Last month we called Zuckerberg a dummy; correcting: in fact, he and his Facebook are just a damn shame

When he said that 5% of users of his application who sucked users' personal data were children, in fact he meant much more

Analysis

The latest number in a seemingly endless series of half-truthful statements, Facebook's social network, admitted that it was deceiving the public, saying that only 5% of users of a banned mobile application were teenagers.

In fact, this number, about which the wunderkind from Silicon Valley later admitted to US Senator Mark Warner, was almost 4 times more: 18%.

This was not the only false statement made by Facebook when it was revealed that this anti-social network secretly bypassed the restrictions on access to personal data adopted in the App Store. She used her certificate as an industrial developer to create an iOS application that used a VPN to drain users' personal data, and paid adults and teens money to track their online activity. Such a certificate can only be used for signing and issuing applications for internal use, not intended for the general public; otherwise, these applications must be reviewed and approved by the App Store.

At that moment, the remaining half-truthful statements were exposed, and this incorrect figure was corrected only a month later, and only in response to a request from Senator Warner, who requested additional information on the case.
')
“When we stopped using the Facebook Research App on Apple’s iOS platform, less than 5% of users who shared their data were teenagers,” Facebook explained in a letter that was first written on TechCrunch . "The analysis showed that if we take into account the entire life of the program, and add people who stopped using it and deleted it, this figure will be about 18%."

This answer is completely different from the one that was given in Facebook to the first requests from TechCrunch. That answer clearly implied that the journalist who described the situation specifically ignored critical details. Facebook then wrote:

Ignore key facts related to this program for market research. Despite earlier statements, there is nothing “secret” about it: it was literally called the Facebook Research App [Facebook Research App]. She didn’t "spy" on people, because everyone who signed up for the tests, first, went through a clear process in which the application asked their permission for all actions, and second, received a fee for participation. Finally, less than 5% of people who decided to participate in this study were teenagers. All of them had documents signed by their parents.

And all parts of this statement are false.

Go

First, although Facebook claims to openly talk about its “research application,” in fact - as she later confessed to Warner - she used the services of third parties who invited people to participate in paid research. Third parties called the social network only “our client”, and, importantly, they demanded that the participants first sign non-disclosure documents, and only then informed them that this was a Facebook project.

The documents contained the following: “By installing a research application, you agree to maintain the confidentiality of the existence of this application and your participation in it, and you will not disclose any information about this project to third parties.”

In other words - yes, it was a secret project, and they were demanded from the participants that they should not tell anything or anyone about it.

Facebook said that "less than 5% of people who decided to participate in this study were teenagers."

No matter how you read this sentence, it will not be truthful. In fact, 18% of the people who “decided to participate in this study” were teenagers. And it is likely that this figure was even greater: Facebook asked users to independently confirm that they were under 18 years old. The company provided Warner with a few screenshots of the application installation, but there is not enough information on how the age was confirmed.

Given Facebook’s willingness to lie about everything that harms the company's image, it’s likely that the network simply asked children and adults to press a button confirming that they’re already 18. And despite the fact that the recognition of minority required an extra step - to get a screening certificate from parents, even without a signature - 18% of participants confirmed that they are under 18 years old.

Apparently, they could simply click on the “I am more than 18” button, and the process would continue without additional checks. It is also possible that users could simply click "Back" and say that they are still over 18 - we do not know, and Facebook will not tell us.

Facebook does not disclose details of what instructions these third parties received who were paid to search for potential candidates for their marketing research with surveillance. It is impossible to imagine that the company did not inform these third parties about who is considered their target audience. So the question is: Has Facebook targeted the teenagers under 18 specifically?

And the answer will be yes, since research companies are very careful about whether the people they interviewed are adults. Not everyone wants to risk it like Facebook.


Trust Facebook? Sure, why don't you trust her?

Trust us

Further, Facebook stated that: “She did not“ spy ”on people, because everyone who signed up for the tests, first, went through a clear process in which the application asked their permission for all actions, and second, they received participation fee.

From this point of view, the screenshots provided by the senator seem to confirm the statements: at several stages, users were offered to agree with the program, which basically truthfully described what the “research application” would do.

Here is one example: “By clicking OK, you agree to set up a research VPN, and give Facebook the right to collect data from your phone. The data will help us understand how you navigate sites, use the capabilities of installed applications, and how people interact with the content that you send and receive. ”

And although these carefully verified words are chosen to present, in fact, full access to your phone in a favorable light, they demonstrate that Facebook, at the very least, openly reported that it was going to make the application.

Or not? Since in response to a senator's request, Facebook mentions another catch. Before the screenshots, she notes that “although the inscriptions on the screens changed over time, the following paragraphs describe an example of this process, and the screenshots above show examples of how the terms of the agreement are being processed on iOS”.

So:

• The inscriptions have changed.
• Examples of the process are given.
• Sample screenshots.
• Examples of conditions.

What Facebook didn’t say: “This is the signing process.” What she said: "Here are some examples of what people saw, and, by the way, the inscriptions were different." If a company actively promoted a number of 5%, knowing that in fact it was 18%, it is easy to assume that it can also distort what happened during the registration process.

Agreement

Despite this, Senator Warner seemed satisfied with this answer, and told The Register: “I was pleased to learn that Facebook made its role in this study explicit. I am still seriously concerned about how Facebook used the research application and VPN Onavo to track potential competitors, and in ways that were unexpected for users. ”

However, before sending this file to the ever-growing “Lies Facebook” folder, what about the statement that all people under the age of 18 received permission from their parents? Yes, this is also bullshit.

“Less than 5% of people who decided to participate in this study were teenagers. All of them had documents signed by their parents, ”the tech-giant then said.

In fact, in response to Warner's request, Facebook discovered that obtaining parental consent was that the user left an email address tied to an account in Paypal, where the company transferred $ 20 / month “in exchange for their inclusion in the study groups”. In other words, the children had to provide the e-mail address of their parents so that they receive money, that's all.

By the way, they were not included in any “research groups” - Facebook simply sucked the data from their phones. Facebook also paid participants not directly, but through third parties hired by it to search for candidates.

But how can you even equate the provision of an email address associated with an account with Paypal, with the "consent of the parents." If you believe Facebook: "Paypal requires the user to be over 18 years old, or he has reached the age of majority under the laws of the country of residence."

Of course, it’s quite simple to create a Paypal account if you are under 18: you need information about a bank account or a bank card. Then you can receive money for this record and spend it on any site that accepts payments from Paypal without contacting the traditional banking system.

The idea that providing a single email address is equivalent to the written consent of the parents is so ridiculous that it is incredible that Facebook dared to say the opposite. And, of course, there is another uncomfortable fact - people who said that they were over 18 years old also provided an email address tied to Paypal in order to receive pay from Facebook.

It turns out that there was practically no difference between people who have reached or not reached 18 years of age, and that Facebook created a completely wrong idea about the work of the now banned program. Who would have thought that a company headed by a liar, and where dishonest liars are teeming , can sink so low?