Thread by @doctorow

Facebook just redoubled its attacks on transparency, terminating the accounts of the NYU researchers behind #AdObserver, an independent project that monitors paid disinformation on the platform.

pluralistic.net/2021/08/05/com…

1/

If you'd like an unrolled version of this thread to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

pluralistic.net/2021/08/06/get…

2/

This is inexcusable, but that doesn't stop Facebook from trying to excuse it. That defense has two prongs. The first is a false claim that Ad Observer compromises Facebook user privacy.

3/

This is a lie that can be trivially disproved simply by looking at the source-code for the Ad Oberver plugin. Facebook is just #privacywashing, using privacy as a pretext to cover up bad corporate behavior.

https://twitter.com/mozilla/status/1422995760396726273

4/

The other prong of Facebook's defense is to point people to its own FORT Researcher Platform, which, Facebook claims, allows researchers to safely monitor paid speech - ads - on its platform in a way that is equivalent to Ad Observer.

research.fb.com/blog/2021/02/i…

5/

A group of eminent researchers from @PrincetonCITP have published a stinging rebuttal to this claim, drawing on their experience attempting to negotiate access to FORT with Facebook

freedom-to-tinker.com/2021/08/05/fac…

6/

In Mar 2021, Facebook presented the Princeton team with a set of "strictly non-negotiable" terms "mandated by Cambridge Analytica and the FTC." The Princeton team were familiar with the FTC's Cambridge Analytica consent decree, so they knew this was bullshit.

7/

They pointed this out to Facebook, which eventually conceded that the take it or leave it terms were actually just FB's corporate policy, nothing to do with the FTC (but blaming the policy on the FTC made FB look like good guys).

8/

It's ironic that FB is using the FTC as an excuse to shut down independent scrutiny of its policies and activities. Yesterday, the FTC sent Mark Zuckerberg an open letter, slamming the company for attack Ad Observer and blaming it on the FTC.

ftc.gov/news-events/bl…

9/

The Princeton team ultimately refused to sign Facebook's FORT agreement. The most important issue was FB's requirement that they get pre-publication "review" of any scholarly work based on the FORT repository.

10/

FB didn't just expect to be able to see what researchers learned before they went public - they also reserved the right to unilaterally label anything the researchers wanted to cite as "confidential" and censor it from their reporting.

11/

The Princeton team asked FB if data about paid political disinformation during the 2020 election would be "confidential" - and FB refused to answer their question.

12/

This just the most visible sign of FB's bad faith. The company couldn't answer basic questions about "what additional data fields were available to researchers" and "whether there were any restrictions on the types of tools we could use to analyze the data."

13/

They promised to get back "shortly." That was five months ago.

The Princeton team doesn't mince words: "Our experience dealing with Facebook highlights their long running pattern of misdirection and doublespeak to dodge meaningful scrutiny of their actions."

14/

"Facebook has control over the information that the public needs to understand its powerful role in our society. And, if Facebook continues to hide behind illusory offers, we need legislation to force them to provide meaningful access."

15/

Image:
Japanexperterna.se (modified)
flickr.com/photos/japanex…

Minette Lontsie (modified)
commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Face…

CC BY-SA:
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa…

Anthony Quintano (modified)
flickr.com/photos/quintan…

CC BY:
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.…

eof/