(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.
