6 ms·

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 unam

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.
        downandout 9y ago
        I’m an Independent. I find it harder and harder to stay in the middle because the views of everyone else - on both sides - are so extreme. It would be wonderful to get rid of divisiveness and polarization. But in the imperfect world in which we live, it seems that the only way to even try to bring a little sanity back to things is to point out hypocrisy wherever I see it, and hope those that are practicing it feel ridiculous enough when they are exposed that they change their ways.
- seabird 9y ago
  >which is because it did not have a catastrophic outcome at the time The problem with that statement is that you believe it was a catastrophic outcome. For the first time in history, media and new technology is able to instantly tell you if the president has so much as sneezed while the sitting president is a (highly controversial) Republican. Obama was considered a nightmare scenario for the American right, and if you listened to the right outlets, you heard every single one of Obama's missteps. Every poor decision, embarrassing association, or undelivered promise was constantly paraded as grounds for impeachment, but social media and what many consider "neutral" news sources have a noticeable progressive bent, and the Obama administration got the benefit of the doubt more often than not. The Obama administration deported more undocumented immigrants than every past president minus HW Bush combined. The Obama administration killed over 3700 people (over 300 of which were civilians) in drone strikes. In that regard, Obama reportedly said that it "Turns out I’m really good at killing people. Didn’t know that was gonna be a strong suit of mine." Attorney General Eric Holder was the first US cabinet member to be held in contempt of Congress, and Obama exercised executive privilege to support Holder's decision to withhold documents pertaining to Fast and Furious. Most US citizens who actively use social media don't know those things (among many other controversies) happened, but they sure as shit know that "Donald Trump gets two scoops of ice cream", and constantly beat the dead "covfefe" horse; you can swipe right on Snapchat or Twitter to that social media company's curated news page and instantly hear every single slip-up and hot take that Trump has. This notion of a "catastrophic outcome" largely exists because for the first time, news outlets are at odds with the administration in the age of mass media.
  - zzzeek 9y ago
    The drone strikes we're widely reported, everyone knew about them and the American right was completely in favor of them. They were also in favor of the deportations which we liberals are also well aware of. Fast and furious was widely reported. You've basically listed all the major disasters of Obama's presidency (the day to day bullshit listed on talk radio is just that) and there is simply no comparison to what is happening now and the things you refer to were also widely reported by the media. It is of course a rote and entirely predictable exercise to take my statement that "this is a catastrophe", turn it around and say, "well Obama was a catastrophe for the right". I'm here to say that this is a false equivalency and the right has lost its mind. The conservative view of Obama is equivalent to the liberal view of Bush, that's a lot more reasonable. But the right has not has their "liberal Trump", and it is perfectly fine that they never will.

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.
      - downandout 9y ago
        I’m an Independent. I find it harder and harder to stay in the middle because the views of everyone else - on both sides - are so extreme. It would be wonderful to get rid of divisiveness and polarization. But in the imperfect world in which we live, it seems that the only way to even try to bring a little sanity back to things is to point out hypocrisy wherever I see it, and hope those that are practicing it feel ridiculous enough when they are exposed that they change their ways.
seabird 9y ago
>which is because it did not have a catastrophic outcome at the time The problem with that statement is that you believe it was a catastrophic outcome. For the first time in history, media and new technology is able to instantly tell you if the president has so much as sneezed while the sitting president is a (highly controversial) Republican. Obama was considered a nightmare scenario for the American right, and if you listened to the right outlets, you heard every single one of Obama's missteps. Every poor decision, embarrassing association, or undelivered promise was constantly paraded as grounds for impeachment, but social media and what many consider "neutral" news sources have a noticeable progressive bent, and the Obama administration got the benefit of the doubt more often than not. The Obama administration deported more undocumented immigrants than every past president minus HW Bush combined. The Obama administration killed over 3700 people (over 300 of which were civilians) in drone strikes. In that regard, Obama reportedly said that it "Turns out I’m really good at killing people. Didn’t know that was gonna be a strong suit of mine." Attorney General Eric Holder was the first US cabinet member to be held in contempt of Congress, and Obama exercised executive privilege to support Holder's decision to withhold documents pertaining to Fast and Furious. Most US citizens who actively use social media don't know those things (among many other controversies) happened, but they sure as shit know that "Donald Trump gets two scoops of ice cream", and constantly beat the dead "covfefe" horse; you can swipe right on Snapchat or Twitter to that social media company's curated news page and instantly hear every single slip-up and hot take that Trump has. This notion of a "catastrophic outcome" largely exists because for the first time, news outlets are at odds with the administration in the age of mass media.
- zzzeek 9y ago
  The drone strikes we're widely reported, everyone knew about them and the American right was completely in favor of them. They were also in favor of the deportations which we liberals are also well aware of. Fast and furious was widely reported. You've basically listed all the major disasters of Obama's presidency (the day to day bullshit listed on talk radio is just that) and there is simply no comparison to what is happening now and the things you refer to were also widely reported by the media. It is of course a rote and entirely predictable exercise to take my statement that "this is a catastrophe", turn it around and say, "well Obama was a catastrophe for the right". I'm here to say that this is a false equivalency and the right has lost its mind. The conservative view of Obama is equivalent to the liberal view of Bush, that's a lot more reasonable. But the right has not has their "liberal Trump", and it is perfectly fine that they never will.