3 ms·

I believe it's quite obvious that the campaign director either remembers this wrong, or the person they talked to gave them the wrong reason. Why? Because four

I believe it's quite obvious that the campaign director either remembers this wrong, or the person they talked to gave them the wrong reason. Why? Because four years later, Facebook would let Cambridge Analytica do something similar without having a reason to particularly like them. And even after learning about CA's breach of trust, they chose to mostly remain inactive, even when they learnt that the company was working for Ted Cruz and Trump, two candidates you probably wouldn't want to help if you're making business decisions based on political sympathy.

downandout 9y ago
First, Facebook didn’t allow CA to do anything. That’s because CA didn’t ever have an app on Facebook. The app in question was a personality quiz created by an independent developer. It accessed a small fraction of the number of profiles that OFA did, and it was only able to do so over a much longer period of time. The data from the app was then sold to CA years after the fact. It was a normal app that operated within the normal parameters imposed by Facebook on all other applications. That’s far different than the Obama situation. They accessed ~4 times the number of profiles, and were allowed to keep the data current because Facebook voluntarily removed the API limits for them. Why would you question Obama’s own campaign director? As if it were a secret that Facebook is left leaning and wanted to help Obama.
- IAmEveryone 9y ago
  > Why would you question Obama’s own campaign director? As if it were a secret that Facebook is left leaning and wanted to help Obama. Precisely because everyone knows/thinks Facebook was sympathetic towards Obama, I believe it's not unthinkable that someone used that fact as an explanation when they were asked and did not actually know the specific reason.
  - downandout 9y ago
    Her statements are highly specific.
rando444 9y ago
Because four years later, Facebook would let Cambridge Analytica do something similar without having a reason to particularly like them. Ruling out money as a reason seems a bit presumptuous.
baumy 9y ago
I hope you can take a step back and realize that this is one of the most blatant examples of mental gymnastics / cognitive dissonance that I personally have ever seen. In the face of direct, first-hand evidence that the Obama campaign did exactly the same thing that the media and social media ecosystem is now very angry at Trump for doing, your response is literally to go into denial about it, and insist that the evidence is inaccurate. You are essentially just yelling "fake news". This exact behavior, denying reality when it goes against what you want to believe, is how we get people insisting that climate change isn't real, and discrimination doesn't exist. Shame on you. I truly believe that you're better than this, please use this as a growing moment.

downandout 9y ago

First, Facebook didn’t allow CA to do anything. That’s because CA didn’t ever have an app on Facebook. The app in question was a personality quiz created by an independent developer. It accessed a small fraction of the number of profiles that OFA did, and it was only able to do so over a much longer period of time. The data from the app was then sold to CA years after the fact. It was a normal app that operated within the normal parameters imposed by Facebook on all other applications. That’s far different than the Obama situation. They accessed ~4 times the number of profiles, and were allowed to keep the data current because Facebook voluntarily removed the API limits for them. Why would you question Obama’s own campaign director? As if it were a secret that Facebook is left leaning and wanted to help Obama.

IAmEveryone 9y ago
> Why would you question Obama’s own campaign director? As if it were a secret that Facebook is left leaning and wanted to help Obama. Precisely because everyone knows/thinks Facebook was sympathetic towards Obama, I believe it's not unthinkable that someone used that fact as an explanation when they were asked and did not actually know the specific reason.
- downandout 9y ago
  Her statements are highly specific.

rando444 9y ago

Because four years later, Facebook would let Cambridge Analytica do something similar without having a reason to particularly like them. Ruling out money as a reason seems a bit presumptuous.

baumy 9y ago

I hope you can take a step back and realize that this is one of the most blatant examples of mental gymnastics / cognitive dissonance that I personally have ever seen. In the face of direct, first-hand evidence that the Obama campaign did exactly the same thing that the media and social media ecosystem is now very angry at Trump for doing, your response is literally to go into denial about it, and insist that the evidence is inaccurate. You are essentially just yelling "fake news". This exact behavior, denying reality when it goes against what you want to believe, is how we get people insisting that climate change isn't real, and discrimination doesn't exist. Shame on you. I truly believe that you're better than this, please use this as a growing moment.