(03-24-2018 05:11 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-24-2018 04:57 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-24-2018 03:19 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

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

(03-24-2018 01:47 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  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.

----

Quote: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).

See the bolded statement above. Yes, I do. Cant be more direct than that.

Quote:Now as I pointed out, the Obama’s campaign didn’t attempt to hide their role in the subsequent micro-targeting.

You cant be that naive, can you? You *really* dont think Obama employed push pollsters, or shared friends lists with PACS? If they didnt they would have been both the stupidest campaign in history, and the *only* one in the last 30 years not to have done that.

Quote:But with CA, they intentionally obscured their role and didn’t exactly stick just to the truth.

So the Obama and Hillary push pollsters I have taken their calls from are copacetic in your book? I mean, these push pollsters (and all push pollsters) 'intentionally obscure their role', nor do they really ever 'stick just to the truth.'

No offense but *no* campaign has *ever* just stuck close to the truth. Just in the article cited, the Obama spokesperson, while being literally truthful, engaged the reader in a very subtle and effective 'offset lie'.

I find it interesting that the yardstick to be measured for how bad CA acted is 'how dare they not stick just to the truth' when no fing campaign ever has. Sorry that drumbeat of 'bad' is not very effective when you actually look at *any* political campaign. Period.

Quote: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.

Do you *really* think that the information was used properly? Here is a quick reason *why* they did what they did (and *why* CA did it as well), and you tell me if 'Obama used the information they mined and the .... microtarget[ing] [based on that informatio] .... in an ethical manner."

First, the real fing goldmine is *not* the individual answers in the Obama app. That is the doorway. The *real* fing goldmine is the list of *who* you pal around with.

If the Obama app (or the CA app) identifies a person whom they might suspect will be motivated to act, that is a 1x gain. The real issue is that people whom I identify as friends (and who identify themselves as friends of mine) share many commonalities. The real fing goldmine of both projects was the list of the friends. It doesnt just allow the campaign to 'perpetuate' contacts, it fing actively *targets* based on those commonalities.

The real mother lode for *both* programs was twofold; first find a wedge to contact the person who runs the app. Then apply that wedge to everyone on the friggin contact list. The second step is a ******* 1000x gain for a campaign.

So dont give me this claptrap about how honest the information was used. The real motherlode of information was hidden in both instances. Deliberately. And both instances used subterfuge to gain access to that second, more valuable, level.

I’m not really sure what you’re getting at here. Based on the article you sent, the Obama app used the data mined to contact the person who consented to publish Obama campaign material and share it with specifically targeted friends. So the person who’s consent was gained wasn’t also the same person who eventually shared the micro-targeted adverts. Based on my understanding of the article, they had to be a willing and active participant. And that initial app was a political one.

CA used the information to develop, basically, native content and deployed it via Facebook, redddit, etc. in targeted communities or to targeted people without it being attached to the campaign officially or to the original consentor. CA never contacted the initial consentor in the same way Obama’s campaign did, and the app people downloaded was not political in nature - I think it was a personality quiz.

This is what I am talking about - how both “teams” (Obama campaign and CA), used the Facebook user data in developing their micro-targeting advertisements. I don’t like the fact that O’s team relied on the collection on data of friends, but it appears as if they relied on those app downloaders to publish content that was an obvious political ad. CA was much more obscure about it.

By the way the information mined from the original user went *way* beyond just 'information to send them ****' as you seemingly try to denote.