161–168 of 168 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I never said the issue was small sample size. > a quarter of the 4,594 people surveyed by Pew Research between May 29 and June 11 report deleting the Facebook app. Emphasis yours .
Yes, that was an element of what I stated. Now re-read the rest of what you quoted. See the bit about the date range?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Studies show it didn't change the outcome. Nothing credible says that, or could say that. Counterfactuals of that nature are very hard and in an election that was decided by 70,000 total votes out of over 130,000,000 it's nearly impossible to assign causation. > We still don't really know who hacked the DNC, whether it was Russia as a hand selected group of people from intelligence agencies included was likely, or…
Thanks for that point by point refutation, but why do I feel like a Russian troll just wasted both of our times...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The shadow profile is probably just as valuable as a real one when it comes to selling advertising. And that's what matters. Everything else is just a cost of doing business.
There's no way it can be just as valuable. For one, if you're not using their site, they can't show you ads there.
Also you could be targeted on any site in their Advertising Network. In those cases they don't need specifics, just a profile/persona they can target or crosslink your browser fingerprint from like buttons and pixel tracking with a FaceBook user with the same IP address.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If Facebook has hurt the bottom line of the nyt so much, why has their share price doubled since mid 2016?
Because of Trump and the US Government abdicating all responsibility in checking the Executive Branch? NYT's subscriptions jumped after the 2016 election because a free press is extremely vital at this point. The US is in a very weird spot right now with Democratic norms sliding. Once we exit this weird period and US Government returns to normal, lets see how the NYT's stock price fares then.
I don't think the US Government will ever return to what it used to be pre-Trump, and I think its a good thing. One thing we've seen is just how brittle our Republic really is; how much we rely on so many people doing the right thing. I suspect the new wave of younger Congresspersons, who campaigned in an environment with a completely undemocratic and vile POTUS, will be deeply suspicious of unchecked Presidential authority. And I would argue that's a good thing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is the extent of the Russian interference really though? Studies show it didn't change the outcome. We still don't really know who hacked the DNC, whether it was Russia as a hand selected group of people from intelligence agencies included was likely, or whether it was an insider as implied by Assange and security experts who looked at how fast the information was downloaded. We know Russia did take both sides o…
> Studies show it didn't change the outcome. Nothing credible says that, or could say that. Counterfactuals of that nature are very hard and in an election that was decided by 70,000 total votes out of over 130,000,000 it's nearly impossible to assign causation. > We still don't really know who hacked the DNC, whether it was Russia as a hand selected group of people from intelligence agencies included was likely, or…
An indictment isn't proof. You aren't 100% certain of anything. Assange has never lied to us. The intelligence agencies have. Assange says it wasn't Russia. Its amazing how the left has turned on him.
Yes, Russia wanted Trump that was why the Buff Bernie meme was out there. My point is its probably a trivial impact. People who have the slightest ability to be open-minded about this issue generally can see that. $100,000 for facebook memes compared to Hillary getting questions in advance from U.S. media? https://www.cnet.com/news/russian-trolls-targeted-teens-on-f...
None of this stuff is certain and it really is amazing how blown out of proportion it is in people's minds.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Studies show it didn't change the outcome. Nothing credible says that, or could say that. Counterfactuals of that nature are very hard and in an election that was decided by 70,000 total votes out of over 130,000,000 it's nearly impossible to assign causation. > We still don't really know who hacked the DNC, whether it was Russia as a hand selected group of people from intelligence agencies included was likely, or…
This study says the effect was small. http://web.stanford.edu/~gentzkow/research/fakenews.pdf Even Nate Silver acknowledges the effect of Russia was modest. Maybe he's changed his tune now? This was written before the fervor around this nonsense really got cooking. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-much-did-russian-in... An indictment isn't proof. You aren't 100% certain of anything. Assange has never lied to…
Assange lies all the time, I doubt there's anything that I could do to change your mind on that point but just look at the comments his former coworkers made after they were chased away from WL, his backtracking about talking to Trump Jr during the election, his withholding of documents that would be damaging to Putin, his deceitfulness in the DMs that were exposed by Emma Best last summer..
Intel agencies have Russia dead to rights on interfering in the 2016 election. Please explain how Guccifer2 accidentally logged into Twitter from the GRU headquarters otherwise... or if you're a Seth Rich truther, how a DNC worker had access to Podesta's personal gmail? It's not just intel agencies, several private security companies came to the same conclusion.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/exclusive-lone-dnc-hacker-gucc...
This is the biggest corporate f'up I've seen in a while. Someone needs to own it and step down.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If Tim cook believed this why is he taking billions from google to be the default search engine? Why not pick a more privacy friendly search engine?
Because no other search engine provides nearly as smooth an experience as Google. Coincidentally, nothing is stopping privacy-conscious users to use, for example, DuckDuckGo. It's right there in the options on both macOS and Safari. Finally, it's pretty absurd to say that Tim Cook/Apple don't believe in privacy. Out of all major consumer software/hardware manufacturers, Apple easily takes the most privacy-conscious s…
DDG is actually smoother, it loads faster and is more lightweight on phone browsers.