Talk:Facebook–Cambridge Analytica data scandal

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jasonyangchen.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 13 January 2020 and 1 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Hughbreslin, Caroline Reiser, Jbsimmon, Aedanjoyce.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2020 and 27 June 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Alex K. Tran, Millyphilip, Natasha.Holdt, EstabanMiranda. Peer reviewers: D3032447367, Parouz, Malberk, Gobears15.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wishes for this article's development

• Did Cambridge Analytica use any software from GitHub or any other public repository?
• Does anyone have a sample entry from the dataset which we can anonymize and use as an illustration?
• Does anyone have a source which characterizes the dataset?
• There are so many names of individuals and companies in this story. How can anyone sort this?
• There seems to be an international response to this. Searching "Cambridge Analytica" and various countries could return regional responses.
• Check out Category:Data breaches for what exists. Anyone who searches the news can find other data breaches which meet WP:N but for which wiki does not have an article.
• We need a Wikidata data model for items on data breaches. I did not make one for this article.

Blue Rasberry (talk) 04:35, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 26 March 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. See general agreement to sub "scandal" for "breach" in this debate, even though we see good args for both cases. Have a Great Day and Happy Publishing! (closed by page mover)  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  03:26, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

---

Facebook and Cambridge Analytica data breach → Facebook–Cambridge Analytica data scandal – Whether or not this amounts to a "data breach" is debatable, according to Time.com. The article title should try to avoid this debate, according to WP:POVTITLE. ^Falling_Gravity 14:59, 26 March 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. Dekimasuよ! 18:32, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Not sure what is actually the more objective phrasing. Depends on the definitions of breach and scandal I suppose. From the article about data breach: "A data breach is the intentional or unintentional release of secure or private/confidential information to an untrusted environment." The term scandal may also be value laden, I think. But I'm not a native English speaker, so I shall refrain from having an actual opinion about this question. - Soulkeeper (talk) 15:50, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

If both phrases are equally objective then it would be the more common one that we should use. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:06, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

"Controversy" is generally considered to be less objective or value laden, though "scandal" is technically a specific type of controversy. "Data breach" might have legal ramifications, so it's understandable that Facebook wants to avoid it. ^Falling_Gravity 19:40, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

• use data breach I just added sources below which use the term "breach". I acknowledge that Facebook's own lawyer in a Facebook press release says, "The claim that this is a data breach is completely false", but also, Facebook is telling many different stories as compared to what the news media reports. I appreciate FallingGravity presenting the controversy, because yes obviously, Facebook really cares about this term for some reason. In reading that Time article I do not believe that that publication feels strongly about the matter. I recognize also that security professionals have a different concept of "breach" than layman audiences. To security professionals, a breach is a process, and if someone steals or misuses data without attacking the vault, then they say there was no breach. From the consumer perspective, a breach is an outcome, and if someone steals or misuses their data by attacking, sneaking, leaking, or any other way that harms them, then it is all the same because they expected protection which the vault failed to provide. Reliable sources call this a data breach, the situation matches what Wikipedia calls data breach, and the consumers suffered a data breach. Blue Rasberry (talk) 01:21, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Sources say "breach"

• The Guardian, "one of the tech giant’s biggest ever data breaches"
• The New York Times, "...one of the largest data leaks in the social network’s history. The breach allowed the company to exploit the private social media activity..."
• Vox Media
  • Vox, "The Facebook data breach wasn’t a hack. "
  • The Verge, "The suit claims that the executives and board of directors failed to stop the data breach or tell users about it when it happened"
• The Dallas Morning News, "How GDPR Could Have Prevented the Facebook-Cambridge Analytica Data Breach"
• The Times of Israel, "Israel to probe Facebook over Cambridge Analytica data breach"
• The Times of India, "Facebook data breach case: Government issues notice to Cambridge Analytica"
• Reuters, "India queries Cambridge Analytica over alleged Facebook data breach"
• Deutsche Welle, "Germany demands answers from Facebook over data breach"

References

Blue Rasberry (talk) 01:10, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Some sources say "breach", but some sources avoid the terminology in favor of "scandal":

• Wall Street Journal: "Facebook Data Scandal Raises Another Question: Can There Be Too Much Privacy?"
• Bloomberg: "What Facebook’s Data Scandal Really Means for Regulators"
• NBC News: "After the Cambridge Analytica Facebook scandal, here's what Mark Zuckerberg must do to save his company"
• HuffPost: "The Facebook/Cambridge Analytica Scandal, According To My Mom"
• Recode: "The FTC is officially investigating Facebook following the Cambridge Analytica privacy scandal"
• The Telegraph: "Elon Musk deletes Facebook following Cambridge Analytica scandal"
• TechCrunch: "Zuck apologizes for Cambridge Analytica scandal with full-page print ad"
• CNET: "Amid Facebook data scandal, Apple CEO Cook talks up regulation"
• AP: "Facebook scandal affected more users than thought: up to 87M"

Anyway, we should definitely go by the WP:COMMONNAME. ^Falling_Gravity 07:10, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support for "Facebook–Cambridge Analytica data scandal". This whole article seems to have some major POV issues, the title being one of them. In addition to the many links others have posted above, here's a few reliable secondary sources talking about whether or not this was a "breach", with several of them taking the opinion that it is not:
  • Vice (magazine): [1]
  • TechCrunch: [2]
  • Time (magazine): [3]
  • CBS News: [4]

There is clearly enough dispute about this that it would not be neutral for Wikipedia to retain this article title per WP:POVTITLE. I didn't like "Facebook–Cambridge Analytica data scandal" when I first read it, but after reading the definition of scandal in the intro of its article, I think it's appropriate here and strikes a good WP:BALANCE. –IagoQnsi (talk) 07:10, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support as proposed - it's unquestionably the latter, and only arguably the former. Red Slash 09:27, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

This Is Your Digital Life

https://www.facebook.com/help/1873665312923476 is the Facebook page that can tell person if Cambridge Analytica likely had their data. For me, the results are:

Based on our available records, neither you nor your friends logged into This Is Your Digital Life."

As a result, it doesn't appear your Facebook information was shared with Cambridge Analytica by "This Is Your Digital Life."

I wanted to learn about the history of the "This Is Your Digital Life" app but was very surprised there are zero mentions of that phrase on Wikipedia per site:wikipedia.org "This Is Your Digital Life" other than sv:Cambridge Analytica on the Swedish Language Wikipedia which mentions ... ett personlighetstest vid namn "this is your digital life" på Facebook för att få tillgång till drygt 50 miljoner användares data or in English ... a personality test called "this is your digital life" on Facebook accessed over 50 million users' data.--Marc Kupper|talk 17:53, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

References

declaration of COI

So I just changed the wording on something in this article and then I remembered to declare that I have a COI. I have done work with this project and the professor as a freelancer. I will probably try to avoid future editing this topic but there is a ref that I would like to add when I find it again.TeeVeeed (talk) 14:19, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

NPOV

How about mentioning that Google CEO Eric Schmidt proposed in emails to the Clinton Campaign doing exactly the same thing that Cambridge Analytica did, and more? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.193.159.54 (talk) 21:56, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Source? Also could you provide a reputable source saying it's "doing exactly the same thing that Cambridge Analytica did". ^Falling_Gravity 22:38, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3852140/Hillary-s-Silicon-Valley-friends-Google-boss-Eric-Schmidt-revealed-designed-Clinton-s-website-Mark-Zuckerberg-asked-help-getting-campaigning.html

A starting point if someone has time to dive into this. Kerbless (talk) 10:02, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

You know theres really no point adding "what about them" argument to a specific topic about specifically just the side that are refered in the article, really shows your color if anything else Benfor445 (talk) 15:59, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

"Use of the data" section deletions

Various political organizations used information from the data breach to attempt to influence public opinion. Political events for which politicians paid Cambridge Analytica to use information from the data breach include the following: Political events for which politicians paid Cambridge Analytica to use information from the data breach include the 2015 and 2016 campaigns of United States politician Ted Cruz.

• 2015 and 2016 campaigns of United States politicians Donald Trump and Ted Cruz
• 2016 Brexit vote
• 2018 2018 Mexican general election, for Institutional Revolutionary Party

Items were deleted from the above section, with an ES of "Removed reference to Donald Trump, 2016 Brexit vote, 2018 Mexican general election. The cited articles cover Cambridge Analytica's activities, but do not explicitly state that these three political events were ones for which politicians paid Cambridge Analytica to use information from the data breach." I don't see the problem as items were written. X1\ (talk) 21:16, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

References

Resulting research organization - new article

• Social Science One

Lots of sources report that Facebook's response to this scandal include establishing this organization. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:34, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

add California's investigation?

From Portal:Current events/2019 November 6:

• Facebook–Cambridge Analytica data scandal
  • A court filing by California Attorney General Xavier Becerra reveals for the first time that the state launched an 18-month investigation into Facebook’s privacy issues in response to the Cambridge Analytica scandal. The filing accuses the company of refusing to cooperate with investigators, and asks the court to require them to turn over information regarding third-party access to data and changes in privacy settings. (Reuters)

X1\ (talk) 01:33, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

"Reactions" instead of "Responses

Can a section be added instead of the "Responses" called "Reactions" which details the wave of Privacy Policy changes on social media/messaging sites? Millyphilip (talk) 02:50, 5 February 2020 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Millyphilip/Evaluate_an_Article

I would recommend adding to the section called "responses." I feel as if reactions are personal the while responses that you are describing can be done by a corporation. I think you have listed some excellent sources below, and I would recommend adding these sources as you edit the article.Jerrysong1324 (talk) 04:51, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

References

Proposed sources for changes and addition of details.

https://about.fb.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/state-by-state-breakdown.pdf https://about.fb.com/news/2018/04/restricting-data-access/ https://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-cambridge-analytica-affected-us-states-graphic-2018-6 https://www.theguardian.com/membership/2018/sep/29/cambridge-analytica-cadwalladr-observer-facebook-zuckerberg-wylie https://www.theguardian.com/news/series/cambridge-analytica-files Carol Callwadr’s earliest article monitoring them: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/04/cambridge-analytica-democracy-digital-age https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/04/us/politics/cambridge-analytica-scandal-fallout.html Russian Oil ppl: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/17/us/politics/cambridge-analytica-russia.html Trump: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/17/us/politics/cambridge-analytica-trump-campaign.html?login=smartlock&auth=login-smartlock&login=smartlock&auth=login-smartlock https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/10/facebook-cambridge-analytica-a-timeline-of-the-data-hijacking-scandal.html https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/apr/11/mark-zuckerbergs-testimony-to-congress-the-key-moments https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EgrrR1M2Ck https://www.cnn.com/business/live-news/f8-2019-keynote/index.html https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jan/04/cambridge-analytica-data-leak-global-election-manipulation https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/us-election-trump-cambridge-analytica-facebook-fake-news-brexit-vote-leave-a9304421.html https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/mar/17/cambridge-analytica-facebook-influence-us-election The Great Hack (Netflix Documentary) EstabanMiranda (talk) 01:34, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Peer Review

General info Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username)

EstabanMiranda

Link to draft you're reviewing:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:EstabanMiranda/sandbox

Overall evaluation

I was unable to find the exact draft under EstabanMiranda's sandbox. In contrast, EstabanMiranda and his group were able to point out specific things they will be implementing for the article. In this case, I will be critiquing the information given. In all, there are alot of good points that the group wants to add into the article. I think adding an impact section is a good idea because a lot of social media platforms changed their privacy and ad policies after this scandal. I was hoping the group would go more in-depth on the exact changed and expansions they were going to make on each section.

Malberk (talk) 02:03, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Overall evaluation Overall, the article is very eloquent and well written. The headings break up the information in a coherent way making the article readable and easily understood. The article has great attention to detail, good flow of information, and smooth transitions. I did not see any awkward sentence structure or grammatical errors. The only thing I would change is to provide a bit more information in the "Successors" section because the one sentence is not sufficient to warrant an entirely new section. If that section is supposed to imply that Data Propria might be engaging in controversial or illegal usage of private data, then that should be explicitly stated. However, if there is no scandal or controversial information regarding Data Propria, then I suggest adding that sentence to the "Long Term Impact" section to conclude the article. Bribrisweet (talk) 19:53, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Peer Evaluation

Lead: The lead, at first glance, is very lengthy and can be cut down to only address the main points of the scandal, who is involved, and why it was so important. Continuing, some of the language in the lead seems to detract from an informative tone and instead hints towards a negative view of Facebook. While the topic is a scandal, it is important to present the facts and allow the reader to make that decision for themselves.

Content: In the "Use of the data" section, I would recommend doing more research and uncovering more ways into specifically how the data was used and in what other campaigns across the world that data was used for. There is more expansion in your proposed edits however I feel that this is an important point in your article and elaborating on it would greatly improve the article.

Tone and Balance: The tone of this article is difficult to address because it inherently places Facebook in a negative light due to the nature of the issue. However, it is important to be unbiased in presenting the facts and to limit flowery language that seems to point to a specific argument against Facebook rather than the entire climate of the situation.

Sources and References: This article does an excellent job of using citations properly and referencing other wiki articles that are relevant when necessary.

Organization: In regards to the organization, subtopics can be incorporated in this article to help the flow of information and to allow readers to specifically find information about the topic. For example, in the "use of the data" section, there can be separate subsections for the different campaigns they were used which would also allow you to expand on each section and provide more relevant information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gobears15 (talk • contribs) 03:00, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Peer Evaluation

I would like to give a general overview of my thoughts on the Wikipedia Article. Introduction: As mentioned I believe the introduction is a bit lengthy and good be condensed to a more concise overview of the scandal. Also within the first paragraph there are some serious claims such as "the harvesting of of personal data of millions of facebook users" and "the water-wash moment in the public understanding of personal data" without any references to back up these claims. Besides these notes, I think the overall info captured in the introduction gives great insight into not only the movement, but the article itself. History: I think the next four sections process, characteristics of data, news coverage and use of data are absolutely essential to the story, however, I believe these could be incorporated into an overall history section that would better sever the reader in a more digestible manner. Impact: I think the sections to address in this category are definitely there with use of data, responses and impact on users. However, I think this should arguably be a good portion of this article. I think elaboration on the details of the aforementioned sub-sections is key to understanding the gravity of what happened with the scandal. Overall, I think the article has a good framework and just needs some greater detail in various sections. Far out mate (talk) 04:56, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Peer Evaluation

When looking at the diff links, the first thing that I analyzed was the paragraph about the changes in terms of user engagement with Facebook over time. I believe that a key insight that you added to this article was the fact that usage of likes, posts, and shares has decreased by almost 20%. A comment that I would make, however, is that I believe there should be additional evidence to causation. Although it is linked to an article, I believe that referencing why this is causation and not correlation would be important to show the facts behind this statement. In addition, for the “Impact on users” section, it is a little smaller than the rest of the article, so I would recommend expanding on this. I believe that Facebook has responded drastically after this allegation and issue came to light. Maybe it would be important to reference the changes that Zuckerberg and team has put into place. Alex K. Tran (talk) 05:20, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Peer Review

1. The introduction was very well written -- it explained the entire progression of the scandal from the first time it was revealed that personal data was harvested, and into the testimony in front of the United States Congress. The first paragraph in particular gave a good snapchat of what the scandal was from a high overview, without getting into nitty gritty details.

2. The biggest improvement I would like to see is to flush out the "process" section a bit more. Currently it is a few sentences long, and I'm still not entirely sure what the process refers to. It seems to me that its about the process of acquiring the data in the first place, but I think adding a sentence to the start of the section may be helpful in explaining to readers what "process" refers to.

Hope that helps! Rani Zhu (talk) 05:57, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Peer Review

1. The section 'Responses' of the article mentioned the results or impacts of this incidence on Facebook. The impacts mentioned were mainly related to government's punishments, decreased profits and decreased user engagements. However, it should also explore the current perceptions or even movements created as a result of this incidence; such as #deletefacebook.

2. Overall, the tone and style of writing in the article are according to Wikipedia's goal, which is unbias and objective. The article is concise, informative and only gives the readers' the most essential information about the scandal. Markowijaya (talk) 06:38, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Peer Review

This article is already very fleshed out. The introduction, in addition to the documentation of the wide-spread response the event, was effective in communicating the severity of the situation. However, it can help to include some more, less immediate responses, such as documentaries and press coverage, as well as its translation into outrage on social media. Also, the use of the data section can be vastly expanded on to include what they did, how they did it, and the processes they used to collect the data. It can go deeper into the technology behind it and expand on the broader implications of people finding this information out. NatalieRH (talk) 07:09, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Peer Review

LEAD: The article lead is informative and well-structured. However, several improvements can be made. Firstly, the lead is a bit more descriptive than it should be. You should focus on fine-tuning the lead to include only the most importance details, including what happened, who was involved, and what were the major consequences. Furthermore, the lead does not make proper use of neutral language, and seems biased against Facebook. This is clear in sentences such as "Facebook refused to comment on the story other than to say it was investigating" and "The scandal finally erupted in March 2018...". Regardless of the nature of the scandal, the lead should present facts and information as objectively as possible. Lastly, the lead contains some details and information that are lacking sources. An example is "...precipitated a huge fall in Facebook's stock price and calls for tighter regulation of tech companies' use of personal data", which is not credible without a source.

CONTENT/ORGANIZATION: The article is structured very well, with topics and subtopics that are chronologically ordered by time. However, I believe that some essential content is missing from the article which is imperative to the audience's understanding of this issue. Firstly, I believe that the Process subsection is rather vague and unclear. The section should provide more details on Aleksandr Kogan, the motive behind the creation of This Is Your Digital Life and its connection to Cambridge Analytica, and the survey that was distributed via Facebook. The Characteristics of Data and Use of The Data sections are also rather short and uninformative. Luckily, I can see that you've expanded upon these two sections in your first draft. Your additions to this section are informative, relevant, backed by reputable sources; fantastic job! Lastly, I think you should focus on adding more content to the "Impact on users" section. In here, you can delve deep into users' perceptions and connect this article to movements such as #DeleteFacebook.

TONE/BALANCE/NEUTRAL PERSPECTIVE: For the most part, the article uses appropriate language. However, there are parts of the article that contain wordage that seems to criticize Facebook and is therefore biased. Examples of this sort of language is provided under the Lead criticism above. Please ensure that your article additions are also void of any loaded language. An example of this in your first draft is the sentence, "Nix denied any connections between the two companies despite concerns that the oil company was interested in how the company's data was used to target American voters". In this sentence, the words "denied" and "despite" could be changed to fit a more neutral tone.

SOURCES: The article's sources are appropriate, credible and recent. However, the article contains some claims that are not supported by any sources. You should either find sources for these claims, or remove the claim all-together if you cannot support it. An example is the aforementioned "fall in Facebook's stock price", which is not backed up with a source. Your first draft uses a fantastic variety of sources which are relevant and credible.

MULTI-MEDIA: Visualizations are an important part of any Wikipedia article as they can provide the audience with a new channel of learning. The article currently contains one picture, which displays Cambridge Analytica user page. Perhaps consider connecting pictures to the political use of data, the impact on the public, or the United States Congress hearing that took place.

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS: Overall, your additions to the article detailed in your first draft are very well written. For the next draft, consider changes such as tone adjustment, further additions to the "Impact on Users" and "Process" sections of the article, and the introduction of more sources. Lastly, you can spend some time improving the lead of the article. Hope that helps!

Parouz (talk) 20:50, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Peer Review

LEAD: While in the tone section I talked about how this article, in general, definitely achieved a neutral tone, the lead is the one place where it seems like the distaste for Facebook really comes out in the language and inevitably the tone. It definitely needs to be revisited and I would be surprised if it doesn't get flagged for removal. TONE/BALANCE: Tone for this article can be Particularly difficult because of the nature of the Gravity of the Scandal and the amount of people that it has impacted. This being said, it definitely follows the Wikipedia standards, but just something to keep in mind as you go into the final publishing process. SOURCES: The sources are a place where it is very much apparent that the article as a whole, but especially the 192AC team working on it went above and beyond. By looking at the history, they added over 30 sources to the article. Many of which I took the time to run through, which were credible sources which didn’t have a history of bias in one way or another. It seemed in an earlier version there were a few claims that were not supported by citations, but this has since been fixed. MEDIA: This article contains only one image, which is a cambridge analytica icon on a phone. There was recently a very important hearing on the case, which you could hopefully get some media from to use on the page. Even something so simple as a FB logo. One photo doesn’t seem effective enough to me as a viewer.

Kilfmuny (talk) 00:56, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 6 August 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) SilverLocust 💬 22:31, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

---

Facebook–Cambridge Analytica data scandal → Facebook – Cambridge Analytica data scandal – Not Facebook vs Cambridge but Facebook vs Cambridge Analytica 5.43.67.185 (talk) 22:07, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Note: The IP address that submitted this request has since been blocked for a year for edit warring and harassment. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:14, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

• Leaning oppose: I don't think adding spaces would accomplish the clarification that is suggested. I also don't think this is properly characterized as Facebook vs Cambridge Analytica, since some sources have partially (even primarily) blamed Facebook for what Cambridge Analytica was able to do. I think the intended meaning is something like "Data scandal involving Facebook and Cambridge Analytica". —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:19, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - there is no "vs" implied and this change doesn't alter anything in a meaningful way. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 17:24, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - it is clear as is. Not sure how the proposed change would make a difference. Don't try to fix what isn't broken. 2600:6C44:117F:95BE:357A:C9DF:9D11:1110 (talk) 19:46, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Facebook, Inc. v. Amalgamated Bank" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Facebook, Inc. v. Amalgamated Bank has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 July 17 § Facebook, Inc. v. Amalgamated Bank until a consensus is reached. Hamtechperson 02:35, 17 July 2024 (UTC)