It's worth noting that both organization's posts are factually correct, but discussing different terms. Facebook considers the advertisers their users as well and obviously sets their own ToS, so this post is a non sequitur from their point of view as it is discussing FB's other (non-advertiser/customer) users.
Yeah, while the article mentions it couldn't be used to track the user or their friends preferences it seems this could be used to track advertisers.
I'm sure Adidas would be very interested to know with 99% confidence that Nike's ads are currently focused on people in X, Y, and Z cities in the southwestern US. And as we've seen with Cambridge Analytica, its somewhat naive to trust researchers vacuuming data to do so in good faith.
Not even to say how other adtech companies might be interested in data about how Facebook is doing ad targeting.
I don't think Cambridge analytica is relevant here. The researchers there were shady and not transparent from the get go. They hid their true intentions by masquerading their research tool as a game. They never invited third parties to scrutinize their work, all in all they acted just the opposite from how the Ad Observer team acted.
Trust is difficult, but it's mandatory for a functioning society. We have tools to appreciate trustworthiness, transparency is one of these tools. Not being for profit is another good indicator.
A. Advertisers are customers. They pay for the privilege of being able to target users.
B. Users are ad targets. They do not pay for the privilege of being targeted. It's "free".
Obviously anyone falling into category A could have some legal claims against Facebook that those in category B could not. If Facebook wrongs those in category A, then advertisers can take action against Facebook. Whereas if Facebook wrongs those in category B, users cannot do much. At best, they can try to get someone else, e.g., a regulatory body, to act on their behalf. Maybe Facebbok pays a fine if some regulatory agency decides to act. Most times, nothing happens and Facebook pays nothing.
How would those in category A ever discover they were being wronged. Seems like Ad Observer-style data gathering might be one way.
First rule of law is anyone can sue anyone for anything, but that doesn’t mean they will prevail. All this talk of which group has a legal claim against Facebook isn’t really relevant. Plenty of users have sued Facebook even though the don’t pay for it, and we can’t know what kind of indemnification clauses Facebook has with political or other advertisers etc.
Plus all those legal contracts are usually littered with words like “reasonable” which is a great term for lawyers billable hours.
