A Look At Cambridge Analytica

[Cosmik]

The second OP article points out the issue isn't simply fact-checking and truth but pandering to prejudices - as evident in this thread.

And your solution is..?

 

[Wombat]

And your solution is..?

There are investigations underway by various sovereign governments. I can't compete with them. Wait and see.

 

[Cosmik]

There are investigations underway by various sovereign governments. I can't compete with them. Wait and see.

I wasn't implying that I had a solution either - I just thought you might!

 

[Cosmik]

There are investigations underway by various sovereign governments. I can't compete with them. Wait and see.

Are you, perhaps, thinking along the lines of there being 'too much democracy' and 'too much free speech'..? Too much 'freedom'? Whatever the finer points of the Cambridge Analytica issue, people signing up for social media groups tick the 'I agree' box without thinking about it, and would protest if governments attempted to interfere.

The BBC programme Question Time was interesting last night: the first section was about this issue, with the panel firmly agreed that young people are naively signing up for social media apps without any idea what they are doing nor how their data is being used. Immediately afterwards, the second section was about whether young people should be given the vote because they are wiser than old people! Some members of the panel made this shift with a completely straight face, clearly modifying their line to stay on the 'progressive' side of the argument: it is 'progressive' to see young people as weak and feeble victims of the evil patriarchy and Big Business, etc. And then it is also 'progressive' to see them as social justice warriors who understand the complexities of the modern world far better than their parents and grandparents (who voted for Brexit).

 

[Wombat]

Are you, perhaps, thinking along the lines of there being 'too much democracy' and 'too much free speech'..? Too much 'freedom'? Whatever the finer points of the Cambridge Analytica issue, people signing up for social media groups tick the 'I agree' box without thinking about it, and would protest if governments attempted to interfere.

The BBC programme Question Time was interesting last night: the first section was about this issue, with the panel firmly agreed that young people are naively signing up for social media apps without any idea what they are doing nor how their data is being used. Immediately afterwards, the second section was about whether young people should be given the vote because they are wiser than old people! Some members of the panel made this shift with a completely straight face, clearly modifying their line to stay on the 'progressive' side of the argument: it is 'progressive' to see young people as weak and feeble victims of the evil patriarchy and Big Business, etc. And then it is also 'progressive' to see them as social justice warriors who understand the complexities of the modern world far better than their parents and grandparents (who voted for Brexit).

Taking advantage of the unaware( not fools) doesn't seem fair to me. We can't be aware of or on top of everything that affects us.

I'm alright, Jack! https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=I'm all right jack

 

[Cosmik]

Taking advantage of the unaware( not fools) doesn't seem fair to me. We can't be aware of or on top of everything that affects us.

I'm not disagreeing with you, but perhaps I am seeing in you a certain partisanship on the argument! You see all the misleading coming from the right perpetrated against the left, while I see it coming from both sides.

I'm alright, Jack! https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=I'm all right jack

A great film, too.

 

[Wombat]

I'm not disagreeing with you, but perhaps I am seeing in you a certain partisanship on the argument! You see all the misleading coming from the right perpetrated against the left, while I see it coming from both sides.


A great film, too.

No, I'm neutral. I do see the CA issue as a problem.

Outside of the USA your political 'centre' is perceived as somewhat weighted to the right. Always a problem with broader discussion.

"A great film, too". Inane comment, don't you think, wrt your stance?

 

[Cosmik]

"A great film, too". Inane comment, don't you think, wrt your stance?

I don't understand. The film is a satire on social class and industrial relations in Britain in the 1950s. It gently mocks both 'sides'.

Edit: and I don't think I am in the centre, although that might be the 'mean' of my position.

 

[Sal1950]

The headlines are designed quite cynically to tell a lie but may not be factually incorrect per se.

That's hitting the nail on the head.
The very definition of fake news and a sad example of whats become of "reporting" in this country.

 

[NorthSky]

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

1. Luv your avatar:

2. https://www.theverge.com/platform/a...a-and-spacex-facebook-pages-twitter-challenge

3. Delete Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, ... choose life.

 

[Wombat]

I don't understand. The film is a satire on social class and industrial relations in Britain in the 1950s. It gently mocks both 'sides'.

Edit: and I don't think I am in the centre, although that might be the 'mean' of my position.

The OP was about Cambridge Analytica's activity. The both 'sides' is a partisan distraction introduced in the responses. If CA's activities are found to be illegal or undesirable then the issue will spread to their clients.

 

[Cosmik]

The OP was about Cambridge Analytica's activity. The both 'sides' is a partisan distraction introduced in the responses. If CA's activities are found to be illegal or undesirable then the issue will spread to their clients.

So your claim is that the CA case is unique and from it, alone, you would be happy for "sovereign governments" to frame their censorship legislation? I think I can see where this is leading: towards a clampdown on free speech on the basis of protecting society from being taken advantage of by mythical boogie men.

Edit: Basically, governments are desperately looking for any reason at all to clamp down on the power of the internet to bypass the sanctioned information gatekeepers. People are known to be switching off from the 'MSM' and finding their own sources of information on the internet. ('The intellectual dark web'). Brexit and Trump are the result. The 'liberal elite' will therefore do anything necessary to shut this down, and the CA issue is a great way of appearing to invert the situation: we are all victims of a power that has grown even bigger than governments: Big Business. We will therefore all voluntarily submit to government legislation to fight back against these (mythical) monsters.

 

[Wombat]

So your claim is that the CA case is unique and from it, alone, you would be happy for "sovereign governments" to frame their censorship legislation? I think I can see where this is leading: towards a clampdown on free speech on the basis of protecting society from being taken advantage of by mythical boogie men.

Edit: Basically, governments are desperately looking for any reason at all to clamp down on the power of the internet to bypass the sanctioned information gatekeepers. People are known to be switching off from the 'MSM' and finding their own sources of information on the internet. ('The intellectual dark web'). Brexit and Trump are the result. The 'liberal elite' will therefore do anything necessary to shut this down, and the CA issue is a great way of appearing to invert the situation: we are all victims of a power that has grown even bigger than governments: Big Business. We will therefore all voluntarily submit to government legislation to fight back against these (mythical) monsters.

That is all in your head, not mine.

 

[Cosmik]

That is all in your head, not mine.

So now you are aloof from the situation. But you say that "sovereign governments" are looking into the CA issue - a somewhat ominous remark. What is it that you are expecting them to do, if not clamp down on the 'Wild West' internet? If it's just a one-off, nothing to get worked up over, why are you bothered about it? Clearly you think 'something must be done'. What is that something?

 

[Wombat]

So now you are aloof from the situation. But you say that "sovereign governments" are looking into the CA issue - a somewhat ominous remark. What is it that you are expecting them to do, if not clamp down on the 'Wild West' internet? If it's just a one-off, nothing to get worked up over, why are you bothered about it? Clearly you think 'something must be done'. What is that something?

I am not jumping to any conclusion based on what has been reported. I am not entering into a debate with your political views.

The OP was posted to show that a data harvesting and analysis application can be used to surreptitiously invade individual privacy on a massive scale and be deceptively used for the benefit of others. This is a program beyond previous methods in the commercial sphere. No Red vs Blue, no conspiracy theories, etc.

You will have to find someone else to dance with.

 

[NorthSky]

Stuff like that has been happening since the Romans and the gladiators in the arena, and will continue till AI takes over.

Facebook is responsible for the privacy act, it is their responsibility to maintain the laws. They have the cash and stocks to hire regulators.
Right now they should be fined accordingly and Analytica Cambridge's operators put in jail for a very long time as they broke the cardinal rule of man, the right to his privacy.

Geez, it's so simple but nobody's doing their job.
What a screw-up world we live in, it's enough to vomit every morning in the bathtub. Just put them all in jail, and if there are not enough jails cut their throats and dump them under the nuclear sites to melt into radioactive dust.

It might sound horrible but what they did is even more horrendous when you analyse all the consequences. I don't have to explain them you guys are all smart enough.

 

[Cosmik]

Presumably much of the financial lifeblood of the internet relies on this data gathering and sharing. As described in an article above, no one really cares what it is used for - until they begin dissecting why the electorate made the 'wrong' decisions. It's in the same category as the Russia-stole-our-election thing. Isn't fake news terrible?, etc. If the people had voted the 'right' way, these issues wouldn't be being raised.

Basically, all avenues are now being explored in order to get the people's assent to close down the completely open internet.

This kind of thing:
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-...ternet-conservatives-government-a7744176.html

While much of the internet is currently controlled by private businesses like Google and Facebook, Theresa May intends to allow government to decide what is and isn't published...
...Theresa May will "take steps to protect the reliability and objectivity of information that is essential to our democracy"

So I'm not joining the pitchfork wielding mob being raised against Cambridge Analytica. To me, it is just 'par for the course' in the operation of the amazing, baffling internet. Besides which, I think that the data it harvests is probably rubbish. If people respond so easily to being influenced by information gathered about them, then the data gathered about them is worthless.

 

[Dimitri]

So I'm not joining the pitchfork wielding mob being raised against Cambridge Analytica. To me, it is just 'par for the course' in the operation of the amazing, baffling internet.

"The internet " just makes it easier.
Warranty cards sometimes include a short survey including interests, hobbies, income, age and other stuff. It's always fun to choose the youngest age group and highest earning braket. Then brochures from Mercedes start finding their way into your mailbox.

 

[Dismayed]

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

Propaganda works. The real problem is that far too many citizens are driveling idiots.

 

[Dismayed]

Are you, perhaps, thinking along the lines of there being 'too much democracy' and 'too much free speech'..? Too much 'freedom'? Whatever the finer points of the Cambridge Analytica issue, people signing up for social media groups tick the 'I agree' box without thinking about it, and would protest if governments attempted to interfere.

The BBC programme Question Time was interesting last night: the first section was about this issue, with the panel firmly agreed that young people are naively signing up for social media apps without any idea what they are doing nor how their data is being used. Immediately afterwards, the second section was about whether young people should be given the vote because they are wiser than old people! Some members of the panel made this shift with a completely straight face, clearly modifying their line to stay on the 'progressive' side of the argument: it is 'progressive' to see young people as weak and feeble victims of the evil patriarchy and Big Business, etc. And then it is also 'progressive' to see them as social justice warriors who understand the complexities of the modern world far better than their parents and grandparents (who voted for Brexit).

You misrepresent and mischaracterize those whose positions differ from your own. Mass dissemination of lies and propaganda is a problem, and, no, there is not monolithic 'progressive position' on these issues.