4 ms·

1. Look at the playbook from an agnostic position instead. The reason the media gave candidate Trump the press was because, just like candidate Obama, sold eyeb

1. Look at the playbook from an agnostic position instead. The reason the media gave candidate Trump the press was because, just like candidate Obama, sold eyeballs; Trump more so because he got both sides mad. Recall the puff pieces and the discussion of Michelle Obama's fantastic arms, that is nothing but puff and she moved the papers, so they covered the candidate more; to Hilary's detriment. 2. You need to think about the emails as compromised material and a failure to secure information. If you are an IT person that circumvents security protocols that then end up with trade secrets being exposed, would you be in trouble. The reason this was covered in the press was that it was classified information on an unsecured server. 4. I shake my head at this, Obama for America was doing the exact same thing in previous elections and no one batted an eye. Now that the people who were okay see that detrimental effects could happen there is concern. The simple thing to do would be to delete / minimize the information on your account. Just remember, the media is horrible at their job; you have people who do not have the time to dig into a story, are influenced by their editors to drop stories if they attack a major sponsor, and then write stories that are stacked with grammatical mistakes.

g09980 9y ago
So the use of Facebook data was lauded as genius and now isn't. [1] Now you got me curious if the media would be saying all the same things if Cambridge helped the other candidate get elected. [1] http://thehill.com/opinion/technology/379245-whats-genius-for-obama-is-scandal-when-it-comes-to-trump http://thehill.com/opinion/technology/379245-whats-genius-fo...
- leesalminen 9y ago
  My opinion is that they would not.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- alwayseasy 9y ago
  Ben Shapiro is disingenuous by isolating Facebook data only. It's the combination of illicit Facebook data + fake news + Russia's APT that is at the heart of the problem. The fact that Facebook was warned about this and didn't work to solve their share of the problem is why they are criticized.
  - jessaustin 9y ago
    Where did the fake news come from, if not from Facebook?
    - zamber 9y ago
      From Russia with love? Disinformation of the public and spreading antagonizing rumor as fact was not invented yesterday. Assume all allegations and rumors are true, ride with it and see who looks more genuine. Trump was destined for winning. His allure is not based on respect but grandiose dreams embedded in a nostalgic slogan. Without a politically-loaded surname he took the media by the balls and rode with it. My best guess as an outsider is that he found people apt at selling stuff and sold to the public he was. Personal defamation ("grab them by the", buffoon, meme-made-president) is a minuscule issue in the eye of the public compared to a classified information leak scandal, "Don't forget Benghazi" and poor health rumors. Hillary IMHO was counting on an idealistic, emancipated America when the people were rather leaning towards isolationism and making America greater than the competition.
      - jessaustin 9y ago
        You're mostly right, I think, but I never actually heard Clinton articulate a theory of why someone would vote for her. Everyone had their own personal reason to vote for (or against) her, which one supposes is emblematic of our long-tail data-driven time, but did she ever come out and say e.g. "this is my vision of an idealist, emancipated America"? I agree with you that such a vision is kind of a hard sell when compared with "Build the Wall!", "Lock her Up", and "Jobs!". Only the last of those base slogans ever appealed to me (not enough to make me vote for the cretin!), so I'm not disappointed that it's the only one that has happened so far.
- parthdesai 9y ago
  Everybody aptly forgets that Eric Schmidt's company was helping Clinton run digital ads in "novel ways".
awinder 9y ago
Obama for America was upfront about what they were doing, and the user initiated the action willingly. Cambridge Analytics was not, and people had no idea what their data was being used for. This is not some capricious delineation.
- jerf 9y ago
  Not an accurate summation: https://twitter.com/cld276/status/975565844632821760 https://twitter.com/cld276/status/975565844632821760 "The entire social graph" did not agree to be used by the Obama campaign. What the Obama campaign did was worse that what CA could have done because by the time CA rolled around the API holes had been closed. (As I said yesterday, CA was deceptive and the Obama campaign wasn't, sure, because the Obama campaign didn't have to ask at all. This is not an improvement.) And they knew it was sketchy, too.
  - jonny_eh 9y ago
    CA used data that was collected for research purposes only. OfA didn't violate any rules.
    - Slansitartop 9y ago
      > CA used data that was collected for research purposes only. OfA didn't violate any rules. Facebook may view its internal policies as akin to the law, but I don't. The fact that CA violated some Facebook policy and OfA didn't is a distinction without difference. Facebook let both pull friends' personal information without consent, which people probably didn't realize they were sharing because Facebook has a history of obscuring sharing like that. https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/facebooks-heading-toward-a-bruising-run-in-with-the-russia-probe https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/facebooks-heading-towar...: > Facebook is so accustomed to treating its ‘internal policies’ as though they were something like laws that they appear to have a sort of blind spot that prevents them from seeing how ridiculous their resistance sounds. To use the cliche, it feels like a real shark jumping moment. As someone recently observed, Facebook’s ‘internal policies’ are crafted to create the appearance of civic concerns for privacy, free speech, and other similar concerns. But they’re actually just a business model. Facebook’s ‘internal policies’ amount to a kind of Stepford Wives version of civic liberalism and speech and privacy rights, the outward form of the things preserved while the innards have been gutted and replaced by something entirely different, an aggressive and totalizing business model which in many ways turns these norms and values on their heads. More to the point, most people have the experience of Facebook’s ‘internal policies’ being meaningless in terms of protecting their speech or privacy or whatever as soon as they bump up against Facebook’s business model.
nemild 9y ago
If useful, I wrote a media literacy guide for engineers that touches on a lot of things discussed in this thread: Hacking Engineers and Engineering Media https://github.com/nemild/hack-an-engineer https://github.com/nemild/hack-an-engineer

g09980 9y ago

So the use of Facebook data was lauded as genius and now isn't. [1] Now you got me curious if the media would be saying all the same things if Cambridge helped the other candidate get elected. [1] http://thehill.com/opinion/technology/379245-whats-genius-for-obama-is-scandal-when-it-comes-to-trump http://thehill.com/opinion/technology/379245-whats-genius-fo...

leesalminen 9y ago
My opinion is that they would not.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
alwayseasy 9y ago
Ben Shapiro is disingenuous by isolating Facebook data only. It's the combination of illicit Facebook data + fake news + Russia's APT that is at the heart of the problem. The fact that Facebook was warned about this and didn't work to solve their share of the problem is why they are criticized.
- jessaustin 9y ago
  Where did the fake news come from, if not from Facebook?
  - zamber 9y ago
    From Russia with love? Disinformation of the public and spreading antagonizing rumor as fact was not invented yesterday. Assume all allegations and rumors are true, ride with it and see who looks more genuine. Trump was destined for winning. His allure is not based on respect but grandiose dreams embedded in a nostalgic slogan. Without a politically-loaded surname he took the media by the balls and rode with it. My best guess as an outsider is that he found people apt at selling stuff and sold to the public he was. Personal defamation ("grab them by the", buffoon, meme-made-president) is a minuscule issue in the eye of the public compared to a classified information leak scandal, "Don't forget Benghazi" and poor health rumors. Hillary IMHO was counting on an idealistic, emancipated America when the people were rather leaning towards isolationism and making America greater than the competition.
    - jessaustin 9y ago
      You're mostly right, I think, but I never actually heard Clinton articulate a theory of why someone would vote for her. Everyone had their own personal reason to vote for (or against) her, which one supposes is emblematic of our long-tail data-driven time, but did she ever come out and say e.g. "this is my vision of an idealist, emancipated America"? I agree with you that such a vision is kind of a hard sell when compared with "Build the Wall!", "Lock her Up", and "Jobs!". Only the last of those base slogans ever appealed to me (not enough to make me vote for the cretin!), so I'm not disappointed that it's the only one that has happened so far.
parthdesai 9y ago
Everybody aptly forgets that Eric Schmidt's company was helping Clinton run digital ads in "novel ways".

awinder 9y ago

Obama for America was upfront about what they were doing, and the user initiated the action willingly. Cambridge Analytics was not, and people had no idea what their data was being used for. This is not some capricious delineation.

jerf 9y ago
Not an accurate summation: https://twitter.com/cld276/status/975565844632821760 https://twitter.com/cld276/status/975565844632821760 "The entire social graph" did not agree to be used by the Obama campaign. What the Obama campaign did was worse that what CA could have done because by the time CA rolled around the API holes had been closed. (As I said yesterday, CA was deceptive and the Obama campaign wasn't, sure, because the Obama campaign didn't have to ask at all. This is not an improvement.) And they knew it was sketchy, too.
- jonny_eh 9y ago
  CA used data that was collected for research purposes only. OfA didn't violate any rules.
  - Slansitartop 9y ago
    > CA used data that was collected for research purposes only. OfA didn't violate any rules. Facebook may view its internal policies as akin to the law, but I don't. The fact that CA violated some Facebook policy and OfA didn't is a distinction without difference. Facebook let both pull friends' personal information without consent, which people probably didn't realize they were sharing because Facebook has a history of obscuring sharing like that. https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/facebooks-heading-toward-a-bruising-run-in-with-the-russia-probe https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/facebooks-heading-towar...: > Facebook is so accustomed to treating its ‘internal policies’ as though they were something like laws that they appear to have a sort of blind spot that prevents them from seeing how ridiculous their resistance sounds. To use the cliche, it feels like a real shark jumping moment. As someone recently observed, Facebook’s ‘internal policies’ are crafted to create the appearance of civic concerns for privacy, free speech, and other similar concerns. But they’re actually just a business model. Facebook’s ‘internal policies’ amount to a kind of Stepford Wives version of civic liberalism and speech and privacy rights, the outward form of the things preserved while the innards have been gutted and replaced by something entirely different, an aggressive and totalizing business model which in many ways turns these norms and values on their heads. More to the point, most people have the experience of Facebook’s ‘internal policies’ being meaningless in terms of protecting their speech or privacy or whatever as soon as they bump up against Facebook’s business model.

nemild 9y ago

If useful, I wrote a media literacy guide for engineers that touches on a lot of things discussed in this thread: Hacking Engineers and Engineering Media https://github.com/nemild/hack-an-engineer https://github.com/nemild/hack-an-engineer