• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

How Trump & Brexit won by using your online data

How Trump & Brexit won by using your online data

What makes a politician a RINO nowadays? Anti-trump? Ambivalent about building a wall or chain migration or hanging with Russia?
 
Lectro said:
and the gist of it all..

“Yet, on the most obvious level, Cambridge Analytica is another story about double standards. The only consistent position the Left seems to take these days is that the mechanisms they use to keep power automatically transform into nefarious and un-democratic when the opposition use them.

By constantly using the word “breach,” for instance, reporters are trying to insinuate that someone stole voter data that typically is off limits. Cambridge Analytica was allowed to pull that profile data. Facebook only changed its policy in early 2015. But then Trump campaign dropped Cambridge Analytica before the general election for the RNC data, reportedly never using the any of the “psychographic” information. According to CBS News, in Sept. 2016, it had “tested the RNC data, and it proved to be vastly more accurate.”

Even if they hadn’t, however, their efforts would have been akin to those being heralded as revolutionary when it served the interests of Democrats. Facebook, in fact, allowed the Obama campaign to data harvest in the same way that is now generating headlines and handwringing. Do you remember any outrage and trepidation over privacy and manipulation of your thoughts in 2012? If anything, there should be outrage that a massive social media company allowed one party to do things that it forbade another.
Click to expand...




so typical of the left

yet the lubes on these boards remain in deep denial
 
Former Cambridge Analytica exec says she wants lies to stop

Around mid-2015, Kaiser says, the company knew Facebook was changing its API rules to restrict the data that could be harvested through questionnaires like Kogan’s.

This appears to have prompted a last-minute grab for data. In one internal email seen by the Guardian, employees are asked to identify which issues on a list of 500 Facebook “like” items would be most “useful for political modeling or commercial sales”.

It is unclear from the email where the data was coming from, but the list is curiously revealing. Cambridge Analytica didn’t want to know who “liked” Eminem, Family Guy, YouTube, The Walking Dead or Mountain Dew. It was, however, interested in Facebook users who “liked” Mitt Romney, Walt Disney World, the US Marine Corps and Coca-Cola.
Click to expand...
 
Lectro said:
You and your friends are crying about Facebook
Click to expand...
You're an idiot. You're* posting bullshit on a thread I started 15 months ago that explains the depth of the data analysis. The personality quiz has nothing to do with Trump or the election. That was nearly a decade ago. The data analysis used for the Brexit and Trump campaigns was from general facebook use.

*figuratively not literally
 
Last edited:
I'll hijack this thread for the Zuckerberg testimony.

Damn it's painful to watch these schmucks that only understand the question as written by whatever staffer is tech savvy then fumble when Zuck calls their bluff to ask for clarity. He's getting off pretty easily here. Disappointing.

Ted Cruz, oddly enough, seemed to have him against the ropes as much as anyone, but he only cared to grill him about being mean to Nazis and other flavors of the alt-right.
 
Well now it's over and rather than give Zuckerberg a W, I'll give the Senators a hard L. Their questions fell into 3 categories

1) Basic "How do I use Facebook?" type questions your grandfather asks you.
2) Repetition. I can't begin to count how many asked "What happens to the user data when someone deletes their account?"
3) Political grandstanding. That's to be expected, of course.

Total waste of time, I can't even imagine what the purpose of this really was.
 
I'm fine with the Zuckerberg hearings being a DeacHead echo chamber here, you're better off not watching.

The only thing noteworthy I've noticed on day 2 so far is that there are a LOT of conservative senators concerned about "Diamond and Silk". Did you know about them before your conservative FB friends showed their righteous indignation about them being silenced over the last few days? I sure didn't but man, whatever it was that happened to them is a huge infringement of the 1st amendment.
 
I haven't been following the hearings, I just check Kara Swisher's twitter feed periodically. These guys all have digital media people, hopefully they talked to them between yesterday and today.

We Already Know How to Protect Ourselves From Facebook

The sight of lawmakers yelling at Mr. Zuckerberg might feel cathartic, but the danger of a public spectacle is that it will look like progress but amount to nothing: a few apologies from Mr. Zuckerberg, some earnest-sounding promises to do better, followed by a couple of superficial changes to Facebook that fail to address the underlying structural problems.

This has been Facebook’s public relations strategy for years. After each scandal, it expresses regrets, announces a few cosmetic fixes and then works like mad to scuttle any legislation that might have a favorable impact on the core problem: how our data is harvested, used and profited from. It would be a shame if we went through that again.
Click to expand...
 
avalon said:
I haven't been following the hearings, I just check Kara Swisher's twitter feed periodically. These guys all have digital media people, hopefully they talked to them between yesterday and today.

We Already Know How to Protect Ourselves From Facebook
Click to expand...

Having been in one of those offices, I'm laughing trying to imagine the social media person prepare a statement for their representative to ask Mark Zuckerberg. The legislative assistant "in charge" of that usually works directly with the Press Secretary and their only job is to not post anything ridiculous, while posting when/where they will be when they get back to their states. The inner workings of social media platforms isn't something that anyone in the office was likely aware of before recent events, probably since the election at the earliest. They just used it as a tool. Meanwhile, they're attempting to grill arguably a genius on what has been his entire world for the past 2 decades. Zuckerberg also seems to be very well prepared from a legal standpoint, making sure not to step into A: any criminal traps, and B: traps that will ultimately limit his company's growth. I expected more from a room comprised of mostly lawyers, but it seems they are just out of their element here. To be clear, I wouldn't expect many legislators to be entirely up to date with this sort of thing, but it's beginning to show that nobody on their staff can even give them a decent briefing, as a paralegal would for a lawyer.
 
Last edited:
I’m looking forward to the SNL sketch of dumb senators asking Zuckerberg questions.
 
PhDeac said:
I’m looking forward to the SNL sketch of dumb senators asking Zuckerberg questions.
Click to expand...

This is pretty much all I could think about when watching that debacle. I'll be shocked if it's not the open next episode. It's all gold - the booster seat, Zuck's demeanor, the moronic questions, transparent grandstanding, and the single person questioning him who actually understood anything about Facebook and modern data privacy issues. Hanging curve right over the plate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top