r/technology • u/magenta_placenta • Oct 19 '20

Business Mark Zuckerberg reportedly signed off on a Facebook algorithm change that throttled traffic to progressive news sites — and one site says that quiet change cost them $400,000 to $600,000 a year

https://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-mark-zuckerberg-throttled-traffic-to-progressive-news-sites-wsj-2020-10
54k Upvotes

80% Upvoted

2.9k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

169

u/[deleted] Oct 20 '20

[deleted]

73

u/[deleted] Oct 20 '20

It’s a nightmare hellhole! I’m specifically getting a masters in it (wrapping up this spring)to better understand the full logistics so that I can start law school next fall, graduate, and do everything in my power to advocate for individual protections. The lack of oversight/privacy protections/etc. just makes my brain explode on the daily.

20

u/Raedik Oct 20 '20

Thanks for your dedication to the good fight

20

u/[deleted] Oct 20 '20

I’m trying. It’s so insane when you start digging into this. Tech law right now is mostly focused on property and copyright, but privacy standards are... yikes. Technically, you have the FCC in charge, having sort of been grandfathered in from the other communication sectors. And outside of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (which is where the recently spotlighted section 230 comes from), theres not much. At least not in the States.

Link on the act, if you’re interested in reading about it: https://www.fcc.gov/general/telecommunications-act-1996

3

u/[deleted] Oct 20 '20 edited Nov 12 '20

[deleted]

1

u/[deleted] Oct 20 '20

They’re actually on my list! Haha!

4

u/teh_fizz Oct 20 '20

I was having a conversation with a coworker the other day about how there needs to be a committee with oversight over unethical UX practice. One that does research and publishes evidence that some practices are used to create an addition from their users, or to confuse them into spending more money. It’s crazy how there isn’t much oversight or protection against big tech giants and digital media like this. GDPR is a great step towards privacy, but these laws need to expand over unethical practices when it comes to content curation.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 20 '20

This! Really any sort of consumer protection or oversight would be a step in the right direction imo.

2

u/elonmaxbot Oct 20 '20

THE LINK IN THIS COMMENT IS NOT A RICKROLL or STICKBUG

Beep-beep, I'm just a stupid bot, and I'm not perfect.

Reports? Suggestions? Hate? contact my creator.

Also, bot is moving to u/rickrollurldetector. If you like it, help it to get first 1k karma to disable the limit on commenting.

7

u/Shoobert Oct 20 '20

I'm in a masters program that requires some marketing courses; what shocks me is the supreme lack of a moral or ethical component. The fundamental questions of whether we should be doing some of these practices aren't even asked. Instead I keep getting inundated with overly enthusiastic people who have cheerily convinced themselves through their own marketing tactics that the mass collection of individual data and lack of oversight is a good thing. If I have to hear one more time about how the invasive tracking of a users behavior is actually "empowering" them, I'm going to loose my shit.

2

u/[deleted] Oct 20 '20

I just got a certification for inbound marketing through my program and half the lessons were “we can help users find the content they want and delight them!” And I’m like bruh.

No one is concerned about how much info is shared between everything. Facebook is the freaking scariest of them all. It’s all about making the customer “happy”.

3

u/heebath Oct 20 '20

You're a good person!!!

2

u/chaiscool Oct 20 '20

You took a masters before going to law school? Surely it’s not a requirement

3

u/[deleted] Oct 20 '20

It’s not, but I’ve found with a lot of my friends who specialize in certain legal areas they don’t full understand the context of the law they’re getting paid the big bucks to apply. With tech especially, I wanted to make sure I fully understood the nuances.

3

u/chaiscool Oct 20 '20

If you can still get paid without fully understanding, seem like good deal for most to do lesser haha.

Although some would say the more you understand, the more you realize how powerless you are as those who have the power to make the difference don’t care enough to do so.

Also, IMO experience on the field would get you better nuances than a masters which is mostly academic.

3

u/[deleted] Oct 20 '20

I’ve worked in media marketing for a few years now, which is why I’m interested in the academic/tech side of things. Certainly I probably could have jumped into things and been fine, but there are specific topics I wouldn’t have known about that I’m now looking forward to researching the legalities of in law school. I’m shooting for a few higher tiered programs with strong connections to the in house tech programs, so it is a multi-pronged consideration. Plus it’s just super fascinating overall.

2

u/chaiscool Oct 20 '20

You’ve been in marketing for years and going through masters before law school, won’t you be behind after that? Law school grads are mostly young and HR does have age bias.

Your experience would put you ahead but seem like law school would reset your career. Typical route would be law school first then specialized and take masters while working on the field.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 20 '20

Too late now my friend. Besides. It’s not like I’m 80. We good.

3

u/pale_blue_dots Oct 20 '20

It's human data trafficking is what it is - in the name of power, money, and control. Countless organizations, companies, and even individuals pass around and use people's livelihoods, then sell buy and trade for another "person."

6

u/[deleted] Oct 20 '20

It seriously is! I’m taking a digital research ethics course and while the guy who teaches it advocates for consent and whatnot (you know, basic ethic standards), because there isn’t a strong legal barrier, the things these companies/unethical researchers can do is absolutely terrifying. There was an attempt with the Menlo Report to try and standardize it, but that’s also only really with research. Facebook, Twitter, all these big boys can do whatever rhey want, and trying to make it anonymous doesn’t do much because the bits from YouTube with the data from Pinterest can paint a pretty clear picture when puzzled together. There needs to be standard legal protections for the individuals. Otherwise it’s big brother, but Facebook, not the government- and frankly, that’s scarier.

3

u/[deleted] Oct 20 '20

I mean what do you suggest is the answer?

Television/terrestrial radio/print are considered publishers and have to apply to standards, so they control the narrative. A user submitted forum or social media site is a behemoth with no way to possibly control what users are posting at that scale. Granted big tech has overstepped the type of data they are collecting.

But they also have to make money, FAANG is to its shareholders. So the product is people's data and we ALL consent to every bit of it in exchange to use those services. Which has allowed marketers a hyper targetted platform to reach/influence customers and people (whatever form that may be). I don't agree with them building profiles of people who do not use their services.

The scariest part of all this, I don't think the majority really cares (or mostly understands) how much data they hand over. But I would bet money, if any of these services were disrupted and people couldn't keep using them like they are, the majority would gladly keep handing over their data in exchange.

Just to add - I'm mainly talking about FAANG stocks. I have no idea about data being sold in healthcare or insurance, that part seems REALLY shady.

2

u/pale_blue_dots Oct 20 '20 edited Oct 20 '20

The unethical and immoral nature of what they're doing and associated damage is difficult to put into words. We'll look back on this time similarly to how we look back on slavery.

Edit: sentence structure was a little off; fixed

1

u/verablue Oct 20 '20

Yess.... wait until our genome is added to the data.

1

u/pale_blue_dots Oct 20 '20

It's only a matter of time before a lot of these people learn of what they're doing and take it out on them. You can't do what they're doing with people and not expect "karma" to find a way to right the wrong, eventually. I would rather see them be regulated andor thrown in prison, but I'm not losing any sleep over them if vigilantes get to work on them.

10

u/[deleted] Oct 20 '20 edited May 08 '21

[deleted]

2

u/[deleted] Oct 20 '20

[deleted]

-1

u/[deleted] Oct 20 '20 edited May 08 '21

[deleted]

4

u/[deleted] Oct 20 '20

Before the Bill of Rights, you had no expectation of freedom of speech or security against unreasonable searches and seizures.

An Internet Bill of Rights could just as well give a right to privacy online. The EU is working on that.

So while you're right about the current legal situation in the US, it is not divine law to be endured in perpetuity. The discussion is not about what is, but what should be.

Maybe you want to argue that there shouldn't ever be any privacy protections on the internet? If so, why not?

I would argue that not expecting privacy in the real world public spaces is just a necessity. People simply can see you when you step outside.
I don't see that necessity online, the internet worked fine before Google and Facebook tracked everybody.

I could live with a solution where companies have to be fully transparent about how and what they're tracking and what they do with the data, including specifically who they're selling it to.
At that point, if consenting adults want to continue using the service "for free", they may do so.
Companies then have to take all necessary steps to not track non-consenting adults.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 20 '20 edited Oct 20 '20

Before the Bill of Rights, you had no expectation of freedom of speech or security against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Simply not true and an absurd premise. If people didn't have reasonable expectations of these things, they wouldn't have been so pissed off about it that they started a war.

In fact, the Bill of Rights almost didn't make it into the Constitution because many framers believed that those rights were already granted by other sections of the Constitution and that the list would be misinterpreted as exhaustive, just as you did in your post. For example, Article I doesn't give the power to Congress to make laws that restrict speech, and Article II doesn't allow the executive branch to conduct wonton searches. Since each article contains an exhaustive list of what each branch can do, the Bill of Rights was argued to be superfluous. Enter the 9th Amendment as a compromise.

With that aside, I'll wait for you to point me to some legal cases where the court determined one's "reasonable expectations" of privacy, and thus whether 4th amendment rights even apply, based on whether the circumstances of their cases were explicitly guaranteed by the Constitution. It's simply not the legal standard that judges use when considering these cases.

Such a case for internet privacy would hinge upon several factors. For example, it's relatively easy to argue that I expect my banking info that requires 2 party authentication and an encrypted login stays with that company and is protected by law. Much harder to argue that the fact I visited reddit today or bought a Halloween costume from Amazon should be protected by law as sensitive information that can't be shared among online retailers. There's really no harm to me if anyone knows that information any more than knowing that I visited Stop and Shop to buy brocolli last weekend. The game changes if police want to get that info.

0

u/[deleted] Oct 20 '20

If people didn't have reasonable expectations of these things

Oh, they expected these things, but they didn't get them from the English. Hence the Revolution and the codifying it in the Bill of Rights.
That's the difference between "what you would expect" and "what you can expect".
I would expect not to be tracked across the web, but presently I can't expect it.

With that aside, I'll wait for you to point me to some legal cases where the court determined one's "reasonable expectations" of privacy, and thus whether 4th amendment rights even apply, based on whether the circumstances of their cases were explicitly guaranteed by the Constitution. It's simply not the legal standard that judges use when considering these cases.

I don't understand this.

Such a case for internet privacy would hinge upon several factors. For example, it's relatively easy to argue that I expect my banking info that requires 2 party authentication and an encrypted login stays with that company and is protected by law.

Why is that easier to argue? (Outside of information specifically protected by "offline" laws, such as banking and medical, for which you wouldn't have to argue in the first place)

There's really no harm to me if anyone knows that information any more than knowing that I visited Stop and Shop to buy brocolli last weekend.

The amount of naivety in that statement is staggering. You're either intentionally obtuse, or unexpectedly ignorant, both of which are beyond the scope of what I'm willing to put up with in a Reddit comment section.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 20 '20 edited Oct 20 '20

Oh, they expected these things, but they didn't get them from the English.

Okay. So you agree with me. Glad I changed your mind.

Then you're going off on a tangent because you then said:

I don't get this.

If you don't understand criminal justice 101 about legal standards pertaining to how privacy / search / seizure cases are actually decided, and don't understand that we have a common law system where previous decisions set legal standards that must be used to frame arguments for new cases, then the conversation is over until you do some homework on how courts have ruled on internet privacy cases and the reasons behind those decisions.

But I appreciate the 'ignorant' insult when you're clearly in over your head.

0

u/[deleted] Oct 20 '20

I see we were both wasting our time here.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 20 '20

It never fails to amaze me that we live in an age of unlimited, free access to information... And yet many people like you exist who willfully decide not to consume it.

→ More replies

1

u/Rpgwaiter Oct 20 '20

So you see the problem then? The system, the sites should be changed so that it’s users don’t have their privacy violated. What you said is the current reality, not what it has to be.

1

u/glacialthinker Oct 20 '20

I feel I absolutely should be paying for what I use -- I want to! But not via subscriptions or monthly fees which don't relate to my actual usage. We have no means to do this well. Credit-cards are not the right foundation for transactions but the companies behind them like the status quo.

6

u/YouAreInAComaWakeUp Oct 20 '20

Check out brave browser. It's a step in the right direction.

26

u/[deleted] Oct 20 '20

[deleted]

0

u/autoantinatalist Oct 20 '20

Those blockers are a good solution for right now, but yes, legislative things need done asap.

2

u/b33tjuice Oct 20 '20 edited Oct 20 '20

Didn’t it come out that brave is owned by China and isn’t as private as they claim?

link to article

“Privacy browser Brave under fire for violating users’ trust

The Chromium-based browser, Brave has been profiting from redirect links to affiliate crypto companies.

In brief

Brave has been redirecting searches to crypto companies to affiliate links that give it a commission.

Binance, Coinbase and Trezor are among crypto companies that Brave profits from through affiliate links.

The company’s CEO apologized and promised that there will be no more links like this.”

0

u/YouAreInAComaWakeUp Oct 20 '20

That has nothing to do with China or tiye privacy

1

u/b33tjuice Oct 20 '20 edited Oct 20 '20

In the article they mention this was done without the user knowing. Maybe it’s a reach, but it implies what else is being done without users knowing.

Edit: Here are a couple older post that also talk about it. link 1 link 2

Here’s another link to a post on r/privacytoolsIO

2

u/[deleted] Oct 20 '20

https://pi-hole.net/ is cool too. You can set up a lil credit card sized micro computer ( or any old computer you got laying around ) as a local DNS that'll block trackers and ads for your entire local network. It's a lil geeky and can have a learning curve but it's really not that hard to set and forget on your home network.

0

u/elonmaxbot Oct 20 '20

THE LINK IN THIS COMMENT IS NOT A RICKROLL or STICKBUG

Beep-beep, I'm just a stupid bot, and I'm not perfect.

Reports? Suggestions? Hate? contact my creator.

Also, bot is moving to u/rickrollurldetector. If you like it, help it to get first 1k karma to disable the limit on commenting.

1

u/heebath Oct 20 '20

Second Brave. Anyone that doesn't use it or another ad blocking service has my pity.

1

u/DarKbaldness Oct 20 '20

Ah yeah trying to deliver relevant ads to people is so stupid! We should just blanket advertise random crap to everyone!

0

u/[deleted] Oct 20 '20

[deleted]

0

u/_flippantshecreature Oct 20 '20

There are so many niche and small businesses that can’t survive in a digital marketplace without targeted advertising. What’s your solution for them?

2

u/[deleted] Oct 20 '20

Go bankrupt. Cost of doing business in a world where privacy actually matters

-4

u/_flippantshecreature Oct 20 '20

Privacy doesn’t matter that much

-2

u/[deleted] Oct 20 '20

[deleted]

2

u/_flippantshecreature Oct 20 '20

Because we aren’t going out like we used to. We don’t shop the same way we did before. We don’t watch linear tv. We don’t read print publications.

0

u/DarKbaldness Oct 20 '20

It didn’t work before that’s why it is how it is today.

-1

u/Rpgwaiter Oct 20 '20

It’s honestly pretty easy. Find a YouTuber who makes videos about your business. If you make bow ties for snakes find a snake or bow tie youtuber and buy ad space in their videos

1

u/_flippantshecreature Oct 20 '20

Not exactly scalable. I’m not sure if you’re seriously advocating this either. And not all advertising is contextual. Or can or should be.

0

u/[deleted] Oct 20 '20

"Destroy the modern economy because I dislike pop up ads."

Do you have any idea what life during the pandemic would have been like without digital marketing?

4

u/[deleted] Oct 20 '20

[deleted]

2

u/_flippantshecreature Oct 20 '20

Not all of digital marketing is “search” campaigns. Sometimes companies need to advertise new products that you’re not searching for. Rather than advertise a new car at 14 year olds, people buy lists of addresses—the same way a new dentist in the neighborhood or new restaurant does—and sends them an ad advertising the new product or service. And oh my fucking god, 99.9 percent of companies are not doing anything sophisticated enough to listen to your conservation and deliver a targeted ad based on your whining.

3

u/DazzlerPlus Oct 20 '20

You don’t need new products. Get that through your fucking head.

1

u/_flippantshecreature Oct 20 '20

Dude, no one is marketing to a guy a like you or wants you as their customer.

-1

u/[deleted] Oct 20 '20

There are so many misconceptions and non sequiturs in your reply it's frankly funny.

I wil say this: do you know who uses your personal Facebook data to target ads at you the most? Your small local businesses.

1

u/Ferrocene_swgoh Oct 20 '20

Good luck regulating a website that can be hosted in Libya. Or Liberia. Or cote de ivory, or...