Cited by 105Privacy, Security, and Data ProtectionEthics and Social Impacts of AIWeb Data Mining and Analysis

What You Can Scrape and What Is Right to Scrape: A Proposal for a Tool to Collect Public Facebook Data

Open access
Mancosu, Moreno, Vegetti, Federico·2020·Social Media + Society

Abstract

In reaction to the Cambridge Analytica scandal, Facebook has restricted the access to its Application Programming Interface (API). This new policy has damaged the possibility for independent researchers to study relevant topics in political and social behavior. Yet, much of the public information that the researchers may be interested in is still available on Facebook, and can be still systematically collected through web scraping techniques. The goal of this article is twofold. First, we discuss some ethical and legal issues that researchers should consider as they plan their collection and possible publication of Facebook data. In particular, we discuss what kind of information can be ethically gathered about the users (public information), how published data should look like to comply with privacy regulations (like the GDPR), and what consequences violating Facebook’s terms of service may entail for the researcher. Second, we present a scraping routine for public Facebook posts, and discuss some technical adjustments that can be performed for the data to be ethically and legally acceptable. The code employs screen scraping to collect the list of reactions to a Facebook public post, and performs a one-way cryptographic hash function on the users’ identifiers to pseudonymize their personal information, while still keeping them traceable within the data. This article contributes to the debate around freedom of internet research and the ethical concerns that might arise by scraping data from the social web.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/2056305120940703

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Machine learning approaches enhance cyberbullying detection by extracting features such as textual instances, behavioral patterns, and demographics, thus improving precision.

    “Machine learning approaches enhance cyberbullying detection by extracting features such as textual instances, behavioral patterns, and demographics, thus improving precision [73].”
  • Integrating textual, contextual, emotional, social attributes, and sentiment characteristics with conventional text features can elevate cyberbullying detection efficiency.

    “Integrating textual, contextual, emotional, social attributes, and sentiment characteristics together with conventional text features can elevate cyberbullying”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 27 · Cited by 105

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Beurskens, M. (2013). Legal questions of Twitter research. In K. Weller, A. Bruns, J. Burgess, M. Mahrt, & C. Puschmann (Eds.), Twitter and society (pp. 123-133).
  2. Hern, A. (2018). How to check whether Facebook shared your data with Cambridge Analytica. The Guardian. https://tinyurl.com/ ybvttn35 HiQ Labs v. LinkedIn. HiQ Labs v. LinkedIn Opinion., No.17- 16783 (Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals September 9, 2019).
  3. Kang, C., & Frenkel, S. (2018). Facebook says Cambridge Analytica harvested data of up to 87 million users. The New York Times. https://tinyurl.com/y85kfv2z
  4. In K. Weller, A. Bruns, J. Burgess, M. Mahrt, & C. Puschmann (Eds.), Twitter and society (pp. 43-54).

Authors
Mancosu, M., & Vegetti, F.
Affiliations
  • University of Turin (IT)
  • University of Milan (IT)
Corresponding author
Mancosu, Moreno
Venue
Social Media + Society
Published
2020-07
Volume
6
Issue
3
ISSN
2056-3051 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3046666383
Cited by
105
References
27
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 33 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 1
FWCI
15.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Social Media + Society (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Institutional Research Information System University of Turin (University of Turin) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • INFM-OAR (INFN Catania) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Privacy, Security, and Data Protection
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Web Data Mining and Analysis
Keywords
Facebook, web scraping, Cambridge Analytica scandal, research ethics, data privacy, GDPR, pseudonymization, cryptographic hashing, Facebook posts, user response

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review