Cambridge Analytica

[mat]

Most of the people manipulated by random posts on Facebook are gullible fools. People who aren’t gullible fools don’t use Facebook and Twitter as their primary source of truth. It’s therefore quite easy to see how a Facebook and Twitter campaign of lies and distortions helped Trump become President.

Good point.

 

[Uncle Wally One Ball]

What's the difference with this CA lot doing it, to the normal lies that politicians tells us during electioneering (and the rest of the time). We've always been let to, so is this just the print media, who are going down the pan, getting right onto this to try and get some of their market share back?

The print media have made shit up for fucking decades, so why all of a sudden all the fuss?

Im not sure that is a serious post, or maybe just one that totally misunderstands the facts and issues

 

[Ghandi's Flip Flops]

Do you have a source for that claim? Because the only record I can find of such a thing is from conservative activist James O'Keefe, who has a history of dishonest and selective editing to make it appear as if people said something they didn't. In fact, the only news media reporting such claims on the first page of Google results are the usual collection of right-wing, victim-mentality shit stirrers, of Breitbart, Russia Today and the radical Catholic site LifeSiteNews.

The original footage did originate from O'keefe but i base my opinion on that Shadow-banning was happening based on the discussion in the hearings like this one >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zlfV6ldIbjI which used transcripts from the footage, plus the other hearings they had with regard to censorship and the other social media companies. I've also seen a vid which showed shadow-banning in real time which appeared highly convincing.
But hey, look at the evidence and make your own decision, or do you not believe shadow-banning happens in any way shape or form?

Who is being banned because they're alt-right? They're being banned because of the sort of threatening, harassing and abusive behaviour that manifests itself in the movement loosely defined as the alt-right. David Duke is presumably still on the site and posting his white-nationalist opinions because he doesn't mobilize his followers to harass other people on the platform like many of those who got banned did.

Can you give examples where someone got banned for specifically telling their followers to go and harass,threaten or abuse someone? From what i mostly see is that people get blamed for the actions of their followers (even when they specifically ask for them not to do that sort of thing).

That's all well and good, and I'd agree, but it's ultimately a private company and will act in a way that reflects best on them and ensures them the greatest profits. It will generally take new laws to change things and it will be interesting to see if anything comes out of this current investigation. But I would argue that the criticism of Twitter (maybe you have another example I referenced) doesn't meet any of the standards of impartiality or neutrality that you demand of Twitter. As an example, Milo Yiannapoulos used to answer criticism of Breitbart's bias by saying "name me a media source that isn't biased." You can't have that attitude and then play the victim when another media company kicks you off their platform because of things you've said. But that's what this is all about. The evidence that conservative voices on social media are being silenced is paper thin, and yet the victim mentality persists. Twitter, by definition, publishes a greater breadth of political views than any media company in history, and yet companies with an explicit editorial stance are criticising them. Let's be honest, it's precisely because of their lack of concern over what political views are aired on their platform that groups like CA were able to exploit it in the first place. Try and get a Hillary Clinton advert on Fox News or a Labour advert in the Daily Mail and see how that works out for you. Yet biased news sources like these are often the first to cry foul at any perceived bias, as if the privately-owned Twitter is under any more of an obligation to be impartial than they are.

Agree mostly with all you say.
I'll still contend that there are methods of censorship & de-platforming, employed by the main social media organisations against considered right wing opinions and individuals, due to how they operate and them being subseptable to the affiliations/leanings of their owners and employees (similiar to how our traditional print media still works today).
If you believe it's just a right wing conspiracy theory then that's fine with me.
And on reviewing my statement about my belief that social media should be neutral, that was probably a mistake. I think my issue is more that the social media companies try to pitch their platforms as being politically neutral, when i believe that isn't true, and it's probably just as unethical as CA using tragetted propaganda.

Fucking hell, I didn't want to get into another discussion.

Apologies if you feel that way.
It just the way i work. I'm tend to put my ideas & views up for scrutiny and if they can be shown to be bad or incorrect i'll go away and re-assess them.
If it's an issue there's always the ignore/mute function.

 

[I'm With Stupid]

Apologies if you feel that way.
It just the way i work. I'm tend to put my ideas & views up for scrutiny and if they can be shown to be bad or incorrect i'll go away and re-assess them.
If it's an issue there's always the ignore/mute function.

Haha, not your fault. I blame myself entirely.

 

[Ricster]

https://qz.com/1081021/hillary-clin...alytica-had-role-in-kenyas-annulled-election/

Hilary was always right.

 

[argyle]

One of the directors was suspended from Cambridge Analytica however it's just the front of the largely holding company which he is still on the board.

Another company has been set up anyway with all the same directors. https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/10911848/filing-history

The Sun is trying to make the story a "liberal conspiracy" and is defending Cambridge Analytica because it operated out of News Internationals (The Sun's parent company) buildings.

 

[argyle]

For anyone that cares, this thread shows the connections between Cambridge Analytica, it's parent company SLC and the Conservative Party/Establishment.

 

[BlueAnorak]

Big data has been doing this for years on your purchase history and content preferences so I ask: "What is the difference?"
Terms and Conditions are constantly changed and you sign up or lose access - so data protection is a farce. Indeed app privacy options just tinker on the edges.
Google, Microsoft, Apple, Twitter, Facebook (and WhatsApp). It makes no difference.
Anonimise yourself online if you want to protect yourself. Personally I don't give a toss.

 

[bluethrunthru]

What's the difference with this CA lot doing it, to the normal lies that politicians tells us during electioneering (and the rest of the time). We've always been let to, so is this just the print media, who are going down the pan, getting right onto this to try and get some of their market share back?

The print media have made shit up for fucking decades, so why all of a sudden all the fuss?

That was my thought - but then when you think about it the established politicians and media have been roughed up by the new ways of getting the message out to the people which by passes them and so the "wrong" people prosper - think Trump, Leave and Corbyn - and when you consider that angle and you can see why what is really a storm in a teacup is being whipped up by all those established sources - I think they somehow think they can "kill" the internet.

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

If this whole saga reveals anything, then it highlights that any of these surveys online are just marketing tools, which get you to give away your personal details for free.

"Enter your details to find out which Hollywood hottie you are compatible with", or "Who's cat are you" Facebook surveys are just a bit of fun right?

Wrong!!!

You might as well hand over your latest bank statement, or credit history to a marketing company. It is no coincidence that these surveys ask pretty specific details, such as age, gender, sexual preference, earning bracket, political allegiances, profession, etc. They sell this information to the highest bidder, who use it for all sorts of things, including political research/targeting, and in this case, possible criminal activities.

Who knew?