Printable View
Nice try at 'whataboutism'' but the key difference you are ignoring is that CA obtained their data through deception, whereas the Obama campaign obtained peoples' permission transparently.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ob...dge-analytica/
https://washingtonmonthly.com/2018/0...dge-analytica/
That's a load of bs.Quote:
Originally Posted by filghy2
Whatever you put on fb is free game for them to do whatever they want, sell or give to whomever, because you AGREED to it when you signed up. So don't wail about 2016 because the dems did it first in 2012.
You have ignored the key point which is that the Facebook data was collected through a personality quiz that was posted as an app on Facebook for one purpose, and that the data was collected on the Facebook platform without the company knowing the purpose it would be used for at a later time and another purpose by CA-profiling of voters, the key sentence in the quote below being in BOLD. Most Facebook users did not sign up to the App that was used to harvest information, thus:Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin
In June 2014, a researcher named Aleksandr Kogan developed a personality-quiz app for Facebook. It was heavily influenced by a similar personality-quiz app made by the Psychometrics Centre, a Cambridge University laboratory where Kogan worked. About 270,000 people installed Kogan’s app on their Facebook account. But as with any Facebook developer at the time, Kogan could access data about those users or their friends. And when Kogan’s app asked for that data, it saved that information into a private database instead of immediately deleting it. Kogan provided that private database, containing information about 50 million Facebook users, to the voter-profiling company Cambridge Analytica. Cambridge Analytica used it to make 30 million “psychographic” profiles about voters.
https://www.theatlantic.com/technolo...graphs/556046/
Facebook's dilemma is all about the control of the content on its platform and the data it collects about its account holders, the security of that data, and how far Facebook should go to 'edit' accounts or for that matter delete them, when its whole philosophy is about providing a platform for people to be themselves online 'for free' -as long as they accept the platform is paid for through advertisements.
I use Yahoo email for free, and the ads don't bother me, as I ignore them.
Not since May 2018 it isn’t in Europe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin
Suggest you read GDPR, and the statute in each EU country that instantiates it (Data Protection Act 2018 in the UK). They now need your informed consent freely given. ‘Freely given’ means opt-in and it is no longer legal for them to hide any ‘consent’ down under hundreds of pages of Astro-Turf contract. Neither is it legal for them to demand as a condition of use that you consent to anything that is not within the definition of legal processing for your use of the service. E.g they cannot force you to consent to them sharing your data with 200othwr companies in order to use the functions that don’t necessitate them sharing it.
Looks like google are about to find out that one the hard way over location tracking. I really hope they get whacked really hard.
The Great Hack, a documentary on Cambridge Analytica and the wider issue related to data harvesting for political purposes, airs on Netflix this week.
Here is a long read that goes some way to explaining -or trying to explain- how influential CA might have been, but also how hard it is to prove a case when the documents are missing, presumed shredded, and the individuals who know so evasive when it comes to telling the truth. Some truly scary notes on the means the re-election campaign is already using, not just voter suppression but data manipulation, as in this quote. It is a long read but worth the effort.
One of the few slivers of insight we have into how Cambridge Analytica and Facebook worked together on the Trump campaign comes from a clip used in The Great Hack from a BBC documentary, in which journalist Jamie Bartlett interviews a member of Trump’s digital team who shows where employees of the two companies worked alongside one another.Parscale told a conference recently that the day the Facebook employees arrived was like getting a “Christmas present”. He recalled the time he told the Trump campaign that Facebook was “the 500 pound gorilla that’s ready for picking. Who controls Facebook controls the 2016 election.” Yet only a fraction of the 5.9m ads that were pumped out by the campaign have ever been seen by the wider public. We know nothing of the modelling that was used, or of the three voter suppression operations that a campaign official told a journalist ahead of the election that they were running. Or almost anything at all. It is all still wrapped in darkness.Paul-Olivier Dehaye goes as far as to suggest that, in investigating links between Trump and Russia, we are looking in the wrong place for evidence of “collusion”, and describes a scenario that is “more subtle, delicate and dangerous” than any of those presently understood. Collusion, he says, “may have been enabled by Facebook”, its algorithms exploited by “adversarial machine learning”. A malevolent actor, he says, could for example create fake profiles of Hillary supporters, and then use those profiles to train Facebook’s algorithm in a way that would benefit Trump’s campaign.We know Facebook co-operated with Robert Mueller’s inquiry, but there’s no hint in the redacted report of what he found. Just as we don’t know when Facebook’s executives first learned about Cambridge Analytica’s activities. More than a year on, that most basic question – who at Facebook knew what, when? – has simply not been answered.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...cebook-netflix