law that prohibits collection of biometric information, including facial recognition data, in the way that Facebook has done for years as part of its photo-tagging systems.
BIPA, the Illinois law, is a real thorn in Facebook’s side. The company has not only been pushing to have the case dismissed, but it has been working to have the whole law changed by supporting an amendment that would defang it — but more on that another time.
(Update: Although Facebook’s own Manger of State Policy Daniel Sachs co-chairs a deregulatory tech council in the Illinois Chamber of Commerce that proposed the amendment, the company maintains that “We have not taken any position on the proposed legislation in Illinois, nor have we suggested language or spoken to any legislators about it.” You may decide for yourself the merit of that claim.)
Judge James Donato in California’s Northern District has made no determination as to the merits of the case itself; first, it must be shown that there is a class of affected people with a complaint that is supported by the facts.
For now, he has found (you can read the order here) that “plaintiffs’ claims are sufficiently cohesive to allow for a fair and efficient resolution on a class basis.” The class itself will consist of “Facebook users located in Illinois for whom Facebook created and stored a face template after June 7, 2011.”
The data privacy double-standard
That said, other tech companies have gotten off light. Whether it’s because Apple and Google aren’t CEO’d by their founders any more, or we’ve grown to see iOS and Android as such underlying platforms that they aren’t responsible for what third-party developers do, scrutiny has focused on Zuckerberg and Facebook.The Cambridge Analytica scandal emerged from Facebook being unable to enforce its policies that prohibit developers from sharing or selling data they pull from Facebook users. Yet it’s unclear whether Apple and Google do a better job at this policing. And while Facebook let users give their friends’ names and interests to Dr. Aleksandr Kogan, who sold it to Cambridge Analytica, iOS and Android apps routinely ask you to give them your friends’ phone numbers, and we don’t see mass backlash about that.
At least not yet.
How Facebook’s Past Data Policy Has Come Back to Haunt It
A video explaining how policies started back in 2007 led to misuse of data by Cambridge Analytica....
Mark Zuckerberg’s Mission: Stay Cool in a Very Hot Seat
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg faces lawmakers this week in what are likely to be contentious hearings about privacy that will be a broader test of how effectively he can guide his social-media giant.
Mark Zuckerberg’s Washington Mission: Stay Cool in a Very Hot Seat
The Facebook chief will be tested as he appears before Congress about privacy issues
By Betsy Morris and
Deepa Seetharaman
April 8, 2018 7:34 p.m. ET
A year ago, Mark Zuckerberg was preparing to deliver the commencement speech at Harvard University. As well as a personal milestone, it was the kind of carefully choreographed, profoundly upbeat event at which he excels.
Facebook To Alert Users Affected By Cambridge Analytica Data Breach
If you were one of the 87 million Facebook users that might have been affected by the social media platform’s recent Cambridge Analytica privacy breach, then you will be getting a detailed message in your news feed starting Monday.
In the wake of the scandal, Facebook said that users who may have had their data shared with Cambridge Analytica will be getting messages this week, according to the Associated Press. In addition, in an effort to do some damage control, all Facebook users will be receiving a notice with a link to see what apps they use and what information they have shared with those apps. They will be given the option to shut off these apps or completely turn off access to third-party apps.
The ongoing Cambridge Analytica scandal has been a thorn in Mark Zuckerberg
and Facebook’s side. In March, it was reported that Cambridge
Analytica, the data firm backed by Donald Trump supporter Robert Mercer
and once steered by former Trump advisor Steve Bannon, obtained personal information from 50 million Facebook users
without permission. That data then was used to target voters and
influence the 2016 election. Of those affected, Facebook said more than
70 of the 87 million users are in the U.S. with over a million each in
the Philippines, Indonesia, and the U.K.
Zuckerberg has since acknowledged that this has been a “huge mistake”. He is set to testify before a joint session of the Senate Judiciary and Commerce Committees on April 10, then appear the next day before the House Energy and Commerce Committee, answering growing questions about data privacy and how Facebook plans to address the problem.
___________________________
In the wake of the scandal, Facebook said that users who may have had their data shared with Cambridge Analytica will be getting messages this week, according to the Associated Press. In addition, in an effort to do some damage control, all Facebook users will be receiving a notice with a link to see what apps they use and what information they have shared with those apps. They will be given the option to shut off these apps or completely turn off access to third-party apps.
Zuckerberg has since acknowledged that this has been a “huge mistake”. He is set to testify before a joint session of the Senate Judiciary and Commerce Committees on April 10, then appear the next day before the House Energy and Commerce Committee, answering growing questions about data privacy and how Facebook plans to address the problem.
___________________________
Facebook suspends another data analytics firm after CNBC discovers it was using tactics like Cambridge Analytica
- Data analytics firm CubeYou used personality quizzes clearly labeled for "non-profit academic research" to help marketers find customers.
- One of its quizzes, "You Are What You Like" which also goes by "Apply Magic Sauce," states it is only for "non-profit academic research that has no connection whatsoever to any commercial or profit-making purpose or entity."
- When CNBC showed Facebook the quizzes and terms, which are similar to the methods used by Cambridge Analytica, Facebook said it was going to suspend CubeYou from the platform to investigate.
CNBC.com
Getty Images
Mark Zuckerberg, chief executive officer and founder of Facebook in July 2017
Facebook
is suspending a data analytics firm called CubeYou from the platform
after CNBC notified the company that CubeYou was collecting information
about users through quizzes.
CubeYou misleadingly labeled its quizzes "for non-profit academic research," then shared user information with marketers. The scenario is eerily similar to how Cambridge Analytica received unauthorized access to data from as many as 87 million Facebook user accounts to target political marketing.
The company sold data that had been collected by researchers working with the Psychometrics Lab at Cambridge University, similar to how Cambridge Analytica used information it obtained from other professors at the school for political marketing.
The CubeYou discovery suggests that collecting data from quizzes and using it for marketing purposes was far from an isolated incident. Moreover, the fact that CubeYou was able to mislabel the purpose of the quizzes — and that Facebook did nothing to stop it until CNBC pointed out the problem — suggests the platform has little control over this activity.
Facebook, however, disputed the implication that it can't exercise proper oversight over these types of apps, telling CNBC that it can't control information that companies mislabel. Upon being notified of CubeYou's alleged violations, Facebook said it would suspend all CubeYou's apps until a further audit could be completed.
"These are serious claims and we have suspended CubeYou from Facebook while we investigate them," Ime Archibong, Facebook vice president of product partnerships, said in a statement.
"If they refuse or fail our audit, their apps will be banned from Facebook. In addition, we will work with the UK ICO [Information Commissioner's Office] to ask the University of Cambridge about the development of apps in general by its Psychometrics Centre given this case and the misuse by Kogan," he said. Aleksander Kogan was the researcher who built the quiz used by Cambridge Analytica.
"We want to thank CNBC for bringing this case to our attention," Archibong added.
The revelation comes as Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg prepares to answer questions before Congress this week stemming from the Cambridge Analytica scandal. The Senate Commerce and Judiciary committees and the House Energy and Commerce Committee are expected to quiz him on what the site is doing to enhance user privacy, and prevent foreign actors from using Facebook to meddle in future elections.
Since the Cambridge Analytica scandal erupted, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has claimed personal responsibility for the data privacy leaks, and the company has launched several initiatives to increase user control over their data.
CubeYou misleadingly labeled its quizzes "for non-profit academic research," then shared user information with marketers. The scenario is eerily similar to how Cambridge Analytica received unauthorized access to data from as many as 87 million Facebook user accounts to target political marketing.
The company sold data that had been collected by researchers working with the Psychometrics Lab at Cambridge University, similar to how Cambridge Analytica used information it obtained from other professors at the school for political marketing.
The CubeYou discovery suggests that collecting data from quizzes and using it for marketing purposes was far from an isolated incident. Moreover, the fact that CubeYou was able to mislabel the purpose of the quizzes — and that Facebook did nothing to stop it until CNBC pointed out the problem — suggests the platform has little control over this activity.
Facebook, however, disputed the implication that it can't exercise proper oversight over these types of apps, telling CNBC that it can't control information that companies mislabel. Upon being notified of CubeYou's alleged violations, Facebook said it would suspend all CubeYou's apps until a further audit could be completed.
"These are serious claims and we have suspended CubeYou from Facebook while we investigate them," Ime Archibong, Facebook vice president of product partnerships, said in a statement.
"If they refuse or fail our audit, their apps will be banned from Facebook. In addition, we will work with the UK ICO [Information Commissioner's Office] to ask the University of Cambridge about the development of apps in general by its Psychometrics Centre given this case and the misuse by Kogan," he said. Aleksander Kogan was the researcher who built the quiz used by Cambridge Analytica.
"We want to thank CNBC for bringing this case to our attention," Archibong added.
The revelation comes as Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg prepares to answer questions before Congress this week stemming from the Cambridge Analytica scandal. The Senate Commerce and Judiciary committees and the House Energy and Commerce Committee are expected to quiz him on what the site is doing to enhance user privacy, and prevent foreign actors from using Facebook to meddle in future elections.
Since the Cambridge Analytica scandal erupted, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has claimed personal responsibility for the data privacy leaks, and the company has launched several initiatives to increase user control over their data.
Meet CubeYou
CubeYou boasts on its web site that it uses census data and various web and social apps on Facebook and Twitter
to collect personal information. CubeYou then contracts with
advertising agenices who want to target certain types of Facebook users
for ad campaigns.
CubeYou's site says it has access to personally identifiable information (PII) such as first names, last names, emails, phone numbers, IP addresses, mobile IDs and browser fingerprints.
On a cached version of its web site from March 19, it also said it keeps age, gender, location, work and education, and family and relationship information. It also has likes, follows, shares, posts, likes to posts, comments to posts, check-ins and mentions of brands/celebrities in a post. Interactions with companies are tracked back to 2012 and are updated weekly, the site said.
"This PII information of our panelists is used to verify eligibility (we do not knowingly accept panelists under the age of 18 in our panel), then match and/or fuse other online and offline data sources to enhance their profiles," CubeYou wrote.
The company's web site currently claims it has more than 10 million opted-in panelists, but the cached March 19 version said it had "an unbiased panel of more than 45 million people globally." (Click the images in this story to make them bigger.)
CubeYou's site says it has access to personally identifiable information (PII) such as first names, last names, emails, phone numbers, IP addresses, mobile IDs and browser fingerprints.
On a cached version of its web site from March 19, it also said it keeps age, gender, location, work and education, and family and relationship information. It also has likes, follows, shares, posts, likes to posts, comments to posts, check-ins and mentions of brands/celebrities in a post. Interactions with companies are tracked back to 2012 and are updated weekly, the site said.
"This PII information of our panelists is used to verify eligibility (we do not knowingly accept panelists under the age of 18 in our panel), then match and/or fuse other online and offline data sources to enhance their profiles," CubeYou wrote.
The company's web site currently claims it has more than 10 million opted-in panelists, but the cached March 19 version said it had "an unbiased panel of more than 45 million people globally." (Click the images in this story to make them bigger.)
CubeYou collected a lot of this data through online apps that are meant to be entertaining or fun.
An ad agency exec who met with the company confirmed CubeYou said it mostly collects information through quizzes.
According to its web site, one of CubeYou's "most viral apps" is a Facebook quiz created in conjunction with the University of Cambridge called "You Are What You Like." It is meant "to predict a user's personality based on the pages s/he liked on Facebook."
Two versions of this app still were active on Facebook as of Sunday morning. The most recent version of this app has been renamed "Apply Magic Sauce," (YouAreWhatYouLike.com redirects to ApplyMagicSauce.com), and existed on the platform as recently as Sunday morning. Another version still called "You Are What You Like" is also available.
An ad agency exec who met with the company confirmed CubeYou said it mostly collects information through quizzes.
According to its web site, one of CubeYou's "most viral apps" is a Facebook quiz created in conjunction with the University of Cambridge called "You Are What You Like." It is meant "to predict a user's personality based on the pages s/he liked on Facebook."
Two versions of this app still were active on Facebook as of Sunday morning. The most recent version of this app has been renamed "Apply Magic Sauce," (YouAreWhatYouLike.com redirects to ApplyMagicSauce.com), and existed on the platform as recently as Sunday morning. Another version still called "You Are What You Like" is also available.
When a user clicks on the "App Terms" link
for the Apply Magic Sauce app, it links to a page saying that the
information collected through the quiz is intended for "non-exclusive access for research purposes only"
and only for "non-profit academic research that has no connection
whatsoever to any commercial or profit-making purpose or entity."
After CNBC contacted Facebook for this story,
Facebook said there were two previous versions of the app named "You Are
What You Like," one created in 2013, which was deleted by the
developer, and one submitted later in 2013.
Both of those prior versions had similar disclaimers on Facebook about being used for academic research purposes.
In addition, those prior versions were able to get access to information from friends of the people who took the quiz -- as also happened in the Cambridge Analytica case. Until 2015, Facebook allowed developers to access information on Facebook friends as long as the original app user opted-in, a loophole that expanded the database of personal information considerably.
If the original user still remained opted in, CubeYou could theoretically still access their data to this day.
Both of those prior versions had similar disclaimers on Facebook about being used for academic research purposes.
In addition, those prior versions were able to get access to information from friends of the people who took the quiz -- as also happened in the Cambridge Analytica case. Until 2015, Facebook allowed developers to access information on Facebook friends as long as the original app user opted-in, a loophole that expanded the database of personal information considerably.
If the original user still remained opted in, CubeYou could theoretically still access their data to this day.
CubeYou and Cambridge U's response
When reached for comment, CubeYou CEO Federico Treu
said the company was involved with developing the app and website, but
only worked with Cambridge University from December 2013 to May 2015.
It only collected data from that time and has not had access since June 2015 to data from new people who have taken the quiz, Treu said
He also pointed out that the YouAreWhatYouLike.com website has different -- and looser -- terms of usage than the Facebook terms that CNBC discovered.
The web site says, "the information you submit to You Are What You Like may be stored and used for academic and business purposes, and also disclosed to third parties, including for example (but not limited to) research institutions. Any disclosure will be strictly in an anonymous format, such that the information can never be used to identify you or any other individual user." (Italics added by CNBC.)
He also denied CubeYou has access to friends' data if a user opted in, and said it only connects friends who have opted into the app individually.
Cambridge University said CubeYou's involvement was limited to developing a website.
"We were not aware of Cubeyou's claims on their blog," the University of Cambridge Psychometrics Center said in a statement.
"Having had a look now, several of these appear to be misleading and we will contact them to request that they clarify them. For example, we have not collaborated with them to build a psychological prediction model -- we keep our prediction model secret and it was already built before we started working with them," the institution said.
"Our relationship was not commercial in nature and no fees or client projects were exchanged. They just designed the interface for a website that used our models to give users insight on their [the users'] data. Unfortunately collaborators with the University of Cambridge sometimes exaggerate their connection to Cambridge in order to gain prestige from its academics' work," it added.
It only collected data from that time and has not had access since June 2015 to data from new people who have taken the quiz, Treu said
He also pointed out that the YouAreWhatYouLike.com website has different -- and looser -- terms of usage than the Facebook terms that CNBC discovered.
The web site says, "the information you submit to You Are What You Like may be stored and used for academic and business purposes, and also disclosed to third parties, including for example (but not limited to) research institutions. Any disclosure will be strictly in an anonymous format, such that the information can never be used to identify you or any other individual user." (Italics added by CNBC.)
He also denied CubeYou has access to friends' data if a user opted in, and said it only connects friends who have opted into the app individually.
Cambridge University said CubeYou's involvement was limited to developing a website.
"We were not aware of Cubeyou's claims on their blog," the University of Cambridge Psychometrics Center said in a statement.
"Having had a look now, several of these appear to be misleading and we will contact them to request that they clarify them. For example, we have not collaborated with them to build a psychological prediction model -- we keep our prediction model secret and it was already built before we started working with them," the institution said.
"Our relationship was not commercial in nature and no fees or client projects were exchanged. They just designed the interface for a website that used our models to give users insight on their [the users'] data. Unfortunately collaborators with the University of Cambridge sometimes exaggerate their connection to Cambridge in order to gain prestige from its academics' work," it added.
'A great place for us to get smart about the consumer'
CubeYou certainly claimed it was able to use this data to target Facebook users, and advertisers seem to have bought the pitch.
CubeYou's web site says its customers include global communications firm Edelman, and sports and entertainment agency Octagon. It also works with advertising agencies including 72 and Sunny (which counts Google, Adidas and Coors Light as clients), the Martin Agency (Discover, Geico, Experian), and Legacy Marketing (L'Oreal, Hilton, TGI Fridays), among others.
The site does not say which CubeYou data was used on which projects, but all agencies' testimonials talk about how CubeYou's data has allow more understanding of potential customers.
"CubeYou is a great place for us to get smart about the consumer," one customer testimonial from Legacy Marketing says. "We primarily use Mintel for our research, but there's very little consumer segmentation and I think that the greatest benefit of a tool like CubeYou is you can get highly nuanced data about demographics, psychographics and interests so easily."
CubeYou's web site says its customers include global communications firm Edelman, and sports and entertainment agency Octagon. It also works with advertising agencies including 72 and Sunny (which counts Google, Adidas and Coors Light as clients), the Martin Agency (Discover, Geico, Experian), and Legacy Marketing (L'Oreal, Hilton, TGI Fridays), among others.
The site does not say which CubeYou data was used on which projects, but all agencies' testimonials talk about how CubeYou's data has allow more understanding of potential customers.
"CubeYou is a great place for us to get smart about the consumer," one customer testimonial from Legacy Marketing says. "We primarily use Mintel for our research, but there's very little consumer segmentation and I think that the greatest benefit of a tool like CubeYou is you can get highly nuanced data about demographics, psychographics and interests so easily."
_______________________
Facebook Data on 87 Million Users May Have Been Improperly Shared
Mark Zuckerberg says he made a ‘huge mistake’ in not focusing on protecting privacy of user data
Facebook Inc. Chief Executive Officer Mark Zuckerberg said Wednesday that he made a “huge mistake” in not focusing more on potential abuse of users’ personal information, as the social-media giant he founded revealed that data breaches were far more extensive than previously known.
Facebook to Check Groups Behind ‘Issue Ads’
Move aims to prevent the spread of misinformation
Facebook Inc. will soon require that advertisers wanting to run ads on hot-button political issues go through an authorization process first, a move the social network hopes will prevent the spread of misinformation across its platform.
U.S., States Step Up Pressure on Facebook
The attorneys general of 37 states and territories escalate a backlash that has shaken the social-media giant
Government officials ratcheted up pressure Monday on Facebook Inc.
over its handling of user data, with federal regulators saying they are
investigating the social-media giant’s privacy policies and 37 state
attorneys general demanding explanations for its practices.
The Federal Trade Commission, in a statement, signaled that its probe of Facebook is broad. Tom Pahl, a top FTC official, said the commission “takes very seriously” recent reports raising “substantial concerns about the privacy practices of Facebook.”
The Federal Trade Commission, in a statement, signaled that its probe of Facebook is broad. Tom Pahl, a top FTC official, said the commission “takes very seriously” recent reports raising “substantial concerns about the privacy practices of Facebook.”
Facebook and Google Face Emboldened Antagonists: Big Advertisers
Latest uproar over voter profiling data follows company demands for more control, more transparency from tech giants
Add to the list of people frustrated with Facebook Inc. and Google a
quiet but hugely influential group—the people who pay the bills.
In the past year and a half, the two firms have had one run-in after another with advertisers. Procter & Gamble Co. was among many companies that boycotted Google’s YouTube when they discovered ads were running before extremist and racist videos.
In the past year and a half, the two firms have had one run-in after another with advertisers. Procter & Gamble Co. was among many companies that boycotted Google’s YouTube when they discovered ads were running before extremist and racist videos.
Facebook is losing control With Big Advertisers Facebook is no longer considers data security platform from muslim minority terrorists groups... And Facebook Advertisers are pulling out of there facebook contract Accounts.
___________________________________
Facebook is about to tell users if their data was shared with Cambridge Analytica
Facebook on Monday will begin alerting the 87 million users whose data may have been harvested by Cambridge Analytica.
The company plans to post a link at the top of users' news feeds that
will allow them to see which apps are connected to their Facebook
accounts and what information those apps are permitted to see.
"As part of this process we will also tell people if their information
may have been improperly shared with Cambridge Analytica," the company said last week.
Facebook users will also have the opportunity to use the link to delete
apps and prevent them from collecting more information. Fierce backlash has confronted the company since news broke last month that Cambridge Analytica, a London-based voter analytics group, was able to obtain information about tens of millions of users.
The controversy has renewed questions about whether the world's largest social media platform does enough to protect the sensitive information it collects from users on its platform.
The data Cambridge Analytica obtained was originally collected by University of Cambridge psychology professor Aleksandr Kogan.
He used an app, called "thisisyourdigitallife," which offered a personality test. Facebook users who downloaded the app also gave it permission to collect data on their location, their friends and content they had "liked." The data collection was all completely allowable under Facebook's rules at the time.
Related: Fed up with Facebook? Here's how to protect your data
Facebook has said that Kogan violated its terms of service by passing the information on to Cambridge Analytica, a firm that was later hired to work on President Donald Trump's campaign in 2016.
Facebook banned Kogan and Cambridge Analytica from its platform last month, just before The New York Times published an investigative piece detailing how the data traded hands.
As the controversy swelled, members have used the "download a copy of your Facebook data" feature to get a glimpse of exactly what information the social network has about its users.
Many were rattled to find years worth of private texts traded on the platform's Messenger feature, code for recognizing faces in photographs, and contact information that people thought was tucked away on their cell phones.
Also ahead this week: CEO Mark Zuckerberg will face a grilling from Congress on Tuesday to discuss the data controversy.
—CNN's Charles Riley and Sara Ashley O'Brien contributed to this report.
_____________________________
Trey Gowdy wants answers from Mark Zuckerberg
Mark Zuckerberg Facebook’s CEO has been issued a court order to testify before Congress Trey Gowdy wants answers from Mark Zuckerberg The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy wants to get to the bottom Facebook policies... Advertisers are pulling out of there own contract Accounts....
No More Advertisers on facebook... Now Facebook is losing control of the narrative and there our own platform....
Facebook is losing control With Big AdvertisersFacebook is no longer considers data security platform from muslim minority terrorists groups...
"The committee is aware of numerous reports about the need Answers From Facebook at the allegations of excess cost," Targeting Conservatives Blocking The NRA Tea Party Groups wrote in a letter to Mark Zuckerberg sent Thursday. Gowdy wants a briefing no later than two weeks from Friday to go over the details of Facebook policies
Mark Zuckerberg's name is ringing across
Capitol Hill again. Politicians are demanding that the Facebook
co-founder and CEO testify to Congress in the wake of the social
network's scandal involving a data firm affiliated with the Donald Trump
campaign.
Facebook disclosed late Friday that researchers from UK-based Cambridge Analytica had duped the social networking giant and gained access to data from more than 50 million Facebook users through an app called "thisisyourdigitallife," which was then used for political ads during the 2016 presidential election.
Facebook said in a statement Friday
that it had banned the group, but the political pressure on the massive
social network is just beginning. By Monday morning, multiple senators
were demanding that Zuckerberg testify before Congress.
An appearance from Zuckerberg could potentially offer answers at a time when Facebook has gotten into hot water over its involvement with the distribution of Russia-made ads and posts on its network. But it's unclear whether it'll happen.
An appearance from Zuckerberg could potentially offer answers at a time when Facebook has gotten into hot water over its involvement with the distribution of Russia-made ads and posts on its network. But it's unclear whether it'll happen.
While the government has summoned Facebook multiple times, the CEO
has never testified on these issues. In the past, Facebook has sent its general counsel Colin Stretch; Monika Bickert, its head of global policy management; and other executives not named Mark Zuckerberg.
The Minnesota Democrat added to her demand on Monday morning, telling NPR's Morning Edition that Zuckerberg needs to speak for Facebook's flaws.
"They have not come before us, they've given it to their lobbyists and their lawyers, and we think that they need to take responsibility for what's going on," Klobuchar said. "I don't know why this CEO, even though he's super famous and has made a lot of money, why he also doesn't have to come before the committee."
She pointed out that multiple CEOs have testified to Congress in the past, and said the chances of Zuckerberg appearing increase if more politicians call for it.
Responding to a request for comment, Facebook didn't address whether Zuckerberg would be willing to testify before Congress.
"We are in the process of conducting a comprehensive internal and external review as we work to determine the accuracy of the claims that the Facebook data in question still exists," said Paul Grewal, Facebook vice president and deputy general counsel. "That is where our focus lies as we remain committed to vigorously enforcing our policies to protect people's information."
Klobuchar isn't the only one speaking out. The Federal Election Commission on Monday also called for Zuckerberg, as well as Larry Page, CEO of Google parent Alphabet, and Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey to testify at a public hearing set for June 27.
"Your perspective would be of great value to the Commission and to the nation," Ellen Weintraub, the FEC's vice chair, said in her letter to Zuckerberg.
In a joint letter with Klobuchar, Sen. John Kennedy, a Republican from Louisiana, has also called for Zuckerberg to testify before Congress, and asked Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Chuck Grassley, a Republican from Iowa, to call for a hearing.
"While this Committee's Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism convened a hearing with witnesses representing Facebook, Twitter, and Google in October of 2017, we have yet to hear from the leaders of these companies directly," Kennedy and Klobuchar wrote.
The letter also asks that the CEOs from Google and Twitter testify.
In response to the letter from Klobuchar and Kennedy, a spokeswoman for Grassley said the senator's taking the request under consideration: "At this point, no decision has been made on whether to hold such a hearing or whether it would occur at the full committee or subcommittee level."
Sen. Mark Warner, a Democrat from Virginia, made a similar request on Thursday, before news of the scandal came out. The vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee told Bloomberg "the CEOs owe an obligation."
"It's time for Mr. Zuckerberg and the other CEOs to testify before Congress. The American people deserve answers about social media manipulation in the 2016 election," Warner said in a tweet.
Cambridge Analytica released a statement Monday morning calling the claims against its company "false allegations."
On Monday, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), wrote a letter to Zuckerberg, asking for the CEO to explain how Facebook's data was abused by Cambridge Analytica.
"With little oversight -- and no meaningful intervention from Facebook -- Cambridge Analytica was able to use Facebook-developed and marketed tools to weaponize detailed psychological profiles against tens of millions of Americans," Wyden wrote in his letter.
Several senators have added their requests for Zuckerberg to head to Washington, DC, including Sen. Richard Blumenthal, a Democrat from Connecticut.
"Mark Zuckerberg needs to testify under oath in public before the Judiciary Committee. He owes it to the American people who ought to be deeply disappointed by the conflicting and disparate explanations that have been offered," he told reporters on Monday. Blumenthal added that Zuckerberg should be subpoenaed to appear if he won't come on his own.
Sens. John Thune (R-SD), Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) and Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) signed a joint letter on Monday as well, demanding a response from Zuckerberg by March 29.
Rep. Adam Schiff, a Democrat from California on the House Intelligence Committee, called for Cambridge Analytica, as well as Facebook and Zuckerberg, to testify to Congress.
"I think it would be beneficial to have him come testify before the appropriate oversight committees," he told The Washington Post.
The pressure isn't just coming from DC. The European Union has also launched an investigation into Cambridge Analytica and Facebook, according to a statement from Antonio Tajani, the European Parliament president.
In the UK, Damian Collins, the chair of Parliament's Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, on Tuesday sent a letter to Zuckerberg to request that he make an appearance to provide "oral evidence" about Facebook's handling of user data.
"It is now time to hear from a senior Facebook executive with sufficient authority to give an accurate account of this catastrophic failure of process," Collins wrote. "Given your commitment at the start of the New Year to 'fixing' Facebook, I hope that this representative will be you."
First published March 19 at 9:28 a.m. PT.
Update, 10:35 a.m. PT: Adds a letter from Sen. Ron Wyden.
Update, 11:40 a.m. PT: Adds comment from Facebook.
Update, 12:22 p.m. Adds a response from Cambridge Analytica.
Update, 12:40 p.m. PT: Adds a comment from a spokeswoman for Grassley,
Update, March 20 at 6:38 a.m. PT: Adds new statements from Sen. Mark Warner and UK member of Parliament Damian Collins.
Update, March 20 at 7:37 a.m. PT: Adds statements from four senators.
'They need to take responsibility'
But the call for Facebook's CEO continues to rise. On Saturday, Sen. Amy Klobuchar tweeted that "Mark Zuckerberg needs to testify before the Senate Judiciary."The Minnesota Democrat added to her demand on Monday morning, telling NPR's Morning Edition that Zuckerberg needs to speak for Facebook's flaws.
"They have not come before us, they've given it to their lobbyists and their lawyers, and we think that they need to take responsibility for what's going on," Klobuchar said. "I don't know why this CEO, even though he's super famous and has made a lot of money, why he also doesn't have to come before the committee."
She pointed out that multiple CEOs have testified to Congress in the past, and said the chances of Zuckerberg appearing increase if more politicians call for it.
Responding to a request for comment, Facebook didn't address whether Zuckerberg would be willing to testify before Congress.
"We are in the process of conducting a comprehensive internal and external review as we work to determine the accuracy of the claims that the Facebook data in question still exists," said Paul Grewal, Facebook vice president and deputy general counsel. "That is where our focus lies as we remain committed to vigorously enforcing our policies to protect people's information."
Klobuchar isn't the only one speaking out. The Federal Election Commission on Monday also called for Zuckerberg, as well as Larry Page, CEO of Google parent Alphabet, and Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey to testify at a public hearing set for June 27.
"Your perspective would be of great value to the Commission and to the nation," Ellen Weintraub, the FEC's vice chair, said in her letter to Zuckerberg.
In a joint letter with Klobuchar, Sen. John Kennedy, a Republican from Louisiana, has also called for Zuckerberg to testify before Congress, and asked Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Chuck Grassley, a Republican from Iowa, to call for a hearing.
"While this Committee's Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism convened a hearing with witnesses representing Facebook, Twitter, and Google in October of 2017, we have yet to hear from the leaders of these companies directly," Kennedy and Klobuchar wrote.
The letter also asks that the CEOs from Google and Twitter testify.
In response to the letter from Klobuchar and Kennedy, a spokeswoman for Grassley said the senator's taking the request under consideration: "At this point, no decision has been made on whether to hold such a hearing or whether it would occur at the full committee or subcommittee level."
Sen. Mark Warner, a Democrat from Virginia, made a similar request on Thursday, before news of the scandal came out. The vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee told Bloomberg "the CEOs owe an obligation."
Weaponizing psychological profiles
On Tuesday, Warner formally addressed Zuckerberg, writing that Facebook owes the public an explanation."It's time for Mr. Zuckerberg and the other CEOs to testify before Congress. The American people deserve answers about social media manipulation in the 2016 election," Warner said in a tweet.
Cambridge Analytica released a statement Monday morning calling the claims against its company "false allegations."
On Monday, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), wrote a letter to Zuckerberg, asking for the CEO to explain how Facebook's data was abused by Cambridge Analytica.
"With little oversight -- and no meaningful intervention from Facebook -- Cambridge Analytica was able to use Facebook-developed and marketed tools to weaponize detailed psychological profiles against tens of millions of Americans," Wyden wrote in his letter.
Several senators have added their requests for Zuckerberg to head to Washington, DC, including Sen. Richard Blumenthal, a Democrat from Connecticut.
"Mark Zuckerberg needs to testify under oath in public before the Judiciary Committee. He owes it to the American people who ought to be deeply disappointed by the conflicting and disparate explanations that have been offered," he told reporters on Monday. Blumenthal added that Zuckerberg should be subpoenaed to appear if he won't come on his own.
Sens. John Thune (R-SD), Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) and Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) signed a joint letter on Monday as well, demanding a response from Zuckerberg by March 29.
Rep. Adam Schiff, a Democrat from California on the House Intelligence Committee, called for Cambridge Analytica, as well as Facebook and Zuckerberg, to testify to Congress.
"I think it would be beneficial to have him come testify before the appropriate oversight committees," he told The Washington Post.
The pressure isn't just coming from DC. The European Union has also launched an investigation into Cambridge Analytica and Facebook, according to a statement from Antonio Tajani, the European Parliament president.
In the UK, Damian Collins, the chair of Parliament's Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, on Tuesday sent a letter to Zuckerberg to request that he make an appearance to provide "oral evidence" about Facebook's handling of user data.
"It is now time to hear from a senior Facebook executive with sufficient authority to give an accurate account of this catastrophic failure of process," Collins wrote. "Given your commitment at the start of the New Year to 'fixing' Facebook, I hope that this representative will be you."
First published March 19 at 9:28 a.m. PT.
Update, 10:35 a.m. PT: Adds a letter from Sen. Ron Wyden.
Update, 11:40 a.m. PT: Adds comment from Facebook.
Update, 12:22 p.m. Adds a response from Cambridge Analytica.
Update, 12:40 p.m. PT: Adds a comment from a spokeswoman for Grassley,
Update, March 20 at 6:38 a.m. PT: Adds new statements from Sen. Mark Warner and UK member of Parliament Damian Collins.
Update, March 20 at 7:37 a.m. PT: Adds statements from four senators.
How the Cambridge Analytica story became a crisis
By
The longer you consider Facebook’s Cambridge Analytica scandal,
the stranger it seems. The basic details of the story, in which a
researcher improperly gave away data to the company that became Donald
Trump’s data operations team in 2016, have been known for two years.
The effectiveness of Cambridge Analytica’s psychographic targeting,
which attempted to influence voters by mapping out their Facebook Likes,
is highly suspect and likely overstated. The eye-popping number of
Facebook profiles said to be involved — 50 million — may turn out to be marketing hype for a company that excels at it.
And yet, revelations from this weekend’s stories in The New York Times and The Guardian continue to batter the company. A bipartisan group of US senators
called upon CEO Mark Zuckerberg to testify about how Cambridge
Analytica came into possession of so much user data. British authorities
promised to investigate the incident as well. On Monday, the company’s stock fell more than 10 percent from the all-time high it set on February 1st. On Tuesday morning, Bloomberg reported that the Federal Trade Commission is investigating the company over its use of personal data.
Cambridge Analytica’s data misuse may ultimately have had
little effect in influencing elections here or abroad. But the way
Cambridge Analytica obtained its data, and reports that the company held
on to the data, despite telling Facebook it had deleted it, have
renewed concerns about data privacy on the world’s biggest social
network. After learning that data from a researcher’s personality quiz
app had improperly been shared with Cambridge Analytica, Facebook took
the company at its word that it had purged user profiles: “That to me
was the most astonishing thing,” former employee Christopher Wylie told The Guardian.
“They waited two years and did absolutely nothing to check that the
data was deleted. All they asked me to do was tick a box on a form and
post it back.”
Facebook’s lack of enforcement in the face of bad actors,
coupled with misuse of its platform on a grand scale, have drawn
outrage around the globe. And while Cambridge Analytica is among the
most prominent examples to date of how Facebook can be misused, it
belongs to a long and growing list. In March alone:
- Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp were forced to shut down temporarily in Sri Lanka after inflammatory messages posted to the service incited mob violence against the country’s Muslim minority.
- United Nations investigators blamed Facebook for spreading hate speech that incited violence against the Rohingya minority in Myanmar.
- The Facebook search bar briefly auto-filled its search bar with suggestions for porn.
- A far-right Italian politician credited Facebook with his party’s surprising electoral victory, after reports that Russian state media used the platform to promote stories suggesting Italy faced an immigration crisis.
- Facebook banned far-right group Britain First, which had more than 2 million followers, for inciting violence against minorities.
- Facebook’s chief security officer is quitting after reportedly arguing too forcefully that the company should investigate and disclose Russian activity on the platform.
Taken together, these incidents paint a picture of a
platform on which crises are developing faster than its minders can
address them. A year and a half after Donald Trump’s election sparked a
cultural reckoning over social media, Facebook has struggled to contain
the fallout. A series of steps taken to remove terrorist propaganda more
quickly, and tamp down on the spread of fake news, have produced some
encouraging results. But those steps have done little to stop the daily
drumbeat of articles about ways in which Facebook is misused around the
world, often with disturbing results.
Facebook has typically been quick to apologize
when confronted with misuse of the platform, promising it will do
better in the future. But the company has taken a defensive posture over
the Cambridge Analytica stories, saying that the issue was resolved
years ago. But while the company plays defense, a growing number of
lawmakers and regulators around the world are promising to investigate
the company. This scandal really is different.
The company said Monday that it had hired a forensics team to investigate the company,
with Cambridge Analytica’s permission. But before Facebook could
complete its audit, the United Kingdom Information Commissioner’s Office
ordered that they stop while the office pursues a warrant to mount its own investigation.
It was a dramatic real-world standoff in a case that has
until now played out mostly online. And yet the standoff also had an
undeniable symbolism: Facebook, attempting to fix its mistakes by
itself, found itself at last restrained by the government. As Tuesday
began, neither Zuckerberg nor his chief operating officer, Sheryl
Sandberg, had made a statement about the Cambridge Analytica
revelations. In the brutal months since the election, Facebook has
typically been quick to apologize. But after an overwhelming March, it
appears that its top executives are speechless.
The Key to Understanding Facebook's Current Crisis
Facebook's current data crisis involving Cambridge Analytica
has angered users and prompted government investigations. To understand
what's happening now, you have to look back at Facebook's old policies
from 2007 to 2014. WSJ's Shelby Holliday explains. Illustration: Laura
Kammerman
Facebook FB -3.34% is scrambling to placate users, advertisers and investors following a string of damaging news reports about the misuse of user data.
Last week, Facebook confirmed that Cambridge Analytica, a data
firm hired by President Trump’s campaign, had violated the company’s
policies when it purchased the data of 50 million users from a
researcher who accessed it in 2013. The stock plunged, lawmakers began
demanding answers and users threatened to quit the social network
altogether.
Cambridge Analytica says it’s launching its own investigation to see if the firm engaged in wrongdoing, and in a Facebook post, CEO Mark Zuckerberg acknowledged that Facebook knew about the policy violation in 2015. Facebook asked the data firm and the researcher to certify that the information had been deleted, but it didn’t notify users at the time.
Now, Facebook is facing a wave of backlash for not doing more to prevent information from being abused. Although the trove of information used by Cambridge Analytica was downloaded before 2015, the year Facebook implemented stricter data policies, it has exposed an ugly truth for the social network: user information that was accessed during the company’s earlier years can still be abused today.
In the video above, we take a look at how Facebook’s lax policies of the past regarding the sharing of data paved the way for the company’s current crisis.
Cambridge Analytica says it’s launching its own investigation to see if the firm engaged in wrongdoing, and in a Facebook post, CEO Mark Zuckerberg acknowledged that Facebook knew about the policy violation in 2015. Facebook asked the data firm and the researcher to certify that the information had been deleted, but it didn’t notify users at the time.
Now, Facebook is facing a wave of backlash for not doing more to prevent information from being abused. Although the trove of information used by Cambridge Analytica was downloaded before 2015, the year Facebook implemented stricter data policies, it has exposed an ugly truth for the social network: user information that was accessed during the company’s earlier years can still be abused today.
In the video above, we take a look at how Facebook’s lax policies of the past regarding the sharing of data paved the way for the company’s current crisis.
After Days of Silence, Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg Admits to ‘Mistakes’ With User Data
CEO pledges to investigate outsiders’ handling of user information
Facebook Inc. Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg broke his silence
five days into a growing uproar about how outsiders handle Facebook’s
user data, admitting mistakes and pledging an investigation but failing
to calm some who thought he should have gone further in his remarks.
The growing controversy has shaken the social-media company, knocking its stock price lower and prompting renewed calls for governments to better regulate technology businesses that hold enormous quantities of information about their users.
Breaking five days of silence, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg admitted mistakes and outlined steps to protect user data in light of a privacy scandal involving a Trump-connected data-mining firm.
Zuckerberg said Wednesday that Facebook has a "responsibility" to protect its users' data and if it fails, "we don't deserve to serve you."
But Zuckerberg stopped short of apologizing.
And he wrote "what happened" instead of "what we did," leaving Facebook one step removed from responsibility.
Zuckerberg and Facebook's No. 2 executive, Sheryl Sandberg, have been quiet since news broke Friday that Cambridge Analytica may have used data improperly obtained from roughly 50 million Facebook users to try to sway elections.
Facebook shares have dropped some 8 percent since the revelations were first published, raising questions about whether social media sites are violating users' privacy.
Even before the scandal broke, Facebook has already taken the most important steps to prevent a recurrence, Zuckerberg said. For example, in 2014, it reduced access outside apps had to user data. However, some of the measures didn't take effect until a year later, allowing Cambridge to access the data in the intervening months.
Zuckerberg acknowledges that there is more to do.
In a Facebook post on Wednesday, Zuckerberg said it will ban developers who don't agree to an audit. An app's developer will no longer have access to data from people who haven't used that app in three months. Data will also be generally limited to user names, profile photos and email, unless the developer signs a contract with Facebook and gets user approval.
In a separate post, Facebook said it will inform people whose data was misused by apps. And in the future, when it bans an app for misusing people's data, Facebook promises to tell everyone who used it.
Facebook first learned of this breach of privacy more than two years ago, but hadn't mentioned it publicly until Friday.
The company it is also "building a way" for people to know if their data was accessed by "This Is Your Digital Life," though there is no way to do this at the moment. The app is the psychological profiling quiz that researcher Aleksandr Kogan created and paid about 270,000 people to take part in. Cambridge Analytica later obtained data from the app for about 50 million Facebook users, because it also vacuumed up data on people's friends.
Facebook didn't say how it would inform users if their data was compromised. But it could look similar to the page it set up for users to see if they liked or followed accounts set up by the Russian troll farm Internet Research Agency, accused of meddling with the 2016 presidential elections. This tool, however, doesn't show users if they merely saw —or even "liked"— posts from those pages.
Earlier Wednesday, Kogan described himself as a scapegoat and said he had no idea his work would be used in Donald Trump's 2016 presidential campaign.
Kogan, a psychology researcher at Cambridge University, told the BBC that both Facebook and Cambridge Analytica have tried to place the blame on him for violating the social media platform's terms of service, even though Cambridge Analytica ensured him that everything he did was legal.
"Honestly, we thought we were acting perfectly appropriately," Kogan said. "We thought we were doing something that was really normal."
Cambridge has shifted the blame to Kogan, which the firm described as a contractor.
Kogan said Cambridge Analytica approached him to gather Facebook data and provided the legal advice that this was "appropriate."
"One of the great mistakes I did here was I just didn't ask enough questions," he said. "I had never done a commercial project; I didn't really have any reason to doubt their sincerity. That's certainly something I strongly regret now."
He said the firm paid some $800,000 for the work, but it went to participants in the survey.
"My motivation was to get a data set I could do research on; I have never profited from this in any way personally," he said.
Authorities in Britain and the United States are investigating.
Sandy Parakilas, who worked in data protection for Facebook in 2011 and 2012, told a U.K. parliamentary committee Wednesday that the company was vigilant about its network security but lax when it came to protecting users' data.
He said personal data including email addresses and in some cases private messages was allowed to leave Facebook servers with no real controls on how the data was used after that.
"The real challenge here is that Facebook was allowing developers to access the data of people who hadn't explicitly authorized that," he said, adding that the company had "lost sight" of what developers did with the data.
Meanwhile, the top prosecutors in Massachusetts and New York have sent a letter to Facebook demanding the social media giant protect its users' private information.
Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey and New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman launched a joint investigation Saturday after reports that British data analysis firm Cambridge Analytica captured information from 50 million Facebook users without their consent.
Healey said residents in her state "deserve answers immediately," from Facebook and Cambridge Analytica about what data was shared and how it was allowed to happen. Her office said it has been in touch with Facebook about the investigation.
Schneiderman said that if the company violated New York law "we will hold them accountable."
___
Danica Kirka and Gregory Katz reported from London.
The growing controversy has shaken the social-media company, knocking its stock price lower and prompting renewed calls for governments to better regulate technology businesses that hold enormous quantities of information about their users.
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg admits mistakes, pledges fixes after data scandal
By ARBARA ORTUTAY, DANICA KIRKA and GREGORY KATZ
Breaking five days of silence, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg admitted mistakes and outlined steps to protect user data in light of a privacy scandal involving a Trump-connected data-mining firm.
Zuckerberg said Wednesday that Facebook has a "responsibility" to protect its users' data and if it fails, "we don't deserve to serve you."
Advertisement
And he wrote "what happened" instead of "what we did," leaving Facebook one step removed from responsibility.
Zuckerberg and Facebook's No. 2 executive, Sheryl Sandberg, have been quiet since news broke Friday that Cambridge Analytica may have used data improperly obtained from roughly 50 million Facebook users to try to sway elections.
Facebook shares have dropped some 8 percent since the revelations were first published, raising questions about whether social media sites are violating users' privacy.
Even before the scandal broke, Facebook has already taken the most important steps to prevent a recurrence, Zuckerberg said. For example, in 2014, it reduced access outside apps had to user data. However, some of the measures didn't take effect until a year later, allowing Cambridge to access the data in the intervening months.
Zuckerberg acknowledges that there is more to do.
In a Facebook post on Wednesday, Zuckerberg said it will ban developers who don't agree to an audit. An app's developer will no longer have access to data from people who haven't used that app in three months. Data will also be generally limited to user names, profile photos and email, unless the developer signs a contract with Facebook and gets user approval.
In a separate post, Facebook said it will inform people whose data was misused by apps. And in the future, when it bans an app for misusing people's data, Facebook promises to tell everyone who used it.
Facebook first learned of this breach of privacy more than two years ago, but hadn't mentioned it publicly until Friday.
The company it is also "building a way" for people to know if their data was accessed by "This Is Your Digital Life," though there is no way to do this at the moment. The app is the psychological profiling quiz that researcher Aleksandr Kogan created and paid about 270,000 people to take part in. Cambridge Analytica later obtained data from the app for about 50 million Facebook users, because it also vacuumed up data on people's friends.
Facebook didn't say how it would inform users if their data was compromised. But it could look similar to the page it set up for users to see if they liked or followed accounts set up by the Russian troll farm Internet Research Agency, accused of meddling with the 2016 presidential elections. This tool, however, doesn't show users if they merely saw —or even "liked"— posts from those pages.
Earlier Wednesday, Kogan described himself as a scapegoat and said he had no idea his work would be used in Donald Trump's 2016 presidential campaign.
Kogan, a psychology researcher at Cambridge University, told the BBC that both Facebook and Cambridge Analytica have tried to place the blame on him for violating the social media platform's terms of service, even though Cambridge Analytica ensured him that everything he did was legal.
"Honestly, we thought we were acting perfectly appropriately," Kogan said. "We thought we were doing something that was really normal."
Cambridge has shifted the blame to Kogan, which the firm described as a contractor.
Kogan said Cambridge Analytica approached him to gather Facebook data and provided the legal advice that this was "appropriate."
"One of the great mistakes I did here was I just didn't ask enough questions," he said. "I had never done a commercial project; I didn't really have any reason to doubt their sincerity. That's certainly something I strongly regret now."
He said the firm paid some $800,000 for the work, but it went to participants in the survey.
"My motivation was to get a data set I could do research on; I have never profited from this in any way personally," he said.
Authorities in Britain and the United States are investigating.
Sandy Parakilas, who worked in data protection for Facebook in 2011 and 2012, told a U.K. parliamentary committee Wednesday that the company was vigilant about its network security but lax when it came to protecting users' data.
He said personal data including email addresses and in some cases private messages was allowed to leave Facebook servers with no real controls on how the data was used after that.
"The real challenge here is that Facebook was allowing developers to access the data of people who hadn't explicitly authorized that," he said, adding that the company had "lost sight" of what developers did with the data.
Meanwhile, the top prosecutors in Massachusetts and New York have sent a letter to Facebook demanding the social media giant protect its users' private information.
Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey and New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman launched a joint investigation Saturday after reports that British data analysis firm Cambridge Analytica captured information from 50 million Facebook users without their consent.
Healey said residents in her state "deserve answers immediately," from Facebook and Cambridge Analytica about what data was shared and how it was allowed to happen. Her office said it has been in touch with Facebook about the investigation.
Schneiderman said that if the company violated New York law "we will hold them accountable."
___
Danica Kirka and Gregory Katz reported from London.
Kansas father facing deportation reunites with family
DRUDGE REPORT 2018® Reports facebook twitter youtube are all blocking Conservatives News Feed on all social media sites has been block
List OF 10 Violation Laws that Youtube Twitter and Facebook has Broken For the last 10 years
1) Youtube Twitter and Facebook Is In Violation Freedom OF Press
2) Youtube Twitter and Facebook Is In Violation Freedom OF Religion
3) Youtube Twitter and Facebook Is Not Blocking isis terrorist Groups
4) Youtube Twitter and Facebook Is Facing Harassment Charges
5) Youtube Twitter and Facebook Is In Violation Not Blocking Scammers
6) Youtube Twitter and Facebook Is In Violation OF Major Constitutional Rights
7) Youtube Twitter and Facebook Is In Violation Targeting Tea Party Patriots Conservative Tea Party Groups
8)Youtube Twitter and Facebook Is In Violation OF Cyber-Bulling
9) Youtube Twitter and Facebook Is In Violation OF Speech Messages Have Been Block OnYoutube Twitter Facebook
10) Youtube Twitter and Facebook Is In Violation OF Legal And Law Enforcement Laws People Posting Death Threat Messages On Facebook Without Being Blocked
Facebook Workers: We Routinely Suppressed Conservative News
Here is how you can circumvent Facebook’s block on Jihad Watch
That means us, friends, however unjustified that lack of trust may be, and others whom the hard-Left censors at Facebook deem unworthy of your attention. Foes of jihad terror are on their block list, but here is a way you can adjust your settings so that you still get the news we report here:
“Facebook’s Changing Your Newsfeed. Here’s How To Make Sure You Still See Posts By Your Favorite Sites.,” by James Barrett, Daily Wire, January 26, 2018 (thanks to the Geller Report):
Facebook recently announced that it will be making major changes to its newsfeed that will significantly impact what users see. The emphasis, CEO Mark Zuckerberg explained, will be on posts from users’ friends and family, as well as what Facebook calls “trusted sources.”
Those “trusted sources,” however, are not necessarily going to be the same pages and news sites that users follow; rather, they are sources that Facebook designates as “trusted” through what it says will be rankings produced by “a diverse and representative” sample of Facebook users (see full post below). Which sources are “trusted sources” and which are not, is unclear. Sources not deemed “trusted” — even those you choose to follow — will get buried or de-emphasized in your newsfeed.
But there’s a way to make sure that Facebook does not prevent you from seeing posts by your favorite sites. Below are the instructions for how to update your Facebook settings so that your newsfeed prioritizes posts by sites you follow, like The Daily Wire, rather than letting the platform determine what you get to see.
1. On your Facebook homepage, click the drop-down arrow on the top right of the page and select “News Feed Preferences” (usually found near the bottom of the listed options).
2. Select “Prioritize who to see first” (usually the first option listed).
3. Change the view options to show “Pages only,” so it’s easier to find the pages for the sites you prefer to see in your newsfeed. Then simply select the pages you wish to see first in your newsfeed.
Another way to protect your newsfeed: Go to the Facebook page of the site you want to follow, click the “Following” drop-down arrow, and check the “See First” option “In Your News Feed.”
After you’ve protected your newsfeed to make sure you’re still seeing posts from your favorite sources, the other extremely important thing you can do to make sure those sources don’t get buried by Facebook is share posts with friends and family.
Here is an excerpt of the message posted by Zuckerberg explaining the platform’s new emphasis on promoting “trusted” news sources in order to protect against “sensationalism, misinformation and polarization” (full post below):
There’s too much sensationalism, misinformation and polarization in the world today. Social media enables people to spread information faster than ever before, and if we don’t specifically tackle these problems, then we end up amplifying them. That’s why it’s important that News Feed promotes high quality news that helps build a sense of common ground.
The hard question we’ve struggled with is how to decide what news sources are broadly trusted in a world with so much division. We could try to make that decision ourselves, but that’s not something we’re comfortable with. We considered asking outside experts, which would take the decision out of our hands but would likely not solve the objectivity problem. Or we could ask you — the community — and have your feedback determine the ranking.
We decided that having the community determine which sources are broadly trusted would be most objective.
Here’s how this will work. As part of our ongoing quality surveys, we will now ask people whether they’re familiar with a news source and, if so, whether they trust that source. The idea is that some news organizations are only trusted by their readers or watchers, and others are broadly trusted across society even by those who don’t follow them directly. (We eliminate from the sample those who aren’t familiar with a source, so the output is a ratio of those who trust the source to those who are familiar with it.)
This update will not change the amount of news you see on Facebook. It will only shift the balance of news you see towards sources that are determined to be trusted by the community.
Facebook Does Not Believe In
U.S. Legal Process Requirements
Facebook Does Not disclose account records solely in accordance with our terms of
service and applicable law, including the federal Stored Communications
Act ("SCA"), 18 U.S.C. Sections 2701-2712. Under U.S. law:
- A valid subpoena issued in connection with an official criminal investigation is required to compel the disclosure of basic subscriber records (defined in 18 U.S.C. Section 2703(c)(2)), which may include: name, length of service, credit card information, email address(es), and a recent login/logout IP address(es), if available.
- A court order issued under 18 U.S.C. Section 2703(d) is required to compel the disclosure of certain records or other information pertaining to the account, not including contents of communications, which may include message headers and IP addresses, in addition to the basic subscriber records identified above.
- A search warrant issued under the procedures described in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure or equivalent state warrant procedures upon a showing of probable cause is required to compel the disclosure of the stored contents of any account, which may include messages, photos, videos, timeline posts, and location information.
- We interpret the national security letter provision as applied to Facebook to require the production of only 2 categories of information: name and length of service.
Facebook Message
The email address provided is not a government issued or law enforcement email address. Please try again with a valid email address.
Email dawns@lapd.gov
Enter your email address to receive a unique link to the Law Enforcement Online Request System. The link will give you access to the system for one hour.
_________________________________
German court rules Facebook data use, privacy settings illegal
By Ali Breland - 02/12/18 01:15 PM EST 10
A regional court in Germany has found Facebook’s default privacy settings and use of personal data it collects from users to be in violation of consumer protection laws. The Berlin court found that Facebook did not provide users enough information for them to understand how their data is being collected and that any agreements users signed did not constitute meaningful consent. VZBV, the German privacy advocacy group that filed the suit, argued that data collection agreements that Facebook users are automatically opted into don’t give users enough notice about what they’re agreeing to.
“Facebook hides default settings that are not privacy-friendly in its privacy center and does not provide sufficient information about it when users register,” said Heiko Dünkel, a litigation policy officer at the VZBV. “This does not meet the requirement for informed consent.” The court ruled that several Facebook default data sharing settings did not count as consent from the user. It also found clauses in Facebook’s terms of service to be invalid, including its policy of requiring users to use their “authentic names” on the website. Facebook told The Guardian that it intended to appeal the decision. “We are working hard to ensure that our guidelines are clear and easy to understand and that the services offered by Facebook are in full accordance with the law,” the company said in a statement. The social media company is also dealing with scrutiny from the national government in Germany and the European Union over its data collection and privacy policies. Facebook had previously said that it will be making significant changes to its privacy settings to conform with the EU's new General Data Protection Regulation, laws covering data use across the EU. “We’re rolling out a new privacy center, globally, that will put the core privacy settings for Facebook in one place and make it much easier for people to manage their data,” Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg said of the changes in January.
Where can I find my settings? Computer Help https://www.facebook.com/help/www/166986580029611?helpref=platform_switcher#" label="Mobile Help" role="button" tabindex="0">Mobile Helpadditional tabs menu
To find your settings, click 
in the top right corner of your screen and select Settings. From here, you can select the option in the left sidebar that contains the settings you want to adjust:
General: Edit the basics like your name, email or password in the top right corner of your screen and select Settings. From here, you can select the option in the left sidebar that contains the settings you want to adjust:Security and Login: Turn on alerts and approvals to keep your account secure
Privacy: Adjust who can see your stuff and who can look you up
Timeline and Tagging: Set who can see your timeline and how to manage photo tagging
Blocking: Manage who and what you block Language: Select the language that you want to use for Facebook
These new allegations emerged after Gizmodo last week revealed details about the inner workings of Facebook’s trending news team—a small group of young journalists, primarily educated at Ivy League or private East Coast universities, who curate the “trending” module on the upper-right-hand corner of the site. As we reported last week, curatorshave access to a ranked list of trending topics surfaced by Facebook’s algorithm, which prioritizes the stories that should be shown to Facebook users in the trending section. The curators write headlines and summaries of each topic, and include links to news sites. The section, which launched in 2014, constitutes some of the most powerful real estate on the internet and helps dictate what news Facebook’s users—167 million in the US alone—are reading at any given moment. “I believe it had a chilling effect on conservative news.” “Depending on who was on shift, things would be blacklisted or trending,” said the former curator. This individual asked to remain anonymous, citing fear of retribution from the company. The former curator is politically conservative, one of a very small handful of curators with such views on the trending team. “I’d come on shift and I’d discover that CPAC or Mitt Romney or Glenn Beck or popular conservative topics wouldn’t be trending because either the curator didn’t recognize the news topic or it was like they had a bias against Ted Cruz.”
Want to Know What Facebook Really Thinks of Journalists? Here's What Happened When It Hired Some.
Depending on whom you ask, Facebook is either the savior or destroyer of journalism in our time. An …
Read more
Another former curator agreed that the operation had an aversion to right-wing news sources. “It was absolutely bias. We were doing it subjectively. It just depends on who the curator is and what time of day it is,” said the former curator. “Every once in awhile a Red State or conservative news source would have a story. But we would have to go and find the same story from a more neutral outlet that wasn’t as biased.” Stories covered by conservative outlets (like Breitbart, Washington Examiner, and Newsmax) that were trending enough to be picked up by Facebook’s algorithm were excluded unless mainstream sites like the New York Times, the BBC, and CNN covered the same stories. former curators interviewed by Gizmodo denied consciously suppressing conservative news, and we were unable to determine if left-wing news topics or sources were similarly suppressed. The conservative curator described the omissions as a function of his colleagues’ judgements; there is no evidence that Facebook management mandated or was even aware of any political bias at work. Managers on the trending news team did, however, explicitly instruct curators to artificially manipulate the trending module in a different way: When users weren’t reading stories that management viewed as important, several former workers said, curators were told to put them in the trending news feed anyway. Several former curators described using something called an “injection tool” to push topics into the trending module that weren’t organically being shared or discussed enough to warrant inclusion—putting the headlines in front of thousands of readers rather than allowing stories to surface on their own. In some cases, after a topic was injected, it actually became the number one trending news topic on Facebook. “We were told that if we saw something, a news story that was on the front page of these ten sites, like CNN, the New York Times, and BBC, then we could inject the topic,” said one former curator. “If it looked like it had enough news sites covering the story, we could inject it—even if it wasn’t naturally trending.” Sometimes, breaking news would be injected because it wasn’t attaining critical mass on Facebook quickly enough to be deemed “trending” by the algorithm. Former curators cited the disappearance of Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 and the Charlie Hebdo attacks in Paris as two instances in which non-trending stories were forced into the module. Facebook has "https://www.theguardian.com struggled to compete with Twitter when it comes to delivering real-time news to users; the injection tool may have been designed to artificially correct for that deficiency in the network. “We would get yelled at if it was all over Twitter and not on Facebook,” one former curator said.
In other instances, curators would inject a story—even if it wasn’t being widely discussed on Facebook—because it was deemed important for making the network look like a place where people talked about hard news. “People stopped caring about Syria,” one former curator said. “[And] if it wasn’t trending on Facebook, it would make Facebook look bad.” That same curator said the Black Lives Matter movement was also injected into Facebook’s trending news module. “Facebook got a lot of pressure about not having a trending topic for Black Lives Matter,” the individual said. “They realized it was a problem, and they boosted it in the ordering. They gave it preference over other topics. When we injected it, everyone started saying, ‘Yeah, now I’m seeing it as number one’.” This particular injection is especially noteworthy because the #BlackLivesMatter movement originated on Facebook, and the ensuing media coverage of the movement often noted its powerful social media presence.(In February, CEO Mark Zuckerberg expressed his support for the movement in an internal memo chastising Facebook employees for defacing Black Lives Matter slogans on the company’s internal “signature wall.”) When stories about Facebook itself would trend organically on the network, news curators used less discretion—they were told not to include these stories at all. “When it was a story about the company, we were told not to touch it,” said one former curator. “It had to be cleared through several channels, even if it was being shared quite a bit. We were told that we should not be putting it on the trending tool.”
(The curators interviewed for this story worked for Facebook across a timespan ranging from mid-2014 to December 2015.)
“We were always cautious about covering Facebook,” said another former curator. “We would always wait to get second level approval before trending something to Facebook. Usually we had the authority to trend anything on our own [but] if it was something involving Facebook, the copy editor would call their manager, and that manager might even call their manager before approving a topic involving Facebook.”
Gizmodo reached out to Facebook for comment about each of these specific claims email and phone, but did not receive a response.Several former curators said that as the trending news algorithm improved, there were fewer instances of stories being injected. They also said that the trending news process was constantly being changed, so there’s no way to know exactly how the module is run now. But the revelations undermine any presumption of Facebook as a neutral pipeline for news, or the trending news module as an algorithmically-driven list of what people are actually talking about. Rather, Facebook’s efforts to play the news game reveal the company to be much like the news outlets it is rapidly driving toward irrelevancy: a select group of professionals with vaguely center-left sensibilities. It just happens to be one that poses as a neutral reflection of the vox populi, has the power to influence what billions of users see, and openly discusses whether it should use that power to influence presidential elections. “It wasn’t trending news at all,” said the former curator who logged conservative news omissions. “It was an opinion.”[Disclosure: Facebook has launched a program that pays publishers, including theNew York Times and Buzzfeed, to produce videos for its Facebook Live tool. Gawker Media, Gizmodo’s parent company, recently joined that program.]Several hours after this report was published, Gizmodo editors started seeing it as a topic in Facebook’s trending section. Gizmodo’s video was posted under the topic but the “Top Posts” were links to RedState.com and the Faith and Freedom Coalition.
Is Facebook Censoring Conservative News And How Social Media Controls What We See ?
Mark Zuckerberg at
the Mobile World Congress walking by audience members immersed in
virtual reality and entirely oblivious to him walking beside them.
(Image via Facebook)
Gizmodo’s Michael Nunez is out today with a sensational story
in which former Facebook employees claim they regularly censored the
platform’s “trending” news section to eliminate stories about
conservative topics that were organically trending, blacklisted
certain news outlets from appearing and artificially “injected” stories
they felt were important but that the site’s users were not discussing
or clicking on. This comes a month after Nunez published
a leaked internal Facebook poll that asked “What responsibility does
Facebook have to help prevent President Trump in 2017?” In short, as the
curtain has been lifted on Facebook’s magical trending algorithm, the
mythical unbiased algorithm powering what users see on the site is seen
to be less machine and more biased human curator. Yet, given Facebook’s
phenomenal reach across the world and the role it increasingly plays as
primary news gateway for more and more people, the notion that it is
systematically curating what its users see in an unalgorithmic and
partisan way raises alarm bells on the future of how we access and
consume information.
Ryan Merkley, CEO of Creative Commons wrote
in Wired last month that “If the Web has achieved anything, it’s that
it’s eliminated the need for gatekeepers, and allowed creators—all of
us—to engage directly without intermediaries, and to be accountable
directly to each other.” Yet, such a rosily optimistic view of the web’s
impact on society seems to ignore the mounting evidence that the web is
in fact merely coalescing around a new set of gatekeepers. As Jack
Mirkinson wrote
for Salon earlier this month, “the internet, that supposed smasher of
gates and leveler of playing fields, has coalesced around a mere handful
of mega-giants in the space of just a couple of decades. The gates
didn’t really come down. The identities of the gatekeepers just changed.
Google, Facebook, Apple, Amazon: How many people can really say that
some portion of every day of their lives isn’t mediated by at least one
of these companies? ... It seems that, at least for the moment, we are
destined to live in the world that they create—and that includes
everyone in the media business.”Far from democratizing how we access the world’s information, the web has in fact narrowed those information sources. Much as large national chains and globalization have replaced the local mom-and-pop shop with the megastore and local craftsmanship with assembly line production, the internet is centralizing information access from a myriad websites and local newspapers and radio/television shows to single behemoth social platforms that wield universal global control over what we consume.
Indeed, social media platforms appear to increasingly view themselves no longer as neural publishing platforms but rather as active mediators and curators of what we see. This extends even to new services like messaging. David Marcus, Facebook’s Vice President of Messaging recently told Wired: “Unlike email where there is no one safeguarding the quality and the quantity of the stuff you receive, we’re here in the middle to protect the quality and integrity of your messages and to ensure that you’re not going to get a lot of stuff you don’t want.” In short, Facebook wants to act as an intelligent filter onto what we see of the world. The problem is that any filter by design must emphasize some content and views at the expense of others.
In the case of Facebook, the new revelations are most concerning because they go to the very heart of how these new social platforms shape what we understand about the world. It is one thing for a platform to announce it will delete posts that promote terrorism or that threaten another user with bodily harm, but to silently and systematically filter what users see through a distinct partisan lens, especially with regards to news reporting, adds a frightening dimension to just how much power a handful of Silicon Valley companies now wield over what we see online.
Ben Rhodes, deputy national security advisor for strategic communication at the White House recently raised eyebrows when he remarked on the Internet’s impact on news reporting by saying “All these newspapers used to have foreign bureaus. Now they don’t. They call us to explain to them what’s happening in Moscow and Cairo. Most of the outlets are reporting on world events from Washington. The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old, and their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns. That’s a sea change. They literally know nothing.” In the interview he went on to claim that the White House is able to use social media to fill that information gap, putting its own talking points and interpretations out on social media which he claims are then mindlessly parroted by the media. What happens when Facebook itself goes further and helps promote some of these viewpoints to its users while censoring others?
The notion that a social media platform would systematically censor particular viewpoints or news has unique import in a presidential election year. As The Hill put it, “Facebook is a key outreach, recruiting and advertising tool for presidential candidates, and it is a primary distribution hub for the political news media. It is also where much of the political debate between voters is taking place,” accounting for over 650 million interactions regarding political candidates in a single month this year. The notion that Facebook might be systematically altering what its users see to promote particular views is troubling at best.
LLC 501C- 4 UCC 1-308.ALL RIGHTS RESERVED WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Content
and Programming Copyright 2018 By Patcnews The Patriot Conservative
News Tea Party Network © LLC UCC 1-308.ALL RIGHTS RESERVED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE All copyrights reserved By Patcnews The Patriot Conservative
News Tea Party Network Copyright 2018 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All materials
herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be
reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast
without the prior written permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter
or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the
content. © All Copyrights Reserved By Patcnews The Patriot Conservative
News Tea Party Network
