This story is wrong and misleading. It claims that the new york times and guardian have reported CA's behavior as "hacking". Here's a thorough depiction of wh

This story is wrong and misleading. It claims that the new york times and guardian have reported CA's behavior as "hacking". Here's a thorough depiction of what CA did by the times and it does not use that term and basically describes what the story describes: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/17/us/politics/cambridge-analytica-trump-campaign.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/17/us/politics/cambridge-ana... A critique of this type should cite specific sources and at least attempt to be more evidence based. It would NOT be difficult to be more careful and do so. This story's approach is propaganda, not debate. [edited to add missing "NOT"]