The whistleblower at the centre of the Cambridge Analytica storm asks if Britain will now address the hard issues which it has raised
I’m disappointed, but I also understand it. It is extremely uncomfortable to consider that our democracy may have been corrupted. That potential crimes may have taken place – some of them on Facebook’s servers – that seem to be beyond the reach of law. It’s why I testified last week to parliament. It’s why I have given three binders of evidence about Vote Leave to the UK Electoral Commission and information commissioner’s office.
That evidence proved enough for Facebook to take action and suspend AIQ to investigate. Will Britain now take this evidence seriously?
Because this is not just about data. In Britain, we have strict spending limits for elections. It’s what has kept Britain from following the path of American politics, where elections are the sport of billionaires and corporate interests.
Beyond data, there are two more issues at stake here: overspending and coordination between campaigns. The law forbids campaigns from coordinating, to forestall the potential for shell entities and overspending vehicles. In the digital age, where political campaigns use Facebook as their predominant tool, it’s difficult to enforce. And when four different campaigns – Vote Leave, BeLeave, Veterans for Britain and the DUP – all used the same data firm, AIQ, it’s pretty much impossible.
My intention here, is to set out the issues – and the evidence – as simply as possible.
This is WAY the **** too much agenda for a real journalist.This from the Guardian: Christopher Wylie - Why I broke the Facebook data story – and what should happen now
Excerpt:
Well worth the read if you are interested in how pervasive was the political corruption surrounding the compromise of Facebook data information and its use in both the American election and the Brexit vote as well.
As far as the US is concerned, let's not forget that our own election of a PotUS who lost the popular-vote is also of consequence to any functional democracy, which makes us wonder if we are indeed one ...
This from the Guardian: Christopher Wylie - Why I broke the Facebook data story – and what should happen now
Excerpt:
Well worth the read if you are interested in how pervasive was the political corruption surrounding the compromise of Facebook data information and its use in both the American election and the Brexit vote as well.
As far as the US is concerned, let's not forget that our own election of a PotUS who lost the popular-vote is also of consequence to any functional democracy, which makes us wonder if we are indeed one ...
I find it sad that people think everyone in the US even looks at Facebook, and those that do, and are of voting age, are all little robots that believe every ad they see on it. If there are that many people like that out there, that you think it actually swayed the election, then we deserve extinction.
So...this guy is all up in the world's face about mining FB info...but he's not talking about HIS part in the whole thing.
Let's face it...without that data, HE wouldn't have been able to do HIS job, which was to compile and sort that data so it would be useful to CA clients.
Seems that, at the time he was doing his work...and getting paid for it...he wasn't complaining so much about the source of that data or the methods used to acquire it. Why is he complaining now?
Cambridge Analytica (CA) is a British political consulting firm which combines data mining, data brokerage, and data analysis with strategic communication for the electoral process. It was started in 2013 as an offshoot of the SCL Group. The company is partly owned by the family of Robert Mercer, an American hedge-fund manager who supports many politically conservative causes. The firm maintains offices in London, New York City, and Washington, D.C.
SCL Group (formerly Strategic Communication Laboratories) is a private British behavioural research and strategic communication company. In the United States, SCL has gained public recognition mainly through its affiliated corporation Cambridge Analytica.
I find it sad that people think everyone in the US even looks at Facebook, and those that do, and are of voting age, are all little robots that believe every ad they see on it. If there are that many people like that out there, that you think it actually swayed the election, then we deserve extinction.
You are denying the ability of a site like Facebook to take advantage of personal information, then sell it to third-parties who employ it to "manipulate opinion to sell products/services".
What planet do you live on ... ?
PS:
*The irony of it all is the fact that both Zuckerberg (CEO) and Sandberg cannot seem to understand that they were central to the exploitation of Facebook-provided user information for profit. Which is of a personal nature (belonging to the individual) and they had no legal right to do so without having permission.
*No wonder Sandberg isn't saying "boo!" about her part. Her lawyer probably told her to shut-up?
*Both she and "Zuck" should take the dive - they are both rich enough. Too much money goes straight to the head - no stopping go (meaning no-rules), insufficient taxation thus doing so remains a dream-come-true.
*Wakey, wakey, America. Just where the hell are you going ... !
This is WAY the **** too much agenda for a real journalist.
Nope, not what I said.
But what I said.
This is a debate forum. Learn how to debate!
Rebut ... !
Welcome to a "debate forum".
You are making an unacceptable judgement. I am not twisting your words - I am taking them at face-value.
Learn to either "rebut" cogently or just move on ...
However, to make myself clearer, your OP referred to the election, and no, I don't believe many people chose to vote the way they did just because they saw an ad or post on Facebook. I would hope they put a little more thought into voting, than they would buying some kind of product.
I don't debate with someone who has twisted my words, then asks what planet I live on, as if I'm the one not understanding what I wrote.
However, to make myself clearer, your OP referred to the election, and no, I don't believe many people chose to vote the way they did just because they saw an ad or post on Facebook. I would hope they put a little more thought into voting, than they would buying some kind of product.
Funny this "guy" would only look at one side of the story.* snip*
Excerpt:
https://www.investors.com/politics/...nadal-trump-obama-campaign-election-meddling/As we noted earlier, the Obama campaign's use of Facebook data dwarfed anything Trump did. Cambridge Analytica purchased data from an academic, who gathered it in 2014 through an app that said the data would only be used for academic purposes. There's no question that was misleading.
But by the time the general election rolled around, the Trump campaign had dumped Cambridge as a consultant, which means the data Cambridge bought had no impact on the general election.
In contrast, the Obama campaign's use of Facebook was massive, and even more intrusive. About a million people let the campaign gather not only data on themselves, but on all their friends, who didn't know their data was being harvested as well — a number that could easily have reached 190 million, which, at the time, was about equal to every active Facebook user in the U.S.
.
And the campaign aggressively used its unique access to influence millions of people the campaign identified as "persuadable," sending them highly targeted campaign messages that appeared to come from their Facebook friends, rather than the Obama campaign.
Obama's people saw this as a massive advantage, telling the press after the election that it was "the most groundbreaking piece of technology developed for the campaign." The press, in turn, heralded Obama for his brilliance at leveraging social media to activate voters and win an election at a time when its approval ratings were low and the economy was doing poorly.
Apparently, Facebook knew its user data was being harvested en masse, but didn't care.
After the Cambridge Analytica story broke, an Obama campaign staffer, Carol Davidsen, tweeted about how "Facebook was surprised we were able to suck out the whole social graph, but they didn't stop us once they realized what we were doing." By "whole social graph," she presumably meant profiles of every Facebook user in the U.S.
...
She also said that Facebook officials came to the campaign offices after the election recruiting Obama's tech team, and that "they were very candid that they allowed us to do things they wouldn't have allowed someone else to do because they were on our side."
This wasn't entirely new news, by the way. The New York Times reported in 2013, in another glowing piece on Obama's tech team, how "The campaign's exhaustive use of Facebook triggered the site's internal safeguards." Facebook's response, according to one campaign official: "They'd sigh and say, 'You can do this as long as you stop doing it on Nov. 7.'"
That's where the potential legal trouble starts. Despite all the hosannas for Obama's technical prowess, the arrangement between the campaign and Facebook might have been outside the law.
According to Heritage Foundation election expert Hans von Spakovsky, federal law "bans corporations from making 'direct or indirect' contributions to federal candidates."
That ban, he says, doesn't just include cash, but anything of value. "In other words, corporations cannot provide federal candidates with free services of any kind."
He goes on, if "Facebook gave the Obama campaign free access to this type of data when it normally does not do so for other entities — or usually charges for such access — then Facebook would appear to have violated the federal ban on in-kind contributions by a corporation. And the Obama campaign may have violated the law by accepting such a corporate contribution."
To be sure, von Spakovsky isn't saying that Facebook or Obama did break the law, only that, given what Davidsen has now admitted (and so far as we know, no one from Facebook has disputed her claims), the Federal Election Commission, if not the Justice Dept., should investigate.
But what I said.
This is a debate forum. Learn how to debate!
Rebut ... !
I don't debate with someone who has twisted my words, then asks what planet I live on, as if I'm the one not understanding what I wrote.
However, to make myself clearer, your OP referred to the election, and no, I don't believe many people chose to vote the way they did just because they saw an ad or post on Facebook. I would hope they put a little more thought into voting, than they would buying some kind of product.
Your point was valid and well made. It's just (in my opinion) that we're seeing a growing faction in our society that insists that everything we see, hear, or even think, must be dictated to us based on what they feel is best. It's not that we no longer have the ability to think for ourselves, it's that they do not have that ability. Hence, they feel a great need to control what everyone sees.
We live in interesting times.
And interesting observation for sure.
Good Morning Too U!
:2wave:
Good morning to you as well!
:2wave:
A TANGLED WEB
He was talking. To parliament. March 27th ...
How could he know the import of his work, when (1) there were no US-regulations that outlawed it, and (2) he was just an Information Technician that was obtaining the data as a client had contracted him to do.
The "real-political-operative" in this story was American-billionaire Robert Mercer who financed it all. Wylie was just a very good programmer.
About Mercer, here:
The SCL Group (according to WikiP) is:
This "tangled web" of voter manipulation is not so tangled after all. It is funded by one and most only one family - the billionaire Mercers dabbling in US politics because they've nothing better to do ...
For you, it's the fact that a guy spent his own hard earned money...legally..the way he chose to, though I'm not so sure your contention that he did it "because (he had) nothing better to do" is accurate.
For gawdsake, enough coffee for you this morning.
Holbritter's argument is better than yours.
Not only is Facebook a private enterprise, no one is forced to use the platform, and, even if they do, a government should not need to protect normal citizens from propaganda.
Propaganda.
It's not as scary as you might think. Of course, if it scares you, that might be because you don't[think]
Not only is Facebook a private enterprise, no one is forced to use the platform, and, even if they do, a government should not need to protect normal citizens from propaganda.
I would hope they put a little more thought into voting, than they would buying some kind of product.
Trump's direct access to millions of his followers through social media arguably allowed him to maintain his campaign's momentum whereas an older system — in which the choke points of media exposure roughly correspond to the choke points of political power — would have shut him down long before he won the Republican nomination. Trump's facility with social media raises an important question: Could a digital-only communications strategy have won him the White House?
Trump didn't just use Twitter as a tool to propel his campaign, he used it to supplant traditional earned and paid media strategies. The digital reach of his tweets may have proved far less important than their reverberation throughout the legacy media ecosystem. In this sense, social media moments were no different from provocative TV spots or planned interviews, all of which Trump mastered long ago, and all of which he expected would be amplified through earned coverage.
In 2016, the spectacle of Trump, a skilled pitchman hitting his stride in a newfangled medium, smashing up the rules of political discourse, proved irresistible to the media. By some estimates, Trump's earned media coverage throughout the campaign was worth $5 billion. In the hands of a less skilled self-promoter, social media would likely have been a far less successful tool.
And it's essential to remember that Trump's overnight political success was built on the persona he had crafted during decades in the limelight. Twitter is the latest tool of his celebrity, not its source.
Funny this "guy" would only look at one side of the story. Real question here is why you folks ignore the even more egregious data breach and major scandal of a huge, illegal in-kind election campaign donation by FB to slenderman's [Obama] campaign in 2012.
Our ruling
McCain said that there was a strong equivalence between how the Obama and Trump campaigns accessed user data on Facebook.
The Obama campaign and Cambridge Analytica both gained access to huge amounts of information about Facebook users and their friends, and in neither case did the friends of app users consent.
But in Obama’s case, direct users knew they were handing over their data to a political campaign. In the Cambridge Analytica case, users only knew were taking a personality quiz for academic purposes.
The Obama campaign used the data to have their supporters contact their most persuadable friends. Cambridge Analytica targeted users and their friends directly with digital ads.
Whereas the data gathering and the uses were very different, the data each campaign gained access to was similar. We rate this statement Half True.
No, the real-question is answered in "how the data is used" - not how it was got.
Towards deciding whether it was "fair not not-fair", POLITIFACT says this:
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?