8 ms·

All of this Facebook hubub and broad public outcry is really all owed to the election of Trump. If Trump handnt leveraged CA, we’d still all be happy and fat on

All of this Facebook hubub and broad public outcry is really all owed to the election of Trump. If Trump handnt leveraged CA, we’d still all be happy and fat on out individual bliss boxes – patting ourselves on the back – because our side [a la Obama] was smart enough to use this technology to our advantage. Now when the enemy has (and use) the same technology, we’re forced to cry foul. Demand oversight. Demand regulation. The greater public is OK with this technology. They’re Ok with sweeping data collection (Snowden Files). They’re OK with mining personal data (Facebook, Google, etc). Thy’re OK with 1984, so long as it’s their sides version of 1984. It takes a Trump for your side to realize how shitty things got while you were enamored with charisma on your bliss box. Edit: typing on my phone. Fixing grammar.

cabaalis 9y ago
I think the best thing that has come out of the election of Donald Trump is that many people are now excited about the idea of constitutionally limiting the power of the executive branch. That idea seemed to have been forgotten for the past few administrations. Even when I agreed with Obama or Bush, I was very disappointed when they would use innovative methods to single-handedly override the will of congress or the judiciary.
- enraged_camel 9y ago
  I wasn’t. If Congress is being obstructionist and petty, as they undoubtedly were during the Obama years, the executive branch still needs to do its job, which is to lead the country forward. That said, I agree with the spirit of your post, which is that every now and then we should scale that power back.
- dmfdmf 9y ago
  The courts need to reign in the use of Executive Orders.
  - Helmet 9y ago
    And the Congress needs to reign in the Courts' legislative activism.
- duckMuppet 9y ago
  Not really. Remember that whole, "Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes" thing.. Yet instead of actually doing this, they continue to essentially outsource their power, and responsibility to the administrative state. I mean DT almost blatantly came out and said, well these new tariffs aren't exactly because of national security.. Don't kid yourself, both parties are essentially the same, who feeds them just look different. On top of that, Congress continues to cede more powers to the administrative state.. It becomes all about control really.. The primary reason no one should have been worried when DT got elected is that for a great many years, the system was designed that no matter who is driving the ship, they won't sink it because they don't have that power (same goes for BO & GWB). But for years we've been pushing for more centralized authority with power resting at the figurehead, that really ramped up after '01, and later BO put it on steroids. As private institutions fall away for newer generations, the govt becomes "something we all do together", and the primary solution for having someone else take care of societal problems for us, after all, it's what we pay taxes for... Congress keeps outsourcing it's responsibilities to the president, no matter what letter, R or D is behind the name on the office door. Tariffs, wars, weaponized govt agencies, privacy rights, drone strikes, surveillance, and on and on... This isn't a problem of the system, it's merely a symptom of the current state of our society and I personally don't think whether it's tariffs or privacy, little will change in a direction that we would like. The people want easy solutions, they want someone to take care of problems for them. That's exactly what we are getting.
Clanan 9y ago
What's ironic is that Trump didn't use CA to win the election. CA was used a bit in the primaries but after that the campaign only solicited a bid as a hedge in case the RNC didn't share its data. CA wasn't used for the general election. On the other hand, the Obama campaign used sneaky Terms and Conditions to suck up friend lists and create a national social graph for the sole purpose of winning the General Election.
- etcet 9y ago
  Where did you get that information? Channel4 is reporting that Mercer donated to the Trump campaign on the condition that he would take on Steve Bannon and hire CA. Steven Bannon joined the Trump campaign in August 2016, after Trump won the primaries in May.
  - throwaway5752 9y ago
    I have no idea who could conceivably be taking issue with your concise and correct post (given the apparent downvotes). The dates don't lie. What was Felix Sater's role at that point, too?
  - makomk 9y ago
    They did hire CA in order to get Mercer's support and donations - they just didn't actually use their data once Trump had access to the more accurate (and more old-fashioned) central RNC database, and apparently never used the psychographic data at the heart of the controversy at all. See e.g. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-campaign-phased-out-use-of-cambridge-analytica-data-before-election/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-campaign-phased-out-use-o... Like, I know the news media have spun the fact that one of Trump's big, important donors made them hire CA as proof they relied on CA to win the election, but really it should be the opposite - it should call into question whether their hiring was justified by what they offered the campaign.
vondur 9y ago
According to CBS, the trump campaign didn't use the CA data ( they may have in the Primaries): https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-campaign-phased-out-use-of-cambridge-analytica-data-before-election/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-campaign-phased-out-use-o... In late September 2016, Cambridge and other data vendors were submitting bids to the Trump campaign. Then-candidate Trump's campaign used Cambridge Analytica during the primaries and in the summer because it was never certain the Republican National Committee would be a willing, cooperative partner. Cambridge Analytica instead was a hedge against the RNC, in case it wouldn't share its data. The crucial decision was made in late September or early October when Mr. Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner and Brad Parscale, Mr. Trump's digital guru on the 2016 campaign, decided to utilize just the RNC data for the general election and used nothing from that point from Cambridge Analytica or any other data vendor. The Trump campaign had tested the RNC data, and it proved to be vastly more accurate than Cambridge Analytica's, and when it was clear the RNC would be a willing partner, Mr. Trump's campaign was able to rely solely on the RNC.
- sangnoir 9y ago
  > the trump campaign didn't use the CA data That might be technically correct, but CA was unquestionably working with SuperPACs[1] behind the scenes to get Trump elected in November. CA was particularly proud of it's crooked Hillary campaign ("the OO of crooked was a pair of handcuffs"). 1. According to the Cambridge Analytica CEO in the Channel 4 undercover documentary https://youtu.be/cy-9iciNF1A?t=6m21s https://youtu.be/cy-9iciNF1A?t=6m21s
  - vondur 9y ago
    I agree that Super PAC's need to be eliminated. One funded by George Soros was particularly effective in the anti Ray Moore campaign in Alabama: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/how-democrats-use-dark-money-win-elections-n849391 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/how-democrats-use-...
    - enraged_camel 9y ago
      Roy Moore had lots of issues. Let’s not pretend he was taken down by Soros.
jasonlotito 9y ago
The data collection isn't the concern. The criminal concern is federal election finance laws potentially being broken, as well as foreigners working for the campaign. There are very real and very serious potential issues here that are being brought up.
VVyattPrentice 9y ago
While the criticism directed at social media is certainly warranted. I feel compelled to take exception with your reliance on false equivalence. It's kinda qualitatively different when you're actively engaging in illegal activity while working hand in glove with a clandestine foreign intelligence service to undermine your own countries democratic elections on behalf of an adversarial foreign nation state. If you can't see the difference, then keep at it. I assure you it's there. But if you already know that then you go ahead and keep explaining to folks how apples and oranges are the same things because they're both round fruit.
- paulddraper 9y ago
  > undermine your own countries democratic elections on behalf of an adversarial foreign nation state Citation needed.
  - throwaway5752 9y ago
    Not really, it's common knowledge. There are a pile of dead Russians ex-IC people all over Europe, the existing Mueller indictments, the Crowdstrike DNC Russian APT attributions, all of our own lying eyes...
    - greecejunkie 9y ago
      Funny, I must have missed the Mueller indictments relating to collusion or coordination of any kind (it's coming any day now, though, right?). I've seen a number of process charges. I've seen a handful of Russians charged with, essentially, social media ads and trolling and setting up a Michael Moore rally in NYC. And, of course, Manafort, who is dirty AF (right up there with the Podestas, the Clintons and the rest), but nothing relating to the Trump campaign. And if dead men do tell tales, as you seem to imply, I would think Seth Rich would have quite a story indeed.
      - dominostars 9y ago
        > And, of course, Manafort, who is dirty AF (right up there with the Podestas, the Clintons and the rest), but nothing relating to the Trump campaign. Manafort served as Trump's Campaign manager from June 2016 to August 2016, but I guess that has nothing to do with Trump's Campaign. Created an account to attempt to derail this conversation into being about Seth Rich and Hillary Clinton. lol.
wnevets 9y ago
what a classic deflection by bringing up Obama and some how trying to connect him to this travesty.
- SlowRobotAhead 9y ago
  Um... you can’t say “whataboutism” when you are comparing two directly hypocritical reactions to the same scenario. CA sold data to Trump, Rubio, and others - pitchforks! FB gives data to Obama and Clinton, marketing awards and praise.
  - wnevets 9y ago
    CA sold stolen data and bragged about blackmailing politicians. Gonna need a citation of Obama being even remotely involved in something like that. Classic deflection.
    - pteredactyl 9y ago
      Look at Wikileaks and Assange's tweets today. The screenshots are more concrete evidence ( fake or not ) than I've seen related to this CA thing.
      - mcintyre1994 9y ago
        If the most concrete evidence you've seen for either accusation is screenshots then you should check out the Channel 4 videos.
        pteredactyl 9y ago
        Exactly my point
    - gadders 9y ago
      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5520303/Obama-campaign-director-reveals-Facebook-ALLOWED-data.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5520303/Obama-campai... Story contains tweets from his campaign manager.
tarunkotia 9y ago
With all due respect, I think you are missing the point altogether. Tools are created for most part with good intentions. What you do with those tools is what separates good from bad. Obama used the same tools to inspire a generation. Deeper penetration of technology is inevitable and there will continue to be bad actors who will exploit those tools to their benefit. Unfortunately, the negative narrative won over inpiration this time. Making tools the scapegoat is not the solution. We need to be more connected as a society than ever before. We have a bigger fish to fry, climate change is the biggest threat to humanity and without being connected it will be impossible to work together.
- azinman2 9y ago
  But he didn’t use the same tools. Obama had people via an app that was a campaign app, so people understood what they were installing. CA took a psychological test admin’d over mechanical turk, expanded it to people beyond those they paid, and ran with that. No one knew it had a political purpose.
mrtksn 9y ago
Are you sure about that? People were not happy with Wikileaks revelations and Obama was forced to end or strip down some NSA programs. Also, your whole argument says “People are not happy with what’s going on only because they are facing the consequences of it”. Duh? It was never easy to explain why privacy matters, the argument that if you are not doing anything bad then you don’t have anything to hide was good enough for many. Now, things are different. We have demonstrable implications of the privacy violations. I think it’s not a Trump thing, if Hillary was the smarter one to use computational propaganda we would probably still have an expose considering that the population of Democrats and Republicans are roughly the same and all have been done by a state funded British TV anyway. I don’t think that you’re claiming victimhood rightfully. The privacy discussions didn’t start with Trump.
- robinwassen 9y ago
  The outleash regarding collecting personal data for election fiddling started with Trump and Brexit. Obama's campaign team bragged openly about doing the same thing, nobody cared. For example: "mined an Obama backer’s Facebook network in search of friends the campaign wanted to register, mobilize, or persuade." https://www.technologyreview.com/s/509026/how-obamas-team-used-big-data-to-rally-voters/ https://www.technologyreview.com/s/509026/how-obamas-team-us... (2012)
  - mrtksn 9y ago
    >The outleash regarding collecting personal data for election fiddling started with Trump and Brexit Definitely false, Apple even built business model around it and actively promoting it's privacy as a selling point over Android. But surely Trump amplified it because, unlike Obama, he is very divisive. Anyway, if you happen to have a time machine I will happily jump in with you and go back in time and warn against the dangers of data hoarding and privacy violations but I doubt that it will be effective because it's Obama and his campaign wasn't divisive so we will end up with the argument that if you didn't do anything wrong there's nothing to hide. We wouldn't be able to demonstrate that with privacy violations you can divide a continent(Brexit) or make Trump a president. Besides, I'm really not happy to approach the problem from the "What about Obama" angle. Is "what about" even a useful argument? What's to be achieved if you are right that Obama indeed did the exact same thing? Should we just go ahead and fill out the missing information on our Facebook profiles because Obama did it too?
thewhitetulip 9y ago
Exactly. The sad thing is that Indians are still oblivious or in denial about such tactics being used by our PM.
ironjunkie 9y ago
I agree somehow with you, but Obama didn't push it that far though (probably because that wasn't possible yet at the time). This is typically what I cannot stand anymore in American politics, it has become so much "We" against "them" that each side gets the pitchfork out for things they would be perfectly fine to do if their side did it
gadders 9y ago
Let's not forget that Facebook gave the Obama campaign privileged access to data because they agreed with them politically: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5520303/Obama-campaign-director-reveals-Facebook-ALLOWED-data.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5520303/Obama-campai...
- ionised 9y ago
  Please don't cite the Daily Mail as a source. It is not at all credible.
  - gadders 9y ago
    Are you saying the tweets in the article are not genuine or the article is untrue? It would probably be better if you engaged with the content of the story rather than virtue signal.

cabaalis 9y ago

I think the best thing that has come out of the election of Donald Trump is that many people are now excited about the idea of constitutionally limiting the power of the executive branch. That idea seemed to have been forgotten for the past few administrations. Even when I agreed with Obama or Bush, I was very disappointed when they would use innovative methods to single-handedly override the will of congress or the judiciary.

enraged_camel 9y ago
I wasn’t. If Congress is being obstructionist and petty, as they undoubtedly were during the Obama years, the executive branch still needs to do its job, which is to lead the country forward. That said, I agree with the spirit of your post, which is that every now and then we should scale that power back.
dmfdmf 9y ago
The courts need to reign in the use of Executive Orders.
- Helmet 9y ago
  And the Congress needs to reign in the Courts' legislative activism.
duckMuppet 9y ago
Not really. Remember that whole, "Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes" thing.. Yet instead of actually doing this, they continue to essentially outsource their power, and responsibility to the administrative state. I mean DT almost blatantly came out and said, well these new tariffs aren't exactly because of national security.. Don't kid yourself, both parties are essentially the same, who feeds them just look different. On top of that, Congress continues to cede more powers to the administrative state.. It becomes all about control really.. The primary reason no one should have been worried when DT got elected is that for a great many years, the system was designed that no matter who is driving the ship, they won't sink it because they don't have that power (same goes for BO & GWB). But for years we've been pushing for more centralized authority with power resting at the figurehead, that really ramped up after '01, and later BO put it on steroids. As private institutions fall away for newer generations, the govt becomes "something we all do together", and the primary solution for having someone else take care of societal problems for us, after all, it's what we pay taxes for... Congress keeps outsourcing it's responsibilities to the president, no matter what letter, R or D is behind the name on the office door. Tariffs, wars, weaponized govt agencies, privacy rights, drone strikes, surveillance, and on and on... This isn't a problem of the system, it's merely a symptom of the current state of our society and I personally don't think whether it's tariffs or privacy, little will change in a direction that we would like. The people want easy solutions, they want someone to take care of problems for them. That's exactly what we are getting.

Clanan 9y ago

What's ironic is that Trump didn't use CA to win the election. CA was used a bit in the primaries but after that the campaign only solicited a bid as a hedge in case the RNC didn't share its data. CA wasn't used for the general election. On the other hand, the Obama campaign used sneaky Terms and Conditions to suck up friend lists and create a national social graph for the sole purpose of winning the General Election.

etcet 9y ago
Where did you get that information? Channel4 is reporting that Mercer donated to the Trump campaign on the condition that he would take on Steve Bannon and hire CA. Steven Bannon joined the Trump campaign in August 2016, after Trump won the primaries in May.
- throwaway5752 9y ago
  I have no idea who could conceivably be taking issue with your concise and correct post (given the apparent downvotes). The dates don't lie. What was Felix Sater's role at that point, too?
- makomk 9y ago
  They did hire CA in order to get Mercer's support and donations - they just didn't actually use their data once Trump had access to the more accurate (and more old-fashioned) central RNC database, and apparently never used the psychographic data at the heart of the controversy at all. See e.g. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-campaign-phased-out-use-of-cambridge-analytica-data-before-election/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-campaign-phased-out-use-o... Like, I know the news media have spun the fact that one of Trump's big, important donors made them hire CA as proof they relied on CA to win the election, but really it should be the opposite - it should call into question whether their hiring was justified by what they offered the campaign.

vondur 9y ago

According to CBS, the trump campaign didn't use the CA data ( they may have in the Primaries): https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-campaign-phased-out-use-of-cambridge-analytica-data-before-election/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-campaign-phased-out-use-o... In late September 2016, Cambridge and other data vendors were submitting bids to the Trump campaign. Then-candidate Trump's campaign used Cambridge Analytica during the primaries and in the summer because it was never certain the Republican National Committee would be a willing, cooperative partner. Cambridge Analytica instead was a hedge against the RNC, in case it wouldn't share its data. The crucial decision was made in late September or early October when Mr. Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner and Brad Parscale, Mr. Trump's digital guru on the 2016 campaign, decided to utilize just the RNC data for the general election and used nothing from that point from Cambridge Analytica or any other data vendor. The Trump campaign had tested the RNC data, and it proved to be vastly more accurate than Cambridge Analytica's, and when it was clear the RNC would be a willing partner, Mr. Trump's campaign was able to rely solely on the RNC.

sangnoir 9y ago
> the trump campaign didn't use the CA data That might be technically correct, but CA was unquestionably working with SuperPACs[1] behind the scenes to get Trump elected in November. CA was particularly proud of it's crooked Hillary campaign ("the OO of crooked was a pair of handcuffs"). 1. According to the Cambridge Analytica CEO in the Channel 4 undercover documentary https://youtu.be/cy-9iciNF1A?t=6m21s https://youtu.be/cy-9iciNF1A?t=6m21s
- vondur 9y ago
  I agree that Super PAC's need to be eliminated. One funded by George Soros was particularly effective in the anti Ray Moore campaign in Alabama: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/how-democrats-use-dark-money-win-elections-n849391 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/how-democrats-use-...
  - enraged_camel 9y ago
    Roy Moore had lots of issues. Let’s not pretend he was taken down by Soros.

jasonlotito 9y ago

The data collection isn't the concern. The criminal concern is federal election finance laws potentially being broken, as well as foreigners working for the campaign. There are very real and very serious potential issues here that are being brought up.

VVyattPrentice 9y ago

While the criticism directed at social media is certainly warranted. I feel compelled to take exception with your reliance on false equivalence. It's kinda qualitatively different when you're actively engaging in illegal activity while working hand in glove with a clandestine foreign intelligence service to undermine your own countries democratic elections on behalf of an adversarial foreign nation state. If you can't see the difference, then keep at it. I assure you it's there. But if you already know that then you go ahead and keep explaining to folks how apples and oranges are the same things because they're both round fruit.

paulddraper 9y ago
> undermine your own countries democratic elections on behalf of an adversarial foreign nation state Citation needed.
- throwaway5752 9y ago
  Not really, it's common knowledge. There are a pile of dead Russians ex-IC people all over Europe, the existing Mueller indictments, the Crowdstrike DNC Russian APT attributions, all of our own lying eyes...
  - greecejunkie 9y ago
    Funny, I must have missed the Mueller indictments relating to collusion or coordination of any kind (it's coming any day now, though, right?). I've seen a number of process charges. I've seen a handful of Russians charged with, essentially, social media ads and trolling and setting up a Michael Moore rally in NYC. And, of course, Manafort, who is dirty AF (right up there with the Podestas, the Clintons and the rest), but nothing relating to the Trump campaign. And if dead men do tell tales, as you seem to imply, I would think Seth Rich would have quite a story indeed.
    - dominostars 9y ago
      > And, of course, Manafort, who is dirty AF (right up there with the Podestas, the Clintons and the rest), but nothing relating to the Trump campaign. Manafort served as Trump's Campaign manager from June 2016 to August 2016, but I guess that has nothing to do with Trump's Campaign. Created an account to attempt to derail this conversation into being about Seth Rich and Hillary Clinton. lol.

wnevets 9y ago

what a classic deflection by bringing up Obama and some how trying to connect him to this travesty.

SlowRobotAhead 9y ago
Um... you can’t say “whataboutism” when you are comparing two directly hypocritical reactions to the same scenario. CA sold data to Trump, Rubio, and others - pitchforks! FB gives data to Obama and Clinton, marketing awards and praise.
- wnevets 9y ago
  CA sold stolen data and bragged about blackmailing politicians. Gonna need a citation of Obama being even remotely involved in something like that. Classic deflection.
  - pteredactyl 9y ago
    Look at Wikileaks and Assange's tweets today. The screenshots are more concrete evidence ( fake or not ) than I've seen related to this CA thing.
    - mcintyre1994 9y ago
      If the most concrete evidence you've seen for either accusation is screenshots then you should check out the Channel 4 videos.
      - pteredactyl 9y ago
        Exactly my point
  - gadders 9y ago
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5520303/Obama-campaign-director-reveals-Facebook-ALLOWED-data.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5520303/Obama-campai... Story contains tweets from his campaign manager.

tarunkotia 9y ago

With all due respect, I think you are missing the point altogether. Tools are created for most part with good intentions. What you do with those tools is what separates good from bad. Obama used the same tools to inspire a generation. Deeper penetration of technology is inevitable and there will continue to be bad actors who will exploit those tools to their benefit. Unfortunately, the negative narrative won over inpiration this time. Making tools the scapegoat is not the solution. We need to be more connected as a society than ever before. We have a bigger fish to fry, climate change is the biggest threat to humanity and without being connected it will be impossible to work together.

azinman2 9y ago
But he didn’t use the same tools. Obama had people via an app that was a campaign app, so people understood what they were installing. CA took a psychological test admin’d over mechanical turk, expanded it to people beyond those they paid, and ran with that. No one knew it had a political purpose.

mrtksn 9y ago

Are you sure about that? People were not happy with Wikileaks revelations and Obama was forced to end or strip down some NSA programs. Also, your whole argument says “People are not happy with what’s going on only because they are facing the consequences of it”. Duh? It was never easy to explain why privacy matters, the argument that if you are not doing anything bad then you don’t have anything to hide was good enough for many. Now, things are different. We have demonstrable implications of the privacy violations. I think it’s not a Trump thing, if Hillary was the smarter one to use computational propaganda we would probably still have an expose considering that the population of Democrats and Republicans are roughly the same and all have been done by a state funded British TV anyway. I don’t think that you’re claiming victimhood rightfully. The privacy discussions didn’t start with Trump.

robinwassen 9y ago
The outleash regarding collecting personal data for election fiddling started with Trump and Brexit. Obama's campaign team bragged openly about doing the same thing, nobody cared. For example: "mined an Obama backer’s Facebook network in search of friends the campaign wanted to register, mobilize, or persuade." https://www.technologyreview.com/s/509026/how-obamas-team-used-big-data-to-rally-voters/ https://www.technologyreview.com/s/509026/how-obamas-team-us... (2012)
- mrtksn 9y ago
  >The outleash regarding collecting personal data for election fiddling started with Trump and Brexit Definitely false, Apple even built business model around it and actively promoting it's privacy as a selling point over Android. But surely Trump amplified it because, unlike Obama, he is very divisive. Anyway, if you happen to have a time machine I will happily jump in with you and go back in time and warn against the dangers of data hoarding and privacy violations but I doubt that it will be effective because it's Obama and his campaign wasn't divisive so we will end up with the argument that if you didn't do anything wrong there's nothing to hide. We wouldn't be able to demonstrate that with privacy violations you can divide a continent(Brexit) or make Trump a president. Besides, I'm really not happy to approach the problem from the "What about Obama" angle. Is "what about" even a useful argument? What's to be achieved if you are right that Obama indeed did the exact same thing? Should we just go ahead and fill out the missing information on our Facebook profiles because Obama did it too?

thewhitetulip 9y ago

Exactly. The sad thing is that Indians are still oblivious or in denial about such tactics being used by our PM.

ironjunkie 9y ago

I agree somehow with you, but Obama didn't push it that far though (probably because that wasn't possible yet at the time). This is typically what I cannot stand anymore in American politics, it has become so much "We" against "them" that each side gets the pitchfork out for things they would be perfectly fine to do if their side did it

gadders 9y ago

Let's not forget that Facebook gave the Obama campaign privileged access to data because they agreed with them politically: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5520303/Obama-campaign-director-reveals-Facebook-ALLOWED-data.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5520303/Obama-campai...

ionised 9y ago
Please don't cite the Daily Mail as a source. It is not at all credible.
- gadders 9y ago
  Are you saying the tweets in the article are not genuine or the article is untrue? It would probably be better if you engaged with the content of the story rather than virtue signal.