https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_events/122...
You certainly say they exploit it on behalf of their customers, but we need to maintain the distinction between this, and the companies that actually do sell the data they collect, because once sold, you can never trace who is using the data, whereas with Facebook and Google’s model, you can.
It’s also worth pointing out that it’s not in Facebook’s interest to sell the data. If they did, they would lose their advantage quite quickly.
Facebook has definitely undermined trust on what data it shares.
However that is not it’s normal model.
For example Telegram has a very specific approach to security based on "you can trust us", by default chats are not end-to-end encrypted, they use non-standard encryption and the app is free, but they are upfront on why such tradeoffs are made and their point of view in making them.
Facebook could have a position of "personalized advertising is the future" and allow ipertargeted marketing by means of gathering every scrap of data they could find. But they could draw the line to keeping it within their own databases and never distributing any of it. Apparently their main line of bussiness is exactly like that, but they do not do only that, they also partake in sharing that data.
Facebook collect data to sell targetted adspace, they do not sell data. This is a plain fact.
The more info they have, the more accurate they can be about renting out the right ones.
"In total, it said the social network had special arrangements with more than 150 companies to share its members' personal data. Most of these, it said, were other tech firms, but the list also included online retailers, car-makers and media organisations, including the NYT itself, among others."
Until/unless personal data becomes a liability for corporations they will continue to mine it and let us mortals deal with the fallout.
A plain fact that requires looking realistically at how colloquialisms are used combined with a little bit of technical know how. How many businesses do you know actually "sell data"? The only market I can think of are companies like Zoominfo. Outside of that there really aren't that many companies that "sell your data". However, you'll see a ton of social justice campaigns against "stop companies selling your data". They aren't going after Zoominfo, they're going after Facebook.
Does facebook capture data? Yes.
Do they literally take that data and sell it byte for byte to other people? No.
Is that data absolutely necessary to sell their products or services? Yes.
So, in effect, its easier to say to the common person "they're selling your data" than "they're harvesting their data so they can sell products and services". Facebook is trying to defend itself in the public eye by responding to this slogan - not by the real factor that matters.
There are conferences. Much of the data can be obtained as Salesforce "apps" - connect your CRM to our massive data portal and we'll fill in information that you don't have. The biggest of these is owned by SF and called Data.com.
Not to hand waive away anyone's pre-baked hatred of Google/FB/etc., but there is an actual data industry that does buy and sell your data, with no controls over it and what it can be used for. By comparison, FB and Google are much better stewards.
From a user privacy perspective, I’m skeeved out that Facebook sells access to data rather than giving out copies. The only difference is that Facebook makes more money.
It’s like those asshole companies that say they don’t sell data, but only rent it. That’s not the point that I care about.
Facebook, if you know any small business that have a specific region of operation (e.g. one city) derive significant benefit and growth from Facebook's targeted advertising that they just were not seeing before.
Of course, if anyone logs in and fetches their data from facebook as a download and go through it, it is really rather unbelievable how much data there is beyond geographical data. Some of it pretty scary.
What intrigues me further, after i tried to do the same with google, i don't believe google are nearly as open to how much data they hold on a person. There doesn't seem to be any takeaway service that indicates the same depth of information. But of course we know for a fact they do hold some of it.
Anyway, the long and short of it is advertising is all we have to support enormous social networks and I feel some level of personalised data provides mutual benefit. It should of course all be opt in with no exceptions.
I'm actually conceptualising a service/product around this concept right now.
In fact, if they "sell" their user data, anti-trust regulators will be very happy; they want big techs to share user data to its competitors but the big techs are using user privacy and security as their excuses to rule out new competitions in the industry. Apple took the lead and other big techs are now following.
But when you parse out what it means you are left with something more accurately stated as: "<Company> will not sell its proprietary assets."
It sort of like the operator of a hotel saying "I don't sell rooms".
Even if they don't, Facebook is not the only app in the world. Tracking being disabled by default is a good thing, no matter what Facebook does with it.
I'd phrase it more along the lines of Facebook indirectly selling the data as hypertargeted ads, while keeping control of the data themselves.
We only sell the finest artisanal sausages rendered from gently-euthanised young canines.
Selling the actual data and selling access to use the data is a meaningless distinction.
Money changes hands. The data is used.
Perhaps we should say "renting" the data. Just the way a hotel rents you a room, but you use it on the hotel's premises.
My understanding is that Facebook does not sell this data, but rather lets advertisers create hyper-targeted ads, which are only possible because of this data.
Edit: Certainly not trying to defend Facebook here (in the slightest). Just trying to correct an inaccuracy in the article.