50M Facebook profiles harvested for Cambridge Analytica in major data breach

Post by threeseed » Sat, Mar 17, 2018, 8:27 PM UTC

wdr1 wrote: post #129

underwater wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a big difference between sharing data with companies, and allowing companies to specify as targeting rules. Facebook lets companies bid for ads to show you, based on Facebook’s data about your interests and demographics. If you never engage with the ads there is no information leakage. It’s the difference between telling a random person “I’ll tell my gay friends about your party” and “Did you know that Bob i…

> Facebook lets companies bid for ads to show you, based on Facebook’s data about your interests and demographics. If you never engage with the ads there is no information leakage. That's not true.

Post by threeseed » Sat, Mar 17, 2018, 8:32 PM UTC

mbostleman wrote: post #119

olivermarks wrote: post #44

My problem with this 'outing' of CA is that Facebook explicitly commercially exists to harvest user data for Procter & Gamble, Johnson & Johnson, Fidelity etc etc so they can profile us. A million dollars is chump change in the crazy US election game. This all seems overly selective - it's ok for some people to profile but not for others. I'm not in favor of any of it to be clear but there is a definite political bia…

Agreed. This is marketing. The tone of the article makes it sound like some egregiously illegal scandal. The only wrongdoing is that one private entity breached the terms of service with another private entity. Innuendo.

Post by threeseed » Sat, Mar 17, 2018, 8:35 PM UTC

MechEStudent wrote: post #104

China has more. They have enough that this is a drop in the bucket. While they might be as blatant and ineffective as Russia by interfering with an election, they want a low profile and to maximize capture of revenue, so they are more about making money than trying to put feces on the face of the American political process. You people should pick your battles. It would help if you knew the battlefield first.

Post by threeseed » Sat, Mar 17, 2018, 8:42 PM UTC

olivermarks wrote: post #130

stevenwoo wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing about the relatively low cost of a million is that we know that many of the voters targeted by the Russians for influence on both sides were much cheaper than what your example commercial interests targeted for marketing services/products, so a million dollars on targeted campaign is much more effective than what that million dollars buys in a major media market TV ad equivalent or commercial Facebook targe…

For 'Russians' I would suggest individual oligarchs over the nation state. Semion Mogilevich rather than politicians...

Post by yuliyp » Sat, Mar 17, 2018, 8:46 PM UTC

threeseed wrote: post #131

_ptgt wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think "false information" is the kicker here. Taking a cursory glance at Breitbart and Fox News, there isn't that much that is patently false. Furthermore, my observations of how propaganda works in general is that it doesn't usually rely information that is technically false. It relies on selective distribution of information, editorial spin, and other more subtle methods. This makes "enforcement" basically…

> Taking a cursory glance at Breitbart and Fox News, there isn't that much that is patently false. Don't you think it would be better for you to take more than a cursory glance before commenting ? Breitbart has had significant issues with fake news over its lifetime. Far more egregious and consistent than other any other news organisation not that I would necessarily call it one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breitba…