7 ms·

Actually, if you look, the original source said that Facebook admitted that they were only doing so because they wanted Obama to win - and that for anyone else

Actually, if you look, the original source said that Facebook admitted that they were only doing so because they wanted Obama to win - and that for anyone else it would be a violation of their practices. The OFA postulated that Facebook did the same for other parties, but no evidence has come to light. In fact, reading what the OFA admitted, and what is under investigation here, the only difference seems to be that Facebook didn't unofficially bless the efforts of Cambridge, while they did for OFA. Here is the money quote - directly from Twitter: “They came to office in the days following election recruiting & were very candid that they allowed us to do things they wouldn’t have allowed someone else to do because they were on our side" That's not a conspiracy theory, or some evil double standard. That is a director for OFA explicitly mentioning that they were being given special data "because they were on our side". You should be very very scared about social network deciding to be on peoples side. See Trump and Twitter. It's as if the last two years hasn't convinced you to be deeply skeptical of social networks and surveillance as a service operations. This universal confirmation bias is the exact same bias that Trumpkins use to ignore any news they don't like. Facebook will keep selling you to the highest bidder. They don't give a fsck about your political point of views. (And this is probably tame for what they do for China to suppress their people).

the-dude 9y ago
There were rumors of Zuck wanting to run for president. Somehow, I think after this, it is ( I hope ) unthinkable.
- InTheArena 9y ago
  we are firmly in the era of celebrity presidents - every president since Carter has been less qualified then the previous in terms of previous executive experience. Zuck, Kamala Harris and Oprah are whetting their appetites.
  - adamsea 9y ago
    Kamala Harris may be a political darling at the moment, but she is not a celebrity politician and so it doesn’t make sense to compare her to Oprah or Mark Zuckerberg. Harris has been in law/politics for basically her whole career: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamala_Harris https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamala_Harris
  - CPLX 9y ago
    One of those three people is a sitting US Senator.
    - InTheArena 9y ago
      Who will not have even served out her term when she runs for president. These are the type of people we feel are well qualified to run the most powerful, largest, and most expensive institution in human history?
      - tomrod 9y ago
        Of course. The people that would elect them are decidedly and unabashedly anti-technorati. It is a good thing we have the bureaucrat firewall in place, frustrating though it is.
      - tclancy 9y ago
        How is someone who is a US senator exactly similar to Oprah? Nixon was in Congress for 6 years and VP for 8. Was that not enough or too much? And the idea Obama was less prepared that George W. Bush seems hard to swallow.
      - dustingetz 9y ago
        Interestingly, from a game theory perspective, the purpose of leadership is to coordinate people, and charisma is absolutely a valid way to accomplish that. From game theory it doesn't actually matter very much how the coordination is arrived at, just that it happens, check out http://www.dustingetz.com/:myerson http://www.dustingetz.com/:myerson c-f "charisma"
      - r00fus 9y ago
        Look, you can take issue with Harris's positions, but before she was Senator she was CA's Attorney General before that. Not exactly inexperienced.
      - dragonwriter 9y ago
        > Who will not have even served out her term when she runs for president. So, she’ll have a couple fewer years in the Senate and a lot more in elected executive positions than Kennedy when he was elected President. > These are the type of people we feel are well qualified to run the most powerful, largest, and most expensive institution in human history? Harris isn't necessarily my first choice, but she's certainly qualified; Oprah and Zuck are unqualified, though less so than the current incumbent (which, admittedly, is a low bar to clear.)
  - the-dude 9y ago
    Zuck is the Chief Executive Officer of a $400bn+ company ( not that I think he is qualified, mind you ).
    - jjeaff 9y ago
      For one tech company with no other experience. A one hit wonder, in other words. He might be a great executive, but then, Donald Trump might be a great real estate developer, investor, and business man. Just a few factors aligning correctly and you can be successful, even if you aren't particularly skilled.
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
  - gowld 9y ago
    Reagan, GWB, and Clinton were all Governor before President. GHWB was founder/CEO of an oil company, Chairman of the Republican National Committee, Director of the CIA, and Vice President.
- paulie_a 9y ago
  It's always been laughable.
  - gowld 9y ago
    It was laughable that Trump would run for President, until he did. And Ronald Reagan: "The actor?"
    - forapurpose 9y ago
      Reagan was also Governor of California.
WalterGR 9y ago
Actually, if you look, the original source said that Facebook admitted that they were only doing so because they wanted Obama to win - and that for anyone else it would be a violation of their practices. No, it doesn't. Between the two sources, they say that Facebook was "surprised" that they were able to get so much data, and that Facebook didn't stop them. The sources do not say that the Obama campaign violated Facebook's policies. This is the false equivalence: "What the Obama campaign and Cambridge Analytica did to acquire data on tens of millions of Americans is the same." In reality, Cambridge Analytica obtained the data from a 3rd party not authorized to provide it, and who collected the data under false pretenses. The Obama campaign did neither. EDIT: Here's The Washington Post. "Facebook’s rules for accessing user data lured more than just Cambridge Analytica" - https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/facebooks-rules-for-accessing-user-data-lured-more-than-just-cambridge-analytica/2018/03/19/31f6979c-658e-43d6-a71f-afdd8bf1308b_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/facebooks-ru... : Cambridge Analytica — unlike other firms that access Facebook’s user data — broke Facebook’s rules by obtaining the data under the pretense of academic use. But experts familiar with Facebook’s systems and policies say that the greater problem was that the rules for accessing the social network’s information trove were so loose in the first place.
- InTheArena 9y ago
  “They came to office in the days following election recruiting & were very candid that they allowed us to do things they wouldn’t have allowed someone else to do because they were on our side" The willingness to excuse Facebook selling your privacy because you agree with a political point of view is part of the problem.
  - cryptonector 9y ago
    That sort of rank partisanship can barely be hidden. It's discrediting. FB is clearly in the worse here, even if they were entirely within their rights while Cambridge Analytica was entirely not. What's legal is not always what's right.
    - 9y ago

the-dude 9y ago

There were rumors of Zuck wanting to run for president. Somehow, I think after this, it is ( I hope ) unthinkable.

InTheArena 9y ago
we are firmly in the era of celebrity presidents - every president since Carter has been less qualified then the previous in terms of previous executive experience. Zuck, Kamala Harris and Oprah are whetting their appetites.
- adamsea 9y ago
  Kamala Harris may be a political darling at the moment, but she is not a celebrity politician and so it doesn’t make sense to compare her to Oprah or Mark Zuckerberg. Harris has been in law/politics for basically her whole career: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamala_Harris https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamala_Harris
- CPLX 9y ago
  One of those three people is a sitting US Senator.
  - InTheArena 9y ago
    Who will not have even served out her term when she runs for president. These are the type of people we feel are well qualified to run the most powerful, largest, and most expensive institution in human history?
    - tomrod 9y ago
      Of course. The people that would elect them are decidedly and unabashedly anti-technorati. It is a good thing we have the bureaucrat firewall in place, frustrating though it is.
    - tclancy 9y ago
      How is someone who is a US senator exactly similar to Oprah? Nixon was in Congress for 6 years and VP for 8. Was that not enough or too much? And the idea Obama was less prepared that George W. Bush seems hard to swallow.
    - dustingetz 9y ago
      Interestingly, from a game theory perspective, the purpose of leadership is to coordinate people, and charisma is absolutely a valid way to accomplish that. From game theory it doesn't actually matter very much how the coordination is arrived at, just that it happens, check out http://www.dustingetz.com/:myerson http://www.dustingetz.com/:myerson c-f "charisma"
    - r00fus 9y ago
      Look, you can take issue with Harris's positions, but before she was Senator she was CA's Attorney General before that. Not exactly inexperienced.
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      > Who will not have even served out her term when she runs for president. So, she’ll have a couple fewer years in the Senate and a lot more in elected executive positions than Kennedy when he was elected President. > These are the type of people we feel are well qualified to run the most powerful, largest, and most expensive institution in human history? Harris isn't necessarily my first choice, but she's certainly qualified; Oprah and Zuck are unqualified, though less so than the current incumbent (which, admittedly, is a low bar to clear.)
- the-dude 9y ago
  Zuck is the Chief Executive Officer of a $400bn+ company ( not that I think he is qualified, mind you ).
  - jjeaff 9y ago
    For one tech company with no other experience. A one hit wonder, in other words. He might be a great executive, but then, Donald Trump might be a great real estate developer, investor, and business man. Just a few factors aligning correctly and you can be successful, even if you aren't particularly skilled.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
- gowld 9y ago
  Reagan, GWB, and Clinton were all Governor before President. GHWB was founder/CEO of an oil company, Chairman of the Republican National Committee, Director of the CIA, and Vice President.
paulie_a 9y ago
It's always been laughable.
- gowld 9y ago
  It was laughable that Trump would run for President, until he did. And Ronald Reagan: "The actor?"
  - forapurpose 9y ago
    Reagan was also Governor of California.

WalterGR 9y ago

Actually, if you look, the original source said that Facebook admitted that they were only doing so because they wanted Obama to win - and that for anyone else it would be a violation of their practices. No, it doesn't. Between the two sources, they say that Facebook was "surprised" that they were able to get so much data, and that Facebook didn't stop them. The sources do not say that the Obama campaign violated Facebook's policies. This is the false equivalence: "What the Obama campaign and Cambridge Analytica did to acquire data on tens of millions of Americans is the same." In reality, Cambridge Analytica obtained the data from a 3rd party not authorized to provide it, and who collected the data under false pretenses. The Obama campaign did neither. EDIT: Here's The Washington Post. "Facebook’s rules for accessing user data lured more than just Cambridge Analytica" - https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/facebooks-rules-for-accessing-user-data-lured-more-than-just-cambridge-analytica/2018/03/19/31f6979c-658e-43d6-a71f-afdd8bf1308b_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/facebooks-ru... : Cambridge Analytica — unlike other firms that access Facebook’s user data — broke Facebook’s rules by obtaining the data under the pretense of academic use. But experts familiar with Facebook’s systems and policies say that the greater problem was that the rules for accessing the social network’s information trove were so loose in the first place.

InTheArena 9y ago
“They came to office in the days following election recruiting & were very candid that they allowed us to do things they wouldn’t have allowed someone else to do because they were on our side" The willingness to excuse Facebook selling your privacy because you agree with a political point of view is part of the problem.
- cryptonector 9y ago
  That sort of rank partisanship can barely be hidden. It's discrediting. FB is clearly in the worse here, even if they were entirely within their rights while Cambridge Analytica was entirely not. What's legal is not always what's right.
  - 9y ago