11–20 of 54 posts
First, this is somewhat ambitious... Second, what's the purpose of this? I can imagine it'll be quite useful to BBG properties like Voice of America, RadioFreeEurope and generally US government PR/propaganda, but how am I supposed to not worry that this will be used for censorship via US-based companies and some future law combating "fake news" and/or "hate speech"?
You're not a tin foil hat wearing, black helicopter conspiracy theorist, now are you?
First, this is somewhat ambitious... Second, what's the purpose of this? I can imagine it'll be quite useful to BBG properties like Voice of America, RadioFreeEurope and generally US government PR/propaganda, but how am I supposed to not worry that this will be used for censorship via US-based companies and some future law combating "fake news" and/or "hate speech"?
1. You got to start somewhere. 2. Data is valuable. 3. You can't. As you built more capabilities to process the data it becomes more valuable. Incidentally that is why I think Facebook is so valuable. Cambridge Analytica managed to affect U.S. elections with a small subset of this data.
Similar companies have been employed by virtually every other presidential candidate in the last decade.
We can't be mad at CA without being mad at the entirety of industrial political adveritising.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
1. You got to start somewhere. 2. Data is valuable. 3. You can't. As you built more capabilities to process the data it becomes more valuable. Incidentally that is why I think Facebook is so valuable. Cambridge Analytica managed to affect U.S. elections with a small subset of this data.
> Cambridge Analytica managed to affect U.S. elections with a small subset of this data. Is this an accepted fact now? I know they tried but is there hard proof that without them it would have been a different outcome?
That being said, I think DHS might be going a bit overboard as far as the monitoring goes.
>Let's make a list of all journalists
Same thing, different amendment.
Is it available to non-US companies?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
1. You got to start somewhere. 2. Data is valuable. 3. You can't. As you built more capabilities to process the data it becomes more valuable. Incidentally that is why I think Facebook is so valuable. Cambridge Analytica managed to affect U.S. elections with a small subset of this data.
> Cambridge Analytica managed to affect U.S. elections with a small subset of this data. Is this an accepted fact now? I know they tried but is there hard proof that without them it would have been a different outcome?
[1] http://www.straitstimes.com/world/united-states/cambridge-an...
>Let's make a list of all gun owners >Let's make a list of all journalists Same thing, different amendment.