Facebook and Cambridge Analytica have been in the news for the past few weeks, with new developments unfolding almost daily. Although the matter is still far from its conclusion, it is raising issues that ought to be more fully discussed, along with lessons we can learn.
Virtually every day for the past two to three weeks, more has been coming to light about political consulting firm, Cambridge Analytica, and the world’s largest social network, Facebook, and how the former may have sought to influence the 2016 United States (US) presidential elections via the latter. At the time of writing, the Cambridge Analytica Chief Executive Officer had been suspended, and Facebook Founder, Mark Zuckerberg, had apologized for the company’s role in the data breach, and had also agreed testify before the US House of Congress on the matter.
What is the uproar about?
Although the fallout is not yet complete, there are already thoughts and learnings to share. For those who are not sure what the uproar is about, here is a quick summary, thanks to The Guardian (United Kingdom):
Cambridge Analytica is alleged to have used personal information harvested from more than 50 million Facebook profiles without permission to build a system that could target US voters with personalised political advertisements based on their psychological profile.
Facebook is under fire because it received several warnings about its data security policies in recent years. Further, it had known about the Cambridge Analytica data breach since 2015, but only suspended the firm and the Cambridge university researcher, who harvested user data from Facebook, in March 2017.
Takeaway #1: data is king
As much we might already know this – with the increasing importance of data analytics, big data, the Internet of Things, and machine-to-machine communication, to name a few – the value of data cannot be underestimated. The data that was used to generate personalised political advertisements came from a seemingly innocent (and entertaining) quiz posted on Facebook. However, through the responses to the quiz, plus collecting the personal information of the 270,000 respondents and their friends, the application was able to harvest over 50 million Facebook profiles (Source: New York Times).
However, what is more striking – and worrying – is the fact that through the quiz and the data mined from Facebook, Cambridge Analytica was able to have built a highly accurate predicative model of the respondents’ and their friends’ attitude and behaviour, which it is alleged, was used to manipulate them with the objective of influencing the outcome of 2016 US elections.
Takeaway #2: we really do not know where our data will end up
How many of us have taken a quiz posted on Facebook? Typically, we might find it in our Facebook feed, and perhaps a friend had already completed it, thus encouraging us to do the same. However, are the results of the quiz only for entertainment purposes, as is frequently specified?
In the case of Cambridge Analytica, the researcher who had developed and implemented the quiz on its behalf, Dr Aleksandr Kogan, had indicated that the results would be used for academic purposes (Source: New York Times). However, where did it end up? In the hands of a private firm – Cambridge Analytica – and as part of a much bigger plan to manipulate the democratic process and halls of power in the US.
Takeaway #3: there can be an uneasy tension between privacy and revenue generation
As the world’s largest social network, and so be in a position to wield considerable influence, Facebook is unlikely to come out of this scandal unscathed. As was highlighted above, although the company had a privacy policy, it knew about loopholes and deficiencies in its data security mechanisms, yet did nothing. It also knew that Dr. Kogan and Cambridge Analytica had harvested personal data from Facebook profiles, yet did nothing until a few weeks ago The Guardian (United Kingdom).
One central tension at Facebook has been that of the legal and policy teams versus the security team. The security team generally pushed for more disclosure about how nation states had misused the site, but the legal and policy teams have prioritized business imperatives, said the people briefed on the matter.
“The people whose job is to protect the user always are fighting an uphill battle against the people whose job is to make money for the company,” said Sandy Parakilas, who worked at Facebook enforcing privacy and other rules until 2012
(Source: New York Times)
Although currently, Facebook is generating considerable revenue, that was not always the case. Over the last few years, it has learned to leverage the captive audience (over 1.3 billion subscribers) it manages into advertising revenue, and by helping companies target the most receptive audience for their goods and services. It should thus not come as a surprise to Facebook if the very same structures it promotes and uses, are in turn used in ways that it had not initially envisaged. More importantly, to effectively change them, could ultimately affect its bottom-line.
Takeaway #4: Facebook is a data company
If you were asked to explain what Facebook is, the odds are that you would start by indicating that it is a social network that allows subscribers to connect, and stay connected, to friends and family. While all of that is true, Facebook does not exist purely for altruistic reasons. It is a company for profit, and its greatest asset is the data it possesses on its users, as highlighted in analysis of the Facebook—Cambridge Analytica fiasco for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation:
Facebook is ‘a data company, fundamentally’, said Hugh Williams, a distinguished fellow at Melbourne Business School, who has worked at companies like Google and Tinder.
And a data company purpose-built for highly personalised advertising.
‘Not only did they collect information directly from you, but they got you to build this wonderful friend network that told them all sorts of things about who you are and what you prefer,’ he said.
Having said this, it must be emphasised that platforms, such as virtually all social networks, along with Google, YouTube, and Amazon, to name a few, are all data companies. They all collect and seek to leverage the data they collect on their users – either directly or indirectly – to generate revenue, such as by sharing it with third parties for a fee.
Takeaway #5: there may be a slippery slope with respect to targeted advertising/marketing on social media
Thinking about it abstractly, Cambridge Analytica developed a sophisticated model that would allow it to better target its messaging on Facebook. However, when advertising on Facebook, companies can apply several filters, including, gender, age range, geographic location, and interests, in order to better isolate the target audience for their ads, thus increasing their effectiveness. What is the difference between these two scenarios? One the face of it, very little.
Both Cambridge Analytica and numerous firms worldwide – with great encouragement from Facebook – pay to have their messaging viewed by a select audience. So why is it that use of social media advertising by businesses is being seen as something positive, but in the case of Cambridge Analytica, the situation has come under such severe scrutiny?
Although more cogent examination is needed, much of furore has been due to the methods used to secure data, and the objective of the whole exercise. There is also concern that the messaging was executed via Facebook, but on that point it is not clear where a line crossed – to take it from a scenario where a firm wants to influence user attitudes and behaviour (like any other business), to the fallout we are currently experiencing. Something to think about…
Image credit: stevepb (Pixabay)
