81–90 of 172 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As evidenced by the gerrymandered districts intended to do things like sway presidential elections. Clearly the system is working as designed and not being cheated...
Gerrymandering sways House and state-level elections. It doesn't have a direct impact on Senate and Presidential elections.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you really think corporate conglomerates have no interest in PR campaigns that benefit their bottom line? It doesn't take "huge amounts of people", just a handful of board members.
Of course they do. They influence the bias by various means. They don't select particular topics. To choose the specific topic everyone is talking about today, you need just a bit more than a handful of board members though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not an accurate summation: https://twitter.com/cld276/status/975565844632821760 "The entire social graph" did not agree to be used by the Obama campaign. What the Obama campaign did was worse that what CA could have done because by the time CA rolled around the API holes had been closed. (As I said yesterday, CA was deceptive and the Obama campaign wasn't, sure, because the Obama campaign didn't have to ask at all .…
CA used data that was collected for research purposes only. OfA didn't violate any rules.
Facebook may view its internal policies as akin to the law, but I don't. The fact that CA violated some Facebook policy and OfA didn't is a distinction without difference. Facebook let both pull friends' personal information without consent, which people probably didn't realize they were sharing because Facebook has a history of obscuring sharing like that.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/facebooks-heading-towar...:
> Facebook is so accustomed to treating its ‘internal policies’ as though they were something like laws that they appear to have a sort of blind spot that prevents them from seeing how ridiculous their resistance sounds. To use the cliche, it feels like a real shark jumping moment. As someone recently observed, Facebook’s ‘internal policies’ are crafted to create the appearance of civic concerns for privacy, free speech, and other similar concerns. But they’re actually just a business model. Facebook’s ‘internal policies’ amount to a kind of Stepford Wives version of civic liberalism and speech and privacy rights, the outward form of the things preserved while the innards have been gutted and replaced by something entirely different, an aggressive and totalizing business model which in many ways turns these norms and values on their heads. More to the point, most people have the experience of Facebook’s ‘internal policies’ being meaningless in terms of protecting their speech or privacy or whatever as soon as they bump up against Facebook’s business model.
Here is, roughly, the media's playbook: 1. Never stop talking about Trump. Mention his name 300 times an hour on CNN. He's not a serious candidate, but he is entertaining so they give him free publicity until he is a serious candidate. 2. Start blathering about Hillary's emails, as if that were somehow important. 3. Now Trump is elected. In these tough times, it is more important than ever to support high-quality ind…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
1. Look at the playbook from an agnostic position instead. The reason the media gave candidate Trump the press was because, just like candidate Obama, sold eyeballs; Trump more so because he got both sides mad. Recall the puff pieces and the discussion of Michelle Obama's fantastic arms, that is nothing but puff and she moved the papers, so they covered the candidate more; to Hilary's detriment. 2. You need to think…
So the use of Facebook data was lauded as genius and now isn't. [1] Now you got me curious if the media would be saying all the same things if Cambridge helped the other candidate get elected. [1] http://thehill.com/opinion/technology/379245-whats-genius-fo...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I like to talk about social issues and politics and stuff but the more I do it in public the more I run into what feels like "politics-as-basketball." It's really begun to feel like team sports as opposed to a critical analysis of conditions and power analysis.
As someone in their mid-twenties, I have to ask the older HNers: has it always been this "stupid," so vitriolic and hateful? If not, when did it become this way?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't forget conjuring up an external enemy to distract the public and get the population riled up. 5. Russia and Hackers and Collusion Oh My! > Not the fault of the media who would never shut up about Trump. But look at the ratings and the ad money they are getting? It's the same thing with school shootings. Massive 24/7 coverage turning the shooter into a celebrity. Then they wonder why shootings happen. Oh it coul…
Uh oh, you suggested "Russian collusion" might be a load of crap. Good thing people are here to "downvote" and silence you. We're literally in the middle of yet another Red Scare. You can speak out against such nonsense without being a Trump supporter.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As someone in their mid-twenties, I have to ask the older HNers: has it always been this "stupid," so vitriolic and hateful? If not, when did it become this way?
It has, but it's never been so easy to spout off to the world before, or be instantly informed about what other people are thinking. In the 1980s the media hated Reagan about as much as they hated Bush or Trump. Before that it was Nixon. But you really only heard about it if you watched the evening news, and that was 30 minutes of the day. It wasn't being fed to you continuously like an intravenous drip on your phone…
While I wasn't mature enough then to form my own opinion about it, I'm under the impression that the media was also more restrained and professional back then. Now it seems a lot more tabloid, generally. There also seems to be a burring between "opinion/editorial" and reporting, especially online, which fuels the polarization.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So the use of Facebook data was lauded as genius and now isn't. [1] Now you got me curious if the media would be saying all the same things if Cambridge helped the other candidate get elected. [1] http://thehill.com/opinion/technology/379245-whats-genius-fo...
Ben Shapiro is disingenuous by isolating Facebook data only. It's the combination of illicit Facebook data + fake news + Russia's APT that is at the heart of the problem. The fact that Facebook was warned about this and didn't work to solve their share of the problem is why they are criticized.