CSNbbs

(03-23-2018 11:07 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]Bain Capital is not the 23rd circle of capitalist hell I now will assume.

...and he will not be condemned for putting people out of work.

(03-24-2018 10:46 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technolog...li=BBnbcA1

The article does a good job discussing the difference between CA, and why the issue was raised recently. It was common knowledge and no secret that the Trump campaign used micro-targeting during the campaign. But when it came out that CA was unethically mining that data (mining data of people who didn’t authorize it, explicitly) and then keeping it after they were told to delete it, that is when the uproar started. Then the Channel 4 news story came out which saw them explicitly state that they have bribed/blackmailed officials in foreign countries, and developed propoganda that couldn’t be traced back to them, that the uproar grew.

It’s a bit of a false equivalency here, especially when you realize the issue isn’t the simple act of micro-targeting, but how that micro-targeting was developed and then executed.

(03-24-2018 11:35 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-24-2018 10:46 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technolog...li=BBnbcA1

The article does a good job discussing the difference between CA, and why the issue was raised recently. It was common knowledge and no secret that the Trump campaign used micro-targeting during the campaign. But when it came out that CA was unethically mining that data (mining data of people who didn’t authorize it, explicitly) and then keeping it after they were told to delete it, that is when the uproar started. Then the Channel 4 news story came out which saw them explicitly state that they have bribed/blackmailed officials in foreign countries, and developed propoganda that couldn’t be traced back to them, that the uproar grew.

It’s a bit of a false equivalency here, especially when you realize the issue isn’t the simple act of micro-targeting, but how that micro-targeting was developed and then executed.

So the major difference is that Facebook 'tightened its rules' in 2015. Sorry, very good equivalency in the collection when you read closely. Of course, you also tend to overlook the section that states :

Quote:But while Cambridge Analytica's methods for acquiring data are in dispute

you automatically dont pay that much quarter.

You also skip over details of the Obama app that push it very much into the realm of CA. The original users of the Obama app gave permission -- they did have knowledge. But what is very much overlooked is that the within the functionality of the Obama app, it hoovered the crap out of their contacts and friends information as well.

IBD article

Quote:Nor was this the first time Facebook users had their data unwittingly shared with a political campaign.

In 2012, the Obama campaign encouraged supporters to download an Obama 2012 Facebook app that, when activated, let the campaign collect Facebook data both on users and their friends.

According to a July 2012 MIT Technology Review article, when you installed the app, "it said it would grab information about my friends: their birth dates, locations, and 'likes.' "

The campaign boasted that more than a million people downloaded the app, which, given an average friend-list size of 190, means that as many as 190 million had at least some of their Facebook data vacuumed up by the Obama campaign — without their knowledge or consent.

Yes, there is definitely an equivalency here.

As for expanding the micro-targeting, do you have any information that any salacious activities accompanied CA in the US election? Or is that being tossed here to 'liven up' the current discussion?

(03-24-2018 11:35 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-24-2018 10:46 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technolog...li=BBnbcA1

The article does a good job discussing the difference between CA, and why the issue was raised recently. It was common knowledge and no secret that the Trump campaign used micro-targeting during the campaign. But when it came out that CA was unethically mining that data (mining data of people who didn’t authorize it, explicitly) and then keeping it after they were told to delete it, that is when the uproar started. Then the Channel 4 news story came out which saw them explicitly state that they have bribed/blackmailed officials in foreign countries, and developed propoganda that couldn’t be traced back to them, that the uproar grew.

It’s a bit of a false equivalency here, especially when you realize the issue isn’t the simple act of micro-targeting, but how that micro-targeting was developed and then executed.

Exact;y the double standard I was pointing out.

(03-24-2018 12:43 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-24-2018 11:35 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-24-2018 10:46 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technolog...li=BBnbcA1

The article does a good job discussing the difference between CA, and why the issue was raised recently. It was common knowledge and no secret that the Trump campaign used micro-targeting during the campaign. But when it came out that CA was unethically mining that data (mining data of people who didn’t authorize it, explicitly) and then keeping it after they were told to delete it, that is when the uproar started. Then the Channel 4 news story came out which saw them explicitly state that they have bribed/blackmailed officials in foreign countries, and developed propoganda that couldn’t be traced back to them, that the uproar grew.

It’s a bit of a false equivalency here, especially when you realize the issue isn’t the simple act of micro-targeting, but how that micro-targeting was developed and then executed.

So the major difference is that Facebook 'tightened its rules' in 2015. Sorry, very good equivalency in the collection when you read closely. Of course, you also tend to overlook the section that states :

Quote:But while Cambridge Analytica's methods for acquiring data are in dispute

you automatically dont pay that much quarter.

You also skip over details of the Obama app that push it very much into the realm of CA. The original users of the Obama app gave permission -- they did have knowledge. But what is very much overlooked is that the within the functionality of the Obama app, it hoovered the crap out of their contacts and friends information as well.

IBD article

Quote:Nor was this the first time Facebook users had their data unwittingly shared with a political campaign.

In 2012, the Obama campaign encouraged supporters to download an Obama 2012 Facebook app that, when activated, let the campaign collect Facebook data both on users and their friends.

According to a July 2012 MIT Technology Review article, when you installed the app, "it said it would grab information about my friends: their birth dates, locations, and 'likes.' "

The campaign boasted that more than a million people downloaded the app, which, given an average friend-list size of 190, means that as many as 190 million had at least some of their Facebook data vacuumed up by the Obama campaign — without their knowledge or consent.

Yes, there is definitely an equivalency here.

As for expanding the micro-targeting, do you have any information that any salacious activities accompanied CA in the US election? Or is that being tossed here to 'liven up' the current discussion?

First - what a hilariously biased website.

But they made a few good points. A big one is this:

Quote:The only difference, as far as we can discern, between the two campaigns' use of Facebook, is that in the case of Obama the users themselves agreed to share their data with the Obama campaign, as well as that of their friends.

Also, the Obama campaign did not use the social media knowledge to develop propaganda that was disconnected from the campaign. Obama’s team blitzed people who signed up for the app and asked them to willingly post the information.

Are you defending CA, or just trying to point out that Obama’s team used micro-targeting? If the former, are you happy that they have admitted to blackmailing politicians? If the latter, the big issue isn’t the micro-targeting, it’s how it was carried out (using data that was gathered without consent, and putting out propaganda that was not openly connected to the campaign).

And can you point to info on how CA’s information gathering is in dispute? What exactly is disputed?

(03-24-2018 01:01 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-24-2018 11:35 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-24-2018 10:46 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technolog...li=BBnbcA1

The article does a good job discussing the difference between CA, and why the issue was raised recently. It was common knowledge and no secret that the Trump campaign used micro-targeting during the campaign. But when it came out that CA was unethically mining that data (mining data of people who didn’t authorize it, explicitly) and then keeping it after they were told to delete it, that is when the uproar started. Then the Channel 4 news story came out which saw them explicitly state that they have bribed/blackmailed officials in foreign countries, and developed propoganda that couldn’t be traced back to them, that the uproar grew.

It’s a bit of a false equivalency here, especially when you realize the issue isn’t the simple act of micro-targeting, but how that micro-targeting was developed and then executed.

Exact;y the double standard I was pointing out.

Ah, so you agree that comparing the Obama campaign’s micro-targeting is different than CA’s. Good to hear.

(03-24-2018 01:15 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-24-2018 01:01 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-24-2018 11:35 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-24-2018 10:46 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technolog...li=BBnbcA1

The article does a good job discussing the difference between CA, and why the issue was raised recently. It was common knowledge and no secret that the Trump campaign used micro-targeting during the campaign. But when it came out that CA was unethically mining that data (mining data of people who didn’t authorize it, explicitly) and then keeping it after they were told to delete it, that is when the uproar started. Then the Channel 4 news story came out which saw them explicitly state that they have bribed/blackmailed officials in foreign countries, and developed propoganda that couldn’t be traced back to them, that the uproar grew.

It’s a bit of a false equivalency here, especially when you realize the issue isn’t the simple act of micro-targeting, but how that micro-targeting was developed and then executed.

Exact;y the double standard I was pointing out.

Ah, so you agree that comparing the Obama campaign’s micro-targeting is different than CA’s. Good to hear.

No, I agree that that whatever Obama did is OK by the left, and the same thing by Trump is considered unethical by the left.

Politifact has a good comparison of the two and helps point out the differences.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/...ge-analyt/

The issue to me isn’t the Trump campaign’s attempt to use micro-targeting, it’s the unethical way CA went about it. We are basically at a point in computer science where we need to start really discuss ethics in the same way we do for engineering (like having a P.E. license).

(03-24-2018 01:17 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-24-2018 01:15 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-24-2018 01:01 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-24-2018 11:35 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-24-2018 10:46 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technolog...li=BBnbcA1

The article does a good job discussing the difference between CA, and why the issue was raised recently. It was common knowledge and no secret that the Trump campaign used micro-targeting during the campaign. But when it came out that CA was unethically mining that data (mining data of people who didn’t authorize it, explicitly) and then keeping it after they were told to delete it, that is when the uproar started. Then the Channel 4 news story came out which saw them explicitly state that they have bribed/blackmailed officials in foreign countries, and developed propoganda that couldn’t be traced back to them, that the uproar grew.

It’s a bit of a false equivalency here, especially when you realize the issue isn’t the simple act of micro-targeting, but how that micro-targeting was developed and then executed.

Exact;y the double standard I was pointing out.

Ah, so you agree that comparing the Obama campaign’s micro-targeting is different than CA’s. Good to hear.

No, I agree that that whatever Obama did is OK by the left, and the same thing by Trump is considered unethical by the left.

So you see no ethical qualms with what CA did?

(03-24-2018 01:24 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-24-2018 01:17 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-24-2018 01:15 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-24-2018 01:01 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-24-2018 11:35 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]The article does a good job discussing the difference between CA, and why the issue was raised recently. It was common knowledge and no secret that the Trump campaign used micro-targeting during the campaign. But when it came out that CA was unethically mining that data (mining data of people who didn’t authorize it, explicitly) and then keeping it after they were told to delete it, that is when the uproar started. Then the Channel 4 news story came out which saw them explicitly state that they have bribed/blackmailed officials in foreign countries, and developed propoganda that couldn’t be traced back to them, that the uproar grew.

It’s a bit of a false equivalency here, especially when you realize the issue isn’t the simple act of micro-targeting, but how that micro-targeting was developed and then executed.

Exact;y the double standard I was pointing out.

Ah, so you agree that comparing the Obama campaign’s micro-targeting is different than CA’s. Good to hear.

No, I agree that that whatever Obama did is OK by the left, and the same thing by Trump is considered unethical by the left.

So you see no ethical qualms with what CA did?

I see no qualms about what Trump did.

let's say Obama's butler hands him a baseball bat, which Obama uses to clobber somebody.

And let's say Trumps Butler hands him a baseball bat, which he uses to clobber somebody.

Same thing, to me.

Now let's say Obama's butler bought the bat from a neighbor, and Trump's butler stole the bat from a neighbor.

Does that influence how we should view the usages of the bat?

(03-24-2018 01:31 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-24-2018 01:24 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-24-2018 01:17 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-24-2018 01:15 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-24-2018 01:01 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Exact;y the double standard I was pointing out.

Ah, so you agree that comparing the Obama campaign’s micro-targeting is different than CA’s. Good to hear.

No, I agree that that whatever Obama did is OK by the left, and the same thing by Trump is considered unethical by the left.

So you see no ethical qualms with what CA did?

I see no qualms about what Trump did.

let's say Obama's butler hands him a baseball bat, which Obama uses to clobber somebody.

And let's say Trumps Butler hands him a baseball bat, which he uses to clobber somebody.

Same thing, to me.

Now let's say Obama's butler bought the bat from a neighbor, and Trump's butler stole the bat from a neighbor.

Does that influence how we should view the usages of the bat?

When did I say Trump? I said CA. I am comparing the Obama’s campaign to CA. Do you have any ethical qualms about how CA operated?

(03-24-2018 01:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-24-2018 01:31 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-24-2018 01:24 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-24-2018 01:17 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-24-2018 01:15 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]Ah, so you agree that comparing the Obama campaign’s micro-targeting is different than CA’s. Good to hear.

No, I agree that that whatever Obama did is OK by the left, and the same thing by Trump is considered unethical by the left.

So you see no ethical qualms with what CA did?

I see no qualms about what Trump did.

let's say Obama's butler hands him a baseball bat, which Obama uses to clobber somebody.

And let's say Trumps Butler hands him a baseball bat, which he uses to clobber somebody.

Same thing, to me.

Now let's say Obama's butler bought the bat from a neighbor, and Trump's butler stole the bat from a neighbor.

Does that influence how we should view the usages of the bat?

When did I say Trump? I said CA. I am comparing the Obama’s campaign to CA. Do you have any ethical qualms about how CA operated?

If it is illegal, I would not do it that way. My point was to the usage of the data, not the provenance.

Was it illegal?

BTW, I have never been on Facebook, and never will be. I just see it as me posting stuff about myself that is nobody's business but mine, so I guess I should be happy if somebody actually reads it.

(03-24-2018 01:40 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-24-2018 01:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-24-2018 01:31 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-24-2018 01:24 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-24-2018 01:17 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]No, I agree that that whatever Obama did is OK by the left, and the same thing by Trump is considered unethical by the left.

So you see no ethical qualms with what CA did?

I see no qualms about what Trump did.

let's say Obama's butler hands him a baseball bat, which Obama uses to clobber somebody.

And let's say Trumps Butler hands him a baseball bat, which he uses to clobber somebody.

Same thing, to me.

Now let's say Obama's butler bought the bat from a neighbor, and Trump's butler stole the bat from a neighbor.

Does that influence how we should view the usages of the bat?

When did I say Trump? I said CA. I am comparing the Obama’s campaign to CA. Do you have any ethical qualms about how CA operated?

If it is illegal, I would not do it that way. My point was to the usage of the data, not the provenance.

Was it illegal?

BTW, I have never been on Facebook, and never will be. I just see it as me posting stuff about myself that is nobody's business but mine, so I guess I should be happy if somebody actually reads it.

Since when have legality and ethics been directly correlated? Is the legality of an action the only thing that matters to you in regards to ethics?

(03-24-2018 01:14 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-24-2018 12:43 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-24-2018 11:35 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-24-2018 10:46 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technolog...li=BBnbcA1

The article does a good job discussing the difference between CA, and why the issue was raised recently. It was common knowledge and no secret that the Trump campaign used micro-targeting during the campaign. But when it came out that CA was unethically mining that data (mining data of people who didn’t authorize it, explicitly) and then keeping it after they were told to delete it, that is when the uproar started. Then the Channel 4 news story came out which saw them explicitly state that they have bribed/blackmailed officials in foreign countries, and developed propoganda that couldn’t be traced back to them, that the uproar grew.

It’s a bit of a false equivalency here, especially when you realize the issue isn’t the simple act of micro-targeting, but how that micro-targeting was developed and then executed.

So the major difference is that Facebook 'tightened its rules' in 2015. Sorry, very good equivalency in the collection when you read closely. Of course, you also tend to overlook the section that states :

Quote:But while Cambridge Analytica's methods for acquiring data are in dispute

you automatically dont pay that much quarter.

You also skip over details of the Obama app that push it very much into the realm of CA. The original users of the Obama app gave permission -- they did have knowledge. But what is very much overlooked is that the within the functionality of the Obama app, it hoovered the crap out of their contacts and friends information as well.

IBD article

Quote:Nor was this the first time Facebook users had their data unwittingly shared with a political campaign.

In 2012, the Obama campaign encouraged supporters to download an Obama 2012 Facebook app that, when activated, let the campaign collect Facebook data both on users and their friends.

According to a July 2012 MIT Technology Review article, when you installed the app, "it said it would grab information about my friends: their birth dates, locations, and 'likes.' "

The campaign boasted that more than a million people downloaded the app, which, given an average friend-list size of 190, means that as many as 190 million had at least some of their Facebook data vacuumed up by the Obama campaign — without their knowledge or consent.

Yes, there is definitely an equivalency here.

As for expanding the micro-targeting, do you have any information that any salacious activities accompanied CA in the US election? Or is that being tossed here to 'liven up' the current discussion?

First - what a hilariously biased website.

Perhaps you would consider addressing the facts pointed out instead of whining about a 'biased website'. And yes, for a prog I would assume an Investor's Business Daily would qualify as a kneejerk comment about bias.

Quote:But they made a few good points. A big one is this:

Quote:The only difference, as far as we can discern, between the two campaigns' use of Facebook, is that in the case of Obama the users themselves agreed to share their data with the Obama campaign, as well as that of their friends.

Also, the Obama campaign did not use the social media knowledge to develop propaganda that was disconnected from the campaign. Obama’s team blitzed people who signed up for the app and asked them to willingly post the information.

I see. Obama scraped the info about all the friend's contact, location, etc. just for ***** and giggles. Got it. The scraping and harvesting was done in just an unethical manner as CA.

I guess you missed the part where, while correct that the app user was informed, all the fing information on their friends was hoovered up w/o bothering for the consent of the friends.

So on CA side we have them getting the info from users w/o proper consent, and hoovering up all the friend's information without the consent of the friends.

On Obama side we have original consent from the user, but seriously lacking consent wise for the ancillary hoovering up of the friend information.

Makes all the difference....

Quote:Are you defending CA, or just trying to point out that Obama’s team used micro-targeting?

No, they used the same methods to harvest and scrape info (without the knowledge or consent of many) just as CA did and you seemingly complain about. But let's just coverup that action by using the soft term 'micro-target'.

Quote:If the former, are you happy that they have admitted to blackmailing politicians?

Brushing up on your rhetorical questions? Defending the scraping and harvesting of data, which is what they did in the US election. I am not of fan of the aforementioned actions. Perhaps you will point out some of those actions used in the US elections? Or are you just yelling 'they are baaaaaaad people' like most liberals tend to do when faced with an equivalency. Btw, I hate to tell you Fusion GPS is no fing saint either. But, I dont feel the need to drag their name into a discussion about 'what happened in the US election' because there is no indication they did such in it.

Quote:If the latter, the big issue isn’t the micro-targeting, it’s how it was carried out (using data that was gathered without consent, and putting out propaganda that was not openly connected to the campaign).

Yes, no PAC *ever* used *any* information from an Obama information harvest. If you truly believe that I have some land in Florida I want to sell you. Btw, you do understand that Obama gathered a crap ton of information without consent, right? So why you so worked up over that?

By the way love the word play of 'propaganda'. Again I guess nothing that ever comes out of Democratic based items is 'propaganda', its all 'information' then, isnt it?

Quote:And can you point to info on how CA’s information gathering is in dispute? What exactly is disputed?

Im quoting the article. Feel free to call it out as hilariously biased as you do many items that you tend to disagree with.

(03-24-2018 01:47 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-24-2018 01:40 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-24-2018 01:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-24-2018 01:31 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-24-2018 01:24 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]So you see no ethical qualms with what CA did?

I see no qualms about what Trump did.

let's say Obama's butler hands him a baseball bat, which Obama uses to clobber somebody.

And let's say Trumps Butler hands him a baseball bat, which he uses to clobber somebody.

Same thing, to me.

Now let's say Obama's butler bought the bat from a neighbor, and Trump's butler stole the bat from a neighbor.

Does that influence how we should view the usages of the bat?

When did I say Trump? I said CA. I am comparing the Obama’s campaign to CA. Do you have any ethical qualms about how CA operated?

If it is illegal, I would not do it that way. My point was to the usage of the data, not the provenance.

Was it illegal?

BTW, I have never been on Facebook, and never will be. I just see it as me posting stuff about myself that is nobody's business but mine, so I guess I should be happy if somebody actually reads it.

Since when have legality and ethics been directly correlated? Is the legality of an action the only thing that matters to you in regards to ethics?

Do *you* have ethical qualms about the Obama actions of hoovering the **** out of information on friends in a friends list when *only* the original user gave permission, and the consent of the friends was absent?

I do.

Much as I do with both steps of the CA actions.

But I guess the original permission makes Obama's actions okay in your book....

(03-24-2018 01:47 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-24-2018 01:40 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-24-2018 01:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-24-2018 01:31 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-24-2018 01:24 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]So you see no ethical qualms with what CA did?

I see no qualms about what Trump did.

let's say Obama's butler hands him a baseball bat, which Obama uses to clobber somebody.

And let's say Trumps Butler hands him a baseball bat, which he uses to clobber somebody.

Same thing, to me.

Now let's say Obama's butler bought the bat from a neighbor, and Trump's butler stole the bat from a neighbor.

Does that influence how we should view the usages of the bat?

When did I say Trump? I said CA. I am comparing the Obama’s campaign to CA. Do you have any ethical qualms about how CA operated?

If it is illegal, I would not do it that way. My point was to the usage of the data, not the provenance.

Was it illegal?

BTW, I have never been on Facebook, and never will be. I just see it as me posting stuff about myself that is nobody's business but mine, so I guess I should be happy if somebody actually reads it.

Since when have legality and ethics been directly correlated? Is the legality of an action the only thing that matters to you in regards to ethics?

It's a big part. Hard to find something that is both ethical and illegal.

Lad's whole argument seems like a big example of the liberal double standard.

lad, what is the point your are trying to make? it seems to me it is Obama good, Trump bad. If that is not it, what is?

(03-24-2018 02:26 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-24-2018 01:47 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-24-2018 01:40 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-24-2018 01:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-24-2018 01:31 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]I see no qualms about what Trump did.

let's say Obama's butler hands him a baseball bat, which Obama uses to clobber somebody.

And let's say Trumps Butler hands him a baseball bat, which he uses to clobber somebody.

Same thing, to me.

Now let's say Obama's butler bought the bat from a neighbor, and Trump's butler stole the bat from a neighbor.

Does that influence how we should view the usages of the bat?

When did I say Trump? I said CA. I am comparing the Obama’s campaign to CA. Do you have any ethical qualms about how CA operated?

If it is illegal, I would not do it that way. My point was to the usage of the data, not the provenance.

Was it illegal?

BTW, I have never been on Facebook, and never will be. I just see it as me posting stuff about myself that is nobody's business but mine, so I guess I should be happy if somebody actually reads it.

Since when have legality and ethics been directly correlated? Is the legality of an action the only thing that matters to you in regards to ethics?

It's a big part. Hard to find something that is both ethical and illegal.

Easy to do when you are an expert at dancing a jig on a pinhead.

I thought the quote in the posted article where the Obama guy made a huuuugeee issue of 'we didnt break any rules', and the sentence several paragraphs down says 'Facebook tightened up the rules in 2015' was quite an interesting juxtaposition and a made the choice of words by the Obama guy very interesting. Very subtle, but most would easily overlook that verbiage in context of the sentence that came several paragraphs later.

I am actually in awe of the Obama dudes message with that context. I am sure he is a pro at depositions.

(03-24-2018 02:23 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-24-2018 01:47 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-24-2018 01:40 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-24-2018 01:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-24-2018 01:31 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]I see no qualms about what Trump did.

let's say Obama's butler hands him a baseball bat, which Obama uses to clobber somebody.

And let's say Trumps Butler hands him a baseball bat, which he uses to clobber somebody.

Same thing, to me.

Now let's say Obama's butler bought the bat from a neighbor, and Trump's butler stole the bat from a neighbor.

Does that influence how we should view the usages of the bat?

When did I say Trump? I said CA. I am comparing the Obama’s campaign to CA. Do you have any ethical qualms about how CA operated?

If it is illegal, I would not do it that way. My point was to the usage of the data, not the provenance.

Was it illegal?

BTW, I have never been on Facebook, and never will be. I just see it as me posting stuff about myself that is nobody's business but mine, so I guess I should be happy if somebody actually reads it.

Since when have legality and ethics been directly correlated? Is the legality of an action the only thing that matters to you in regards to ethics?

Do *you* have ethical qualms about the Obama actions of hoovering the **** out of information on friends in a friends list when *only* the original user gave permission, and the consent of the friends was absent?

I do.

Much as I do with both steps of the CA actions.

But I guess the original permission makes Obama's actions okay in your book....

I think the harvesting of friend’s data by the O campaign was bad - it’s something I learned from the article that I didn’t previously know. If it had just been a list of friends from the individual who consented, I think that would have been OK. But since it did dive into more details about these unconsenting individuals, that brings up some of the same ethical issues.

Now as I pointed out, the Obama’s campaign didn’t attempt to hide their role in the subsequent micro-targeting. But with CA, they intentionally obscured their role and didn’t exactly stick just to the truth. I think the ethical questions that brings up ethical questions regarding transparency in political advertisements that extend beyond the issues already present with PACs.

I do think there are no ethical issues with the way Obama used the information they mined and the way they microtargeted, based on what’s been made public.

But does this mean you also have issues with CA? You haven’t really answered that (unless I missed it in all of the Obama deflecting).