Hacker News Reader

Comment by aserafini | Hacker News Reader

It's breathtaking isn't it? Facebook sells personal information to advertisers. And this employee worries there might be 'smart people who lack a moral compass' working there? It would be funny if it wasn't also terrifying that Facebook employees believe the company is a force for good in the world. Working for Facebook is about as moral as working for Big Tobacco: there's plenty of evidence the product is actively harmful.

View on HN

Where can I purchase some Facebook personal information? I'd love to use it for some custom audiences on my ads. /s

As far as I'm aware, Facebook has never sold personal information to advertisers[0], because that would be giving away its crown jewels. It might leak it, but doesn't hand it out for sale.

EDIT: Downvoters, please point out where I'm wrong. It looks bad for the community to suppress factual statements.

0. https://www.facebook.com/help/152637448140583

In every debate about "[Advertising company] sells personal information" I've seen, this is always an issue. I suggest we instead say what it is: They monetize personal information.

Facebook sells ad targeting based on gender, sexual orientation, marital status, age, location, salary, education, musical taste, purchasing behaviour, device usage, interests, hobbies and the list goes on. Without 2B users' worth of personal information, there isn't anything to sell. For Facebook to say 'they don't sell your information' is Orwellian corporate doublespeak. Advertisers pay them money and in exchange, Facebook allows them to target sets of users based on those users personal information. How is this not 'selling information about you'?

Are you confused by the distinction between selling personal information and selling ads? The latter does not involve any exchange of personal information to the purchaser.

It seems you are both correct, and the disagreement lies on the meaning 'personal':

- They use 'personal' as 'private', or 'information about you'. e.g. I have a fetish, I wish no one to know, it's 'personal'.

- You seem to use 'personal' as 'personally identifiable information'. e.g. if I have this data, I can know trace back to its originator.

The ambiguity can be found in many places around. Most people don't make the distinction. Rather, they think anything private is personal. At the same time, the definition you use can be found in official documents, like GDPR, the new EU Privacy Law (https://gdpr-info.eu/art-4-gdpr/).

Thanks for clarifying this: personal information does not mean personally identifiable information. Personal information can be sold without uniquely identifying individuals and this is exactly what Facebook's core business model is.

So to reword your question:

Facebook allows clients to purchase personal information. What specific personal information is purchased by Facebook advertisers?

It hasn't sold the information, but until 2014 Facebook was effectively giving it away to attract developers on its platform

I think the CA scandal shows they sell access to gather it yourself, which is a fine distinction that doesnt matter in practice.

CA used data from Facebook's Graph API. They don't sell access to their API, it's freely accessible. It's disadvantageous for Facebook to not keep your personal info in their walled garden of advertising, where they can use it as a competitive advantage for better targeted ads.

You're right. Facebook has not sold personal information to advertisers. That's factually false. What I think we should say instead, is that Facebook sold the notion that 'they knew about you and your preferences' to help advertisers.

I think he means indirectly sell, which is kinda true. By letting the CA scandal happen, they seriously sold a lot of data. Not what they really wanted to do, but their reckless policies and vague morality standard caused that.

Also, nothing changes the fact that Facebook is clearly harmful to the society in important ways, according to various researches. And they do not care about this fundamental issue, they just want more users and more profit.

> By letting the CA scandal happen, they seriously sold a lot of data.

The CA scandal did not involve any sale between CA and Facebook. CA sold insights gleaned from data pulled from Facebook's public and free-of-charge Graph API.

> Also, nothing changes the fact that Facebook is clearly harmful to the society in important ways, according to various researches.

I'm not sure how that's relevant here. Arguing that Facebook is a bad company does not make misinformation more correct.

It's relevant because we're discussing a Facebook employee that wants to screen hires for integrity. Given widely known scientific evidence that FB causes anxiety and lowers self-esteem, which is a direct consequence of its core business model: integrity is already in question when you accept the interview.

I feel like these are weasel words, and I could use the same argument about anything. I could say Clinton let the email scandal happen. Or that Clinton indirectly leaked classified emails, which is kinda true. Or someone can say Clinton is clearly harmful to society in important ways, according to various sources. Clinton just wants more votes and power. I think we should stick with the facts to make a strong argument against Facebook.

Yeah why would FB sell that info when it's the key to their targeted advertising?

Come on, are you serious? 2B people use it every month to keep in touch with their friends. I'm typing this in Dubai, and I use FB/Messenger daily to keep in touch with people in Budapest, London, Amsterdam, Berlin, etc.

Disclaimer: I worked at FB.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions, innit?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com