Back in 2015 , a woman named Imy Santiago publish an Amazon review of a novel that she had take and liked . Amazon immediately took the recap down and told Santiago she had “ violated its policies . ” Santiago re - read her reassessment , did n’t see anything objectionable about it , so she strain to post it again . “ You ’re not eligible to retrospect this product , ” an Amazon prompt inform her .
When she wrote to Amazon about it , the company told her that her “ account activeness indicate you know the author personally . ” Santiago did not know the author , so she compose an tempestuous email to Amazon andblogged about Amazon ’s “ big chum ” surveillance .
I contact out to both Santiago and Amazon at the clip to seek to figure out what the Inferno happen here . Santiago , who is an indie book writer herself , told me that she ’d been in the same ballroom with the writer in New York a few months before at a record book sign language event , but had not talked to her , and that she had watch the source on Twitter and Facebook after reading her books . Santiago had never connected her Facebook account to Amazon , she state .
Amazon would n’t evidence me much back in 2015 . Spokesperson Julie Law told me by electronic mail at the clip that the party “ did n’t input on item-by-item story ” but said , “ when we find that elements of a reviewer ’s Amazon account match elements of an author ’s Amazon account , we conclude that there is too much risk of review bias . This can erode client reliance , and thus we remove the review . I can assure you that we investigate each case . ”
“ We have built mechanisms , both manual and automatise over the years that detect , remove or prevent reviews which violate guideline , ” Law add .
Anew report in the New York Timesabout Facebook ’s surprising level of data point - sharing with other technology company may moult spark on those mechanisms :
Facebook allowed Microsoft ’s Bing hunting engine to see the names of almost all Facebook user ’ friends without consent , the phonograph record show , and give Netflix and Spotify the ability to learn Facebook users ’ private subject matter .
The social web let Amazon to obtain users ’ public figure and contact information through their friends , and it let Yahoo view streams of friends ’ mail as recently as this summer , despite public statements that it had stopped that character of communion age earlier .
If Amazon was sucking up information from Facebook about who knew whom , it may explain why Santiago ’s follow-up was blocked . Because Santiago had fall out the generator on Facebook , Amazon or its algorithm would see her name and contact information as being connected to the writer there , according to the Times . Facebook reportedly did n’t permit users have intercourse this data - sharing was happen nor get their consent , so Santiago , as well as the writer presumably , would n’t have known this had happened .
Amazon declined to tell the New York Times about its information - share-out deal with Facebook but “ said it used the information appropriately . ” I asked Amazon how it was using the information obtain from Facebook , and whether it used it to make connections like the one described by Santiago . The answer was underwhelming .
“ Amazon uses genus Apis provide by Facebook in monastic order to enable Facebook experiences for our ware , ” said an Amazon spokesperson in a statement that did n’t quite answer the doubtfulness . “ For example , leave client the selection to sync Facebook contact on an Amazon Tablet . We use information only in accordance with our privateness policy . ”
Amazon declined our request to remark further .
Why was Facebook pay out this datum about its users to other technical school giants ? The Times account is frustratingly vague , but it allege Facebook “ got more user ” by partnering with the companies ( though it ’s unclear how ) , but also that it got datum in return , specifically data that helped magnate itsPeople You May Knowrecommendations . Via theTimes :
The Times review more than 270 Page of reports get by the system — track record that reflect just a part of Facebook ’s wide - ranging deals . Among the revelations was that Facebook obtained information from multiple partners for a controversial admirer - suggestion tool called “ multitude You May Know . ”
The feature film , introduced in 2008 , continues even though some Facebook users have objected to it , unsettled by its cognition of their actual - world relationships . Gizmodo and other news outletshave reported casesof the prick ’s recommending friend connections between patients of the same psychiatrist , alienated family members , and a harrier and his dupe .
Facebook , in turn , used contact lists from the pardner , include Amazon , Yahoo and the Chinese party Huawei — which has been slacken off as a security measures threat by American intelligence service official — to gain deeper perceptiveness into citizenry ’s relationships and indicate more connections , the records show .
‘ You strike my algorithm ’s back . I ’ll strike your algorithm ’s back , ’ or so the arrangement apparently went .
Back in 2017 , I asked Facebook whether it was getting data from “ third parties such as information brokers ” to help power its creepily exact friend recommendations . A spokesperson distinguish me by email , “ Facebook does not practice information from data brokers for multitude You May Know , ” in what now seems to be a purposefully evasive answer .
Facebook does n’t want to tell us how its systems employment . Amazon does n’t want to tell us how its system study . These company are information mining us , sometimes in concert , to makeuncomfortably accurate connectionsbut also erroneous assumptions . They do n’t want to tell us how they do it , suggest they hump it ’s become too invasive to expose . give thanks god for leakers and lawsuits .
Daily Newsletter
Get the good technical school , science , and cultivation news in your inbox daily .
News from the futurity , present to your nowadays .
