I don’t understand the use of the word “breach” in this headline.
50M Facebook profiles harvested for Cambridge Analytica in major data breach
221–230 of 271 posts
Re: 50M Facebook profiles harvested for Cambridge Analytica in major data breach
#222Earlier quoted context omitted.
Explain the difference in semantics between the two because the mechanics sound the same, best I can tell this company was just running ads like everyone else. Creating psychological profiles of voters to craft messages to them to pursuade their vote I believe is the same thing as political advertising and is exactly what Obama's campaign were doing and had countless fawning articles written about them (just Google i…
It comes down to motivation. Obama is a career politician, but Bannon is an ideologist. The former seeks to get elected, the latter seeks to plant ideas and change the society in a fundamental way. To me, Bannon is much more dangerous than Obama, because he is subversive. Technically, there might be little difference, but Bannon clearly excels at using this tool to a greater effect, and the result is far more impactf…
The biggest difference is Bannon wants to break society to that it can be remade as he wants. Classic villain methodology, where the ends justify the means. Creating and exploiting divisions in society, damaging democratic institutions, so that the Government collapses and Democracy along with it. To be replaced with 'his' vision for this country. That is evil and treasonous.
Re: 50M Facebook profiles harvested for Cambridge Analytica in major data breach
#223I remember when the Obama campaign hired data scientists and used targeted social networking tools to pursuade voters who were on the fence and it was heralded as brilliant and the future of politics. I worked for a company crawling Facebook data by creating viral apps the year the original API came out. By now I am sure this is done by many companies. Why is any of this news? My understanding is that companies harve…
> I remember when the Obama campaign hired data scientists and used targeted social networking tools to pursuade voters who were on the fence and it was heralded as brilliant and the future of politics.
If you go back to 2008 election, the media was praising Obama as the first social media president. Remember how well obama used youtube, myspace, facebook, reddit and the burgeoning social space during his election? It's strange how the media is now attacking the social media space they loved so much because trump won the election.
> Why is any of this news?
I think it's because the media and the democrats and a large segment of the elites need something to blame for trump's win. They don't want to blame hillary or themselves for the loss, so they attack social media.
During the 2016 election, Trump was complaining about foreign interference in the elections. And Obama stated there was no foreigner interference and that Trump was whining because he was losing in the polls. Back then, the traditional media was backing obama and mocking trump. Now that trump has won, the traditional media is the one pushing the foreign interference narrative.
But I guess it is all conjecture. But ever since trump won the election, there has been a relentless propaganda campaign against social media by the establishment. You can't go a day without seeing a propaganda piece on traditional or social media about how bad social media is.
Re: 50M Facebook profiles harvested for Cambridge Analytica in major data breach
#224I remember when the Obama campaign hired data scientists and used targeted social networking tools to pursuade voters who were on the fence and it was heralded as brilliant and the future of politics. I worked for a company crawling Facebook data by creating viral apps the year the original API came out. By now I am sure this is done by many companies. Why is any of this news? My understanding is that companies harve…
Every advertisement should be ostensive Using fb to advertise for Obama, Trump, etc, is ok However that's not what has been done, but the a) use of shills and fake personas to pump up opinion b) creation of fake "grassroots movements" and "news articles" with a divisive purpose https://thinkprogress.org/russia-facebook-pages-sophisticate... https://www.reddit.com/r/RussiaLago/comments/7y6ola/there_ha...
Did you really link to russianlago, an actual shill subreddit? Also thinkprogress is a shill advocacy organization.
> However that's not what has been done, but the a) use of shills and fake personas to pump up opinion b) creation of fake "grassroots movements" and "news articles" with a divisive purpose
This has been done since forever. People supporting Obama did in 2008. Those supporting Ron Paul did it. Bernie sanders supporters did it and so did hillary supporters.
Re: 50M Facebook profiles harvested for Cambridge Analytica in major data breach
#225I remember when the Obama campaign hired data scientists and used targeted social networking tools to pursuade voters who were on the fence and it was heralded as brilliant and the future of politics. I worked for a company crawling Facebook data by creating viral apps the year the original API came out. By now I am sure this is done by many companies. Why is any of this news? My understanding is that companies harve…
> I remember when the Obama campaign hired data scientists and used targeted social networking tools to pursuade voters who were on the fence and it was heralded as brilliant and the future of politics. If you go back to 2008 election, the media was praising Obama as the first social media president. Remember how well obama used youtube, myspace, facebook, reddit and the burgeoning social space during his election? I…
There are actual reasons to be worried about this kind of thing:
- The advertisements were not overt ("fake news") - It raises the barrier of entry to the political process - Filter bubble effects
Or you can believe a story about "elites" and "biased media".
Re: 50M Facebook profiles harvested for Cambridge Analytica in major data breach
#226I think I finally understand what the point of Facebook apps is and why they've always felt in some way dodgy. It's been clear for years that Facebook apps can get your user data, and that of your friends, and that Facebook designed them that way and were aware of that. The Guardian article even mentions that one of the apps used by GSR to gather data for Cambridge Analytica triggered Facebook security protocols trying to pull too much data.
What I didn't understand is why Facebook would grant this - maybe at some point they needed viral apps on the platform and giving user data away encouraged people to make them - but why did it still work a few years ago? But this article made it click: all you can really do to monetise or use millions of profiles of Facebook users is target them with ads, and Facebook is the only place you can target those ads effectively given Facebook user data, and the more data you have the more effective those ads are, the more you pay Facebook.
Facebook don't sell user data, they've long said that - and it's true. They sell the ability to target advertising to their users, and you can do that a whole lot better if you have their user data. So they don't sell it, they give an API for their users to freely give it away, knowing that once you've done all your analysis on it you'll conclude that you should spend money paying Facebook to actually deliver your messages to those users.
Re: 50M Facebook profiles harvested for Cambridge Analytica in major data breach
#227I remember when the Obama campaign hired data scientists and used targeted social networking tools to pursuade voters who were on the fence and it was heralded as brilliant and the future of politics. I worked for a company crawling Facebook data by creating viral apps the year the original API came out. By now I am sure this is done by many companies. Why is any of this news? My understanding is that companies harve…
Every advertisement should be ostensive Using fb to advertise for Obama, Trump, etc, is ok However that's not what has been done, but the a) use of shills and fake personas to pump up opinion b) creation of fake "grassroots movements" and "news articles" with a divisive purpose https://thinkprogress.org/russia-facebook-pages-sophisticate... https://www.reddit.com/r/RussiaLago/comments/7y6ola/there_ha...
How easily or willfully we forget the past:
3/14/2008
>The Obama campaign's chief strategist is a master of "Astroturfing" and has a second firm that shapes public opinion for corporations
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2008-03-14/the-secre...
Re: 50M Facebook profiles harvested for Cambridge Analytica in major data breach
#228Earlier quoted context omitted.
Every advertisement should be ostensive Using fb to advertise for Obama, Trump, etc, is ok However that's not what has been done, but the a) use of shills and fake personas to pump up opinion b) creation of fake "grassroots movements" and "news articles" with a divisive purpose https://thinkprogress.org/russia-facebook-pages-sophisticate... https://www.reddit.com/r/RussiaLago/comments/7y6ola/there_ha...
How easily or willfully we forget the past: 3/14/2008 >The Obama campaign's chief strategist is a master of "Astroturfing" and has a second firm that shapes public opinion for corporations https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2008-03-14/the-secre...
Correct, doesn't make it right (and Hillary did some of this as well)
Re: 50M Facebook profiles harvested for Cambridge Analytica in major data breach
#229Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I remember when the Obama campaign hired data scientists and used targeted social networking tools to pursuade voters who were on the fence and it was heralded as brilliant and the future of politics. If you go back to 2008 election, the media was praising Obama as the first social media president. Remember how well obama used youtube, myspace, facebook, reddit and the burgeoning social space during his election? I…
There are actual reasons to be worried about this kind of thing: - The advertisements were not overt ("fake news") - It raises the barrier of entry to the political process - Filter bubble effects Or you can believe a story about "elites" and "biased media".
> There are actual reasons to be worried about this kind of thing:
I suppose. Why weren't people worried about this during obama's campaign?
> - The advertisements were not overt ("fake news") - It raises the barrier of entry to the political process - Filter bubble effects
If filter bubble effects are a problem, then we should be looking into traditional media, not social media. I'd say there is more of a filter bubble issues in CNN, NYTimes, WashingtonPost, Foxnews, etc than in social media. When nearly 100% of the largest media organizations are endorsing one candidate and/or espousing one type of ideology, maybe we should be looking at that.
> Or you can believe a story about "elites" and "biased media".
It's not a matter of believing. It's a matter of fact. Foxnews and the right wing were also whining about social media when obama won. Now it's the media and the left wing whining about social media because trump won. The only difference is that the leftwing has a much greater media presence.
It's so funny how both sides are the same. When it looked like trump was losing, he was blaming foreign interference and biased media and fake news. And the media/leftwing was mocking him for being paranoid and a sore loser. Now that trump won, it's the media/leftwing whining about foreign interference and biased social media and fake news. The hypocrisy displayed by every side is rather disheartening.
Re: 50M Facebook profiles harvested for Cambridge Analytica in major data breach
#230Earlier quoted context omitted.
How easily or willfully we forget the past: 3/14/2008 >The Obama campaign's chief strategist is a master of "Astroturfing" and has a second firm that shapes public opinion for corporations https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2008-03-14/the-secre...
Correct, doesn't make it right (and Hillary did some of this as well)
I agree. So why keep up this naive and demonstrably false act that 2016 was the year persuasion and behavioral psychology was put to practical use in politics to manipulate voters.
Every presidential election cycle I can remember was full of rhetoric and outright lies persuade voters. Does no one remember all of the hilariously terrible chain letters from past elections that claimed all sorts of nonsense? I just don't understand why people are running away with this idea that somehow facebook/twitter have changed the game when it comes to brainwashing people to vote conservative.
Politics is and always has been a no holds barred competition where anything goes that isn't straight up illegal. History books praise JFK for utilizing the television in 1960 to win his presidential election. I'm starting to think that if they had today's political climate he would be remembered as a manipulator rather than being savvy.