Most active commenters
  • pms(6)
  • tguvot(5)
  • terminalshort(4)
  • shakna(3)

←back to thread

Meta and TikTok are obstructing researchers' access to data, EU commission rules

(www.science.org)
187 points anigbrowl | 30 comments | 29 Oct 25 22:54 UTC | HN request time: 0.414s | source | bottom
1. paxys ◴[29 Oct 25 23:09 UTC] No.45754300[source]▶
Remember that Cambridge Analytica was "research" as well. Laws like these sound good on paper, but it's the company that has to deal with the fallout when the data is used improperly. Unless the government can also come up with a fool proof framework for data sharing and enforce adequate protections, it's always going to be better for the companies to just say no and eat the fines.
replies(5): >>45754398 #>>45754429 #>>45754448 #>>45755093 #>>45755396 #
2. shakna ◴[29 Oct 25 23:17 UTC] No.45754398[source]▶
Which is why the EU doesn't use a letter-of-the-law system, and also have an ethics regulation system.

So it falls on those misusing the data, unless you knew it would be misused but collected it anyway.

Golden rule: Don't need the data? Don't collect it.

3. verst ◴[29 Oct 25 23:20 UTC] No.45754429[source]▶
As I recall it Cambridge Analytica was a ton of OAuth apps (mostly games and quizzes) requesting all or most account permissions and then sharing this account data (the access for which had been expressly (foolishly) granted by the user) with a third-party data aggregator, namely Cambridge Analytica. Only this re-sharing of data with a third party was against Facebook Terms of Service.

I would not classify Cambridge Analytica as research. They were a data broker that used the data for political polling.

replies(1): >>45755032 #
4. _--__--__ ◴[29 Oct 25 23:23 UTC] No.45754448[source]▶
I don't think you get it: the EU has a law that says these researchers need to find casus belli to wrestle the norms of online freedom of speech away from American corporations. Therefore they get to request data on every account that has ever interacted with certain political parties on those platforms, as a treat.
replies(1): >>45758028 #
5. paxys ◴[30 Oct 25 00:38 UTC] No.45755032[source]▶
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge_Analytica

> The New York Times and The Observer reported that the company had acquired and used personal data about Facebook users from an external researcher who had told Facebook he was collecting it for academic purposes.

replies(1): >>45755288 #
6. pms ◴[30 Oct 25 00:47 UTC] No.45755093[source]▶
Republicans and Elon Musk have become very skilled at exerting political influence in the US [1] and Europe [2] through social media in ways the public isn't really aware of. Is this really that far from the goal of Cambridge Analytica of influencing elections without people's knowledge? Is it fine for large online platforms to influence election outcomes? Why wouldn't an online platform be used to this end if that's beneficial for it and there is no regulation discouraging it?

[1] https://www.techpolicy.press/x-polls-skew-political-realitie...

[2] https://zenodo.org/records/14880275

replies(2): >>45755545 #>>45755584 #
7. tguvot ◴[30 Oct 25 01:15 UTC] No.45755288{3}[source]▶
link from sentence that you copy pasted https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook%E2%80%93Cambridge_Ana...

The data was collected through an app called "This Is Your Digital Life", developed by data scientist Aleksandr Kogan and his company Global Science Research in 2013.[2] The app consisted of a series of questions to build psychological profiles on users, and collected the personal data of the users' Facebook friends via Facebook's Open Graph platform.[2] The app harvested the data of up to 87 million Facebook profiles

replies(1): >>45755390 #
8. pms ◴[30 Oct 25 01:29 UTC] No.45755390{4}[source]▶
This "research" and data access wouldn't be allowed under the DSA, because (i) the researcher didn't provide any data protection safeguards, (ii) his university (and data protection officer) didn't assume legal liability for his research, (iii) his research isn't focused on systemic risks to society.
replies(1): >>45755591 #
9. pms ◴[30 Oct 25 01:30 UTC] No.45755396[source]▶
Long story short, this "research" and data access wouldn't be allowed under the DSA, because (i) the researcher didn't provide any data protection safeguards, (ii) his university (and their data protection officer) didn't assume legal liability for his research, (iii) his research isn't focused on systemic risks to society.
replies(1): >>45755440 #
10. loeg ◴[30 Oct 25 01:35 UTC] No.45755440[source]▶
Platforms (reasonably!) do not trust random academic researchers to be safe custodians of user data. The area of research focus and assumption of liability do not matter. Once a researcher's copy of data is leaked, the damage is done.
replies(1): >>45756421 #
11. santadays ◴[30 Oct 25 01:51 UTC] No.45755545[source]▶
I can’t imagine this is not happening. There exists the will, the means and the motivation, with not a small dose of what pg might call naughtiness.
12. terminalshort ◴[30 Oct 25 01:57 UTC] No.45755584[source]▶
I can't stand this "influencing elections" nonsense. It's a term meant to mislead with connotations of manipulating the voting tabulation when what is actually going on is influencing people to vote the way you want them to, which is perfectly legal and must always be legal in a functioning democracy.
replies(2): >>45756354 #>>45758314 #
13. tguvot ◴[30 Oct 25 01:58 UTC] No.45755591{5}[source]▶
not sure what's the point that you are making. but under "common sense comments act of 2054" unclear comments are not allowed.
replies(1): >>45755647 #
14. brendoelfrendo ◴[30 Oct 25 02:06 UTC] No.45755647{6}[source]▶
The article for this post is about the EU's Digital Services Act (DSA). Since the original comment argues against research access to data by arguing that "Cambridge Analytica was research as well," another poster chimed in to rebut that assertion by arguing that Aleksandr Kogan's research would not have been allowed access to user data under the DSA and thus, that specific legal concern is moot.
replies(1): >>45755744 #
15. tguvot ◴[30 Oct 25 02:20 UTC] No.45755744{7}[source]▶
kogan "research" harvested data through application and he was outside of eu.

so even it was happening today, whatever he did is irrelevant to EU/DSA unless they plan to chase everybody across the globe. somewhat like ofcom going after 4chan

replies(1): >>45756862 #
16. adamors ◴[30 Oct 25 04:13 UTC] No.45756354{3}[source]▶
It’s so perfectly legal that other nation states can do it for you and you might end up with a winner that people didn’t even hear about before.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Romanian_presidential_ele...

replies(1): >>45756442 #
17. whatevertrevor ◴[30 Oct 25 04:25 UTC] No.45756421{3}[source]▶
Yup, when the data breach happens the headlines aren't going to be "Random well meaning researchers caught in data breach exposing user data". They're going to be: "5 million Facebook logins hacked in massive data breach", and you'd be hard pressed to find actual information on how the leak happened, just like the gmail story from a few days ago.
replies(1): >>45758708 #
18. terminalshort ◴[30 Oct 25 04:29 UTC] No.45756442{4}[source]▶
Who are these "people" that you claim never heard of him before? Kind of sounds like BS to me because, you know, he won the election...
replies(1): >>45758133 #
19. shakna ◴[30 Oct 25 06:07 UTC] No.45756862{8}[source]▶
That's precisely what the EU is doing with Clearview AI [0].

> Max Schrems: “We even run cross-border criminal procedures for stolen bikes, so we hope that the public prosecutor also takes action when the personal data of billions of people was stolen – as has been confirmed by multiple authorities.”

[0] https://noyb.eu/en/criminal-complaint-against-facial-recogni...

replies(1): >>45756951 #
20. tguvot ◴[30 Oct 25 06:23 UTC] No.45756951{9}[source]▶
Based on your quote looks like this is what eu not doing.

I like this quote more

Max Schrems: “Clearview AI seems to simply ignore EU fundamental rights and just spits in the face of EU authorities.”

replies(1): >>45757184 #
21. shakna ◴[30 Oct 25 07:08 UTC] No.45757184{10}[source]▶
Hence why the upgrade to criminal charges against the company's officials.

There is _not_ a lack of action on behalf of the EU, here. They are "chasing" those responsible.

replies(1): >>45757378 #
22. tguvot ◴[30 Oct 25 07:43 UTC] No.45757378{11}[source]▶
Ohh.. the upgrade will surely make them rethink the error of their ways and will come begging EU for forgiveness.
23. jack_tripper ◴[30 Oct 25 09:37 UTC] No.45758028[source]▶
>EU has a law that says these researchers need to find casus belli

Like pepe the frog memes

24. debugnik ◴[30 Oct 25 09:53 UTC] No.45758133{5}[source]▶
Won the election here means 22.94% of the vote, not long after having polled at 5%. He didn't even have a party.

This person went really quickly from unknown to anyone not into politics, to incredibly popular within a targeted media bubble and still unknown to anyone unfamiliar with that bubble.

replies(1): >>45759764 #
25. pms ◴[30 Oct 25 10:22 UTC] No.45758314{3}[source]▶
It's obviously not about "manipulating the voting tabulation". Influencing people to vote the way you want them to is fine as long as it's not based on deceit. Is this what you can't stand?
replies(1): >>45759140 #
26. pms ◴[30 Oct 25 11:13 UTC] No.45758708{4}[source]▶
No researcher will request or get access to "5 million Facebook logins" through the DSA, since such a request wouldn't comply with the DSA requirements, so your point is moot. In fact, we live in a quite different world than you imagine. Currently, researchers don't even have access to the public data, as the article points out. When it comes to private data, researchers won't get access to private messages either, but rather to aggregate-level privacy-preserving data (assuming that the DSA isn't killed before any of this happens by the industry and Republicans, which you seem to advocate for).
27. terminalshort ◴[30 Oct 25 12:10 UTC] No.45759140{4}[source]▶
I hate it because I have never seen it used any other way than if my side does it, it's "campaigning," and when the other side does it, it's "influencing elections."
replies(1): >>45761100 #
28. terminalshort ◴[30 Oct 25 13:22 UTC] No.45759764{6}[source]▶
When that "bubble" is at minimum one quarter of the country, maybe you need to reconsider who is in the bubble here.
replies(1): >>45760192 #
29. tpm ◴[30 Oct 25 14:07 UTC] No.45760192{7}[source]▶
it's not "at minimum one quarter of the country", the turnout was 52.56% of registered voters, so its at minimum 22.94% of 52.56% of 18 million, which is 11% of the total population of Romania.
30. pms ◴[30 Oct 25 15:27 UTC] No.45761100{5}[source]▶
Agreed that's inconsistent and not ok. We need rules, procedures, and systems that apply equally to different sides.