Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Paladin of Ice

US Politics: The Ides of Mueller

Recommended Posts

43 minutes ago, Notone said:

With all the justified outrage over Cambridge Analytica, I somehow feel the urge to point out, that people are not really talking enough about Facebook's business model in this context, and in general. The evil genius of facebook was to get people to give up their rights to privacy and voluntarily share their (most) personal data with a company for free. If you think about it, if some random guy knocked at your door and asked you all the personal stuff you happily gave to facebook you would probably slam the door in his face (best case). For facebook users here. You have made that faustian deal and you have fed that kraken. So you kinda share some small bit of responsibility.

Some people, like myself have been talking about this very thing for years, and everyone shrugged.  It was more important to stay in touch NOW with people whom they'd happily forgotten existed entirely for years.  I have always been a FB refusnik and for all these reasons.

However, what FB collaborated with Cambridge Analytica goes fare beyond the fine print in their contracts re privacy, data gathering and the rest.  They've also lied / denied all along that their platform that was deliberately constructed to harvest data and sell the user had anything to do with anything -- while reaping profits from pushed ads, fake news etc. in favor of violence, hate, white supremacy, sexism -- you name it, they were profiting from it.  Their excuse was people kill people, guns don't.  Our platform is totally innocent and isn't even media.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes 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.

Damn right!  And we in this city have been watching this jerk and his family and his cohorts committing crimes and other equally pernicious, malicious and vicious acts all their lives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Maltaran said:

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

Not in this country -- libel laws are different here than in the UK, where so many were always concerned with protection of the upper classes being made fun of by the lower, and even just catching them in lies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
31 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

I think it's fair to say no one expected this kind of data to be used stolen for purely political purposes.

fify

As for FB, I'm on FB and have never given them much as far as personal info, not  who I work for, not my phone number, they have my bd tho.  The scary part is that my profile could have been stolen so easily, and what did FB do about it?  Nothing really.  I cringe when my nieces put so much info on FB, so many pictures of their children and other stuff.  FB and other social media seems to have become one big show and tell and privacy seems to have faded.  scary

Edited by Nasty LongRider

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One could only imagine the amount of liability Trump would rack up were he held to the libel standard Maltaran is describing? With his history of lying tweets, the penalties for all that libel would exceed his net worth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This will be fun. CA trying to get this killed.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
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. 

Edited by Notone

Share this post


Link to post
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?

Share this post


Link to post
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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Oxbow Incident is one of my favorite Westerns Garovorkin.

And Donald Trump is a filthy, guilty, obstructing traitor to this country.

My 2 movie recommendations for you are The Post and All the Presidents Men.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, GAROVORKIN said:

Ever read or see The Crucible by Arthur Miller ? 

You realize The Crucible was giving McCarthy the finger, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

You realize The Crucible was giving McCarthy the finger, right?

Not if they were actual witches...

Do you have evidence they weren't witches?

Edited by Pony Queen Jace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
58 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

You realize The Crucible was giving McCarthy the finger, right?

Of course I know.  

Edited by GAROVORKIN

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
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.

Edited by Notone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×