Facebook in explaining their argument for wanting to shut down NYU research could make a stronger case by saying two words "Cambridge Analytica."

But I doubt they want to go there.

The NYU researchers are excellent.

But essentially Facebook's argument (if you want to assume its acting in good faith) is that a tool like the NYU researchers built could be used by others for nefarious purposes. Or simply, it could sweep up info that Facebook users haven't consented to handing over.

The Cambridge Analytica scandal came about because the company was using Facebook data that had been taken without Facebook users' explicit knowledge.

That and Facebook tried to sweep it under the rug and tried to stop @carolecadwalla reporting on it.

So while Facebook is making some form of this argument.

There is another part of this.

Facebook is rich because it controls data. The NYU folks have figured out a way to obtain and critically review what Facebook is doing in a way that Facebook doesn't control.

That probably pisses people at Facebook off.

Facebook has built a political ad database and API but clearly researchers like @LauraEdelson2 don't want to just rely on the data Facebook decides to hand over.

In the same way this @kevinroose project pisses some Facebook staff off. They say this isn't a full reflection of what is actually happening on Facebook -- but then they won't release the data to back that up. https://twitter.com/FacebooksTop10/status/1319666794550865920

The solution? Facebook could release more transparent data about ad targeting. https://twitter.com/Shayan86/status/1320361133727952896