Tag: facebook

Categories
Quick Analysis

Facebook vs. The Feds

The Federal Trade Commission and the House Judiciary Committee are investigating Facebook’ alleged mishandling of user data, particularly during the primary campaign of President Trump. The inquiries have inspired $50 billion decline in the company’s value.

According to Investors Daily,  “…a  professor at Cambridge University [Aleksandr Kogan] built a Facebook app for Cambridge Analytica  around 2014 that involved a personality quiz. About 270,000 users of the app agreed to share some of their Facebook information, as well as data from people on their friends list. As a result, tens of millions ended up part of this data-mining operation…” The material was used for the Trump campaign during the primary period, but not the general election.

Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-Minnesota)   notes “Reports that the Federal Trade Commission is investigating Facebook for the breach involving the personal data of 50 million Americans is a positive step toward determining whether the media company violated a 2011 consent decree. I urge the Federal Trade Commission to conduct a thorough investigation to assess whether Facebook violated the decree or any other applicable laws. Facebook has a legal responsibility to ensure user data is secure and that its policies are transparent. Facebook must uphold the privacy rights of its users and keep its promises when it comes to notifying them if there has been a violation.”

Facebook has been hauled before federal authorities in the past over privacy concerns.

A 2011 FTC complaint listed a number of instances in which Facebook allegedly made promises that it did not keep:

  • In December 2009, Facebook changed its website so certain information that users may have designated as private – such as their Friends List – was made public. They didn’t warn users that this change was coming, or get their approval in advance.
  • Facebook represented that third-party apps that users’ installed would have access only to user information that they needed to operate. In fact, the apps could access nearly all of users’ personal data – data the apps didn’t need.
  • Facebook told users they could restrict sharing of data to limited audiences – for example with “Friends Only.” In fact, selecting “Friends Only” did not prevent their information from being shared with third-party applications their friends used.
  • Facebook had a “Verified Apps” program & claimed it certified the security of participating apps. It didn’t.
  • Facebook promised users that it would not share their personal information with advertisers. It did.
  • Facebook claimed that when users deactivated or deleted their accounts, their photos and videos would be inaccessible. But Facebook allowed access to the content, even after users had deactivated or deleted their accounts.
  • Facebook claimed that it complied with the U.S.- EU Safe Harbor Framework that governs data transfer between the U.S. and the European Union. It didn’t.

Some old men do not lose interest in sex, due to anxiety and sildenafil purchase http://valsonindia.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/VALSON-publish-result-Jun-2016.pdf stress. The chemical after valsonindia.com cialis price brand blending in the bloodstream relaxes the muscles of the penis. This initiates purchase viagra no prescription the flow of blood to enable an erection in response to sexual stimulation. The significant role of Kamagra viagra order shop to cure ED and PE are some of its popular characteristics of the pill, men with lesser incomes could easily buy them either through online pharmacies or from a local medical shop.
In 2012, the Federal Trade Commission accepted as final a settlement with Facebook resolving charges that Facebook deceived consumers by telling them they could keep their information on Facebook private, and then repeatedly allowing it to be shared and made public. The settlement requires Facebook to take several steps to make sure it lives up to its promises in the future, including by giving consumers clear and prominent notice and obtaining their express consent before sharing their information beyond their privacy settings, by maintaining a comprehensive privacy program to protect consumers’ information, and by obtaining biennial privacy audits from an independent third party. A Commission statement affirmed  that Facebook will be liable for a broad range of deceptive conduct.

Under the settlement, Facebook was:

  • barred from making misrepresentations about the privacy or security of consumers’ personal information;
  • required to obtain consumers’ affirmative express consent before enacting changes that override their privacy preferences;
  • required to prevent anyone from accessing a user’s material more than 30 days after the user has deleted his or her account;
  • required to establish and maintain a comprehensive privacy program designed to address privacy risks associated with the development and management of new and existing products and services, and to protect the privacy and confidentiality of consumers’ information; and
  • required, within 180 days, and every two years after that for the next 20 years, to obtain independent, third-party audits certifying that it has a privacy program in place that meets or exceeds the requirements of the FTC order, and to ensure that the privacy of consumers’ information is protected.

The settlement did not, according to many, resolve the problems.

Tech Crunchs’ Josh Constine reports that Facebook builds tools with rosy expectations, only to negligently leave the safety off and see worst-case scenarios arise. Fox News reports that “The social media giant is facing a tough battle convincing lawmakers that users’ privacy concerns are of paramount importance to the company since it was revealed that a third party accessed and stored the data of millions of users, despite saying it deleted the information.

Perhaps part of the problem is that Facebook’s business model is based on using its users’ data.

CNN notes that “Facebook is in the data exploitation business: They make money by harvesting your data and selling it to app developers and advertisers. Indeed, the most alarming aspect of Cambridge Analytica’s “breach” of 50 million users’ data is that it wasn’t a breach at all. It happened almost entirely above board and in line with Facebook policy. The one rule that [was]…violated, according to Facebook, was passing user data to third parties, including Cambridge Analytica. But even…Facebook sources acknowledge that it is impossible for the company to completely monitor what developers and advertisers do with the data. This is why it is so hard to trust Facebook when they say ‘protecting people’s information is at the heart of everything we do.’ In fact, Facebook’s business is providing people’s information to outside parties whose ultimate goals are unknowable.

Investors Daily has an interesting take on the furor that has erupted around the Trump campaign using Facebook data. The social media giant has at times promoted itself to political parties as a new way of reaching voters.   The editors note that “when Obama harvested facebook data on millions of users to win in 2012, everyone cheered…”

Categories
Quick Analysis

Facebook Accused of Biased News Coverage

On May 4, the New York Analysis of Policy and Government questioned whether popular social media sites tilted their news coverage in favor of left wing points of view. We worried that attempts to expand into the lucrative Chinese market, for example, by Facebook would enhance that problem.

On May 10, U.S. Senator John Thune (R-S.D.), chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, asked Facebook Chairman and CEO Mark Zuckerberg to answer questions following reports that company employees actively suppressed news stories on topics of interest to politically conservative users of the social media platform.

A statement by the Committee noted:

“Facebook must answer these serious allegations and hold those responsible to account if there has been political bias in the dissemination of trending news,’ said Thune on sending the letter. ‘Any attempt by a neutral and inclusive social media platform to censor or manipulate political discussion is an abuse of trust and inconsistent with the values of an open Internet.’

“On May 9, a story in Gizmodo reported allegations by several former unnamed Facebook employees that the company routinely worked to suppress conservative viewpoints on the social network and artificially highlighted other news stories even when objective metrics did not indicate they were ‘trending.”

Thune’s letter asks Zuckerberg to provide answers to the following questions no later than May 24:

“1)    Please describe Facebook’s organizational structure for the Trending Topics feature, and the steps for determining included topics.  Who is ultimately responsible for approving its content?

2)    Have Facebook news curators in fact manipulated the content of the Trending Topics section, either by targeting news stories related to conservative views for exclusion or by injecting non-trending content?

3)    What steps is Facebook taking to investigate claims of politically motivated manipulation of news stories in the Trending Topics section?  If such claims are substantiated, what steps will Facebook take to hold the responsible individuals accountable?

4)    In a statement responding to the allegations, Facebook has claimed to have “rigorous guidelines in place for the review team” to prevent “the suppression of political perspectives” or the “prioritization of one viewpoint over another or one news outlet over another.”
During your sessions of couple counseling San Francisco you can get help in understanding what is the standard? Many patients with chronic prostatitis often determined whether the disease had been cured by their own feelings. viagra generic discount Thus if you have been captured by this dysfunction whether by excessive stress or by hormone misbalance then you can be escaped and spared from the miseries by using this solution by beating impotency. pill viagra for sale For the men suffering from the erectile dysfunction, but also to enhance the quality of erection is 100% natural and achieved purchase cialis unica-web.com in just a few minutes of consumption. As the men ages he experience decline in the levels of hormones present in the pharmacy on line viagra human system.
a.    When did Facebook first introduce these guidelines?

  1.  Please provide a copy of these guidelines, as well as any changes or amendments since January 2014.
  2.  Does Facebook provide training for its employees related to these guidelines?  If so, describe what the training consists of, as well as its frequency.
  3.  How does Facebook determine compliance with these guidelines?  Does it conduct audits?  If so, how often? What steps are taken when a violation occurs?

    5)    Does Facebook maintain a record of curators’ decisions to inject a story into the Trending Topics section or target a story for removal?  If such a record is not maintained, can such decisions be reconstructed or determined based on an analysis of the Trending Topics product?

    a.    If so, how many stories have curators excluded that represented conservative viewpoints or topics of interest to conservatives?  How many stories did curators inject that were not, in fact, trending?

  4.  Please provide a list of all news stories removed from or injected into the Trending Topics section since January 2014.

The Senate Commerce Committee exercises legislative and oversight jurisdiction over issues related to Internet communications, consumer protection, and media issues.”

In his letter to Zuckerberg, Senator Thune stated “Social networks such as Facebook are an increasingly important source of news for many Americans and people around the world.  The ability to connect with others to discuss and debate the issues of the day that such services offer has created a powerful platform for civic engagement.  Indeed, with over a billion daily active users on average, Facebook has enormous influence on users’ perceptions of current events, including political perspectives. If Facebook presents its Trending Topics section as the result of a neutral, objective algorithm, but it is in fact subjective and filtered to support or suppress particular political viewpoints, Facebook’s assertion that it maintains a ‘platform for people and perspectives from s the political spectrum’ misleads the public.”

That, of course, is the central issue.  Facebook, as an independent company not run by government, is free to present whatever viewpoint it so chooses, and should be able to do so without restriction.  However, if it solicits participation from the public based in part upon assertions that it provides nonbiased coverage of the news, then it has intentionally misled those who utilize the service.

The New York Analysis of Policy and Government is highly critical of attempts to rein in free speech in the political or any other arena. However, we find it deeply hypocritical that leftist/progressive activists continue to criticize expressions of centrist and conservative thought and seek to regulate it through campaign finance restrictions, in addition to the various attempts by the Obama Administration to oversee media activities. Meanwhile, actions such as that Facebook is accused of and which many other outlets in print and television media engage in which are clearly biased towards the left end of the spectrum go un-criticized.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Internet Censorship on the Rise

Free speech on the internet continues to take a pounding on several key fronts.

Under pressure from heavy handed governments abroad and threats of lawsuits and left wing agitation in the U.S., the wide-open, free-wheeling character of the internet may see its days numbered.

Twitter, the source for very short comments and observations, is the latest battleground. The Daily Signal reports that a so-called “Trust and Safety Council,” containing left-wing groups with a history of endorsing political correctness and opposing free speech, is preparing to decide how to police what is allowed to be on and what will be forbidden on Twitter.

Self-censorship by internet forums is the new wave for blocking freedom of expression in cyberspace.

Breitbart reports that the German government is demanding that Google, Facebook and Twitter remove what it considers anti-immigrant “hate speech.” Of course, there was no precise definition of hate speech, leaving almost all comments opposed to the governments’ policies subject to censorship—exactly the result Berlin wanted.

The internet giants caved in, agreeing to delete any objected-to material within a day after a request to do so was delivered.

“The German government’s demand that social media giants Google, Facebook and Twitter remove what it calls anti-migrant ‘hate speech’ is having its first real test in the wake of the sickening sex attacks in Cologne over New Year’s Eve.”

Breitbart notes that The outlets agreed to apply domestic laws, rather than their own corporate policies, to reviews of posts, and already users in Germany are expressing disgust at the policy which came straight from German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s office.”

Organizations such as the Gatestone Institute, which reports extensively on immigration issues, may be particularly hard hit.

“With Gatestone’s commitment to educating readers about what the media do not want them to know, however unpleasant these events may sound to would-be censors, we are concerned that if we disagree with policies that Facebook believes politically correct, it may decide to censor Gatestone, or even ban it.

Once you ingest the jelly, you should always consult your GP. http://davidfraymusic.com/project/fray-a-triumph-performing-bach-boulez-schoenberg-and-brahms-in-chicago/ levitra generika This is one of the worst misconceptions of people. viagra mg Sildenafil Citrate Tablets – Possible Side EffectsIn the clinical trials, the most commonly occurring side effects in rare cases are weakness, insomnia, abdominal pain, tadalafil free shipping sinus, constipation, diarehea and some other symptoms. This colorful tart herbal brew buy viagra pill has many health benefits as well. “In the past month, Gatestone has already felt the quiet encroachment of censorship: In one instance, a New York-based online advertising network cut us off, saying our articles dealt with ‘sensitive’ topics. These included informing the public of the recent mass-sexual assaults of thousands of women by migrants in Europe. In a second recent incident, a well-known online content-promotion company rejected all of our German-language articles, for, they said, similar reasons.

“it just so happens to turn out that, lo and behold, this idea of “racist” speech appears to include anything critical of the EU’s current catastrophic immigration policy. … In lieu of violence, speech is one of the best ways for people to vent their feelings…Just last week, reports from the Netherlands told of Dutch citizens being visited by the police and warned about posting anti-mass-immigration sentiments on Twitter and other social media.”

In the U.S., there is a legal gray area when it comes to censorship by a private corporation, as opposed to a government agency.

The First Amendment Center notes that “The Bill of Rights provides protection for individual liberty from actions by government officials. This is called the state-action doctrine. Private property is not government-owned. Restrictions on individuals’ free-speech rights on private property do not involve state action.

“However, a few states have interpreted their own state constitutions to provide even greater free-speech protection than the federal Constitution offers. For example, the New Jersey Supreme Court has ruled that individuals have free-speech rights at privately owned shopping malls. Most state supreme courts that have examined the issue have disagreed. In April 2002, the Iowa Supreme Court refused to extend its definition of public property to include large, privately owned shopping malls.”

Internet sites such as Google, Facebook, and Twitter are private, and not necessarily bound by the First Amendment. But what if the censorship on those sites is the result of government action or pressure? That is a legal dispute that needs resolution. Outside of the United States, where there are, of course, no First Amendment protections, the ability of even relatively open regimes to take action is not as restrained as it is within America.

Within the U.S., key censorship pressure comes from pressure groups.  When applied to internet sites, this could result in a fracturing of sites, with progressive/left wing groups patronizing self-censored sites, and the rest of the nation clicking onto sites that may be formed to continue the tradition of free speech in cyberspace.

More overtly heavy-handed internet censorship comes from Russia, China, and some Moslem nations. North Korea is noted for almost total lack of internet access by the general population.

Organizations such as George Soros’ “Open Society Foundation” are at the forefront of pressuring governments to engage in censorship. It is their contention that free speech rights are subject to restrictions if they offend religious or ethnic groups.  Frequently, their interpretation of “offensive” is less than convincing.

With the scheduled handoff of internet control from the U.S. to an international body, in accordance with President Obama’s policy, the prospects for freedom of speech in cyberspace appear deeply troubled.