321–330 of 662 posts
Facebook has been an essential tool for keeping in touch and keeping track.
What do I tell them all to use instead? Migrating to anything else, even if we all agreed, would be a huge pain.
All of this Facebook hubub and broad public outcry is really all owed to the election of Trump. If Trump handnt leveraged CA, we’d still all be happy and fat on out individual bliss boxes – patting ourselves on the back – because our side [a la Obama] was smart enough to use this technology to our advantage. Now when the enemy has (and use) the same technology, we’re forced to cry foul. Demand oversight. Demand regul…
Are you sure about that? People were not happy with Wikileaks revelations and Obama was forced to end or strip down some NSA programs. Also, your whole argument says “People are not happy with what’s going on only because they are facing the consequences of it”. Duh? It was never easy to explain why privacy matters, the argument that if you are not doing anything bad then you don’t have anything to hide was good enou…
Obama's campaign team bragged openly about doing the same thing, nobody cared.
For example: "mined an Obama backer’s Facebook network in search of friends the campaign wanted to register, mobilize, or persuade."
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/509026/how-obamas-team-us... (2012)
I find it very hypocritical of all these people who already have vested their shares in Facebook coming out and criticizing the company. As someone else mentioned on this thread, this is the guy who contributed to the concentration of all things social into Facebook by selling Whatsapp. I'm pretty sure most people are not fond of Facebook basically monopolizing people's private data and monetizing, but you don't get…
Financial independence is more important. Once you attain that you can seriously fight back, it's about picking your battles. With the money he made in the sell he can do some SERIOUS investment into what he believe's in that's going to create magnitudes more mass in the direction he wants to go then piddling around without it. FI should be everyone's primary goal, because only then can you put your effort to what yo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Regardless of the reason for the permission being asked, This seems...insane. Informed consent makes all the difference in cases like this. How can you feel that it's irrelevant whether data was obtained under fraudulent premises, versus with explicit consent? It would be like saying 'It doesn't matter that company A had a real product with real traction and raised $10Mm, while company B lied to investors about the…
> How can you feel that it's irrelevant whether data was obtained under fraudulent premises, versus with explicit consent? Very simply: None of the millions of friends were asked for their consent in either case. There was no consent requested or premise given, the data was simply "obtained" in both cases, by the same means. > but what you said sounds _exactly_ that outlandish to me. Maybe because it has nothing to d…
I was looking at the situation from Bob's perspective, where I think we can agree that there is a significant difference in the two formats of collection.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the trump campaign didn't use the CA data That might be technically correct, but CA was unquestionably working with SuperPACs[1] behind the scenes to get Trump elected in November. CA was particularly proud of it's crooked Hillary campaign ("the OO of crooked was a pair of handcuffs"). 1. According to the Cambridge Analytica CEO in the Channel 4 undercover documentary https://youtu.be/cy-9iciNF1A?t=6m21s
I agree that Super PAC's need to be eliminated. One funded by George Soros was particularly effective in the anti Ray Moore campaign in Alabama: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/how-democrats-use-...
Did you mean to reply some other comment? I never volunteered my opinion on SuperPACs one way or the other (for you to agree with). In that light your comment is an off-topic non-sequitur.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's the actions on the margin that matter here. Just think of what this whole story (Foreign meddling) says about these marginal voters in that case: That they were so easily swayed, that they decided to vote ostensibly against their own better judgement simply by being shown a series of ads to influence their emotions. Something is very wrong with voter education if it's that easy to sway a certain influential popu…
I always love people who tout the "how could those feeble minded simpletons be so easily swindled; I would never fall for that" slogan. Have you considered it might be happening to you, right now ? How would you tell, if by definition we are talking about pressing unconscious psychological buttons? You may be very well educated, but you've never the less the same monkey brain as everyone on this earth.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
what a classic deflection by bringing up Obama and some how trying to connect him to this travesty.
Um... you can’t say “whataboutism” when you are comparing two directly hypocritical reactions to the same scenario. CA sold data to Trump, Rubio, and others - pitchforks! FB gives data to Obama and Clinton, marketing awards and praise.
Gonna need a citation of Obama being even remotely involved in something like that.
Classic deflection.
All of this Facebook hubub and broad public outcry is really all owed to the election of Trump. If Trump handnt leveraged CA, we’d still all be happy and fat on out individual bliss boxes – patting ourselves on the back – because our side [a la Obama] was smart enough to use this technology to our advantage. Now when the enemy has (and use) the same technology, we’re forced to cry foul. Demand oversight. Demand regul…
I think the best thing that has come out of the election of Donald Trump is that many people are now excited about the idea of constitutionally limiting the power of the executive branch. That idea seemed to have been forgotten for the past few administrations. Even when I agreed with Obama or Bush, I was very disappointed when they would use innovative methods to single-handedly override the will of congress or the…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you spell it out? How did Russia "hack" the election? Please try to be specific. If I wanted random news stories, I'd google them.
Can you read? Those lists are very detailed and deal exclusively with this topic.
All: Please keep garden-variety partisan flamewars far away from this site, too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I believe you missed my point. Those that cry foul over those targeted Facebook ads also fail to realize that people were still willing to drink the Kool-Aid. Of course, it would be asinine to paint with broad strokes. But one can't disregard that it takes two to tango in exchanges of ideas and information. Edit: my horrendous spelling
You're implying that we all were conned, yet I'm still a happy supporter of Trump and will continue to be, yet here I am not a redneck, extremely tolerant, not a racist, incredibly kind, etc. Maybe you've been conned on who a Trump supporter is.
Thank you for enlightening me on why the previous user was so aggressive in his rebuke. I can see how, if somebody is happy with their choice, they may have felt slighted and assumed I implied that they, too, were conned.
I can appreciate that somebody's personal calculus is different from my own. However, those whom I have encountered that regret their decision articulate it in such terms that "con" really is the proper descriptor.