|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On March 22 2018 07:39 Doodsmack wrote:I am pretty sure but not completely certain that "targeted sharing" is very different from having access to harvested Facebook data. And I'm not sure we know that they weren't effective, despite there being a NYT reporter who says so. What I really want to know is whether they peddled fake news as part of their targeting. Edit: It looks like the Obama campaign had access to friends lists, similar to CA. So the difference I guess is that CA had access to political survey results conducted as part of a university research project, then resold in an unethical way. Another difference is that the Obama campaign wasn't sending targeted ads based on a psychological profile. Instead they were trying to get people to share stories about Obama. The thing about CA is that they're involved in military "psy ops" campaigns. So the big difference here is the idea of psychological manipulation. Show nested quote +[T]he Obama team had a solution in place: a Facebook application that will transform the way campaigns are conducted in the future...
[T]he more than 1 million Obama backers who signed up for the app gave the campaign permission to look at their Facebook friend lists. In an instant, the campaign had a way to see the hidden young voters. Roughly 85% of those without a listed phone number could be found in the uploaded friend lists. What’s more, Facebook offered an ideal way to reach them. “People don’t trust campaigns. They don’t even trust media organizations,” says Goff. “Who do they trust? Their friends.”
The campaign called this effort targeted sharing. And in those final weeks of the campaign, the team blitzed the supporters who had signed up for the app with requests to share specific online content with specific friends simply by clicking a button. More than 600,000 supporters followed through with more than 5 million contacts, asking their friends to register to vote, give money, vote or look at a video designed to change their mind. A geek squad in Chicago created models from vast data sets to find the best approaches for each potential voter. “We are not just sending you a banner ad,” explains Dan Wagner, the Obama campaign’s 29-year-old head of analytics, who helped oversee the project. “We are giving you relevant information from your friends.”
Early tests of the system found statistically significant changes in voter behavior. People whose friends sent them requests to register to vote and to vote early, for example, were more likely to do so than similar potential voters who were not contacted. That confirmed a trend already noted in political-science literature: online social networks have the power to change voting behavior. swampland.time.com
Obama backers who signed up specifically with the knowledge that it would let the campaign they were backing see their facebook friends list is worlds away from CA stealing facebook data by using it for commercial purposes after getting it from a guy who told facebook it was for academic purposes. These things are in no way equal. Conservatives trying to point at Obama and say "he did it first" don't have a leg to stand on.
|
That's a false equivalence danglars. People are not just opposed to the targeted sharing which you are accusing Obama of having done, but to the illegal and unethical ways that the data was taken and used. In essence, what you posted is an unrelated distraction, which does not actually touch on the main issue people have with what CA did. I really hope facebook and other social media platforms get a hard look over by the government. They played a pretty big role in handing trump the election, and do not seem to have been all too unknowing about it, or apologetic.
|
On March 22 2018 08:08 hunts wrote:
That's a false equivalence danglars. People are not just opposed to the targeted sharing which you are accusing Obama of having done, but to the illegal and unethical ways that the data was taken and used. In essence, what you posted is an unrelated distraction, which does not actually touch on the main issue people have with what CA did. I really hope facebook and other social media platforms get a hard look over by the government. They played a pretty big role in handing trump the election, and do not seem to have been all too unknowing about it, or apologetic.
You were doing so well right up until the end with this line. This type of stuff not only undercuts your argument, but plays right into the false equivalence that you are objecting to. No elections were handed to anyone except Putin.
|
I think their effectiveness in influencing votes is very relevant. It's not just about how they got the data. Especially if they were peddling fake news.
|
It is also something you can't prove or even provide evidence on. Why focus on that when there are so many more substantive arguments to make? Like they violated laws, researched how to peddle racism to voters and are funded by American billionaires seeking to subvert the election process. There is a reason the conservative media is focused on voter influence rather than all the other issues surrounding CA.
|
On March 22 2018 08:08 hunts wrote:
That's a false equivalence danglars. People are not just opposed to the targeted sharing which you are accusing Obama of having done, but to the illegal and unethical ways that the data was taken and used. In essence, what you posted is an unrelated distraction, which does not actually touch on the main issue people have with what CA did. I really hope facebook and other social media platforms get a hard look over by the government. They played a pretty big role in handing trump the election, and do not seem to have been all too unknowing about it, or apologetic.
I saw enough interactions on twitter and enough opinion pieces and articles on center-left outlets that did act like Cambridge Analytica was unique in the mining and use of the information, beyond the lying to obtain it from the outset. One of the articles I actually linked to.
"They played a pretty big role in handing Trump the election"
This is exactly what I mean. You're making this an even better true comparison. To even suggest that they played a role worth mentioning in a supposed "handing Trump the election" means you lack perspective on the election. Save that for Clinton's "deplorables" or Comey's reopening of the email probe letter.
|
On March 22 2018 03:05 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2018 02:03 iamthedave wrote:On March 21 2018 22:45 Biff The Understudy wrote:On March 21 2018 20:32 iamthedave wrote:On March 21 2018 05:54 Artisreal wrote:
My Russian colleague is of the opinion that there is no free media in the country and that's one of the reasons why Putin can easily re-elect himself. No opposition can form if you control what the populace hears.
Oh and he's got family there and regularly returns. So he's not some rage driven exile. What's his personal view of Putin? I'm curious as - obviously - we rarely get the views of actual Russians. I've known a couple that are sort of on the fence. They like him and what he's doing but would rather he did some things differently, and one or two at the opposite extremes. My personal experience talking with Russian people is that many of them would chose cheap national pride over reality every day of the week and twice on sunday. Having done my studies in an environment that counts lots of russian folks, I have learnt to simply try to avoid talking politics or even worse, history, with them as it never leads anywhere (btw, have observed that tendency with Polish people too). I had a surrealist conversation with a russian block the other day who thought that the press was free, the elections fair and transparent and the justice system independant in Russia. Putin was a humble man and Forbes ranking him one of the wealthiest man in the works is obeying shadowy interests, just like every single western media, that all have a secret anti russian agenda. Oh and if you criticize Stalin, why not Napoleon, who killed so many russian people. I’m not making any of that up, he was that dumb when it came to his country. LegalLord doesn’t even come close. I think that’s why there is no hope for Russia, ever. Some shitty cold war complex means they will take everything rather than admit their country is utterly fucked. Choosing national pride over reality? Doesn't sound AT ALL like any western nation I'm aware of...*COUGH*brexit*COUGH* That's a through thread I saw as well. One of them said 'he lets us be proud to be Russian' or something to that effect. I think it might actually have been along the lines of 'under Putin, we can hold our heads high again' actually. He was one of the middling fellows, he didn't like the stronger armed bits of the Putin era, but he felt the overall impact on 'Russian'ness was such a net positive that it didn't matter. A powerful motivator, national pride, and a powerful tool if you can make yourself its symbol. I'd say it's just pride in general. It doesn't require patriotism or nationalism. Those things just come with the package. In fact, it's often easier if the person whose pride is being taken has no feelings about politics or their nation to begin with -- a clean canvas. Marketing anything, especially people and ideas, is about emotional-investment. Get someone to tell their friends and family that your idea or candidate is the "good one", and however light the praise, what you essentially have is a commitment written in blood. Part of Trump's success was in getting people who don't pay attention to politics to make their first, small emotional-investment into him (in addition to the usual Republican-faithful). And we can see the struggle in getting people to abandon that investment. People would rather destroy hundreds' of years of democratically-intrinsic institutions than tell their friends and family, "We fucked up, didn't we?" Likewise, Putin has long been the only thing for a Russian to praise. If you're born in Russia, and want to know what it's like to feel proud about your people, you have exactly one option. Putin has all the emotional-investment, as he came in at a time when national-pride was at a low, when Russia was in its delicate stage of democratic-infancy and Russians were being told their history is one giant failure. Putin tells them the opposite. They're proud of Stalin, again. This was a giant, clean canvas, that almost anyone could have turned into a dictatorship. Ergo, Russia is now a country where running for political-opposition means you get shot dead in the public-square, and almost no one will even give a fuck. What's most dangerous is when the source of pride, Putin, is no longer there, and something needs to take its place. Putin isn't half as concerning as the nationalist power-vacuum he's preparing to leave behind in his absence.
That's very true. He's a very rational, very genuinely patriotic man with a very obvious nuanced understanding of politics domestic and international. But the apparatus he's set up can very quickly and very easily be twisted towards something a lot more destructive.
On March 22 2018 03:22 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2018 20:32 iamthedave wrote:On March 21 2018 05:54 Artisreal wrote:
My Russian colleague is of the opinion that there is no free media in the country and that's one of the reasons why Putin can easily re-elect himself. No opposition can form if you control what the populace hears.
Oh and he's got family there and regularly returns. So he's not some rage driven exile. What's his personal view of Putin? I'm curious as - obviously - we rarely get the views of actual Russians. I've known a couple that are sort of on the fence. They like him and what he's doing but would rather he did some things differently, and one or two at the opposite extremes. I wrote this post on internal opposition and this one on the media that you might find interesting (since it seems you joined the discussion quite a bit later than most folks here). I had a third post elaborating on "consolidating the business class" that I'd have linked if I remembered when and where I made it. 90% sure it's in the euro thread but was unable to dig it up.
Interesting reads. Thanks for the effort.
|
On March 22 2018 08:36 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2018 08:08 hunts wrote:
That's a false equivalence danglars. People are not just opposed to the targeted sharing which you are accusing Obama of having done, but to the illegal and unethical ways that the data was taken and used. In essence, what you posted is an unrelated distraction, which does not actually touch on the main issue people have with what CA did. I really hope facebook and other social media platforms get a hard look over by the government. They played a pretty big role in handing trump the election, and do not seem to have been all too unknowing about it, or apologetic. I saw enough interactions on twitter and enough opinion pieces and articles on center-left outlets that did act like Cambridge Analytica was unique in the mining and use of the information, beyond the lying to obtain it from the outset. One of the articles I actually linked to. "They played a pretty big role in handing Trump the election" This is exactly what I mean. You're making this an even better true comparison. To even suggest that they played a role worth mentioning in a supposed "handing Trump the election" means you lack perspective on the election. Save that for Clinton's "deplorables" or Comey's reopening of the email probe letter.
So you're trying to deny that they played a role in trump winning the election? Or are you saying that they did play a role in trump winning the election but that role is being overstated?
|
On March 22 2018 05:28 Wulfey_LA wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2018 05:24 ticklishmusic wrote:
The plot thickens (it's already pretty thick, but we're approaching pitch drop levels of viscosity). Sessions says he didn't know about the investigation, though. Ask yourself, how many times has Jeff Sessions testified under oath in the last 1-2 years that he didn't know something? How many times was he lying? Based on his uninterrupted string of perjuries, I conclude from Sessions statement that ' I didn't know' that Sessions had documentary proof that he was being investigated prior to participating in firing McCabe.
Probably in triplicate. With a sticky note saying 'Make sure you investigate Jeff Sessions real hard. - McCabe'. Though it's a non-story, I don't know how anyone of any political leaning can trust Jeff Sessions anymore. It seems farcical to me that someone so compromised can be allowed to hold such a high office of law.
|
profiling people using data to help sell things is fine. that's a tool, which can be used for a bunch of different purposes. maybe it gets into 'this is kinda creepy' territory, but that's a separate discussion, i think. if i may, it's like a gun - guns certainly have their purposes, but we should regulate their usage and availability because while there are plenty of good, legitimate reasons to own and use a gun, people shouldn't be running around willy nilly with them.
the issue is CA illegitimately acquired data, peddled lies and appealed to a lot of people's worst instincts.
|
On March 22 2018 08:45 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2018 08:36 Danglars wrote:On March 22 2018 08:08 hunts wrote:
That's a false equivalence danglars. People are not just opposed to the targeted sharing which you are accusing Obama of having done, but to the illegal and unethical ways that the data was taken and used. In essence, what you posted is an unrelated distraction, which does not actually touch on the main issue people have with what CA did. I really hope facebook and other social media platforms get a hard look over by the government. They played a pretty big role in handing trump the election, and do not seem to have been all too unknowing about it, or apologetic. I saw enough interactions on twitter and enough opinion pieces and articles on center-left outlets that did act like Cambridge Analytica was unique in the mining and use of the information, beyond the lying to obtain it from the outset. One of the articles I actually linked to. "They played a pretty big role in handing Trump the election" This is exactly what I mean. You're making this an even better true comparison. To even suggest that they played a role worth mentioning in a supposed "handing Trump the election" means you lack perspective on the election. Save that for Clinton's "deplorables" or Comey's reopening of the email probe letter. So you're trying to deny that they played a role in trump winning the election? Or are you saying that they did play a role in trump winning the election but that role is being overstated?
Are you backing away from the statement now? What other factors "played a pretty big role in handing Trump the election?" Russia? Racism? Sexism? If you're the guy that throws that down everywhere, we don't have to go ahead.
|
On March 22 2018 09:18 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2018 08:45 hunts wrote:On March 22 2018 08:36 Danglars wrote:On March 22 2018 08:08 hunts wrote:
That's a false equivalence danglars. People are not just opposed to the targeted sharing which you are accusing Obama of having done, but to the illegal and unethical ways that the data was taken and used. In essence, what you posted is an unrelated distraction, which does not actually touch on the main issue people have with what CA did. I really hope facebook and other social media platforms get a hard look over by the government. They played a pretty big role in handing trump the election, and do not seem to have been all too unknowing about it, or apologetic. I saw enough interactions on twitter and enough opinion pieces and articles on center-left outlets that did act like Cambridge Analytica was unique in the mining and use of the information, beyond the lying to obtain it from the outset. One of the articles I actually linked to. "They played a pretty big role in handing Trump the election" This is exactly what I mean. You're making this an even better true comparison. To even suggest that they played a role worth mentioning in a supposed "handing Trump the election" means you lack perspective on the election. Save that for Clinton's "deplorables" or Comey's reopening of the email probe letter. So you're trying to deny that they played a role in trump winning the election? Or are you saying that they did play a role in trump winning the election but that role is being overstated? Are you backing away from the statement now? What other factors "played a pretty big role in handing Trump the election?" Russia? Racism? Sexism? If you're the guy that throws that down everywhere, we don't have to go ahead.
Don't answer his question with a question of your own. Answer his question and then ask yours. Come on man you are better than that
|
On March 22 2018 09:23 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2018 09:18 Danglars wrote:On March 22 2018 08:45 hunts wrote:On March 22 2018 08:36 Danglars wrote:On March 22 2018 08:08 hunts wrote:
That's a false equivalence danglars. People are not just opposed to the targeted sharing which you are accusing Obama of having done, but to the illegal and unethical ways that the data was taken and used. In essence, what you posted is an unrelated distraction, which does not actually touch on the main issue people have with what CA did. I really hope facebook and other social media platforms get a hard look over by the government. They played a pretty big role in handing trump the election, and do not seem to have been all too unknowing about it, or apologetic. I saw enough interactions on twitter and enough opinion pieces and articles on center-left outlets that did act like Cambridge Analytica was unique in the mining and use of the information, beyond the lying to obtain it from the outset. One of the articles I actually linked to. "They played a pretty big role in handing Trump the election" This is exactly what I mean. You're making this an even better true comparison. To even suggest that they played a role worth mentioning in a supposed "handing Trump the election" means you lack perspective on the election. Save that for Clinton's "deplorables" or Comey's reopening of the email probe letter. So you're trying to deny that they played a role in trump winning the election? Or are you saying that they did play a role in trump winning the election but that role is being overstated? Are you backing away from the statement now? What other factors "played a pretty big role in handing Trump the election?" Russia? Racism? Sexism? If you're the guy that throws that down everywhere, we don't have to go ahead. Don't answer his question with a question of your own. Answer his question and then ask yours. Come on man you are better than that
I don't know which kind of guy he actually is. If he's just seeking the nastiest shit out and heightening it up to BIG FACTOR, then we're just communicating with different interpretations.
Secondly, "so you're trying to deny," is absolute bad faith garbage and should be treated as such. If you're unclear about what I mean, PM.
|
But Obama! Only buys conservatives a few days respite and only with the faithful. You know the full stories actually breaking down the differences between the Obama campaign and CA are coming out. And you can't square But Obama! with FB's stock tanking and the head of CA getting suspended ... while nothing like that happened from Obama's opt-in program [also, FB in 2016 provided a radically different service than in 2008].
But CA wasn't effective! Is at best a minor distraction. If CA is as dirty as they have shown so far, it doesn't matter whether Republican consultants liked working with them or not. Dirty is dirty, even if it wasn't that great of a bang for the buck.
This story has legs. Everyone who dealt with CA is going to be tainted by their actions.
|
I do find the argument that Obama did the same thing to be pretty disingenuous. The posters in this thread follow politics well enough to know why its a bad argument.
|
On March 22 2018 09:54 Plansix wrote:
I do find the argument that Obama did the same thing to be pretty disingenuous. The posters in this thread follow politics well enough to know why its a bad argument.
Ben Shapiro did it better. He cites a piece from the Guardian in 2012 to slam Obama ... and then doesn't bother to link it. For fear that you might read it and notice the missing bribery plans from the CA CEO and breaches of FB's TOS.
This isn’t particularly shocking. In 2012, The Guardian reported that President Obama’s reelection team was “building a vast digital data operation that for the first time combines a unified database on millions of Americans with the power of Facebook to target individual voters to a degree never achieved before.”
http://thehill.com/opinion/technology/379245-whats-genius-for-obama-is-scandal-when-it-comes-to-trump
Here is the piece Shapiro doesn't bother to link.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/feb/17/obama-digital-data-machine-facebook-election
Shapiro's real point, argument, and assertion is that everything that isn't conservative is hypocritically judging conservatives. And the only reason FB's stock is tanking, Zuck is going silent, FB is having to cut off CA, and all the like, is merely that everyone that isn't purestrain conservative is a liberal hypocrite. So that makes what Trump does okay?
|
I think the people that read the first two posts know the difference between unethically gaining access to your FB data, and two different political campaign contractors using that data to tailor ad campaigns. I happened to see enough takes suddenly worrying about all that personal data out there marketed to interested parties, at a much louder volume than deceiving Facebook and users. If you’re worried now that this will be used for political campaigns, where were you six years ago? It all smacks of some bygone nostalgia about trusting that data you freely gave to Facebook wouldn’t ever end up in the hands of icky people.
You read those terms and conditions, right?
|
Notice how this argument keeps coming back to the Facebook TOS violations, rather than the research done by CA to cultivate racists? Or the laws the UK firm broke by working on Trumps campaign?
|
On March 22 2018 10:18 Plansix wrote:
Notice how this argument keeps coming back to the Facebook TOS violations, rather than the research done by CA to cultivate racists? Or the laws the UK firm broke by working on Trumps campaign?
We have enough here that think half of Trump's supporters were racist that it doesn't bear too much going over. I said what I observed and thought was relevant. It still smacks of retelling the story of why the 2016 was stolen from the true victory, Hillary Clinton.
Certainly, you can tell other stories and ask questions and examine facts. What kind of laws should be on the books given the ubiquity of social media and it's real benefit in connecting far-away friends. I read some of those with interest in this very thread. I already mentioned why I was glad others here weren't going as doomsday as reactions from journalists and media figures (hunts excepted). So you have no need to plunge into a narrative that this is all a cunning plan to draw away from your preferred stories.
Here's JPod:
The science-fiction writer Robert A. Heinlein said it best: “There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch.” Everything has a cost. If you forgot that, or refused to see it in your relationship with Facebook, or believe any of these things, sorry, you are a fool. So the politicians and pundits who are working to soak your outrage for their own ideological purposes are gulling you. But of course you knew.
You just didn’t care . . . until you cared. Until, that is, you decided this was a convenient way of explaining away the victory of Donald Trump in the 2016 election.
You’re so invested in the idea that Trump stole the election you are willing to believe anything other than that your candidate lost because she made a lousy argument and ran a lousy campaign and didn’t know how to run a race that would put her over the top in the Electoral College — which is how you prevail in a presidential election and has been for 220-plus years.
The rage and anger against Facebook over the past week provide just the latest examples of the self-infantilization and flight from responsibility on the part of the American people and the refusal of Trump haters and American liberals to accept the results of 2016.
Honestly, it’s time to stop being fools and start owning up to our role in all this.
NY Post
I was honestly surprised at how much people trusted Facebook in the first place to craft ToS to preserve a reasonable amount of privacy from the prying eyes of companies.
|
Danlgars, I just love it cite things I did not say and then make arguments against the things I did not say. I admire the consistency you that you use this style of argument. I cite that Bannon was actively courting and promoted racist views and you go off on your only little safari about Hilary Clinton. I used the word racist, so you go right back to claiming this thread thinks half of Trump voters are racist.
And then you go right back to the Facebook data argument and social media. It is like you didn't even read the last few pages of discussion about the CEO of CA admitting they they dodges campaign fiance laws and worked with a super PAC while also working for Trump. That is illegal. It is like you didn't read that CA is a UK company and cannot provide material assistance to a presidential campaign. That is illegal.
It is like we are not even here. You came here with your prepared arguments that you collected over the day and by god you are going to make them. And there is not a damn thing anyone in this thread can do about it. And who am I to stand in the way of a man on a singular mission?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
