121–130 of 662 posts
So, have one electoral college rep release their finances, and then you know the true state of politics
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean, I know why people love him too — he is entertaining as fuck and if you’re too poor or too rich to be affected by government policy, who gives a shit about the president?
So again, you attempt to hand-wave reasons why people would vote for Donald Trump.
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.
"In 2012, the Obama campaign encouraged supporters to download an Obama 2012 Facebook app that, when activated, let the campaign collect Facebook data both on users and their friends." [0] The only real difference between what was done here and then was how it was represented to the users. [0]: https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/facebook-data-...
In terms of ethics, the key difference is mentioned in your article:
The only difference, as far as we can discern, between the two campaigns' use of Facebook, is that in the case of Obama the users themselves agreed to share their data with the Obama campaign, as well as that of their friends. The users that downloaded the Cambridge app, meanwhile, were only told that the information would be used for academic purposes.
This is big. If a university researcher asks me a few questions and tells me that my answers will be used purely for research purposes, I am much more likely to engage than if a campaigner did the same. It would be unethical for a campaigner to present themselves as an academic in order to get more information.
If we use Twitter to announce that people should #deletefacebook, what social network do we use in the event that it becomes necessary to #deletetwitter?
you ssh into your own trusted openbsd system, run bitchx and connect to efnet, just like the good lord intended back in the days when dinosaurs roamed the earth. i am only partially sarcastic here.
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.
The election was won by a very slim margin. The core of Trump's support may have been with him regardless but they weren't enough to win. It's the actions on the margin that matter here. Also, as other's have pointed out, there are a lot of other problems with social media in general and Facebook in particular. Russian meddling in the election is the spark that is lighting the fire but the fuel was already there. (Th…
Exactly, he won the election thanks to 80000 votes in three states. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/12/01/do...
Edit: ah yes, let me feel the downvotes hackernews. We can’t have anyone disliking Hillary here!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean, I know why people love him too — he is entertaining as fuck and if you’re too poor or too rich to be affected by government policy, who gives a shit about the president?
So again, you attempt to hand-wave reasons why people would vote for Donald Trump.
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.
"In 2012, the Obama campaign encouraged supporters to download an Obama 2012 Facebook app that, when activated, let the campaign collect Facebook data both on users and their friends." [0] The only real difference between what was done here and then was how it was represented to the users. [0]: https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/facebook-data-...
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."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are implying friends list is the main factor here. Let's assume you are right. Still, Google may have a database for people you might know, you just don't know its existence yet. They don't have to let you input your contacts voluntarily to find out about your relationships. For example, have you used Google Maps? You search a place, Google tells you popular time of that place, how did they get the data? If they…
If you have Google Maps running on your phone with data and GPS on, the app will explicitly ask you about your experience in whatever place you're visiting at that moment. I have friends who enthusiastically respond to those notifications every time, arguing that the information will help other users. More people than you think are happy to share more than passive metadata.
I'm aware of that. I used to be like your friends because I love technology. Though I didn't know it's an opt-in since I haven't seen those notifications. Maybe I missed it?
Even so, how do I make sure the data is not going to be misused? I practically not be able to do anything that I think I can to prevent data misuse. They collect my data even after I said no.[1]
Plus, those so-called passive metadata are more objective and valuable than the data you actively submit to them, don't you think? I can hardly fake these kinds of data, just like you don't ask what lab rats think, you run tests on them and then just observe how they are gonna react.
Giving away those data with good intentions doesn't necessarily mean it won't harm others in some other way. I have things to hide, especially with data companies thriving.
[1]: https://qz.com/1131515/google-collects-android-users-locatio...
Edit: In fact, believe it or not, I hate to point the Popular Time issue out. I was afraid of Google supporters' hostile attitudes against me or Google might consider this feature could heat up privacy concerns then kill it. (Very unlikely, because I'm nobody. :D) I find this feature is thoughtful and useful, I'm too selfish to watch it die. Besides, killing it doesn't do any good to the public, on the contrary, it will become less transparent how they are going to use user's data. I brought up this issue only because, with this whole FB scandal thing happening, I feel the public is playing favorites.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. This is a fad and will blow over in a few days. No one cares that this happened outside of the security community.
> No. This is a fad and will blow over in a few days. I'm not sure you're right. This is spilling into all areas. We don't even know if CA has done all the damage it is going to yet. > No one cares that this happened outside of the security community. This has very little to do with security and very much to do with Facebook's policies.