Jump to content

US Politics: The Ides of Mueller


Paladin of Ice

Recommended Posts

28 minutes ago, Maltaran said:

If you didn’t have evidence, you might get sued for libel.

Trump has prior convictions for money laundering. There is no stretch to assume he still does it for the Russian mob. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

And even if we could think about that, it was widely assumed that such information would be used for commercial purposes. I think it's fair to say no one expected this kind of data to be used for purely political purposes.

Well, the practice of microtargetting has been known for years, and in a way, it was just a matter of time, before this and scarier stuff would find its way into the political realm. Obama's 2008 campaign already used some of those techniques. Not as sinister as what CA was doing, but those were clear early warning signs of things to come. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Notone said:

Obama's 2008 campaign already used some of those techniques.

They were even better at it in 2012.  Romney's attempt was a miserable failure, but if he had had CA on his side?  who knows?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Notone said:

Well, the practice of microtargetting has be known for years, and in a way, it was just a matter of time, before this and scarier stuff would find its way into the political realm. Obama's 2008 campaign already used some of those techniques. Not as sinister as what CA was doing, but those were clear early warning signs of things to come. 

Well, as I mentioned above, the nazis and fascists were using what they blatantly called false news way back in the last century to push people into hate and supporting them, and not supporting those they had deemed enemies.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Maltaran said:

If you didn’t have evidence, you might get sued for libel.

Technically I believe you are correct, I could theoretically be sued.
But in France, where I believe libel laws are even stricter than in the US to begin with, Trump's lawyers would still have to prove i) that my declaration has actually harmed the reputation of their client (lol) ii) that my aim was to deliberately harm the reputation of their client (i.e. that I believed my declaration could do harm) iii) that my declaration was made in bad faith (i.e. that I did not believe it), iv) be ready to demonstrate that my declaration is false beyond any controversy (which, depending on your definition of "Russian mob" is a pretty tough thing seem to do imho)
The simple fact that my declaration can in no way harm Trump's reputation is enough to make the case moot. But the fact that I actually believe what I say and can explain which publicly known facts I am basing this declaration on makes it even mooter (if that is a word ^^).
So actually, no, I really can't be sued for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

I dont know what system your under, im a citizen of the U.S. and Donald Trump has publicly committed obstruction of justice in plain sight already. When we witness the crime we arent in need of waiting for results to speak truth to power.

Ever read or see The Crucible by Arthur Miller ?  or The Oxbow Incident by Walter van Tilberg Clark ? 

If not I recommend you seek them out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Notone said:

Well, the practice of microtargetting has been known for years, and in a way, it was just a matter of time, before this and scarier stuff would find its way into the political realm.

So you're saying it was too much to hope that it wouldn't happen?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Notone said:

Well, the practice of microtargetting has been known for years, and in a way, it was just a matter of time, before this and scarier stuff would find its way into the political realm. Obama's 2008 campaign already used some of those techniques. Not as sinister as what CA was doing, but those were clear early warning signs of things to come. 

Ya right. 275,000 people filled out the survey for Cambridge Analytica and they scraped information (scraped apparently is the technical term) on 50 M people. Don’t try to tell me anyone thought because a friend of a friend of a friend of a friend filled out an obscure survey they were going to be giving up all their personal information to the Republicans. Or anyone.

And if you think the statement “she shouldn’t have worn that mini-skirt” is an appropriate statement, you live in the Stone Age, baby.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Rippounet said:

So you're saying it was too much to hope that it wouldn't happen?

Hum, let me paraphrase a great philosopher from the TV adaption of A Song of Ice and Fire (this seems like the right place to do it).

""If you thought there'd be a happy ending, you hadn't been paying attention."

You can do some google search (I know another kraken) or use another search engine.

Micro targetting Obama campaign

There should've been a more critical debate about big data and the role of social media, and facebook in particular. I (quite cynically) see CA more as a symptom of a bigger problem. And I am afraid, it will be the end point of the debate, instead of the beginning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

Ya right. 275,000 people filled out the survey for Cambridge Analytica and they scraped information (scraped apparently is the technical term) on 50 M people. Don’t try to tell me anyone thought because a friend of a friend of a friend of a friend filled out an obscure survey they were going to be giving up all their personal information to the Republicans. Or anyone.

And if you think the statement “she shouldn’t have worn that mini-skirt” is an appropriate statement, you live in the Stone Age, baby.

I am still not sure where you get that sentiment that I think sexy clothing is an invitation for rape? And I honestly find it somewhat annoying, mildly put.

If you want to delve further into stupid analogies or comparissions, which you seem so keen to do here. How about this one. This is more like somebody hording exotic venomous snakes in his home (because they are cool pets), without sufficient care on the owners part. Of course the snake shouldn't have bitten his master (or mistress), but that doesn't mean that keeping and handling those snakes carelessly was a great idea to begin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

jfc

Trump had senior staff sign nondisclosure agreements. They’re supposed to last beyond his presidency.

Quote

The nondisclosure agreements, said a person who signed the document, “were meant to be very similar to the ones that some of us signed during the campaign and during the transition. I remember the president saying, ‘Has everybody signed a confidentiality agreement like they did during the campaign or we had at Trump Tower?’ ”

At that time, in February or March of 2017, the source said, “There was lots of leaking, things that just weren’t true, and a lot of things that were true and should have remained confidential. The president’s point was that they [staff] would think twice about that if they were on the hook for some serious damages.”

Moreover, said the source, this confidentiality pledge would extend not only after an aide’s White House service but also beyond the Trump presidency. “It’s not meant to be constrained by the four years or eight years he’s president — or the four months or eight months somebody works there. It is meant to survive that.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trumps-nondisclosure-agreements-came-with-him-to-the-white-house/2018/03/18/226f4522-29ee-11e8-b79d-f3d931db7f68_story.html?utm_term=.56b4d9853941

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Notone said:

You can do some google search (I know another kraken) or use another search engine.

Micro targetting Obama campaign

There should've been a more critical debate about big data and the role of social media, and facebook in particular. I (quite cynically) see CA more as a symptom of a bigger problem. And I am afraid, it will be the end point of the debate, instead of the beginning.

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.

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...