• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

A Look At Cambridge Analytica

Status
Not open for further replies.

RayDunzl

Grand Contributor
Central Scrutinizer
Joined
Mar 9, 2016
Messages
13,250
Likes
17,188
Location
Riverview FL
Last edited:

NorthSky

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 28, 2016
Messages
4,998
Likes
945
Location
Canada West Coast/Vancouver Island/Victoria area
This is the new order du jours? Or just regular routine?
The stock went down $50 billion? Can it surpasses bitcoin?

What is new that is not new? Should some people go to jail?
Is there enough food to feed them all?
Who's paying the bill for room and board?

Is this legit, are the voters safe, should we move to another country, should we have a new facelift, who's got money?

Analytica...DAC...Cambridge...Audio...Antartica...nice bunch...Facebook...Twitter...Instagram...choose Life.

 

RayDunzl

Grand Contributor
Central Scrutinizer
Joined
Mar 9, 2016
Messages
13,250
Likes
17,188
Location
Riverview FL
 

RayDunzl

Grand Contributor
Central Scrutinizer
Joined
Mar 9, 2016
Messages
13,250
Likes
17,188
Location
Riverview FL
In the interest of transparency, I have two Facebook accounts for them to mine.

This is the first one, for which I have forgotten my password and the email for it is no longer valid:

www.facebook.com/arfen.barf

And the other one, which I registered upon reading how Facebook was going to clean out all their Fake Accounts before their IPO.

https://www.facebook.com/faik.akkount

I guess they haven't, yet.

I registered for the purpose of being able to log in to Facebook for the rare instance where there would be something I wanted to see but I had to be an okay guy to see it.

Here's hoping the data miners can do something interesting with my lack of data.
 
Last edited:
OP
Wombat

Wombat

Master Contributor
Joined
Nov 5, 2017
Messages
6,722
Likes
6,464
Location
Australia

Blumlein 88

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 23, 2016
Messages
20,759
Likes
37,607
In the interest of transparency, I have two Facebook accounts for them to mine.

This is the first one, for which I have forgotten my password and the email for it is no longer valid:

www.facebook.com/arfen.barf

And the other one, which I registered upon reading how Facebook was going to clean out all their Fake Accounts before their IPO.

https://www.facebook.com/faik.akkount

I guess they haven't, yet.

I registered for the purpose of being able to log in to Facebook for the rare instance where there would be something I wanted to see but I had to be an okay guy to see it.

Here's hoping the data miners can do something interesting with my lack of data.
Arfen Barf seems like a good persona to use on some audio forums. Like WBF or SBAF.
 

rebbiputzmaker

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 28, 2018
Messages
1,099
Likes
463

Apesbrain

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
596
Likes
760
Location
East Coast, USA
LOL You cannot see the difference.
Paraphrasing a comment I read yesterday on reddit:

"What Obama did with Facebook is akin to calling you on the phone, asking your opinion about an issue, then using that collective feedback to help draft a public position statement and ad campaign. What Trump did with Facebook is akin to breaking into your home, ransacking your office, finding and breaking into your diary, copying all your secret comments about your friends and their addresses, and using their fears and prejudices to custom deliver into their account lies and false information that are designed to trigger their weaknesses into support for your candidate."

- So no, no difference at all. /s

#DeleteFacebook
 

Cosmik

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 24, 2016
Messages
3,075
Likes
2,180
Location
UK
LOL You cannot see the difference.
What is the big difference?
...as many as 190 million had at least some of their Facebook data vacuumed up by the Obama campaign — without their knowledge or consent.
The main difference seems to be that the 'active' participants in the exercise gave their consent in one case, but not the other. However, in neither case were the much larger number of 'friends' consulted at all.
 

Cosmik

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 24, 2016
Messages
3,075
Likes
2,180
Location
UK
Paraphrasing a comment I read yesterday on reddit:

"What Obama did with Facebook is akin to calling you on the phone, asking your opinion about an issue, then using that collective feedback to help draft a public position statement and ad campaign. What Trump did with Facebook is akin to breaking into your home, ransacking your office, finding and breaking into your diary, copying all your secret comments about your friends and their addresses, and using their fears and prejudices to custom deliver into their account lies and false information that are designed to trigger their weaknesses into support for your candidate."

- So no, no difference at all. /s
That proves it then. He probably killed some kittens, too.
 

rebbiputzmaker

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 28, 2018
Messages
1,099
Likes
463
What is the big difference?

The main difference seems to be that the 'active' participants in the exercise gave their consent in one case, but not the other. However, in neither case were the much larger number of 'friends' consulted at all.
IMO one was targeted information vs target misinformation. Looks like the Putin might have also had a hand in Brexit.
 
Last edited:

Cosmik

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 24, 2016
Messages
3,075
Likes
2,180
Location
UK
Looks like the Putin might have also had a hand in Brexit.
Possibly (if we believe all this Russia stuff...). It's an interesting question. The UK government also used £10m of tax payers' money to influence the vote in favour of Remain - which seems odd to me. The BBC (a publicly tax-funded organisation broadcast all over the world) doesn't seem too worried about wearing its politics on its sleeve, either.

The UK left wing newspaper The Guardian deplores outside interference in elections, but once ran its own campaign to influence the 2004 American elections!
They seem to have removed the pages from their site (I wonder why), but here it is cached.
...we saw an opportunity for public service - and so, on the following pages, we have assembled a handy set of tools that non-Americans can use to have a real chance of influencing the outcome of the vote. We've identified ways to give money to help your preferred candidate, even though direct campaign contributions from foreigners aren't allowed. There are ideas for making your voice heard in the influential local media outlets where it could really count. And at the core of it is a unique scheme to match individual Guardian readers to individual American voters, giving you the opportunity to write a personal letter, citizen to citizen, explaining why this election matters to you, and which issues you think ought to matter to the US electorate. It may even be a chance to persuade somebody to use their vote at all.

To maximise the likelihood of your efforts making a difference, we've zeroed in on one of the places where this year's election truly will be decided: Clark County, Ohio, which is balanced on a razor's edge between Republicans and Democrats. In the 2000 election, Al Gore won Clark County by 1% - equivalent to 324 votes - but George Bush won the state as a whole by just four percentage points. This time round, Ohio is one of the most crucial swing states: Kerry and Bush have been campaigning there tirelessly - they've visited Clark County itself - and the most recent Ohio poll shows, once again, a 1% difference between the two of them. The voters we will target in our letter-writing initiative are all Clark County residents, and they are all registered independents, which somewhat increases the chances of their being persuadable.
Maybe it backfired. Some comments from the lucky recipients of the Guardian-prompted letters:
"Each email someone gets from some arrogant Brit telling us why to not vote for George Bush is going to backfire, you stupid, yellow-toothed pansies," read one reply.

"If you want to have a meaningful election in your crappy little island full yellow teeth, then maybe you should try not to sell your sovereignty out to Brussels."

"Real Americans aren't interested in your pansy-ass, tea-sipping opinions," read another.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/3981823.stm
 
Last edited:

RayDunzl

Grand Contributor
Central Scrutinizer
Joined
Mar 9, 2016
Messages
13,250
Likes
17,188
Location
Riverview FL
I bet he would find living in a totalitarianist society a real hoot.

"The dead know only one thing, it is better to be alive." - Stanley Kubrick, narrator's dialogue in Full Metal Jacket
 

Sal1950

Grand Contributor
The Chicago Crusher
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
14,194
Likes
16,916
Location
Central Fl
IMO one was targeted information vs target misinformation. Looks like the Putin might have also had a hand in Brexit.
Yep, the Clinton's and friends have be BS'ing the American people for decades
Hey Bill, how things with Monica?
 
OP
Wombat

Wombat

Master Contributor
Joined
Nov 5, 2017
Messages
6,722
Likes
6,464
Location
Australia

Cosmik

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 24, 2016
Messages
3,075
Likes
2,180
Location
UK
Meanwhile, back at the ranch. The OP is about legally or morally suspect manipulation of society. It is not about your political differences.

Here is the target: https://theconversation.com/post-tr...ote-isnt-simply-fact-checking-and-truth-87364
Nevertheless, a very partisan article! I'll offset the balance of the examples they give with a couple going the other way.

This one was headlines all over the place just yesterday:
https://news.sky.com/story/trump-threatens-former-vp-biden-with-physical-violence-11299832
It was reported that Trump has "threatened violence" against Joe Biden. But the headlines omit the fact that he was only responding in kind to Biden's initial claim that he (Biden) would "beat the hell out of him" if they were still at school. Trump said that if so, "he would go down fast and hard". To me, it was Biden who made the first 'threat' and Trump just responded. The headlines were 'true' but at the same time clearly designed to create a false impression.

The second one is the famous #CarpGate where Trump was gleefully accused of being such a buffoon that he overfed some fish while on an official visit to Japan, with a carefully-extracted clip of video that failed to show that he was just copying the actions of the host. Again, the headlines were 'true', but also designed to be misleading.

How would so-called 'fact checking' work on these two examples? The headlines are designed quite cynically to tell a lie but may not be factually incorrect per se.
 
OP
Wombat

Wombat

Master Contributor
Joined
Nov 5, 2017
Messages
6,722
Likes
6,464
Location
Australia
Nevertheless, a very partisan article! I'll offset the balance of the examples they give with a couple going the other way.

This one was headlines all over the place just yesterday:
https://news.sky.com/story/trump-threatens-former-vp-biden-with-physical-violence-11299832
It was reported that Trump has "threatened violence" against Joe Biden. But the headlines omit the fact that he was only responding in kind to Biden's initial claim that he (Biden) would "beat the hell out of him" if they were still at school. Trump said that if so, "he would go down fast and hard". To me, it was Biden who made the first 'threat' and Trump just responded. The headlines were 'true' but at the same time clearly designed to create a false impression.

The second one is the famous #CarpGate where Trump was gleefully accused of being such a buffoon that he overfed some fish while on an official visit to Japan, with a carefully-extracted clip of video that failed to show that he was just copying the actions of the host. Again, the headlines were 'true', but also designed to be misleading.

How would so-called 'fact checking' work on these two examples? The headlines are designed quite cynically to tell a lie while not really having enough factual information in them for a fact checker to draw any conclusions.


The second OP article points out the issue isn't simply fact-checking and truth but pandering to prejudices - as evident in this thread. :eek:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom