May, 10 2017, 02:45pm EDT

Groups Call on Facebook to Disclose and Explain Its Collection of Psychological Insights About Its Youngest Users
Facebook Told Marketers It Can Detect Teens Feeling 'Insecure' and 'Worthless'; Data Could Be Used to Drive Products Based on Mood and Using Manipulation
WASHINGTON
Facebook, Inc. should immediately release all documents describing how it collected and analyzed psychological information it recently collected about its youngest users, some as young as 14, and college students, Public Citizen and a coalition of 26 groups said in a letter to the corporation today.
The groups are concerned about how this information might have been used or may be used in the future by marketers and others to take advantage of young people's emotions, all without users' knowledge. Marketing companies and Facebook have secretly moved to tap into teens' emotions and developmental vulnerabilities strictly for profit, the letter says. The groups want to know how the data was used, when it was used, how many users were impacted and the names of the companies that received the data.
"What began as a way for college students to keep in touch has morphed into a platform for brand-saturated marketing and psychological manipulation," said Kristen Strader, campaign coordinator for Public Citizen's Commercial Alert campaign. "It is incumbent upon Facebook as a cultural leader to protect, not exploit, the privacy of young people, especially when their vulnerable emotions are involved."
According to The Australian newspaper, Facebook presented research to one of its advertisers that shows it collects sensitive data regarding young users' emotions and "mood shifts." The research detailed how Facebook can analyze sensitive user data in real time to determine how young users are communicating emotion, and at which points during the week they are doing so, the letter continued. Facebook's research was conducted without users' knowledge, which raises ethical concerns.
"Because Facebook plays such a powerful role in the lives of teens, it must adopt a policy that respects and protects them," said Dr. Kathryn Montgomery, professor of communication at American University and a consultant to the Center for Digital Democracy. "This should include not only strong safeguards for its advertising and data practices, but also clear limits on the kinds of research it conducts for marketing purposes. Under no circumstances should marketers be using emotional states, stress levels, biometric information or other highly sensitive data to target users. And this should apply to both young people and adults."
"Facebook needs to come clean and publicly release the full internal document, reported in The Australian, describing how Facebook collected and analyzed psychological information on high school students, college students and young users, said Finn Lutzow-Holm Myrstad, European Union co-chair of the Transatlantic Consumer Dialogue. "The burden of proof is on Facebook to document publicly that they don't collect and use such information. We are concerned that companies don't overreach and abuse their users' fundamental right to privacy and data protection."
The public, its users and elected officials have a right to know how pervasive this research was, who was affected and how the company will ensure it does not occur again, the groups said. The only way to fully address those concerns is to publicly release the internal document and related materials, accompanied by a more detailed explanation from Facebook of what was intended, what happened and the company's actual practices, the letter says.
Read the letter.
Public Citizen is a nonprofit consumer advocacy organization that champions the public interest in the halls of power. We defend democracy, resist corporate power and work to ensure that government works for the people - not for big corporations. Founded in 1971, we now have 500,000 members and supporters throughout the country.
(202) 588-1000LATEST NEWS
US Progressives Stand Against 'Xenophobic' TikTok Ban
"If you think the U.S. needs a TikTok ban and not a comprehensive privacy law regulating data brokers, you don't care about privacy, you just hate that a Chinese company has built a dominant social media platform," said one digital rights campaigner.
Mar 23, 2023
Civil and digital rights groups this week joined a trio of progressive U.S. lawmakers in opposing bipartisan proposals to ban the social media platform TikTok, arguing that such efforts are rooted in "anti-China" motives and do not adequately address the privacy concerns purportedly behind the legislation.
The ACLU argues that, if passed, legislation recently introduced in both the U.S. House and Senate "sets the stage for the government to ban TikTok," which is owned by Beijing-based ByteDance and is used by more than 1 in 3 Americans. The Senate bill would grant the U.S. Department of Commerce power to prohibit people in the United States from using apps and products made by companies "subject to the jurisdiction of China" and other "foreign adversaries."
"The government shouldn't be able to tell us what social media apps we can and can't use."
"The government shouldn't be able to tell us what social media apps we can and can't use," the ACLU asserted via Twitter. "We have a right to free speech."
In a Wednesday letter led by the free expression advocacy group PEN America, 16 organizations including the ACLU argued that "proposals to ban TikTok risk violating First Amendment rights and setting a dangerous global precedent for the restriction of speech."
"More effective, rights-respecting solutions are available and provide a viable alternative to meet the serious concerns raised by TikTok," the groups contended, pointing to a February proposal by Sens. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) and Jerry Moran (R-Kansas) to expedite a probe of the company by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States as a possible way "to mitigate security risks without denying users access to the platform."
Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.) has emerged as the leading congressional voice against banning TikTok, saying Wednesday that he fears the platform is being singled out due in significant part to "xenophobic anti-China rhetoric."
"Why the hell are we whipping ourselves into a hysteria to scapegoat TikTok?" Bowman asked in a phone interview with The New York Times while he traveled by train to Washington, D.C. to speak at a #KeepTikTok rally, where content creators, entrepreneurs, users, and activists gathered to defend the platform.
In his speech, Bowman noted that "TikTok as a platform has created a community and a space for free speech for 150 million Americans and counting," and is a place where "5 million small businesses are selling their products and services and making a living... at a time when our economy is struggling in so many ways."
Eva Galperin, director of cybersecurity at the San Francisco-based digital rights group Electronic Frontier Foundation, concurred with Bowman, tweeting Thursday that "if you think the U.S. needs a TikTok ban and not a comprehensive privacy law regulating data brokers, you don't care about privacy, you just hate that a Chinese company has built a dominant social media platform."
Two other House Democrats—Mark Pocan of Wisconsin and California's Robert Garcia—joined Bowman in addressing Wednesday's rally.
In an interview with the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel before his speech, Pocan acknowledged "valid concerns when it comes to social media disinformation and all the rest."
"But to say that a single platform is the problem largely because it's Chinese-owned honestly, I think, borders more on xenophobia than addressing that core issue," he stressed.
Garcia, a self-described TikTok "super-consumer," asserted on MSNBC Thursday morning that "before we ban it, I think we should work on the privacy concerns first."
TikTok "speaks to the next generation... LGBTQ+ folks are coming out, people are being educated on topics, I think we need to be a little more thoughtful and not ban TikTok," the gay lawmaker added.
Wednesday's rally came a day before TikTok CEO Zi Chew testified before the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee, some of whose members expressed open hostility toward the Chinese government.
"To the American people watching today, hear this: TikTok is a weapon by the Chinese Communist Party to spy on you and manipulate what you see and exploit for future generations," said committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.).
Chew—who committed to a number of reforms including prioritizing safety for young users, firewall protection for U.S. user data, and greater corporate transparency—took exception to some of the lawmakers' assertions.
"I don't think ownership is the issue here," he said. "With a lot of respect, American social companies don't have a good track record with data privacy and user security."
"I mean, look at Facebook and Cambridge Analytica—just one example," Chew added, referring to the British political consulting firm that harvested the data of tens of millions of U.S. Facebook users without their consent to aid 2016 Republican campaigns including former President Donald Trump's.
Keep ReadingShow Less
NLRB Says Amazon Illegally Union-Busted by Limiting Worker Access to Warehouses
"People should be outraged that Amazon feels that the law doesn't apply to them," said a lawyer for the Amazon Labor Union.
Mar 23, 2023
The Amazon Labor Union celebrated Wednesday as a lawyer for the National Labor Relations Board in Brooklyn determined that Amazon acted illegally when it adopted a rule barring warehouse workers from being present at their workplace when they were not scheduled to work—a transparent effort, the board said, to limit union activity.
The company reached a settlement in 2021 with the NLRB, agreeing to notify workers of their right to form a union and to organize on company property.
Organizers with the ALU say the settlement was crucial in allowing off-duty workers to engage with their colleagues as they prepared to vote on unionizing—a vote that they ultimately won on April 1, 2022 in a result that one labor reporter called a "tremendous upset."
As the union prepared to vote last year, said Christian Smalls, a co-founder of the ALU and former Amazon employee, on Wednesday, "we were allowed to organize in the break room, feed the workers, feed our colleagues, let them know that we're building a culture that's here to represent the workers."
"Unfortunately, after our victory Amazon rolled a policy out that allowed no access to the building, meaning workers cannot report before or afterwards unless they're scheduled for shifts," he added. "We weren't allowed to organize because they were targeting us, retaliating, firing, writing people up."
The new policy, introduced last summer, barred workers from being in the building 15 minutes before or after their scheduled shift. The ALU says it made it more difficult for the union to engage with workers and enlist them to help pressure Amazon to bargain with them.
The company has claimed that it instituted the off-duty access rule only as a security measure and applied the rule fairly.
"The employer violated the [National Labor Relations] Act in implementing its off-duty access rule at the end of June in response to union activity," said the NLRB in a letter to the ALU. "The off-duty access rule has further been applied discriminatorily as relates to the disciplines pursuant to the rule which have been issued for union activity."
The board's announcement that it found merit in the ALU's charges regarding the rule could be "a precursor to the agency issuing a complaint or taking other formal actions," Bloomberg Lawreported.
"People should be outraged that Amazon feels that the law doesn't apply to them," Seth Goldstein, an attorney who represents the ALU, told Bloomberg Law.
"Workers can't organize if they don't have access to the break rooms and non-work areas before or after work, and the board recognizes that, and they're going to hold Amazon accountable," Goldstein told Law360.
The NLRB also said Wednesday that Amazon has illegally refused to bargain with the ALU nearly a year after the union won its election. The company is appealing the election outcome to the board, even though it was certified by regional officials earlier this year.
Smalls expressed hope that the NLRB's decision regarding the off-duty access rule will make it easier for Amazon workers to organize across the United States.
"We're letting them know we're going back in the building, we're feeding our coworkers," he said, "not just here at [Staten Island warehouse] JFK8 but all across the nation."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Manhattan DA Accuses House GOP of 'Unlawful Incursion' Into Trump Probe
"The district attorney is obliged by the federal and state constitutions to protect the independence of state law enforcement functions from federal interference," wrote the district attorney's general counsel.
Mar 23, 2023
The office of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg on Thursday accused House Republicans of an "unlawful incursion" into New York authorities' investigation of former President Donald Trump, who is expected to face criminal charges over a 2016 pre-election hush-money payment to porn star Stormy Daniels.
In a letter to Reps. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), Bryan Steil (R-Wis.), and James Comer (R-Tenn.)—respectively the chairs of the House Judiciary, Administration, and Oversight Committees—the Manhattan DA's general counsel Leslie Dubeck wrote that the lawmakers' request earlier this week for confidential information pertaining to the Trump probe amounted to "an unprecedented inquiry into a pending local prosecution."
Dubeck wrote that the GOP lawmakers' Monday letter demanding that Bragg turn over communications and other documents related to the investigation "only came after Donald Trump created a false expectation that he would be arrested the next day and his lawyers reportedly urged you to intervene."
"Neither fact is a legitimate basis for congressional inquiry," Dubeck continued. "The district attorney is obliged by the federal and state constitutions to protect the independence of state law enforcement functions from federal interference."
The reply from Bragg's office came just before news broke that the Manhattan grand jury tasked with considering possible criminal charges against the former president is not expected to convene again until at least Monday of next week.
Trump set off a firestorm over the weekend by claiming on his social media platform that he would be arrested on Tuesday and urging his supporters to mobilize in response. The arrest did not take place as the former president and 2024 candidate predicted, but the post did lead to a flood of donations from his right-wing political supporters.
As Insiderreported, Trump "raised $1.5 million in the three days after he claimed on Truth Social that he'd be arrested."
"The resulting average of $500,000 a day," the outlet noted, "is almost double the daily average from the weeks before and after he announced his bid for the White House in November."
In addition to requesting documents and testimony from Bragg, Jordan on Wednesday wrote letters demanding communications and other materials from two former prosecutors who previously led the Trump hush-money investigation.
As The Washington Postsummarized on Thursday: "Daniels, whose legal name is Stephanie Clifford, was paid $130,000 by Michael Cohen, Trump's former lawyer and fixer," to stay quiet about an alleged affair.
"Trump reimbursed [Cohen] after becoming president, in installments that were designated legal fees," the Post added. "Bragg (D) has declined to give details of the investigation. But he is believed to be considering charges related to the payments that would include falsifying business records, possibly in commission of another, campaign-related crime. It is up to him to decide whether to ask the grand jury to vote on charging Trump with a crime."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular
SUPPORT OUR WORK.
We are independent, non-profit, advertising-free and 100%
reader supported.
reader supported.