7 ms·

OFA’s ratio was in the 200:1 neighborhood ratio Great, what's your source for that data ? My source is that I can do math. The campaign admits it had “the en

OFA’s ratio was in the 200:1 neighborhood ratio Great, what's your source for that data ? My source is that I can do math. The campaign admits it had “the entire US social graph”. With ~200 million US Facebook profiles, and less than 1 million people that actually authorized Obama’s app, we come out with a ratio of roughly 200:1. Its truth or not does not mean the CA situation is not revealing of an enormous problem. It revealed an enormous problem when Obama did it (and worse, with Facebook’s approval). It only became an issue for the press, though, when they failed to manipulate the election in the way they wanted. I’m actually not an advocate of Trump - I’m just saying that this was either wrong or it wasn’t, regardless of who did it. In truth, they both did it. Obama just did it on a vastly larger scale.

oculusthrift 9y ago
lol. so your answer is you have no proof. people exaggerate all the time when they say things like "entire social graph". Do you have any data that in 2012, 200 million unique americans were using facebook? And that obama had specific permission to bypass facebook's limit and get the 200:1 ratio?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- downandout 9y ago
  The data speaks for itself. Read it. As for proof that they got special permissions: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16669576 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16669576
zzzeek 9y ago
The statement made in the article: "In 2011, Carol Davidsen, director of data integration and media analytics for Obama for America, built a database of every American voter using the same Facebook developer tool used by Cambridge, known as the social graph API. " is ridiculous. There are millions of voters who have never had a Facebook account, and lots more back in 2011. They are handwaving, and this is not data. You have little basis to use qualitative, exaggerative terms like "vastly more" and you also don't know what kinds of access Cambridge Analytica may have had that differs from the data limits you experienced in your own development.
- downandout 9y ago
  You have little basis to use qualitative, exaggerative terms like "vastly more" Obama took data from ~200 million people ("the entire US social graph" is unambiguous). The CA incident involves ~50 million profiles. I think a difference of 150 million is "vastly more". That's not exaggeration, that's math. It was wrong in either case, but one did it on a vastly larger scale. You can sit here splitting hairs and arguing with the specific wording of my comments and the articles backing this up, or you can say "yes, it was wrong in principle" which is what any objective person would do. Democrats and Republicans alike do bad things sometimes. Are you actually trying to defend the actions of any party involved in any of this?
  - zzzeek 9y ago
    I did say it was wrong: "It is perfectly fine that OFA and other organizations should not have this kind of access either." Your issue is that the media didn't point this out back then. And there's a reason, which is because it did not have a catastrophic outcome at that time. This time it did. The US State Department has been decimated, an insane warhawk who wants to attack North Korea has just been put in charge of national security, thousands of undocumented immigrants who have been here for decades have been sent to countries they have never known and often in danger to their lives, our president congrulates autocratic leaders on their fake election victories and the US has sank to its weakest and least influential world position in generations. These are not "leftist" viewpoints. These are the majority viewpoint.
    - downandout 9y ago
      because it did not have a catastrophic outcome at that time. This time it did. That is your opinion, and you're entitled to it. But do you not detect even a whiff of hypocrisy in this whole thing? It should have been portrayed as the terrible thing that it is today back when Obama did it. That is what I have an issue with.
      - grzm 9y ago

oculusthrift 9y ago

lol. so your answer is you have no proof. people exaggerate all the time when they say things like "entire social graph". Do you have any data that in 2012, 200 million unique americans were using facebook? And that obama had specific permission to bypass facebook's limit and get the 200:1 ratio?

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
downandout 9y ago
The data speaks for itself. Read it. As for proof that they got special permissions: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16669576 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16669576

zzzeek 9y ago

The statement made in the article: "In 2011, Carol Davidsen, director of data integration and media analytics for Obama for America, built a database of every American voter using the same Facebook developer tool used by Cambridge, known as the social graph API. " is ridiculous. There are millions of voters who have never had a Facebook account, and lots more back in 2011. They are handwaving, and this is not data. You have little basis to use qualitative, exaggerative terms like "vastly more" and you also don't know what kinds of access Cambridge Analytica may have had that differs from the data limits you experienced in your own development.

downandout 9y ago
You have little basis to use qualitative, exaggerative terms like "vastly more" Obama took data from ~200 million people ("the entire US social graph" is unambiguous). The CA incident involves ~50 million profiles. I think a difference of 150 million is "vastly more". That's not exaggeration, that's math. It was wrong in either case, but one did it on a vastly larger scale. You can sit here splitting hairs and arguing with the specific wording of my comments and the articles backing this up, or you can say "yes, it was wrong in principle" which is what any objective person would do. Democrats and Republicans alike do bad things sometimes. Are you actually trying to defend the actions of any party involved in any of this?
- zzzeek 9y ago
  I did say it was wrong: "It is perfectly fine that OFA and other organizations should not have this kind of access either." Your issue is that the media didn't point this out back then. And there's a reason, which is because it did not have a catastrophic outcome at that time. This time it did. The US State Department has been decimated, an insane warhawk who wants to attack North Korea has just been put in charge of national security, thousands of undocumented immigrants who have been here for decades have been sent to countries they have never known and often in danger to their lives, our president congrulates autocratic leaders on their fake election victories and the US has sank to its weakest and least influential world position in generations. These are not "leftist" viewpoints. These are the majority viewpoint.
  - downandout 9y ago
    because it did not have a catastrophic outcome at that time. This time it did. That is your opinion, and you're entitled to it. But do you not detect even a whiff of hypocrisy in this whole thing? It should have been portrayed as the terrible thing that it is today back when Obama did it. That is what I have an issue with.
    - grzm 9y ago