4 ms·

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

by 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
      Which is more important to you, pointing out hypocrisy in others or taking advantage of an increase in the number of people who share you belief that this is something that should be fixed? I can understand possibly be worried that they may be "fair-weather friends" or some such, but by focusing on the common ground rather than on infighting, you may help build a non-partisan coalition that might effect real change. Yeah, I can understand the frustration, but quibbling amongst ourselves only serves a common enemy. Let's use the momentum to move forward.
      - downandout 9y ago
        I’d welcome a non-partisan coalition that would fight the bias of the press, which led to this and many other issues. Unfortunately, such a group will never form because most of the press either endorses or excuses everything done by the left, and castigates everything done by the right. No more clear example of that exists than this situation. Therefore, the left has no incentive to fight the bias of the press, because it favors their side on nearly every issue. The ironic part is that by making the misuse of Facebook data acceptable (even celebrated) when Obama did it, the press may have inadvertently helped Trump get elected years later. They’re upset now, but they’re just trying to put the genie that they unleashed back in the bottle. We reap what we sow.
        grzm 9y ago
        So, the answer is to continue reinforcing the divisiveness and polarization, giving up because it's others that are causing the issue? That's one of the ways we got to the point we're at. Sounds defeatist to me, and something I'm not willing to do. I encourage you not to, either.

by zzzeek 9y ago

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
    Which is more important to you, pointing out hypocrisy in others or taking advantage of an increase in the number of people who share you belief that this is something that should be fixed? I can understand possibly be worried that they may be "fair-weather friends" or some such, but by focusing on the common ground rather than on infighting, you may help build a non-partisan coalition that might effect real change. Yeah, I can understand the frustration, but quibbling amongst ourselves only serves a common enemy. Let's use the momentum to move forward.
    - downandout 9y ago
      I’d welcome a non-partisan coalition that would fight the bias of the press, which led to this and many other issues. Unfortunately, such a group will never form because most of the press either endorses or excuses everything done by the left, and castigates everything done by the right. No more clear example of that exists than this situation. Therefore, the left has no incentive to fight the bias of the press, because it favors their side on nearly every issue. The ironic part is that by making the misuse of Facebook data acceptable (even celebrated) when Obama did it, the press may have inadvertently helped Trump get elected years later. They’re upset now, but they’re just trying to put the genie that they unleashed back in the bottle. We reap what we sow.
      - grzm 9y ago
        So, the answer is to continue reinforcing the divisiveness and polarization, giving up because it's others that are causing the issue? That's one of the ways we got to the point we're at. Sounds defeatist to me, and something I'm not willing to do. I encourage you not to, either.