80sBEAR said:

---

cinque said:

---

Cambridge Analytica and Wikileaks are dirty as can be:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/17/us/politics/cambridge-analytica-trump-campaign.html

From the article:

"This was a scam and a fraud," Paul Grewal, a vice president and deputy general counsel at the social network, said in a statement to The Times earlier on Friday. He added that the company was suspending Cambridge Analytica, Mr. Wylie and the researcher, Aleksandr Kogan, a Russian-American academic, from Facebook. "We will take whatever steps are required to see that the data in question is deleted once and for all and take action against all offending parties," Mr. Grewal said

---

How in the world could anybody not trust this guy? The camo is a nice touch. I am hoping he will marry my daughter.

---

Dude, his hair looks real-er than Trump's. You want Prez Bighair or one of his sons to marry your daughter?

If you logon to any social media account and expect privacy, you are a fool.

Zuckerberg is going to me taught a lesson... 'he didn't build that'

and what is $40 thousand X's 50 million ?

corncob pipe said:

---

Zuckerberg is going to me taught a lesson... 'he didn't build that'

and what is $40 thousand X's 50 million ?

---

Once again, poor cinque

http://thehill.com/opinion/technology/379245-whats-genius-for-obama-is-scandal-when-it-comes-to-trump

riflebear said:

---

---

Not even the same ballpark.

That's what I'd say if I were you....

fadskier said:

---

That's what I'd say if I were you....

---

It's what anybody loosely familiar with the facts would say.

Seeing what drivel my wife's FB account is targeted with, not to mention our email account, I'd say the democrats are the ones doing most of the rather misleading info pushing. Lots of VERY incomplete claims of naughty political maneuvers by those mean republicans, while trying to make themselves look like saints. She seems to have been targeted because she is a teacher.

I'm sure the RNC has people doing some of the same crapola somewhere, just not on our accounts.

I'm being complete sincere with this request, can bubba, Cinque, quash, JustHappy, partybear, Nguyen, or the others tell me what the difference between the two is. It's so hard to cut through the crap. From someone on the left, I'd like to hear a good argument of the difference between what Obama allegedly did and what Trump allegedly did. I know what they are accused of aren't identical, but to me, it seems like it is at least in the same ballpark. But I don't know all of the facts, and you guys do, so help a brother out!

Bona Fide Bear said:

---

I'm being complete sincere with this request, can bubba, Cinque, quash, JustHappy, partybear, Nguyen, or the others tell me what the difference between the two is. It's so hard to cut through the crap. From someone on the left, I'd like to hear a good argument of the difference between what Obama allegedly did and what Trump allegedly did. I know what they are accused of aren't identical, but to me, it seems like it is at least in the same ballpark. But I don't know all of the facts, and you guys do, so help a brother out!

---

You don't need somebody on the left to explain it to you. What an odd request.
There's more than one act involved. The specific one I replied to was about your basic social media campaign, not the unauthorized use of private data.

bubbadog said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Does Facebook have any responsibility?

---

Yes, to some extent. I heard a radio interview with a programmer who used to work for Facebook. Apparently, there were about 10,000 people who clicked to take an online survey. By taking part, they agreed (in the fine print) to let their data be harvested. So far, so good. What Cambridge did that went beyond was to then grab the data on all the Facebook friends of those who took the survey, which is how they wound up with 50 million people. (Y'all Facebook users must have a lot of friends; stuff like this reminds me why I'm glad I never opened an account.)

Facebook says Cambridge used the data in ways that violated their terms of service and now has cut them off from the platform. But if they didn't want their users' data to be used in that way, they should have designed the platform so that data was inaccessible. To that extent, I'd say they bear some responsibility for what happened -- and for fixing the problem if they want their users to be happy.

---

Wanna be my friend on Facebook?

quash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

That's what I'd say if I were you....

---

It's what anybody loosely familiar with the facts would say.

---

If they are "your" facts, probably so...

quash said:

---

Bona Fide Bear said:

---

I'm being complete sincere with this request, can bubba, Cinque, quash, JustHappy, partybear, Nguyen, or the others tell me what the difference between the two is. It's so hard to cut through the crap. From someone on the left, I'd like to hear a good argument of the difference between what Obama allegedly did and what Trump allegedly did. I know what they are accused of aren't identical, but to me, it seems like it is at least in the same ballpark. But I don't know all of the facts, and you guys do, so help a brother out!

---

You don't need somebody on the left to explain it to you. What an odd request.
There's more than one act involved. The specific one I replied to was about your basic social media campaign, not the unauthorized use of private data.

---

Sorry, but if you're expecting your facebook and twitter to be private, you are one naive person. I don't know anyone who thinks/expects anything they do on the internet to be private. Perhaps you should log off.

fadskier said:

---

quash said:

---

Bona Fide Bear said:

---

I'm being complete sincere with this request, can bubba, Cinque, quash, JustHappy, partybear, Nguyen, or the others tell me what the difference between the two is. It's so hard to cut through the crap. From someone on the left, I'd like to hear a good argument of the difference between what Obama allegedly did and what Trump allegedly did. I know what they are accused of aren't identical, but to me, it seems like it is at least in the same ballpark. But I don't know all of the facts, and you guys do, so help a brother out!

---

You don't need somebody on the left to explain it to you. What an odd request.
There's more than one act involved. The specific one I replied to was about your basic social media campaign, not the unauthorized use of private data.

---

Sorry, but if you're expecting your facebook and twitter to be private, you are one naive person. I don't know anyone who thinks/expects anything they do on the internet to be private. Perhaps you should log off.

---

This will be too complex for you but I'll do it for the casual reader.

I am fully aware that FB and Twitter postings are not private. In America the cops can use Scorpions to make phone calls no longer private. Without a warrant.

But when a platform says that I can choose who gets access to my data I expect that choice to mean something.

Finally, despite the label of "private" in the end this use was not personal. The data were used to create targeted group profiles, not to sell to me or change my individual vote. No personal effect, even if I turn out to be in the 49 million group, and Zuckerberg said he'll tell us if we were.

quash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

quash said:

---

Bona Fide Bear said:

---

I'm being complete sincere with this request, can bubba, Cinque, quash, JustHappy, partybear, Nguyen, or the others tell me what the difference between the two is. It's so hard to cut through the crap. From someone on the left, I'd like to hear a good argument of the difference between what Obama allegedly did and what Trump allegedly did. I know what they are accused of aren't identical, but to me, it seems like it is at least in the same ballpark. But I don't know all of the facts, and you guys do, so help a brother out!

---

You don't need somebody on the left to explain it to you. What an odd request.
There's more than one act involved. The specific one I replied to was about your basic social media campaign, not the unauthorized use of private data.

---

Sorry, but if you're expecting your facebook and twitter to be private, you are one naive person. I don't know anyone who thinks/expects anything they do on the internet to be private. Perhaps you should log off.

---

This will be too complex for you but I'll do it for the casual reader.

I am fully aware that FB and Twitter postings are not private. In America the cops can use Scorpions to make phone calls no longer private. Without a warrant.

But when a platform says that I can choose who gets access to my data I expect that choice to mean something.

Finally, despite the label of "private" in the end this use was not personal. The data were used to create targeted group profiles, not to sell to me or change my individual vote. No personal effect, even if I turn out to be in the 49 million group, and Zuckerberg said he'll tell us if we were.

---

I guess the difference is that you believe the platform and trust the internet/technology. I do not. If I don't want it public, I don't involve technology or the internet.

In the end, I win. I still can't believe that your "private" usage was used for non-personal reasons. It's the internet...nothing is personal.

bubbadog said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Does Facebook have any responsibility?

---

Yes, to some extent. I heard a radio interview with a programmer who used to work for Facebook. Apparently, there were about 10,000 people who clicked to take an online survey. By taking part, they agreed (in the fine print) to let their data be harvested. So far, so good. What Cambridge did that went beyond was to then grab the data on all the Facebook friends of those who took the survey, which is how they wound up with 50 million people. (Y'all Facebook users must have a lot of friends; stuff like this reminds me why I'm glad I never opened an account.)

Facebook says Cambridge used the data in ways that violated their terms of service and now has cut them off from the platform. But if they didn't want their users' data to be used in that way, they should have designed the platform so that data was inaccessible. To that extent, I'd say they bear some responsibility for what happened -- and for fixing the problem if they want their users to be happy.

---

Good explanation. Do you know what Obama campaign did in 2012?

Some on my side are saying Obama did something very similar.

riflebear said:

---

---

Since folks seem confused...

This was a social media campaign. It used supporters (that means people who consented) to share (voluntarily post) campaign messages (not their friend's personal info).

Hope that helps.

Osodecentx said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Does Facebook have any responsibility?

---

Yes, to some extent. I heard a radio interview with a programmer who used to work for Facebook. Apparently, there were about 10,000 people who clicked to take an online survey. By taking part, they agreed (in the fine print) to let their data be harvested. So far, so good. What Cambridge did that went beyond was to then grab the data on all the Facebook friends of those who took the survey, which is how they wound up with 50 million people. (Y'all Facebook users must have a lot of friends; stuff like this reminds me why I'm glad I never opened an account.)

Facebook says Cambridge used the data in ways that violated their terms of service and now has cut them off from the platform. But if they didn't want their users' data to be used in that way, they should have designed the platform so that data was inaccessible. To that extent, I'd say they bear some responsibility for what happened -- and for fixing the problem if they want their users to be happy.

---

Good explanation. Do you know what Obama campaign did in 2012?

Some on my side are saying Obama did something very similar.

---

He may gave, but the tweet above is not it. By a long shot.

quash said:

---

riflebear said:

---

---

Since folks seem confused...

This was a social media campaign. It used supporters (that means people who consented) to share (voluntarily post) campaign messages (not their friend's personal info).

Hope that helps.

---

But their campaign searched their 'supporters' closest 5 friends who weren't actively involved in the campaign and sent those 'supporters' their names whether they wanted to have them revealed or not. Nice try though.

riflebear said:

---

quash said:

---

riflebear said:

---

---

Since folks seem confused...

This was a social media campaign. It used supporters (that means people who consented) to share (voluntarily post) campaign messages (not their friend's personal info).

Hope that helps.

---

But their campaign searched their 'supporters' closest 5 friends who weren't actively involved in the campaign and sent those 'supporters' their names whether they wanted to have them revealed or not. Nice try though.

---

Good grief, not even close. In State Bar Director races I have been asked to contact a number of friends on behalf of the candidate.

But more to the point, the supporters' friends is info from the supporters account. Nothing you have shown suggests that those friends then had their data harvested.

Let's keep the oranges out of the apple bin

quash said:

---

riflebear said:

---

quash said:

---

riflebear said:

---

---

Since folks seem confused...

This was a social media campaign. It used supporters (that means people who consented) to share (voluntarily post) campaign messages (not their friend's personal info).

Hope that helps.

---

But their campaign searched their 'supporters' closest 5 friends who weren't actively involved in the campaign and sent those 'supporters' their names whether they wanted to have them revealed or not. Nice try though.

---

Good grief, not even close. In State Bar Director races I have been asked to contact a number of friends on behalf of the candidate.

But more to the point, the supporters' friends is info from the supporters account. Nothing you have shown suggests that those friends then had their data harvested.

Let's keep the oranges out of the apple bin

---

https://ijr.com/2018/03/1077208-former-obama-campaign-facebook-data/



In a Sunday tweet thread, Davidsen claimed Facebook saw what they were doing with data and decided to let it happen because of politics.

"They came to office in the days following election recruiting & were very candid that they allowed us to do things they wouldn't have allowed someone else to do because they were on our side," Davidsen tweeted.