Jump to content

US Politics: The Ides of Mueller


Paladin of Ice

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Pony Queen Jace said:

That's like a fucking huge sign, right? Like a good one?

I'm not really sure what this is a sign of.  The PA case just had to do with PA law, and it was pretty obvious that the Supreme Court shouldn't get involved here.  It's good that they didn't, but this wasn't unexpected. 

The Wisconsin gerrymandering case is the big one to watch, as that will have national implications.  If there were a limit placed on how partisan the congressional maps are allowed to be drawn, that would be a good thing for this country.  And if Democrats win a few big state governor's races this year (looking at you FL, PA, OH, WI, MI), then they can avoid being in such a ridiculous hole in house races from 2022-2030.  Like maybe Democrats will only need a D+3 to win control of the House?  One can dream. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

I'm not really sure what this is a sign of.  The PA case just had to do with PA law, and it was pretty obvious that the Supreme Court shouldn't get involved here.  It's good that they didn't, but this wasn't unexpected. 

The Wisconsin gerrymandering case is the big one to watch, as that will have national implications.  If there were a limit placed on how partisan the congressional maps are allowed to be drawn, that would be a good thing for this country.  And if Democrats win a few big state governor's races this year (looking at you FL, PA, OH, WI, MI), then they can avoid being in such a ridiculous hole in house races from 2022-2030.  Like maybe Democrats will only need a D+3 to win control of the House?  One can dream. 

I can only warn you, not teach you. Beware of what you dream for. The gods have a way of punishing such pride.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Rippounet said:

Ok, sure. But I've been on facebook for like... a dozen years, give or take. Was micro-targetting even a word back then?
I'm not saying it wasn't possible to see it coming. It's just that this kind of big brother thing came about way faster than most of us imagined.
And anyway, what's to be done about it, really? I've always taken some precautions (my parents being in IT and all). Even if I were to get completely rid of social media, I still need to use various google services for professional reasons. Bottom line is, like millions of people, I need the internet.
I don't think it's very fair of you to blame the victims here.

I think Gertrude made the point better than I ever could.

This whole mess had been coming for a while, that's why I bring up the point with Obama's campaigns. The writing was on the wall for a good while. I get the outrage, and it is justified, absolutely. However the buck doesn't stop with CA, the Mercers or Bannon. We really have to talk about facebook, and how user behaviour has helped creating their huge database. It's not like Zuckerberg forced you to follow, like (and what not) at gun point.

I know, there's stuff you can't get around, like your google services. I simply pointed out it's a data kraken, because it is, and I would have found a bit odd, if I say facebook's bad, while I send you on a google search in the same post, without at least mentioning it. But since my point was really more about social media and facebook and particular, which is entirely voluntarily.  You can happily live without it, or at least restrict your activity (and thus your virtual foot print) there. But why not do it? Convienience? And that's the point where some sort of responsibility on part of the users kicks in (check paragraph above Zuckerberg didn't invade your home to force you at gun point to use facebook to the extent a lot of people do). And personally I think it's long overdue to disperse the myth that facebook is harmless fun.

What to do about it is another thing. To some degree that horse has bolted. All that is left to do is place pressure on legislative bodies to pass laws to mitigate the damage. The most important laws being (unfortunately) US laws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmmmm, I read stories saying that Christopher Wylie, the whistleblower, helped found Cambridge Analytica and other stories saying he had nothing to do with the founding of the company. In any event, CA is defending itself by saying that the data scraping was done perfectly legally, because the original survey gave the Cambridge professor who created the survey the right to access the friends list of the survey participants.

I know when I have taken part in games and quizzes I've always clicked to refuse access to my friends list. When the app refuses to let me play their game, I shrug my shoulders and walk away. But I'm sure my name is on lots of lists because it was not a choice originally offered to Facebook users, or because friends didn't click on that box.

Back to Wylie - he's a Canadian from BC, who whistle blew because he felt guilty about what they did. He's a high school drop-out diagnosed with ADHD who briefly worked as a summer intern for Opposition Leader Stephen Dion of the Liberal Party in Canada when he was 17. He learned all about data working for people working on Obama's election campaign and became a big fan of micro targeting.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/christopher-wylie-canada-libeals-cambridge-analytica-1.4582190?cmp=FB_Post_News

Quote

Wylie, a 28-year-old from British Columbia, is the data scientist who spoke out about the controversy. He's also the man who helped found Cambridge Analytica.

"I do feel responsible for it and it's something that I regret," Wylie said in a video interview posted on The Observer's web page.

"It was a grossly unethical experiment because you are playing with an entire country, the psychology of an entire country, without their consent or awareness."

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not on Facebook, but can any legitimate company take data from a person who has not approved of it being taken? How is signing a release form allowing someone to take my data, give them any rights to my friends or followers data? That stuff is not mine to give.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

Hmmmmm, I read stories saying that Christopher Wylie, the whistleblower, helped found Cambridge Analytica and other stories saying he had nothing to do with the founding of the company. In any event, CA is defending itself by saying that the data scraping was done perfectly legally, because the original survey gave the Cambridge professor who created the survey the right to access the friends list of the survey participants.

I know when I have taken part in games and quizzes I've always clicked to refuse access to my friends list. When the app refuses to let me play their game, I shrug my shoulders and walk away. But I'm sure my name is on lots of lists because it was not a choice originally offered to Facebook users, or because friends didn't click on that box.

Back to Wylie - he's a Canadian from BC, who whistle blew because he felt guilty about what they did. He's a high school drop-out diagnosed with ADHD who briefly worked as a summer intern for Opposition Leader Stephen Dion of the Liberal Party in Canada when he was 17. He learned all about data working for people working on Obama's election campaign and became a big fan of micro targeting.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/christopher-wylie-canada-libeals-cambridge-analytica-1.4582190?cmp=FB_Post_News

 

Is this the kid with the pink hair?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, maarsen said:

I am not on Facebook, but can any legitimate company take data from a person who has not approved of it being taken? How is signing a release form allowing someone to take my data, give them any rights to my friends or followers data? That stuff is not mine to give.

Hence the problem. I don't have a Facebook and I actually played up a bad relationship with my mom rather than try to explain data security.

 

ETA: When people asked why I didn't have facebook.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Pony Queen Jace said:

Hence the problem. I don't have a Facebook and I actually played up a bad relationship with my mom rather than try to explain data security.

 

ETA: When people asked why I didn't have facebook.

Well if it is so simple to scoop up data that is not yours, I would suggest all those with NDA's concerning Trump go onto Facebook in a big way. Third parties can than access them and your hands will be clean.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

I'm not really sure what this is a sign of.  The PA case just had to do with PA law, and it was pretty obvious that the Supreme Court shouldn't get involved here.  It's good that they didn't, but this wasn't unexpected. 

The Wisconsin gerrymandering case is the big one to watch, as that will have national implications.  If there were a limit placed on how partisan the congressional maps are allowed to be drawn, that would be a good thing for this country.

Why is any partisan bias allowed? Why do governments get to draw their own maps? America needs to follow the lead of civilised nations, who give this power to independent bodies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, maarsen said:

Well if it is so simple to scoop up data that is not yours, I would suggest all those with NDA's concerning Trump go onto Facebook in a big way. Third parties can than access them and your hands will be clean.

Actually, NDA's are subject to NDA's.

Which is why the one Daniels signed is voided. Because the lawyer specifically said he paid for her silence. Which voids the NDA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

Hmmmmm, I read stories saying that Christopher Wylie, the whistleblower, helped found Cambridge Analytica and other stories saying he had nothing to do with the founding of the company. In any event, CA is defending itself by saying that the data scraping was done perfectly legally, because the original survey gave the Cambridge professor who created the survey the right to access the friends list of the survey participants.

I know when I have taken part in games and quizzes I've always clicked to refuse access to my friends list. When the app refuses to let me play their game, I shrug my shoulders and walk away. But I'm sure my name is on lots of lists because it was not a choice originally offered to Facebook users, or because friends didn't click on that box.

Back to Wylie - he's a Canadian from BC, who whistle blew because he felt guilty about what they did. He's a high school drop-out diagnosed with ADHD who briefly worked as a summer intern for Opposition Leader Stephen Dion of the Liberal Party in Canada when he was 17. He learned all about data working for people working on Obama's election campaign and became a big fan of micro targeting.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/christopher-wylie-canada-libeals-cambridge-analytica-1.4582190?cmp=FB_Post_News

 

I thought the issue had more to do with CA operationalizing the data rather than it being used for research purposes which is what the original app and data collection was supposed to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, maarsen said:

I am not on Facebook, but can any legitimate company take data from a person who has not approved of it being taken? How is signing a release form allowing someone to take my data, give them any rights to my friends or followers data? That stuff is not mine to give.

Hahahaha!

Hahahahahahahahahaha!

Oh you sweet summer child. You have no idea just how much data is being collected about you without your permission.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

Hahahaha!

Hahahahahahahahahaha!

Oh you sweet summer child. You have no idea just how much data is being collected about you without your permission.

Take it easy champ. I don't want to be mean to our more experienced friends, but it is true that a lot of people above 40 really have no idea how right Orwell was.

He just thought it would be the government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Pony Queen Jace said:

Take it easy champ. I don't want to be mean to our more experienced friends, but it is true that a lot of people above 40 really have no idea how right Orwell was.

He just thought it would be the government.

It would be nice if more people actually read 1984 and Animal Farm . 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's high school reading dude.

If you're gonna try and be edgy and smart in your falsely edgy and smart sea lioning, at least put in some effort.

Seveneves or Steel Beach.

At least have some pride, man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Pony Queen Jace said:

Take it easy champ. I don't want to be mean to our more experienced friends, but it is true that a lot of people above 40 really have no idea how right Orwell was.

He just thought it would be the government.

Ain’t that the truth. Big Brother in the 21st century is tech companies and companies with large digital imprints.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Tywin et al. said:

Ain’t that the truth. Big Brother in the 21st century is tech companies and companies with large digital imprints.   

It's funny, 'cause the Regan Republicans went BIG MONEY which fairly swiftly crippled the government and now the government can't protect us from BIG MONEY because half of it sold itself to BIG MONEY but they hate BIG MONEY because BIG MONEY has a long-term effect of liberalizing the world due to freedom of movement/trade but they're owned by BIG MONEY and like some BIG MONEY but keep enabling BIG MONEY in general which ultimately will ruin them.

The Republican party is one of bargaining away the roof to fix the walls. So many contradictory elements are locked into that coalition that they're taking short term ideas like asking whether you're a citizen on the Census to help them today when by the time the census goes into effect it'll cripple them.

Just like supporting Trump, or betting on the economy or being anti-government or 'deficit hawks'. These are all positions that might have been something you could hold on to individually but the grip is loosening by the day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The many services of Cambridge Analytica:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/mar/19/cambridge-analytica-execs-boast-dirty-tricks-honey-traps-elections

They deny everything (while so far refusing to cooperate with any investigation).  They would never do anything untruthful, entrapping, or in violation of any law anywhere anytime.  They were hand in hand with Bannon, they boast of dirty trix, so you may or may not believe them just on this basis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...