191–200 of 662 posts
> My contrarian impulse is that I want y'all to stop dunking on Acton for this tweet. (Context: One of the WhatsApp cofounders who sold to Facebook and made lots of money.) People's views change over time and it can take years for a conviction to form and then crystalize.
> It's very possible that Acton is burning bridges with that tweet. Don't assume that he loses nothing by speaking up now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's just that Google maybe be a bit hesitant to sell data to 3rd parties Which is the entire point. I know Google is taking data when I use Google products. The problem arises when Google freely gives my data to a random third party company I neither know nor trust, without my knowledge.
Why is it better that google has your data than that another company has your data?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you spell it out? How did Russia "hack" the election? Please try to be specific. If I wanted random news stories, I'd google them.
The topic at hand is "meddling", not "hack"ing. Please don't try to change the topic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The only real difference between what was done here and then was how it was represented to the users. That is an incredibly important distinction. There is a vast gulf between "these people asked for my data and I consented to its use" and "these people surreptitiously collected my data for purposes other than those which they disclosed."
A couple issues with that statement: (1) The issue is not getting the data of the people who used the app, it's the millions of their friends who were included. This is what's being implied should be thought of as a "breach" (with the media trying its darndest to make it look like Trump himself downloaded all the data into a big CSV file while laughing) (2) Regardless of the reason for the permission being asked, the…
This seems...insane.
Informed consent makes all the difference in cases like this. How can you feel that it's irrelevant whether data was obtained under fraudulent premises, versus with explicit consent?
It would be like saying 'It doesn't matter that company A had a real product with real traction and raised $10Mm, while company B lied to investors about the amount of user activity and raised $10Mm. The resulting funds raised was the same in both instances. So I equate the outcome in my mind'.
Now, I don't mean to imply that you believe the quote above, but what you said sounds _exactly_ that outlandish to me.
Despite the barrage of negative stories that would have ended nearly every other Presidential campaign - ranging from accusations of racism, misogyny, treason, incompetence, mental instability - despite all of it, tens of millions of Americans absolutely love President Trump. I cannot imagine how utterly frustrating it must be for them to watch the media bounce from story after story in some convoluted attempt to exp…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're the first person in this thread to introduce the word "hacking".
My point still stands. Whatever adjective you prefer.
"From in or around 2014 to the present, Defendants knowingly and intentionally conspired with each other (and with persons known and unknown to the Grand Jury) to defraud the United States by impairing, obstructing, and defeating the lawful functions of the government through fraud and deceit for the purpose of interfering with the U.S. political and electoral processes, including the presidential election of 2016."
https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf
"We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump. We have high confidence in these judgments."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One note: fair and square by your interpretation of "fair", maybe. But the country as a whole uses its laws to interpret fair, and the important allegations are that the Trump campaign broke those laws by directly communicating with this agency.
Please include citations and an explanation of a bold claim like that. How did the campaign break the law here? Otherwise you're just stoking partisan fires.
Are you asking for evidence that the law was broken, or are you asking for the evidence that leads to the allegations? There's a significant difference in standard between the two.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you just not paying attention to the Mueller investigation? There's like five guilty pleas by now. Is that just a nothing burger? Seriously, what do you think that's all about? If you want a timeline of events you can go here[0] or here[1], but something tells me you won't accept these... [0]: https://www.politico.com/trump-russia-ties-scandal-guide/tim... [1]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018…
Your timeline is a list of accusations. You’ve provided no evidence to support your claim of Russian’s interfering with the election. More importanly: why should I care about Russians interfering with elections when we let corporations do that to a far greater extent?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We've established beyond a doubt by now that there was, in fact, "Russian meddling" in the election. It's incredible that someone could still deny this.
I'm a strong Trump, and even more so Putin, hater, but I don't really get why Russian "meddling" is so bad. I kind of expect them to do this. I am sure the US is supporting candidates it wants to win in other places. If it is hacking polling stations or other illegal activities, that is pretty bad. But still the responsibility is on the harmed country to make that harder, detect it and show proof. Of course it would…
Here's an analogy: We expect belligerents to kill each other's soldiers during war. It's the responsibility of each side to minimize their own losses. That doesn't mean that war isn't bad.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> from the tens of millions who feel wronged and cheated by electoral results that they lost fair and square. Are you not doing as exactly as you are highlighting? If there were underlying forces at work that were foreign would that not mean it wasn't fair and square? Citizens United vs FEC[1] unfortunate decision in 2011 led to infusions of foreign funds[2] that outnumber what US citizens are legally allowed to cont…
The winning candidate spent significantly less money in this instance. Also I tend to agree with Citizens United. Unions and Corporations should be allowed to express their views on a candidate. If there is someone running for office and making a BS claim about steel workers, I would want steelworkers unions to have the right to advertise and inform me that it is BS. Also if you get into issue based stuff, it becomes…