6 ms·

Fascinating to watch - it shows how much power media has to put a topic on the global agenda if it fits into their preferred narrative.

scottmf 9y ago
Let me guess. It’s a globalist media conspiracy to take down Trump?
- jimmy1 9y ago
  No but in the grand scheme of things, things like the Yemen Civil War that has been ongoing since 2015 has gotten less attention in our media than a single Donald Trump tweet. For lack of a better word: sad!
  - Angostura 9y ago
    It would be sad if you were correct, but you're not https://www.bbc.co.uk/search?q=yemen+civil+war https://www.bbc.co.uk/search?q=yemen+civil+war
    - jimmy1 9y ago
      I would be optimistic if most Americans actually read the BBC ( or read, for that matter). I would venture to say most however, do not. For example, a popular right wing propaganda news source that most Americans watch has had a handful of articles this year, and skimpy coverage on air.
      - purple-again 9y ago
        Do you find it hard to believe that an organization based in the UK, and citizens of that union, are more interested in whats going in Yemen than an organization based in the US, and of course the citizens of that union. I know whats happening in Yemen, I've read the facts, and now I don't care anymore. I don't want to see it in the news everyday because it wasn't relevant to me when I read about it and it has practically zero chance of every being relevant to me. What Trump said about xxx person at yyy place is varying degrees of relevant to my life, all of those degrees more so than Yemen. If Fox had a large Middle Eastern demographic that it's advertisers cared about, you would see Yemen Nightly at 7:30 without question.
        jimmy1 9y ago
        > Do you find it hard to believe that an organization based in the UK, and citizens of that union, are more interested in whats going in Yemen than an organization based in the US, and of course the citizens of that union. Yes, because on the other side of that conflict is the Saudis, who are one of our biggest "allys", and of course, the other side of the coin is the general hypocrisy of caring what goes on in other parts of the world and not this one because it doesn't fit a specific narrative. > What Trump said about xxx person at yyy place is varying degrees of relevant to my life, all of those degrees more so than Yemen. I don't know how to not say this in a disrespectful way, but I really feel sad for you on a personal level if that's truly what you think. I have a feeling that you are just attempting to be a contrarian in this instance.
    - majewsky 9y ago
      The plain number of articles on a topic is not a useful measure for their impact. A dozen newsticker reports will be remembered less than a single frontpage article.
  - ifm 9y ago
    There is a concept called "News Values" which explains this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_values https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_values Anything Donald Trump says is more relevant to the west than Yemen.
- 1337biz 9y ago
  Not at all. Just media's desperate hunger for any story that paints Trump in a bad light. The recent video evidence on Cambridge Analytica shows that they were at least shady in their operations. But their approach to targeting voters and scraping Facebook userdata would have been described as brilliant data wizzardry if it were done for the other side.
  - ams6110 9y ago
    And it was described as brilliant, when Obama did it in his campaigns.
    - txcwpalpha 9y ago
      It was also described as "groundbreaking", a "game changer", and "an application that will change the way campaigns are conducted in the future" [1]. When Obama's campaign did it, it was heralded as the future of democracy. Even the social media director for Obama's 2012 campaign acknowledges that they did the exact same thing that CA is being blasted for now [2]. I'm not sure why you're getting downvotes other than people just wanting to suppress the truth. 1: http://swampland.time.com/2012/11/20/friended-how-the-obama-campaign-connected-with-young-voters/ http://swampland.time.com/2012/11/20/friended-how-the-obama-... 2: https://twitter.com/cld276/status/975568130117459975 https://twitter.com/cld276/status/975568130117459975
  - Angostura 9y ago
    ... or not http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/07/AR2006030701860.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03...
    - ams6110 9y ago
      http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/23/magazine/the-obama-campaigns-digital-masterminds-cash-in.html http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/23/magazine/the-obama-campaig... ... the campaign literally knew every single wavering voter in the country that it needed to persuade to vote for Obama, by name, address, race, sex and income. ...the digital-analytics team, led by Rayid Ghani, a 35-year-old research scientist from Accenture Labs, developed an idea: Why not try sifting through self-described supporters’ Facebook pages in search of friends who might be on the campaign’s list of the most persuadable voters? Then the campaign could ask the self-identified supporters to bring their undecided friends along. ...They started with a list that grew to a million people who had signed into the campaign Web site through Facebook. When people opted to do so, they were met with a prompt asking to grant the campaign permission to scan their Facebook friends lists, their photos and other personal information. So, they used Facebook data, including "Friends" lists and personal information that those "Friends" had never directly consented to providing to the campaign.
- edraferi 9y ago
  I don’t think you have to be a conspiracy theorist to find this weird. Facebook has been aggressively monetizing user data for years. They are just one player in an entire industry built around this business model. The existence of this industry is most obvious to technically literate, who you can generally identify by their use of strong ad blockers and password managers. But it’s been reported on before [0]. Online privacy is not a new concern... just look at the “Facebook is listening to me” meme. So what I want to know is: why now? Why Cambridge Analytica? Why Facebook? Here’s my best take so far. 1) Facebook’s user base is so big that it’s a relevant political constituency, and thus democratic governments have a reason to care. 2) Facebook creates an expectation of privacy and illusion of control that doesn’t exist with public-first platforms like Twitter 3) Cambridge Analytica is a scummy company in many respects, not just their work with Facebook data. They got lots of Facebook data from a third party who probably wasn’t authorized to sell it to them. This makes them a good candidate for regulators to make an example of. 4) Cambridge Analytica is closely tied to the Trump and Brexit campaigns, both of which are regarded as “dangerous perversions of democracy using lies to exploit vulnerable people” by exactly the kinds of political and media organizations that are driving this story. Overall, I think this is a “Pigs get fat, Hogs get slaughtered” situation. The industry’s toxic practices are finally causing enough damage that institutions responsible for protecting the public (government, real media) are responding. Bravo, I say. [0] WaPo has an article explaining this on the front page today https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/facebooks-rules-for-accessing-user-data-lured-more-than-just-cambridge-analytica/2018/03/19/31f6979c-658e-43d6-a71f-afdd8bf1308b_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/facebooks-ru...
jerf 9y ago
Facebook's current problem is that they've now created a lot of enemies and they're running short on friends. This isn't quite as bad as it sounds, because creating enemies when you reach this scale is inevitable, so the mere fact that Facebook isn't everybody bestest bud ever is not intrinsically a problem. However, one of the fundamental ways to defend yourself when you reach this scale is to act with a certain amount of ethics and decorum. Ethics are not just about being good to other people, because all sensible formulations of ethics have reciprocity in them, so if you are good to other people, even your enemies will, if begrudgingly, cut you some slack. Facebook has reached this size but has not prepared itself for it, and what's happening is that they took a bit of a stumble, and absolutely nobody is rushing in to defend them because they've burned all bridges. The media hates them for the economics of taking over the media industry and their ad revenue, and making them dependent on them. Conservatives have a pretty solid case that they are being censored by the platform systematically, even if it isn't true they feel it is true, so no friends there. It's pretty obvious that Facebook can expect no help from the Republicans in general. The Democrats may not hate Facebook, but there's no positive reason to burn very much political capital on helping them. (After all, they didn't deliver this time, did they?) And increasingly, the chickens are coming home to roost with their customer base, as fears about surveillance, power, and abuse of power are now going from vague fears to metastaticized, realized issues with Facebook that appear to affect it down to its very core. It's not just the media narrative, though that's true enough... everybody is now at best neutral towards Facebook, and they're accruing enemies fast, not least of which is an ever-increasing portion of their own customer base(s). How will they get out of this one? It's possible this will just die down this time. But these forces aren't going anywhere, and if it isn't already too late for Facebook to change course on this, the clock is definitely reaching midnight fast.
- 1337biz 9y ago
  You have a point there. Genereally speaking I agree that Facebook itself is on it's path down. Do they have enough money to just hang in there and buy the next thing 'what the kids like'?
  - SCHiM 9y ago

scottmf 9y ago

Let me guess. It’s a globalist media conspiracy to take down Trump?

jimmy1 9y ago
No but in the grand scheme of things, things like the Yemen Civil War that has been ongoing since 2015 has gotten less attention in our media than a single Donald Trump tweet. For lack of a better word: sad!
- Angostura 9y ago
  It would be sad if you were correct, but you're not https://www.bbc.co.uk/search?q=yemen+civil+war https://www.bbc.co.uk/search?q=yemen+civil+war
  - jimmy1 9y ago
    I would be optimistic if most Americans actually read the BBC ( or read, for that matter). I would venture to say most however, do not. For example, a popular right wing propaganda news source that most Americans watch has had a handful of articles this year, and skimpy coverage on air.
    - purple-again 9y ago
      Do you find it hard to believe that an organization based in the UK, and citizens of that union, are more interested in whats going in Yemen than an organization based in the US, and of course the citizens of that union. I know whats happening in Yemen, I've read the facts, and now I don't care anymore. I don't want to see it in the news everyday because it wasn't relevant to me when I read about it and it has practically zero chance of every being relevant to me. What Trump said about xxx person at yyy place is varying degrees of relevant to my life, all of those degrees more so than Yemen. If Fox had a large Middle Eastern demographic that it's advertisers cared about, you would see Yemen Nightly at 7:30 without question.
      - jimmy1 9y ago
        > Do you find it hard to believe that an organization based in the UK, and citizens of that union, are more interested in whats going in Yemen than an organization based in the US, and of course the citizens of that union. Yes, because on the other side of that conflict is the Saudis, who are one of our biggest "allys", and of course, the other side of the coin is the general hypocrisy of caring what goes on in other parts of the world and not this one because it doesn't fit a specific narrative. > What Trump said about xxx person at yyy place is varying degrees of relevant to my life, all of those degrees more so than Yemen. I don't know how to not say this in a disrespectful way, but I really feel sad for you on a personal level if that's truly what you think. I have a feeling that you are just attempting to be a contrarian in this instance.
  - majewsky 9y ago
    The plain number of articles on a topic is not a useful measure for their impact. A dozen newsticker reports will be remembered less than a single frontpage article.
- ifm 9y ago
  There is a concept called "News Values" which explains this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_values https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_values Anything Donald Trump says is more relevant to the west than Yemen.
1337biz 9y ago
Not at all. Just media's desperate hunger for any story that paints Trump in a bad light. The recent video evidence on Cambridge Analytica shows that they were at least shady in their operations. But their approach to targeting voters and scraping Facebook userdata would have been described as brilliant data wizzardry if it were done for the other side.
- ams6110 9y ago
  And it was described as brilliant, when Obama did it in his campaigns.
  - txcwpalpha 9y ago
    It was also described as "groundbreaking", a "game changer", and "an application that will change the way campaigns are conducted in the future" [1]. When Obama's campaign did it, it was heralded as the future of democracy. Even the social media director for Obama's 2012 campaign acknowledges that they did the exact same thing that CA is being blasted for now [2]. I'm not sure why you're getting downvotes other than people just wanting to suppress the truth. 1: http://swampland.time.com/2012/11/20/friended-how-the-obama-campaign-connected-with-young-voters/ http://swampland.time.com/2012/11/20/friended-how-the-obama-... 2: https://twitter.com/cld276/status/975568130117459975 https://twitter.com/cld276/status/975568130117459975
- Angostura 9y ago
  ... or not http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/07/AR2006030701860.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03...
  - ams6110 9y ago
    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/23/magazine/the-obama-campaigns-digital-masterminds-cash-in.html http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/23/magazine/the-obama-campaig... ... the campaign literally knew every single wavering voter in the country that it needed to persuade to vote for Obama, by name, address, race, sex and income. ...the digital-analytics team, led by Rayid Ghani, a 35-year-old research scientist from Accenture Labs, developed an idea: Why not try sifting through self-described supporters’ Facebook pages in search of friends who might be on the campaign’s list of the most persuadable voters? Then the campaign could ask the self-identified supporters to bring their undecided friends along. ...They started with a list that grew to a million people who had signed into the campaign Web site through Facebook. When people opted to do so, they were met with a prompt asking to grant the campaign permission to scan their Facebook friends lists, their photos and other personal information. So, they used Facebook data, including "Friends" lists and personal information that those "Friends" had never directly consented to providing to the campaign.
edraferi 9y ago
I don’t think you have to be a conspiracy theorist to find this weird. Facebook has been aggressively monetizing user data for years. They are just one player in an entire industry built around this business model. The existence of this industry is most obvious to technically literate, who you can generally identify by their use of strong ad blockers and password managers. But it’s been reported on before [0]. Online privacy is not a new concern... just look at the “Facebook is listening to me” meme. So what I want to know is: why now? Why Cambridge Analytica? Why Facebook? Here’s my best take so far. 1) Facebook’s user base is so big that it’s a relevant political constituency, and thus democratic governments have a reason to care. 2) Facebook creates an expectation of privacy and illusion of control that doesn’t exist with public-first platforms like Twitter 3) Cambridge Analytica is a scummy company in many respects, not just their work with Facebook data. They got lots of Facebook data from a third party who probably wasn’t authorized to sell it to them. This makes them a good candidate for regulators to make an example of. 4) Cambridge Analytica is closely tied to the Trump and Brexit campaigns, both of which are regarded as “dangerous perversions of democracy using lies to exploit vulnerable people” by exactly the kinds of political and media organizations that are driving this story. Overall, I think this is a “Pigs get fat, Hogs get slaughtered” situation. The industry’s toxic practices are finally causing enough damage that institutions responsible for protecting the public (government, real media) are responding. Bravo, I say. [0] WaPo has an article explaining this on the front page today https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/facebooks-rules-for-accessing-user-data-lured-more-than-just-cambridge-analytica/2018/03/19/31f6979c-658e-43d6-a71f-afdd8bf1308b_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/facebooks-ru...

jerf 9y ago

Facebook's current problem is that they've now created a lot of enemies and they're running short on friends. This isn't quite as bad as it sounds, because creating enemies when you reach this scale is inevitable, so the mere fact that Facebook isn't everybody bestest bud ever is not intrinsically a problem. However, one of the fundamental ways to defend yourself when you reach this scale is to act with a certain amount of ethics and decorum. Ethics are not just about being good to other people, because all sensible formulations of ethics have reciprocity in them, so if you are good to other people, even your enemies will, if begrudgingly, cut you some slack. Facebook has reached this size but has not prepared itself for it, and what's happening is that they took a bit of a stumble, and absolutely nobody is rushing in to defend them because they've burned all bridges. The media hates them for the economics of taking over the media industry and their ad revenue, and making them dependent on them. Conservatives have a pretty solid case that they are being censored by the platform systematically, even if it isn't true they feel it is true, so no friends there. It's pretty obvious that Facebook can expect no help from the Republicans in general. The Democrats may not hate Facebook, but there's no positive reason to burn very much political capital on helping them. (After all, they didn't deliver this time, did they?) And increasingly, the chickens are coming home to roost with their customer base, as fears about surveillance, power, and abuse of power are now going from vague fears to metastaticized, realized issues with Facebook that appear to affect it down to its very core. It's not just the media narrative, though that's true enough... everybody is now at best neutral towards Facebook, and they're accruing enemies fast, not least of which is an ever-increasing portion of their own customer base(s). How will they get out of this one? It's possible this will just die down this time. But these forces aren't going anywhere, and if it isn't already too late for Facebook to change course on this, the clock is definitely reaching midnight fast.

1337biz 9y ago
You have a point there. Genereally speaking I agree that Facebook itself is on it's path down. Do they have enough money to just hang in there and buy the next thing 'what the kids like'?
- SCHiM 9y ago