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.
The people who passionately want to make this a partisan issue are conservatives.
I am not making this partisan. I am claiming that after every election, some number of people on the losing side are convinced to their core that the only way the other guy got votes is some sort of plot. That's projection bias. People either agree with me, or they are brainwashed somehow.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge
I've not alleged a nefarious plot. I've not alleged anything about Trump votes.
I've alleged what appear to be the facts. 1. A researcher approached Facebook about a research project. 2. The researcher wanted Facebook's permission to solicit participants. 3. Facebook gave their permission to the researcher to do so. 4. 270,000 Facebook users agreed to be participants. 5. The researcher gathered the data on those 270,000 users. 6. The researcher then gathered the data on the friends and contacts of the 270,000 users, for which Facebook had NOT given permission and the friends and contacts had no knowledge of. 7. This amounted to personal information on 50 million Facebook users. 8. The researcher then sold this information to a group to use for political purposes. 9. The researcher did not have Facebook's permission to sell this information for any reason.
I've also asserted that what the researcher did should be criminalized, and that we need to limit access to our personal information. Consumers should know when our personal information is being used, and when it's being transferred or sold.
Privacy is necessary for freedom to exist. Eliminate privacy and you eliminate freedom.
Posting on social media is surrendering privacy in order to roam about in the most public sphere there is. If Cambridge Analytica hadn't gotten the 270k initial people, no problem. Big data mining ops have been scouring online media, comment bards, forums, FB, etc for over a decade and sifting through it for the purpose of marketing (big data's only truly useful function in analytics). Take it from a professional architect of analytic systems...people have been collecting and sifting through your data since databases have existed. "Big data" is simply unstructured, white noise data literally yanked right off web pages and social media, tossed into a giant machine and then analyzed (if anyone cares to do so) for recurrences, patterns, percentages, etc.
Exactly nothing about this is currently illegal, and is the entire industry of big data and marketing. All the initial 270k group did was help estimate how much actual space for all the collected garbage the folks at CA would need.
Uh no. The media is making this an entire partisan issue
Wry report about this flat out said “Hillary would have won if it weren’t for this nefarious scheme”
Wry report was wrong. And you and other conservatives are certainly enthusiastic about making this a partisan issue, instead of actually discussing the real issue.
I don’t see many upset posters. Maybe the one who told me he wanted to violate TOS tbecause he didn’t like the facts I posted about Cambridge Analytica and Facebook
Most of us are just posting facts. What we know so far.
It’s very obvious some want to hijack this thread because this Cambridge Analytica scandal is indefensible. The video where they talk about hiring actors to fake bribes or Ukrainian prostitutes is a little bit too much. Or the video where the guy who made the data request was teaching a class in Russia.
Democrats never did anything like this, they used the same tools that Republicans have always used in the past. The only significant difference is that the folks who did data mining for the Obama campaign were able to fine tune it better than Republicans. What Cambridge Analytica did was illegal and far different than what any legitimate campaign has ever done. That should concern everyone in the US, regardless of political affiliation.
As I just said, we really don't know with 100% that Democrats "never did anything like this." Or that they didn't - perhaps inadvertently - use information generated by some of Cambridge Analytica's more nefarious services.
The Steele Dossier would be one potential example that could be tied to CA's services. Who knows, there may even be a connection between Stormy Daniels and CA. The CA executives bragging about entrapping candidates with hookers definitely raised that possibility in my mind.
And, of course, we also don't know for certain that Russia and Putin didn't hire Cambridge Analytica for some "special services" of their own.
Anything is possible.
The Facebook privacy side of the story is important, but it's the additional services CA executives said they could offer to campaigns that may prove more important.
You better believe we ant to make this a partisan issue. IT IS. YOUR SIDE did far more.... taking vastly more personal data from people like me who would never in a million years give them anything more than a snarl and tell them to pound sand.
YOU DIDNT SAY A WORD.
Now that it comes to light that some group did something maybe in the ballpark on a vastly smaller scale but used that information for the right.
you are so upset. i mean that WASNT FAIR. NOW you are worried about "privacy".
and further you don't have a clue why i am upset and suggest you are a hypocrite.
Please tell me how MY SIDE took all your personal data?
Please tell me how MY SIDE took all your personal data?
you figure it out.
all i know is YOUR SIDE claims to have "ingested the entire social network of America"
that's the claim made by the Obama database team. Facebook AND Google handed it all over to them.
In an election that close lots of things swung the election. As already noted Comey’s renewing the email investigation definitely led to Trump’s win. If Weiner had kept his weiner in his pants we would have a Hitlery presidency.
Nothing "swung" anything. Seriously, people had made up their minds who they were going to vote for even after the FBI announced that they were reinvestigating the that old crooked bag Hillary, and long before all this garbage about the Russians and now FB.
Again, remind me how the Russians or even FB (even though I don't have a FB account) convinced me to vote for Trump and not Hillary. I'm still waiting!
I am not making this partisan. I am claiming that after every election, some number of people on the losing side are convinced to their core that the only way the other guy got votes is some sort of plot. That's projection bias. People either agree with me, or they are brainwashed somehow.
Posting on social media is surrendering privacy in order to roam about in the most public sphere there is. If Cambridge Analytica hadn't gotten the 270k initial people, no problem. Big data mining ops have been scouring online media, comment bards, forums, FB, etc for over a decade and sifting through it for the purpose of marketing (big data's only truly useful function in analytics). Take it from a professional architect of analytic systems...people have been collecting and sifting through your data since databases have existed. "Big data" is simply unstructured, white noise data literally yanked right off web pages and social media, tossed into a giant machine and then analyzed (if anyone cares to do so) for recurrences, patterns, percentages, etc.
Exactly nothing about this is currently illegal, and is the entire industry of big data and marketing. All the initial 270k group did was help estimate how much actual space for all the collected garbage the folks at CA would need.
Standard Marketing In The Age of Information.
Cambridge Analytica got data on 50 million people. They didn't do it by data mining. They purchased it from someone who got it fraudulently. It's fraudulent, because they didn't have Facebook's permission, and they didn't have the permission of the 50 million people. This wasn't scouring online media, comment boards, forms, etc. This was soliciting 270,000 people willing to participate in a research project who gave their permission for their personal data on Facebook to be used, and then going way, way, way beyond that, gathering data on 50 million people who did not give their permission, who had no knowledge of what this researcher was doing, who may have specifically chosen NOT to participate in this research, and for that personal data to be sold to another organization for political purposes. This is NOT standard marketing.
Please tell me how MY SIDE took all your personal data?
The minute you post your personal data on FB, you expose it to whoever FB feels like sharing it with. Read the Data Policy section in full. Telling you, Cambridge Analytica is going to be on the right side of this, because nobody reads the terms of service in anything. If you have any sort of online presence at all, you've agreed to all manner of intrusion into your data, whether you know you agreed or not.
the two things aren't similar. what the republicans did is small potatoes compared to what the democrats did.
Absolutely untrue and while you continue to make that claim it's notable that you fail to provide support for 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.
