Last Friday, Facebook sent a cease-and-desist letter to two NYU researchers (@LauraEdelson2 and Damon McCoy), demanding that they shut down their research into political ads and disinformation on FB’s platform.
The researchers (w/ the help of others) are responsible for a browser plug-in called Ad Observer, which allows FB users to voluntarily share very limited and anonymous data about the political ads that FB shows them. You can read about Ad Observer here:
You may already know that Facebook itself publishes data about political ads on its platform. but Facebook’s archive is missing a crucial piece of data:
FB has consistently refused to publish anything about how the ads are *targeted*.
This data is key, researchers say, to studying the ways in which Facebook’s targeting of political ads may discriminate on the basis of race or other protected characteristics, or may contribute to the polarization of political debate online.
The NYU researchers have tried to fill that gap, offering the Ad Observer plug-in to users who want to voluntarily donate the ads they see — along with the limited targeting data FB displays to users.
Using the data donated to them, the researchers have conducted essential research and enabled investigations by other researchers who also rely on the data.
For example, Ad Observer data was recently relied upon in an investigation into misleading ads on Facebook touting “Trumpcare,” which doesn’t exist.
Here’s where things get troubling: Facebook is now trying to shut down the Ad Observer plug-in, saying that it violates Facebook’s terms of service by automating the collection of data that Facebook shows to its users.
According to Facebook, Ad Observer compromises the privacy of Facebook’s users, but this is a pretty ridiculous claim. The plug-in’s users voluntarily sign up to donate data about the ads they see, and the plug-in does not share any personally identifying information.
As Laura Edelson (one of the NYU researchers) likes to say, Ad Observer enables “citizen science,” by enlisting the support of the public in studying the pathologies of political discourse. It enables user choice.
Facebook should embrace this model of independent research on the platform. In fact, at one point it did — specifically praising the work of Laura and Damon during an earlier iteration of their investigations into FB ads.
Unfortunately, Facebook has chosen instead to threaten researchers who are trying to study political disinformation, just days before a presidential election awash in lies and distortions.
And even more unfortunately, this isn’t the first time Facebook has tried to shut down independent research into the platform.
Facebook very obviously wants to control the narrative. It claims to support research into how its platform is affecting society, but its efforts have been glacial and inadequate.
If Facebook were truly committed to research into its platform, it would create a safe harbor within its terms of service for research that is manifestly in the public interest and that protects user privacy. We proposed just that two years ago.
Full disclosure: We (@knightcolumbia) now represent Damon and Laura in their response to Facebook’s cease-and-desist letter. Here’s our statement on the matter.
The state secrets privilege has increasingly become a "get out of jail free" card for the gov't, allowing it to violate the Constitution with judicial impunity so long as it invokes secrecy.
The case is a challenge to the NSA's "Upstream surveillance," a form of warrantless monitoring of Americans' int'l communications.
Although Upstream raises serious constitutional concerns, no court has actually resolved a challenge to it b/c the gov't has invoked secrecy to successfully thwart cases like @Wikimedia's.
The OLC is the agency responsible for interpreting the law for the executive branch. Its opinions bind federal officials, effectively deciding what the law is (unless overruled by the president, the attorney general, or a court). 3/
Today, Senators @ChrisCoons, @amyklobuchar, and @senrobportman published a draft of a social-media transparency bill. The bill is an important step forward in the debate about how to regulate social media. A quick 🧵 1/
One of the challenges in figuring out whether and how to regulate social media is in understanding precisely what the problems with the platforms are and how supposed solutions might work out in practice. 2/
There has been incredible research and journalism that has helped the public understand the platforms and their pathologies. For example, this paper published today by @LauraEdelson2 and others: 3/
A federal court just held that about 1/4 of all Office of Legal Counsel opinions probably fall w/in the provision of the Freedom of Information Act requiring proactive disclosure to the public.
The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) is a subdivision of the Department of Justice tasked with issuing authoritative interpretations of law for the executive branch.
It has been described as the "Supreme Court of the executive branch."
The opinions it issues often concern extremely controversial assertions of executive authority. For example, the OLC blessed the Bush administration's use of torture and the Obama administration's drone strike of a U.S. citizen in Yemen.
The last case I argued at the ACLU just got decided—nearly 4 years later. It was a while in the making, but it's an important ruling on NSA surveillance. Read the opinion at the link, and read on here for a few of thoughts about the decision.
First, this decision wouldn't have been possible without Edward @Snowden's disclosures. They enabled groundbreaking reporting on digital surveillance, an international reckoning on digital privacy, and of course a domestic reckoning—in Congress and the courts—on NSA surveillance.
The work to rein in overreaching NSA surveillance is far from over, but it's worth pausing to consider that nearly all the progress we've made has come because of disclosures criminalized by a law—the Espionage Act—that makes no exception for disclosures in the public interest.