Page 8 of 10 FirstFirst ... 678910 LastLast
Results 106 to 120 of 137

Thread: Cambridge Analytica + Psyops + The Beast

  1. #106
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    لندورا
    Posts
    2,928

    Default Cambridge Analytica + Psyops + The Beast

    what about "The Beast" though?
    is that zuckerberg's dog?

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to sufi For This Useful Post:


  3. #107

    Default

    idk whether they'd know all this stuff (did the API return friends' private messages?), but on some level this just is targeted marketing, the basis for the modern web. everyone does it - including the obama campaign, who did it on a much bigger scale.

  4. #108
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    The Fear - Dublin
    Posts
    7,334

    Default


  5. #109
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    996

    Default

    March 2018 wasn't a great month for the IT-behemoths. FB-Datascandal, the "autonomous" Uber car killing a person.

  6. #110

    Default

    another analysis proving that I'm right about the cambridge analytica scandal: http://blogs.harvard.edu/doc/2018/03/23/nothing/

    one of the (kind of obvious when you think about it) things it points out is that the newspapers reporting on it are doing the exact same thing they're accusing CA / FB of -- selling your data to unknown entities for unknown purposes -- including on articles *about* cambridge analytica:

    Let’s start with Facebook’s Surveillance Machine, by Zeynep Tufekci in last Monday’s New York Times. Among other things (all correct), Zeynep explains that “Facebook makes money, in other words, by profiling us and then selling our attention to advertisers, political actors and others. These are Facebook’s true customers, whom it works hard to please.”

    Irony Alert: the same is true for the Times, along with every other publication that lives off adtech: tracking-based advertising. These pubs don’t just open the kimonos of their readers. They bring people’s bare digital necks to vampires ravenous for the blood of personal data, all for the purpose of returning “interest-based” advertising to those same people.

    With no control by readers (beyond tracking protection which relatively few know how to use, and for which there is no one approach or experience), and damn little care or control by the publishers who bare those readers’ necks, who knows what the hell actually happens to the data? No one entity, that’s for sure.

    ...

    The same irony applies to countless other correct and important reporting on the Facebook/Cambridge Analytica mess by other writers and pubs. Take, for example, Cambridge Analytica, Facebook, and the Revelations of Open Secrets, by Sue Halpern in yesterday’s New Yorker. Here’s what RedMorph shows going on behind that piece:


  7. #111
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    15,827

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by vimothy View Post
    another analysis proving that I'm right about the cambridge analytica scandal: http://blogs.harvard.edu/doc/2018/03/23/nothing/

    one of the (kind of obvious when you think about it) things it points out is that the newspapers reporting on it are doing the exact same thing they're accusing CA / FB of -- selling your data to unknown entities for unknown purposes -- including on articles *about* cambridge analytica:
    Sorry, but the cartoon on that page is brilliant:

    vampire-personal-data_250px.jpg

    Steve Bell must be shitting himself!
    Doin' the Lambeth Warp New: DISSENSUS - THE NOVEL - PM me your email address and I'll add you

  8. #112
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    8,419

    Default

    The list of friends' info that 'data developers' would have had access to seems to be:

    About me
    Actions
    Activities
    Birthday
    Check-ins
    Education history
    Events
    Games activity
    Groups
    Hometown
    Interests
    Likes
    Location
    Notes
    Online presence
    Photo and video tags
    Photos
    Questions
    Relationship details
    Relationships
    Religion
    Politics
    Status
    Subscriptions
    Website
    Work history

    A lot of info for sure, but it doesn't seem as if the contents of private conversations were available. And do people really put a lot of their work history up on Fb?It doesn't necessarily seem that (going from the Twitter feed that Danny linked to) the financial circumstances of users would necessarily have been available to CA etc, unless I'm missing something.

    Also, if the whole CA operation depended upon targeting 70,000 or so people in swing states, then the bigger obvious problem - as with the shock Tory 'landslide' in 2015, widely credited to Lynton Crosby's relentless focus on marginals - is that the electoral systems here and particularly in the States, are susceptible to being mainipulated by targeting relatively few people.

    Edit: Following on from what Vimothy said, an article on the Obama campaign's Project Narwhal in 2012, and the leap made between 2008 and 2012: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...012_race_.html
    "(in 2008) Obama campaign staffers were exasperated at what seemed like a basic system failure: They had records on 170 million potential voters, 13 million online supporters, 3 million campaign donors and at least as many volunteers—but no way of knowing who among them were the same people."
    Last edited by baboon2004; 28-03-2018 at 01:27 PM.

  9. #113
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Hoboken
    Posts
    3,510

  10. #114
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    The Fear - Dublin
    Posts
    7,334

    Default

    I haven't seen much press on this but facebook just got a major slapdown in the Irish courts which may have severe consequences for all tech data sharing.

    http://www.thejournal.ie/facebook-ma...54304-Apr2018/

    Of course if the commissioner had done his job in 2013, Cambridge wouldnt have been able to do what they did in the first place.

    Also


  11. #115
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    996

    Default

    profit up 63% first quarter 2018. Yeah the data scandal seriously endangers FB.

  12. #116
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    The Fear - Dublin
    Posts
    7,334

    Default

    This hit right at the end of the first Q, lets see what happens at the end of June.

  13. #117
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    The Fear - Dublin
    Posts
    7,334

    Default

    Incidentally, we're having our own mini-Trump/Brexit data scandal at the moment.

    Millions are pouring into digital ad campaigns in an attempt to sway the abortion referendum, some involving CA type groups. This is an extension of the decades long support for regressive church PR groups from US fundamentalist and conservative orgs. They did the same with the gay marriage vote a couple of years back. There's also people like the Center for bioethical reform whose foreign activists are picketing hospitals with obscene abortion imagery - in turn being challenged by a radical queer group covering up their signage.

    The fear now is that the spend is easily 10-1 against the repeal side and might sway some undecideds. The repeal side are running a large scale donation funded grassroots campaign but just cant compete with the influx of foreign cash.

    Facebook have just announced they will no longer accept foreign funded ads, but with the caveat that these must be user reported. An attempt to stymie legislative changes as changes in Irish law affects a large cohort of FB users.

  14. #118
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    The Fear - Dublin
    Posts
    7,334

    Default

    These fuckers:


  15. #119
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    The Fear - Dublin
    Posts
    7,334

    Default

    Google has just banned ALL advertising related to the referendum.

    They are really desperate to avoid regulation.

  16. #120
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    The Fear - Dublin
    Posts
    7,334

    Default

    This is a pretty huge deal. The no campaign is in tatters now. Historically they've depended disproportionately on US fundie cash which has flooded in during various referenda. They were counting on the massive disparity in spending power plus dirty data and online tactics to swing the undecideds, and now they're fucked. Potential implications for US mid terms and other political campaigns with heavy online spends as well.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •