461–470 of 583 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The words he's been rehearsing in hours of mock interviews with the same PR hacks, for the last couple days.
I imagine he'll be answering questions provided to CNN by the Facebook PR team.
1000 word statement. Number of times the word "advertising" was mentioned: 0 Facebook continues to pretend it's business model is unicorns and kittens, not selling user data for money.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This predisposition to believe our fellow humans is actually hard-coded into our genes. This is one of the reasons it's so easy to spread fake news. The ability to lie to someone without direct consequences to yourself (because, for example, you are thousands of miles away) was not part of our ancestral environment, but it is part of our contemporary one, and some of us are exploiting this newly created ecological ni…
I'm going to have request a source here, because this doesn't make much sense. We've spent very nearly all of our evolutionary time pillaging, raping, and murdering each other - not exactly singing kumbaya. There's tribal instinctual stuff that would include 'in-group' trust, but that's something far and away from trusting a person because they're a person as you're implying. 'Fake news' takes advantage of something…
Well, yeah, that's what I was referring to. If you perceive someone as being from your tribe then you are predisposed to believe what they say, and if you don't then you aren't. Nowadays tribes are much bigger than they used to be, and tend to center around ideologies more than geography. But otherwise it's monkeysphere dynamics at work.
I just don't get it. I don't get the enormous backlash over this. Users give away their data to a company, the company sells that data to advertisers (or sells ads and targets the ads according to data), and the users can continue using the service they enjoy for free. This was the contract you agreed to when you clicked the sign up button. I don't get why people are mad at Zuckerberg and not themselves! People act l…
Because Trump won and Zuck is the new scapegoat. No one gave a shit when Obama's campaign did the same thing, and they were even public and boastful about it at the time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure why you keep on repeating that line, it's just a statement of fact. There were hundreds (if not thousands) of FB apps from that time period that pulled comparable social graphs before FB switched to the v2 Graph API in 2015. What CA did beyond this is that (1) they collected their political data under the guise of a personality test, without any indication to users what their data would be used for, and…
There were hundreds (if not thousands) of FB apps from that time period that pulled comparable social graphs before FB switched to the v2 Graph API That is simply not true. Facebook rate-limited apps for exactly this reason. Additionally, although it was technically possible, the TOS did not allow mass-scraping of friend data for any purpose , much less political purposes. Facebook monitored and routinely banned apps…
This likely explains many of his motives.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It does seem like the Obama campaigns got preferential access to Facebook data. Data for even more people than CA got. And perhaps the Clinton campaign did as well, or at least got access to the older data. What distinguishes CA and the Trump campaign is how well the data was used. CA staff apparently just did a better job at using the data to manipulate people. Their canvassing app. Using bots on Facebook and Twitte…
There's a lot of bad information in this thread. https://twitter.com/mbsimon/status/975231597183229953 "I ran the Obama 2008 data-driven microtargeting team. How dare you! We didn’t steal private Facebook profile data from voters under false pretenses. OFA voluntarily solicited opinions of hundreds of thousands of voters. We didn’t commit theft to do our groundbreaking work."
I worked at a company that had viral apps during the same timeframe mentioned in Zuckerberg's response. Our company pulled data of friends of friends. The amount of data people gave us was staggering. A few years later the data was much more restricted, much harder to get, and much clearer to the user what was going on. It's easy to point to Fb and say they are evil, but it really seems to me like it's the 3rd partie…
Maybe in 2010 your comment would apply, but when this happened they knew very well they weren't supposed to be doing this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There were hundreds (if not thousands) of FB apps from that time period that pulled comparable social graphs before FB switched to the v2 Graph API That is simply not true. Facebook rate-limited apps for exactly this reason. Additionally, although it was technically possible, the TOS did not allow mass-scraping of friend data for any purpose , much less political purposes. Facebook monitored and routinely banned apps…
I think the point neuronexmachina was trying to make about microtargeting is that Obama simply asked their users to send messages to their friends, whereas CA directly advertised to people.