“This is so disappointing, wonder if there is a way to hire for integrity. We are probably focusing on the intelligence part and getting smart people here who lack a moral compass and loyalty.”
The sheer lack of self-awareness in that statement.
It's breathtaking isn't it? Facebook sells personal information to advertisers. And this employee worries there might be 'smart people who lack a moral compass' working there? It would be funny if it wasn't also terrifying that Facebook employees believe the company is a force for good in the world. Working for Facebook is about as moral as working for Big Tobacco: there's plenty of evidence the product is actively harmful.
Where can I purchase some Facebook personal information? I'd love to use it for some custom audiences on my ads. /s
As far as I'm aware, Facebook has never sold personal information to advertisers[0], because that would be giving away its crown jewels. It might leak it, but doesn't hand it out for sale.
EDIT: Downvoters, please point out where I'm wrong. It looks bad for the community to suppress factual statements.
In every debate about "[Advertising company] sells personal information" I've seen, this is always an issue. I suggest we instead say what it is: They monetize personal information.
Facebook sells ad targeting based on gender, sexual orientation, marital status, age, location, salary, education, musical taste, purchasing behaviour, device usage, interests, hobbies and the list goes on. Without 2B users' worth of personal information, there isn't anything to sell. For Facebook to say 'they don't sell your information' is Orwellian corporate doublespeak. Advertisers pay them money and in exchange, Facebook allows them to target sets of users based on those users personal information. How is this not 'selling information about you'?
Are you confused by the distinction between selling personal information and selling ads? The latter does not involve any exchange of personal information to the purchaser.
It seems you are both correct, and the disagreement lies on the meaning 'personal':
- They use 'personal' as 'private', or 'information about you'. e.g. I have a fetish, I wish no one to know, it's 'personal'.
- You seem to use 'personal' as 'personally identifiable information'. e.g. if I have this data, I can know trace back to its originator.
The ambiguity can be found in many places around. Most people don't make the distinction. Rather, they think anything private is personal. At the same time, the definition you use can be found in official documents, like GDPR, the new EU Privacy Law (https://gdpr-info.eu/art-4-gdpr/).
Thanks for clarifying this: personal information does not mean personally identifiable information. Personal information can be sold without uniquely identifying individuals and this is exactly what Facebook's core business model is.
CA used data from Facebook's Graph API. They don't sell access to their API, it's freely accessible. It's disadvantageous for Facebook to not keep your personal info in their walled garden of advertising, where they can use it as a competitive advantage for better targeted ads.
You're right. Facebook has not sold personal information to advertisers. That's factually false. What I think we should say instead, is that Facebook sold the notion that 'they knew about you and your preferences' to help advertisers.
I think he means indirectly sell, which is kinda true. By letting the CA scandal happen, they seriously sold a lot of data. Not what they really wanted to do, but their reckless policies and vague morality standard caused that.
Also, nothing changes the fact that Facebook is clearly harmful to the society in important ways, according to various researches. And they do not care about this fundamental issue, they just want more users and more profit.
> By letting the CA scandal happen, they seriously sold a lot of data.
The CA scandal did not involve any sale between CA and Facebook. CA sold insights gleaned from data pulled from Facebook's public and free-of-charge Graph API.
> Also, nothing changes the fact that Facebook is clearly harmful to the society in important ways, according to various researches.
I'm not sure how that's relevant here. Arguing that Facebook is a bad company does not make misinformation more correct.
It's relevant because we're discussing a Facebook employee that wants to screen hires for integrity. Given widely known scientific evidence that FB causes anxiety and lowers self-esteem, which is a direct consequence of its core business model: integrity is already in question when you accept the interview.
I feel like these are weasel words, and I could use the same argument about anything. I could say Clinton let the email scandal happen. Or that Clinton indirectly leaked classified emails, which is kinda true. Or someone can say Clinton is clearly harmful to society in important ways, according to various sources. Clinton just wants more votes and power. I think we should stick with the facts to make a strong argument against Facebook.
Come on, are you serious?
2B people use it every month to keep in touch with their friends. I'm typing this in Dubai, and I use FB/Messenger daily to keep in touch with people in Budapest, London, Amsterdam, Berlin, etc.
The kinds of employee responses i see makes me think of an intelligence agency. Talk of loyalty and fear of foreign spy infiltration. And quite frankly, facebook is one. Except none of the employees are "Secret" or "Top Secret" cleared AFAICT.
I'm speculating here but it may even possible that they have a greater global reach than the NSA as 2.2 Billion people are in their system using their apps on all their devices from watches to desktops. They record all the personal data, track every website being visited, possibly hot mic phones, and record people's locations. Remember those russian soldiers posting photos from inside the ukraine? Yeah, facebook has that data and intelligence agencies of the cold war era would have drooled for this data.
This is why self regulation doesn't work. People posture endlessly and when given half a chance with any sort of power and real stakes, ethics gives way and we are left with apologism, hand waving, denial and rationalization.
This is easy to fix. Follow the money and change the incentives. And the fix will allow software folks to continue to posture endlessly as they will not have the power to make a decision.
1. Ban micro targeting by advertisers, only contextual text and location can be used.
2. Platforms like Facebook, Google and their chain of contractors, partners etc cannot offer micro targeting.
3. Ban data aggregation with heavy penalties and imprisonment for companies, marketing individuals and their agencies who try this. This will solve these problems in a jiffy.
That removes the incentive for stalking people 24/7, collecting tons of data and making correlation and inferences.
The thing is so many people, especially governments and political players, crave this power that it cannot be done anymore, that's why building surveillance infrastructure is a bad idea. It will always be abused and why the individual ethics of the engineers and society at large becomes critical but we have already failed that test.
The sheer lack of self-awareness in that statement.