←back to thread

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

(www.science.org)
187 points anigbrowl | 9 comments | 29 Oct 25 22:54 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source | bottom
Show context
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 #
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 #
1. 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 #
2. adamors ◴[30 Oct 25 04:13 UTC] No.45756354[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 #
3. terminalshort ◴[30 Oct 25 04:29 UTC] No.45756442[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 #
4. debugnik ◴[30 Oct 25 09:53 UTC] No.45758133{3}[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 #
5. pms ◴[30 Oct 25 10:22 UTC] No.45758314[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 #
6. terminalshort ◴[30 Oct 25 12:10 UTC] No.45759140[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 #
7. terminalshort ◴[30 Oct 25 13:22 UTC] No.45759764{4}[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 #
8. tpm ◴[30 Oct 25 14:07 UTC] No.45760192{5}[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.
9. pms ◴[30 Oct 25 15:27 UTC] No.45761100{3}[source]▶
Agreed that's inconsistent and not ok. We need rules, procedures, and systems that apply equally to different sides.