251–260 of 662 posts
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.
Yep. I’ve been explaining this stuff to friends for years. Even the most intelligent and rational dismiss it as paranoia or say, “I don’t care, I have nothing to hide anyway.”
Daniel Solove eloquently states the problems with the "I have nothing to hide" argument in this famous paper now turned book https://scholarship.law.gwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's the actions on the margin that matter here. Just think of what this whole story (Foreign meddling) says about these marginal voters in that case: That they were so easily swayed, that they decided to vote ostensibly against their own better judgement simply by being shown a series of ads to influence their emotions. Something is very wrong with voter education if it's that easy to sway a certain influential popu…
Or they really disliked both candidates, so a small push could send them in either direction. Just as an example. It's pretty difficult to make meaningful wide-ranging inferences about the voter populations this way.
In the months and weeks approaching election day, I was struck numerous times by the reality that each political faction was profoundly disconnected from the other, in media consumption silos so different that if you happened to drift from one conversation to another, it felt like crossing an ocean and entering a distant country.
And to me, it was obvious that this social rift had calcified during the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Somehow, amid the victory of the Obama presidency, left wing democrats simply felt as though their job was done, they could die happy, and anything else they imagined as natural was a foregone conclusion of the retirement they were set to sail into.
I don't think the media silos I noticed are the root of the problem. You cannot blame cartoons, talk radio and memes. I strongly believe that complacency, assumption and tone deaf, willful blindness among democratic party consituents led to the results we have watched unfold. I don't think it was New Media manipulation, and I don't think "fixing social media" will solve for the chaos we now see.
It's quite ironic that this is the man who sold WhatsApp and its enormous userbase to facebook, creating a total lock in to the facebook ecosystem for many who do not even use facebook. He would have known what kind of a company facebook is, so I don't understand the contradiction between selling Whatsapp to them and now caring about these issues. Anyway, I am still glad he's getting behind the #deletefacebook moveme…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The rest 95% either don't know, or could care less even if they know. I've told my non-techie fam and friends about data harvesting, privacy, and how facebook tracks everything, only to be ignored or outright ridiculed ("Oh you techies are so paranoid"). pretty much exactly my experience with Canadian and American family. People didn't give one iota of a fuck when the Snowden revelations came out because they just…
> People didn't give one iota of a fuck when the Snowden revelations came out because they just assumed that it was the case already. It's more complex than that. The tracking and surveillance are not visible to the average person. Point your camera at someone in a coffee shop or bar and take their picture. They'll be coming over to ask you why you took their photo. The fact that the coffee shop or bar is brimming wi…
With the coffee shop, it makes sense; the cameras in retail are expected to only be used for review, when some event occurs. No one expects it to be used for data mining and behavioral analysis purposes. And even if it were, the expectation is that this would be for academic purposes; that is, with no real commercial intent.
Worst case scenario is that it'd end up being archived in a box of tapes somewhere.
Datamining abuses this expectation. But it makes sense for the expectation to exist; it was the norm until extremely recently.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
#deletefacebook is not about "conspiracy theories". It's because their personal data was exploited to aid the election of someone they hate. Whether it actually moved the needle enough to elect Trump is open to debate, but that's not a "conspiracy theory". Even the very idea that their personal data can be exploited this way, against their will, via friends who were tricked, is unsettling. That's more than just being…
Which is my point I guess - Facebook apps have had much more intrusive access to user data in the past. The only reason people care now is political.
> "Your side won because... Facebook made you vote that way"
#deletefacebook doesn't mean that people think Facebook made people vote a certain way. It's about Facebook being a poor custodian of personal data and allowing it to be exploited to guide adversarial campaign efforts.
Guiding where to invest efforts and dollars in an election campaign is extremely strategically valuable intelligence. That's different from just changing people's minds.. it's where to push for more voter turnout, for example. So at a minimum Facebook helped identify the psychological profiles and locations of people who were prime targets -- thanks to just a handful of friends who were exploited.
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…
All of this Facebook hubub and broad public outcry is really all owed to the election of Trump. If Trump handnt leveraged CA, we’d still all be happy and fat on out individual bliss boxes – patting ourselves on the back – because our side [a la Obama] was smart enough to use this technology to our advantage. Now when the enemy has (and use) the same technology, we’re forced to cry foul. Demand oversight. Demand regul…
All of this Facebook hubub and broad public outcry is really all owed to the election of Trump. If Trump handnt leveraged CA, we’d still all be happy and fat on out individual bliss boxes – patting ourselves on the back – because our side [a la Obama] was smart enough to use this technology to our advantage. Now when the enemy has (and use) the same technology, we’re forced to cry foul. Demand oversight. Demand regul…
According to CBS, the trump campaign didn't use the CA data ( they may have in the Primaries): https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-campaign-phased-out-use-o... In late September 2016, Cambridge and other data vendors were submitting bids to the Trump campaign. Then-candidate Trump's campaign used Cambridge Analytica during the primaries and in the summer because it was never certain the Republican National Committee w…
That might be technically correct, but CA was unquestionably working with SuperPACs[1] behind the scenes to get Trump elected in November. CA was particularly proud of it's crooked Hillary campaign ("the OO of crooked was a pair of handcuffs").
1. According to the Cambridge Analytica CEO in the Channel 4 undercover documentary https://youtu.be/cy-9iciNF1A?t=6m21s
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually, he won thanks to ~63,000,000 votes. You’re also trying to make it sound like there was something uniquely nefarious about his campaign. He used the same marketing tactics that all recent campaigns have used. The same tactics that Obama was widely praised for in 2012. He won because voters liked him more.
There's so much wrong with this comment. Correct, he received ~63m votes. Hillary received 65.85m votes. He won because our presidential election system is based on an electoral college (which may be debated as a plus or minus). But that also means certain states have a disproportionate amount of representation with respect to their population. Please don't delude yourself or at least attempt to be honest. Races at t…
Both candidates entered a race to win the electoral college. The race was fair and one of them won. You can’t claim some moral victory by counting the popular vote, because every candidate would campaign very differently to contest a popular vote.
I think you’re correct about one thing though, it is an oversimplification to say that people liked him more. It would be more accurate to say that they thought he would be a better president.