Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Rachel Maddow is a joke, all the investigated reports are coming from news in england, everyone else is just repeating and taking what they feel support their view.
Even if CA is taken out they are dozens more similar companies who do the same. Facebook, google, etc take data from everybody, then hundreds of tech companies go through all the data and come up with ways to manipulate the population either for elections [the charade of democracy] or for advertising [ever endless sales of crap].
Another thing, people are not happy and are blaming facebook. All social media works under the same principal, deceitful tactics are common to all of them.
Your logic is all wrong. When you buy a house, a car or apply for a credit card you are aware that your activity will be reported to a credit reporting agency.
Facebook and other social media give you the false impression that your data is confidential. Furthermore, the links you press on in Facebook do not come with warnings that these links are meant for data mining purposes.
Facebook is a scam.
When I changed my address with the post office, I received a ton of marketing materials related to moving. Its not just credit reporting agencies that receive this type of information.
I've never believed my information on the internet was totally confidential.
Everyone with a brain knows links on Facebook link back to Facebook. It says so right on the link when you click it. The link reads something like: www.lm.facebook.com/insertlinkyouarevisitinghere.
When I go on Amazon I am aware I am there for a commercial transaction. I am buying a product and that information will be saved and used by Amazon. When I am on every website I know that there are cookies that are sent to my computer
The difference with social media is that we are not, or do not believe we are engaged in a commercial transaction, every time we post.
Facebook should post a warning that every post may be used for commercial purposes and that all links clicked on Facebook will be used and transferred to the highest bidder.
I was engaged in a commercial transaction when I watched Jeopardy last night. The commercials I was shown are marketed to people who like shows like Jeopardy. Why do they know what to market to people like me?
When you win by losing the popular vote by millions and by less than the votes that 3rd party candidates got in one or two states, ANYTHING would swing the election.
Are you claiming Putin, Mercer, Bannon and company are idiots and met with Russian Oligarchs and broke their Terms of Service (and maybe some laws).......and they did this for nothing?
They broke Facebooks terms of service? That is the crime according to you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by craigiri
You can say one thing about the Russians. They are not dumb and they know they can buy off many American pols and even more American businesspeople.
Close to $2 billion spent by the two candidates with a big advantage of spending by Clinton as well as 96% of the MSM supporting Clinton and some alleged facebook data swung the election. Do you actually hear what you are saying?
Quote:
Originally Posted by craigiri
1. The dissemination of vast amount of completely false news - those pieces involving the Russians (you really didn't see the stories about Direct From Putin and all the "grass roots" FB groups they started and the paid advertising?)...
This is not only illegal - but it is against the TOS of FB.
Yes the jails are overflowing with people who violated the Facebook TOS. So we are down to Bannon violating FB TOS? How dare he?
Quote:
Originally Posted by craigiri
2. Cambridge America was a POLITICAL entity which met and spoke with Russia Oil and other Oligarchs to use American and European data which they were not allowed to use.
Illegal. Immoral. Unethical and I assume breaks MANY election laws.
We don't even know what happened. We have one guy saying all sorts of things and the far left quickly assumes its all true. If this was such a big thing and true why 2 years to come forward? A real whistle blower would have come forward during the election. I guess he needed his paycheck more than being a hero then. [/quote]
Quote:
Originally Posted by craigiri
But if your point is that Trumps name is not Donald Trump and Mercer uses shell corporations to commit treason and steal thing......and that is all cool with you...point taken. I have a different moral compass.
Treason? Putting the cart ahead of the horse are we?
So you are assuming:
A. The dude from Cambridge is to be believed 100%.
B. That Mercer and Trump were aware of exactly how Cambridge acquired their and then used that data.
C. That one american citizen originally from Russia out of all the people working for cambridge was secretly working for the russian government just because they were born in russia. Should we just round up all people of russian heritage living in the USA and put them in interment camps before the 2020 election. We can't be too careful can we? They are all potential spys, right? It was the democrats who rounded up the japanese so you all have a history doing this sort of thing.
D. My mom's favorite bread is russian rye. I guess that means I am a russian paid spy or bot, right?
I did not vote for Trump or Clinton but this is just endless sour grapes.
I will give you a sports analogy. Lets say we have a super bowl game where one team is a heavy favorite. Perhaps the best team every to play in a super bowl. The other team has never been to the super bowl and has a dysfunctional coach and organization. Yet the dysfunctional team comes up with a strategy that keeps the game close and wins it by a nose due a little luck and a questionable call by the refs near the end.
The team that was suppose to win cannot graciously accept defeat and blames the refs and accusing the other team of somehow cheating. They blame everything except themselves. Sound familiar?
Reality is just like the 2016 election it should not have been close. It was close because the Clinton campaign made a series of errors and was overconfident as well as having a candidate with more baggage than any candidate for president ever. Not because of some russian conspiracy. If Clinton did a better job as a candidate it would have been a landslide not a photo finish. That is Clinton's fault not Trump's or Russia or the EC or whatever the excuse of the day is.
Last edited by Oklazona Bound; 03-20-2018 at 07:34 AM..
It's not that is it "law" legal that is the issue. It's the misuse of the data that was gathered. The data was gathered from Facebook with their permission with the intent on it being used for educational purposes. Meaning all real names and personal information would be removed so that the data could be used in universities as sample data. Instead the data, "all" of it was gathered and sent to Cambridge Analytica which is a violation of Facebook's terms of use. Facebook would have to take this up in court but no US laws per se were broken.
The idea that this Mercer-Kremlin "disinformation" campaign didn't have an impact is just silly.
Look at how many times their BS was repeated as gospel on this very forum.
They can't all be Russian trolls.
I thought the mantra of the Clinton camp was all Trump voters were racists. I guess that was last years talking point. Or it was Comey's fault. Or it was Jill Steins for doing better than expected and screwing up the EC. Really its hard to keep up with all the excuses.
But hey I voted for Johnson so this alleged vast disinformation campaign did not work on me. And I am not a racist.
Apparently, Hillary voters are still in the denial phase. That's all this thread is - another "since nobody could possibly vote for Trump, since everyone thinks like me, it must have been hi tech chicanery and machination that brainwashed everyone!" denial of a simple basic truth.
Trump won because he won more electoral votes that were the result of free thinking Americans choosing him over Clinton. That's it. That's all.
All these "there's no way anyone could like Trump enough to vote for him" conspiracy theories are purely subjective, selfish projections that are the cries of people still in denial. I didn't vote for Clinton, and I never look at Facebook. Clinton gave me 25+ years in the public eye to know everything I needed to know about her, and I simply refused to consent to her governance. Before a single leak from Podesta's treasure chest got leaked, I was in "will never vote for her" territory. Before she was Obama's miserable failure of a Secretary of State, I was never going to vote for her for anything. My distaste for Clinton goes back decades.
I don't think like you (evilcart). I never will. We will probably disagree on 99% of every political topic under the Sun, always. Facebook didn't brainwash me, Cambridge Analytica didn't program me...I am just different from you. Stop being so freaking arrogant that you think everyone either thinks like you or would had they not been brainwashed. People are different. Period. Either Trump convinced the majority in the right electoral locations to vote for him, or Hillary didn't convince the same folks, or a combo. But it was all free thinking people voting, about half of whom THINK DIFFERENTLY THAN YOU.
Accept it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
