Your Facebook check-in won’t help North Dakota protestors

There’s a new viral message making its way through your Facebook friends’ status updates today. The copy-paste chain letter message claims that police in Morton County, North Dakota are using Facebook check-ins to target demonstrators and disrupt protests of the Dakota Access Pipeline, while also calling on everyone to check in at the location “to overwhelm and confuse” law enforcement officials. Unfortunately for everyone at home, the rumor is false and status-update-based activism will do little to actually support the protestors’ cause.

If it hasn’t yet popped up on your Facebook feed, the bulk of the message goes like this:

“The Morton County Sheriff’s Department has been using Facebook check-ins to find out who is at Standing Rock in order to target them in attempts to disrupt the prayer camps. SO Water Protectors are calling on EVERYONE to check-in at Standing Rock, ND to overwhelm and confuse them. This is concrete action that can protect people putting their bodies and well-beings on the line that we can do without leaving our homes. Will you join me in Standing Rock?”

The rest of the message instructs supporters to publicly check in at Standing Rock, then make a separate, private post visible only to friends in order to clarify what they are doing. As Snopes points out, however, the core of that statement is simply not true. Not only is the Morton County Sheriff’s Department not monitoring Facebook check-ins, but even if they were, the remote check-ins “would not confuse or overwhelm them.” On a technical level, trying to throw off law enforcement with a remote check-in is pointless. The Sheriff’s Department re-iterated their position in a Facebook post stating “This claim/rumor is absolutely false.”

In its own Facebook message response, the Sacred Stone Camp clarified that the Facebook message “did not originate from the Sacred Stone Camp FB page.” The group claims “there is no doubt” that law enforcement monitors social media activity, but the check-ins help their cause only by bringing a bit of viral awareness. Although the group says they appreciate the show of solidarity, it would do much more to help their cause if all of those thousands of people “take physical action” in the form of a contribution to the group’s legal defense fund, by joining up on their solidarity page or by actually coming down to protest in person – not just through a meaningless online check-in.

Curiously, TechCrunch points out that “Standing Rock” is still not a trending topic on Facebook, despite all the chatter. So, for all the well-meaning misinformation, the protest still has much less awareness — or is less important in the eyes of Facebook’s algorithms — than fake news or Kylie Jenner and Tyga’s Halloween costumes.

Source: Snopes, Morton County Sheriff’s Department/Facebook, Sacred Stone Camp/Facebook

Peter Thiel’s tech wealth made him a First Amendment gatekeeper

Peter Thiel built his fortune in Silicon Valley as a founder of PayPal, an early backer of Facebook and a venture capitalist focused on the technology industry. He’s living proof of the Bay Area’s ability to make billionaires of mortal men.

Using a fraction of his tech billions, Thiel bankrolled Hulk Hogan’s lawsuit against Gawker Media earlier this year, which eventually led to the company declaring bankruptcy and shutting down Gawker.com. Thiel had held a grudge against the site for years, after he claimed it outed him as gay in 2007. Since the Gawker ruling, Thiel has fielded questions about the ethics of a billionaire effectively using his money to shut down a news organization that he didn’t like, a move that some argue violate the site’s First Amendment rights. He’s responded by calling his $10 million support of Hulk Hogan’s lawsuit “one of [the] greater philanthropic things” that he’s ever done. Thiel has also said he’s backing other, similar lawsuits.

During a Q&A session at the National Press Club today, Thiel explained three key things about the Gawker lawsuit:

First, he detailed how his (mostly secret) funding did not violate freedom of speech or the press. “I strongly believe in the First Amendment,” he said. “I believe journalists are a privileged group in our society. They play an important role in getting us information and in the system of checks and balances. But these were not journalists.”

Second, he explained his support of Hulk Hogan’s lawsuit with the following comment: “If you’re middle-class, if you’re upper-middle class, if you’re a single-digit millionaire like Hulk Hogan, you have no effective access to our legal system. It costs too much.”

And third, he said, “My judgement was that Mr. Hogan deserved to have his day in court.”

These statements are inherently contradictory and scary. Thiel freely admits that, in his view, the only way to receive justice in the United States is to be extremely wealthy — at least a double-digit millionaire. He also contends that his involvement in the Gawker lawsuit was not ethically dubious because, after all, he respects the First Amendment. It’s the third sentence that’s the most jarring: “My judgement was that Mr. Hogan deserved to have his day in court.”

His judgement. Not the courts, not a judge, not a jury. One wealthy tech entrepreneur with a vendetta decided that one specific news organization needed to be shut down, and he worked within the US legal system for years to make it happen, pulling strings and funding cases in a way that a vast majority of citizens never could. Thiel decided that Gawker employees were not journalists and therefore didn’t deserve First Amendment protection — and using his Silicon Valley fortune, he turned this opinion into law.

It’s an obvious example of wealth, particularly tech money, enabling power over the justice system. It’s not a clear violation of the First Amendment — but it’s close enough to spark a contentious debate about the role of money in politics and justice.

Peter Thiel: “If you’re a single-digit millionaire like Hulk Hogan, you have no effective access to our legal system. It costs too much.” pic.twitter.com/Fo36ZiMR1B

— Dave Itzkoff (@ditzkoff) October 31, 2016

Thiel even admits that the tech industry, which propelled him into fame and fortune, is out of touch with the rest of the United States. He argues that his home of Silicon Valley enjoyed vast growth over the past decade while the rest of the country didn’t have as much success; he says tech industry leaders and companies simply do not represent the entire US — perhaps forgetting that he is himself a high-profile tech industry leader.

“Silicon Valley deals in the world of bits; most of the economy deals in the world of atoms,” he said. “If you’re in the world of atoms, you might be very concerned about government regulation. If you’re in the world of bits, which is much less regulated, you might be much less concerned about government regulations. So there is this big separation just in terms of what they do.”

By his own logic, not only is Thiel a single billionaire bankrolling targeted lawsuits against news organizations that he disagrees with, but he’s a poor representative for the rest of the US population. He does not operate in the same world that most Americans do, further skewing his judgement on what constitutes justice.

It’s clear that the Gawker stories outing Thiel and distributing Hulk Hogan’s sex tape were neither newsworthy nor ethical by journalistic standards. By most accounts, those articles were sensational tabloid spectacles that respectively stigmatized homosexuality and infringed on the privacy of an American citizen.

However, that’s not for Thiel or any Bay Area leader to decide. Placing the power to destroy news organizations in the hands of a few vengeful tech billionaires undermines not only the First Amendment, but the entire judicial process. The ruling can be correct while the system remains broken and grossly unfair.

At the National Press Club, Thiel also responded to a question about setting a precedent for other billionaires (or double-digit millionaires) to fund lawsuits against news organizations that they don’t like. He said, “Wealthy people shouldn’t do that. I think if they try they won’t succeed.”

Thiel doesn’t have to contradict himself this time; he’s already won a massive lawsuit against a news company. Either Thiel isn’t “wealthy” by his own definition or he believes he’s a special class of billionaire, a Bay Area leader, whose tech industry fortune puts him above the law.

Facebook enables advertisers to exclude users by ‘ethnic affinity’

Facebook’s features let advertisers limit which users see their material, ideally those who will be more interested in their products. But currently included in the “demographics” section of their ad-targeting tool is the ability to select which users see material based on their “ethnic affinity,” which the social titan began offering two years ago to aid its multicultural advertising. Facebook automatically lumps users into these categories based on their activity and interests — categories which advertisers can choose to exclude or specifically target.

Since the social network doesn’t ask users to racially identify themselves, Facebook collects activity data and then assigns each user an “ethnic affinity.” This is basically a preference for stories, events and organizations that coincide with those the social network believes are also held by a certain ethnic group.

At this year’s South by Southwest, a Facebook entertainment executive and Universal Pictures’ EVP of digital marketing held a panel explaining how the studio harnessed the social network’s “ethnic affinity” ad targeting tools to show different trailers of the movie Straight Outta Compton to different ethnic groups. The preview shown to Facebook-assigned “non-multicultural” (non-African-American, non-Hispanic) users showcased the film’s characters wielding guns, driving tricked-out cars and clashing with the police. The trailer shown to African-American-affinity users seemed to be from a wholly different film, a memoir about real performers’ historical impact.

Targeted advertising isn’t new, especially for Facebook, but targeting or excluding ethnic groups is dangerous legal territory. In a report released this morning, ProPublica suggested that the “ethnic affinity” preferential advertising potentially violates the Fair Housing Act of 1968, which makes it illegal to print or publish, or allow to be printed or published, any housing advertisement that indicates preference or discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin. That was a specific elaboration of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which legally forbids any ads from listing prohibited preference, limits or discrimination when recruiting employees.

Facebook’s policies forbid using its ad-targeting tools to “discriminate against, harass, provoke, or disparage users or to engage in predatory advertising practices.” If advertisers do use Custom Audiences, they have to abide by its terms, which were updated September 30th, and comply with local laws. “Ethnic affinity” seems as close to targeting a racial group as Facebook can get without running aground of the above laws, though Ars Technica points out that the “affinity” group definitions resemble ethnic makeup far more than shared interests.

ProPublica noted that they created an ad seeking housing hunters on Facebook that excluded anyone with an “affinity” for minority groups, which they note was approved 15 minutes after submission. When they showed prominent civil rights lawyer John Relman their options to exclude minority-affinity users from seeing their Facebook ad, he said it was a blatant violation of the Fair Housing Act, and would be therefore illegal. When asked for comment, Facebook said that ProPublica’s ad was for an event about housing but not seeking individual renters or buyers; Thus its targeting applied to potential attendees, not customers.

But it’s unclear whether Facebook’s digital advertisements would be bound by the same laws prohibiting racial discrimination in ads appearing in print publications. Is publicly broadcasting an ad saying “whites only need apply” the same as only showing certain advertisements to certain ethnic-interest-aligned groups?

In a blog post, Facebook’s head of multicultural Christian Martinez stated that the social network expressly prohibits so-called “negative exclusion,” like advertisers listing ethnic or gender preference for tenants or employees. Exclusion targeting, however, is a common tactic in the ad industry to show material only to people for whom it’s relevant — or who have the right cultural context. As Martinez writes: “This prevents audiences for community-specific ads from seeing a generic ad targeted to a large group and helps avoid the offensive outcome that traditional advertising can often create for people in the minority.”

Facebook said a business used the “ethnic affinity” filter to target the US Hispanic community during the 2014 World Cup; Likewise, companies could use it for marketing hair products for African-Americans or for Spanish beer. This targeted delivery of material catering to certain ethnic groups is common to the advertising industry.

“All major brands have strategies to speak to different audiences with culturally relevant creative. Just for purposes of illustration, a car company will run creative for one of their vehicles, but will have one creative execution targeting the Hispanic affinity cluster in Spanish. They may create a different creative for the African American affinity cluster featuring black actors and stressing another insight that is specific to that group. All major brands do this because they know that audiences respond better to creative that speaks to them specifically, ” Facebook said in a statement.

Source: Ars Technica, ProPublica

Europe urges Facebook to stop tapping WhatsApp data

Europe’s privacy bosses have urged WhatsApp to stop sharing user data with Facebook while it investigates its privacy practices. The Article 29 Working Party, made up of data protection heads from each of the EU’s 28 nations, told the company it had “serious concerns” about recent changes to the chat app’s terms of service. The group is examining the new policy to see if it conforms with European privacy laws and asked Facebook to reveal exactly what data it collects and where it comes from.

Article 29 is considered an EU advisory group and doesn’t have the power to order companies to do anything. However, in the French version of the letter, it used the strongest language it could by “urgently requesting” that WhatsApp halt the data collection.

When Facebook acquired the messaging service, it promised not to collect personal user data. However, in August, WhatsApp changed its policy and started sharing phone numbers, profile names, photos, online status and more with its new parent. That prompted US privacy group EPIC to file an FTC complaint against Facebook, and German regulators ordered WhatsApp to halt the practice.

Given the popularity of the messaging service these changes may affect many citizens in all EU member states and have created great uncertainty among users and non-users of the service.

The EU takes umbrage with the fact that while WhatsApp users can opt out of the data collection, they’re enrolled by default. That, it says, means users weren’t properly notified of the change and had no way to consent to it. German regulators are also concerned that Facebook will collect contact data from users who aren’t even on the social network. That has “created great uncertainty among users and non-users of the service,” the Article 29 group wrote.

The EU has been at odds over privacy with not only Facebook, but other US tech companies, including Google and Microsoft. It fined Microsoft $1.35 billion in 2008 for practices around its browser, and may fine Google a much greater amount over its search dominance. Companies will need to start paying more attention soon, as the EU could levy fines as high as four percent of annual sales when new “right to be forgotten” rules arrive in 2018.

Via: Bloomberg

Source: CNIL

Facebook Updates iOS App With Halloween Themed Reactions and Live Filters

Continuing in the tradition of changing Reactions to suit a theme or holiday, Facebook today has begun rolling out a Halloween version of the six Reaction buttons. Replacing Like, Love, Haha, Wow, Sad, and Angry are a skeleton’s hand, candy heart, witch, ghost, Frankenstein’s monster, and a pumpkin.

Some Reactions, including Like, change into their festive versions after being tapped
Using its acquisition of MSQRD, Facebook is also introducing Halloween-themed live filter masks into its live video streaming feature. The limited-time masks are said to include a skull, an evil queen, a pumpkin, and a witch.

After you start broadcasting from the “Live” button on top of the feed in the Facebook app, you can find the masks in the magic wand menu in the top left corner of the screen. The company said that a selection of masks will continue to be available after Halloween, “so you can be creative in your Live videos any time.”

The update is expected to stick around through Halloween, although Facebook didn’t specifically confirm how long it would last. Reactions will be rolling out to people “in a select set of countries,” while masks are available only to iOS users in the United States, United Kingdom, and New Zealand.

Tag: Facebook
Discuss this article in our forums