5 ms·

Why (almost) everything reported about Cambridge Analytica is wrong

16 points by randomname2 9y ago

alexc05 9y ago
Cambridge Analytica CEO is filmed saying they would send "Ukrainian girls" around a political candidate's house to get them embroiled in a sex scandal - or set up a bribery situation to publish it on the internet. How they generate creative that they feed to third parties. How they use proton mail with a 2 hour self destruct read after-timer so nothing can be traced back to them. https://businessinsider.com/cambridge-analytica-secretly-filmed-by-channel-4-saying-it-can-entrap-politicians-2018-3 https://businessinsider.com/cambridge-analytica-secretly-fil... And this guy is sitting around defending them? Is that it or is he just one of those people who have op-eds delivered to them so they "feed the bloodstream of the internet?" What about the fact that UK citizens were working on American campaigns in violation of US federal law? What about the Canadian company doing the same? I'm sorry, but no. You don't get to wave your hands and say "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" after all this shit.
- lixtra 9y ago
  It's all claims by CA. Trump claimed to make America great again. Do you believe this? The guy is not defending CA. He ends with > I’m not arguing that Cambridge Analytica and Kogan were innocent. But he rightly points out how the media is spinning the story into something most likely not true.
  - alexc05 9y ago
    He starts off with a straw man. The argument "It isn't a hack" requires people arguing that it was a hack. But actually the reporting is fairly clear that they didn't hack the data. The whole thing reeks of obfuscation and deliberate misinterpretation. Capped off with "sure it's bad but..." just isn't worthwhile if the arguments above were fallacious to begin with.
    - lixtra 9y ago
      You are right, nobody calls it hack. They call it data breach. Which it was, because the data was supposed to be bound by contract.
- shakkhar 9y ago
  > And this guy is sitting around defending them? If you'd read the post you would have known that he is not defending Cambridge Analytica. Part of what he is saying is that CA is not anywhere nearly as good as to help Donald Trump's election campaign. I think the author also implies that they don't have data that isn't already available to a lot of people in the black market for Facebook data, and their models aren't very good.

16 points by randomname2 9y ago

Cambridge Analytica CEO is filmed saying they would send "Ukrainian girls" around a political candidate's house to get them embroiled in a sex scandal - or set up a bribery situation to publish it on the internet. How they generate creative that they feed to third parties. How they use proton mail with a 2 hour self destruct read after-timer so nothing can be traced back to them. https://businessinsider.com/cambridge-analytica-secretly-filmed-by-channel-4-saying-it-can-entrap-politicians-2018-3 https://businessinsider.com/cambridge-analytica-secretly-fil... And this guy is sitting around defending them? Is that it or is he just one of those people who have op-eds delivered to them so they "feed the bloodstream of the internet?" What about the fact that UK citizens were working on American campaigns in violation of US federal law? What about the Canadian company doing the same? I'm sorry, but no. You don't get to wave your hands and say "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" after all this shit.

lixtra 9y ago
It's all claims by CA. Trump claimed to make America great again. Do you believe this? The guy is not defending CA. He ends with > I’m not arguing that Cambridge Analytica and Kogan were innocent. But he rightly points out how the media is spinning the story into something most likely not true.
- alexc05 9y ago
  He starts off with a straw man. The argument "It isn't a hack" requires people arguing that it was a hack. But actually the reporting is fairly clear that they didn't hack the data. The whole thing reeks of obfuscation and deliberate misinterpretation. Capped off with "sure it's bad but..." just isn't worthwhile if the arguments above were fallacious to begin with.
  - lixtra 9y ago
    You are right, nobody calls it hack. They call it data breach. Which it was, because the data was supposed to be bound by contract.
shakkhar 9y ago
> And this guy is sitting around defending them? If you'd read the post you would have known that he is not defending Cambridge Analytica. Part of what he is saying is that CA is not anywhere nearly as good as to help Donald Trump's election campaign. I think the author also implies that they don't have data that isn't already available to a lot of people in the black market for Facebook data, and their models aren't very good.