I’m not a social scientist but I have one possibility: maybe we should be building fewer unimaginably vast internet monitoring tools and not more of them https://t.co/HDC06n54VP

— Sam Biddle (@samfbiddle) July 26, 2019

Didn’t we just this week confirm there’s no such thing as “anonymized data”? https://t.co/KcASYZUZPh

— Michael Zimmer (@michaelzimmer) July 26, 2019

"Anonymized" data isn't, especially when you have that much to go through hunting for deanonymizing patterns https://t.co/HPcSqPyO0Q

— protected concerted activity enthusiast (@BlueSpaceCanary) July 27, 2019

Very happy to announce a $5M gift from @craignewmark to get our project off the ground. We need cross-disciplinary solutions to tech’s issues, and that means building infrastructure for research and collaboration and a new curriculum focused on trust and safety. https://t.co/bduA7VZPpz

— Alex Stamos (@alexstamos) July 25, 2019

Completely ignoring 5-10 years of research published in top-tier venues, along with datasets and source code, that already does monitor Gab, 4chan, etc. But what do you expect from a former Facebook shill and the media paying lip service to the superheroes of the interwebs? https://t.co/Ume6BUTxB8

— Emiliano DC, Esq. (@emilianoucl) July 26, 2019

I am not sure advertising broadly that you fully intend to teach a new generation of Stanford student how to break data protection law under the cover of security can be considered a real win, when there are alternatives. https://t.co/MSMBtxMnLZ

— Paul-Olivier Dehaye (@podehaye) July 25, 2019

Information warfare poses serious threats to our democracy. @FSIStanford's Internet Observatory and @alexstamos are taking big risks by working to address the abuses of info tech. Enjoyed talking about this critical effort with @a_greenberg of @WIRED. https://t.co/4DroXGJwOF

— craig newmark (@craignewmark) July 25, 2019

Not surprising that Stamos, coming out of Silicon Valley culture, is making such bold promises. But they are utterly unrealistic. And irresponsible. There's no simple path to anonymized platform data & the ethics of scraping "fringe sites" are questionable at best #ShortThread https://t.co/Co7j6Aj9Xy

— Rebekah Tromble (@RebekahKTromble) July 26, 2019

Alex Stamos' plan for the Stanford Internet Observatory is...bold. Negotiate access to anonymized data from Facebook, Google, Twitter, etc. Scrape fringe sites like Voat, Gab, 4chan, 8chan. Offer it all up to social scientists studying bad behavior online. https://t.co/JMGjLKfhmb

— Andy Greenberg (@a_greenberg) July 25, 2019

The Stanford Internet Observatory aspires to be a central outlet for the study of all manner of internet abuse. It would assemble machine learning tools, big data analysts, and perhaps most importantly, access to major tech platforms' user data. https://t.co/0kPLyurcpl

— WIRED (@WIRED) July 25, 2019

tip. He was one of top executives interviewed for 2017 PWC audit of Facebook. According to SEC Wed, FB knew Cambridge Analytica had improperly bought FB’s personal data. If Stamos knew and didn’t disclose, ⁦@craignewmark⁩ should ask for his $$$ back. https://t.co/CMYXT1Lhv5

— Jason Kint (@jason_kint) July 27, 2019

“What we’re doing is rebuilding the arsenal of democracy,” @craignewmark told @Reuters https://t.co/i6XcSojAMn #StanfordCyberPolicy

— FSI Stanford (@FSIStanford) July 26, 2019

Interview with Facebook's ex-CSO Alex Stamos about the Stanford Internet Observatory, funded in-part by $5M from Craig Newmark, for monitoring online abuse: https://t.co/AttmUHVpjn

— Lionel Menchaca Jr. (@LionelGeek) July 27, 2019

Facebook's Ex-Security Chief Details His 'Observatory' for Internet Abuse https://t.co/DMNdW7qmYe

— Tactical Tech (@Info_Activism) July 25, 2019

See also @alexstamos -led, @craignewmark-funded initiative @Stanford https://t.co/mInDDj3E4R https://t.co/jsIITUtnnp

— Jane Metcalfe (@janemetcalfe) July 26, 2019

“The most important decisions in balancing privacy and safety online are not being made in DC, Brussels, or Paris. They’re being made in Silicon Valley." https://t.co/gP0amlLoQ9

— Mark Little (@marklittlenews) July 25, 2019

What can go wrong? https://t.co/DCfhBmfzWS

— Maya Zehavi (@mayazi) July 26, 2019

.@craignewmark commits $5 million to Alex Stamos, fmr chief security officer of @Facebook and Stanford Internet Observatory, a new program to address abuse of information technologies, with a particular focus on social media. Background on project: https://t.co/Qdoxc9Ovwh

— Raju Narisetti (@raju) July 25, 2019

Junky TV is actually making people dumber — and more likely to support populist politicians https://t.co/ahlH7n7HcV via @NiemanLab

— Charlie Sykes (@SykesCharlie) July 27, 2019

It’s not just escapism...it’s indoctrination that lowers your IQ purports this study. https://t.co/N86CrKVOrj

— Lulu Garcia-Navarro (@lourdesgnavarro) July 27, 2019

Junky TV is actually making people dumber — and more likely to support populist politicians https://t.co/WX9cugcsyV via @NiemanLab

— The Tao of Now (@InTheNoosphere) July 27, 2019

Report: Junky TV is actually making people dumber. I hope for my sake that ⁦@90DayFianceCast⁩ ⁦@TLC⁩ is somehow excluded from “Junky TV.” https://t.co/xJhEZmafiW

— Danny Cevallos (@CevallosLaw) July 27, 2019

Craigslist founder, Facebook's ex-security chief team up over 2020 online fears https://t.co/c3LL7dF1WI

— Tactical Tech (@Info_Activism) July 28, 2019

More real news about fake news from @NiemanLab: Junky TV is actually making people dumber — and more likely to support populist politicians https://t.co/gTUlgoW6pS

— Nieman Reports (@NiemanReports) July 27, 2019