Facebook and Cambridge Analytica

[Toaster]

I couldn't see a posting for this, but what a mess the big questions are: is this why the 'far right' is on the rise, should FB and CA be influencing democracy in this way, did CA have anything to do with Bexit, why is it taking so long to get a court order for the data commissioner to enter CA's building, why did FB send their investigators, how safe is your data and what do 'they' know about you and your families..........The list goes on

[nealeh1875]

Haven't been on facebook for about 6 years i think. was sick of reading rubbish and seeing pictures of people i dont like with their ugly babies.

I voted Brexit and had never heard of AC so i don't think they influenced that or the US election. It's an excuse, same with 'russian involvement' just because Remain and Hilary lost it sounds like another excuse.

MZ is in for a shock though, it's not the first time this has happened to him and FB. Piers Morgan wrote a good piece online yesterday about it

[Murph7355]

nealeh1875 said:

...
I voted Brexit and had never heard of AC so i don't think they influenced that or the US election. It's an excuse, same with 'russian involvement' just because Remain and Hilary lost it sounds like another excuse....

This.

And even if we were to believe that there was influence applied, why would we not believe that the other side in each debate weren't resorting to similar practices?

Both sides will have used whatever means at their disposal. Net neutral.

[rxe]

It's an odd mixture. Facebook et al are massively liberal in terms of mindset, so it isn't a case of Facebook deliberately supporting Trump and the Russians. They're just so slack with the data that anyone seems to be able to see it with no control at all.

I can't imagine a normal company handing over scads of personally identifiable data and then saying "yeah whatever, do what you want with it".

On the flip side, anyone who thinks that Facebook will remotely protect their privacy and that the privacy settings mean anything at all .... is an idiot, and probably shouldn't be allowed to vote.

I think people are massively overestimating the ability of Facebook to actually influence people. We have arguments on here, sometimes intelligently argued, and I don't think I've ever seen anyone say at the end "yeah, you're right, my previous political affiliation was wrong". If passionate argument can't shift opinion, why does one think a banner ad saying "vote Trump" will do so?

[superlightr]

I don't see it as any different to targeted marketing and advertising that been going on for years. Ie an advert in Horse n Hound for equine insurance. No point that advert appearing in Smoking Kippers monthly.

The adverts or articles are just electronically seen by you when you log into twitface.

I think the issue is because it was for an election/fake news/ etc. If they were indeed selling equine insurance and the company then sold tons of insurance no one would care, in fact would say that pretty clever and I want some of that electronic mumbo jumbo please.

[CzechItOut]

rxe said:

It's an odd mixture. Facebook et al are massively liberal in terms of mindset, so it isn't a case of Facebook deliberately supporting Trump and the Russians. They're just so slack with the data that anyone seems to be able to see it with no control at all.

I can't imagine a normal company handing over scads of personally identifiable data and then saying "yeah whatever, do what you want with it".

I'm not really sure that is correct. A researcher from Cambridge University built a personality app which was used by around 200,000 users (many who were paid to use it) who agreed to share their Facebook friends data with the app. These approximately 30m profiles were shared by the app owner who harvested the data and passed it on to Cambridge Analytica.

Facebook have subsequently closed this "friend of a friend" profile view.

I'm not really sure where Facebook were playing fast and loose with people's data.

[jmorgan]

rxe said:

I
On the flip side, anyone who thinks that Facebook will remotely protect their privacy and that the privacy settings mean anything at all .... is an idiot, and probably shouldn't be allowed to vote.

I think most people are a bit green when it comes to facebook. Not their fault and why should they know any different, personally I do not and never have used it however the way they mined the information is the issue apparently, not that they did it.


Zuckerberg was quick enough to ban the fella in the sights for this but slow as hell for other stuff. That should tell you enough.

Edit. And Google sneak under the radar, bet they operate in a way the punters like.

Edited by jmorgan on Wednesday 21st March 11:37

[Hayek]

rxe said:

I think people are massively overestimating the ability of Facebook to actually influence people. We have arguments on here, sometimes intelligently argued, and I don't think I've ever seen anyone say at the end "yeah, you're right, my previous political affiliation was wrong". If passionate argument can't shift opinion, why does one think a banner ad saying "vote Trump" will do so?

I'm not suggesting it's necessarily a huge ability, but on here people have thought through and established positions. This is different to Facebook where there may be influence because of the herd.

[CzechItOut]

Hayek said:

I'm not suggesting it's necessarily a huge ability, but on here people have thought through and established positions. This is different to Facebook where there may be influence because of the herd.

Exactly. You won't change the minds of those with dyed-in-wool opinions, but a lot of people are on the fence and can be swayed one way or the other my targeted adverts and sensationalised news stories.

At the end of the day, the people who choose the government in any election are swing voters in marginal seats. All other votes are meaningless.

[Shakermaker]

Hayek said:

rxe said:

I think people are massively overestimating the ability of Facebook to actually influence people. We have arguments on here, sometimes intelligently argued, and I don't think I've ever seen anyone say at the end "yeah, you're right, my previous political affiliation was wrong". If passionate argument can't shift opinion, why does one think a banner ad saying "vote Trump" will do so?

I'm not suggesting it's necessarily a huge ability, but on here people have thought through and established positions. This is different to Facebook where there may be influence because of the herd.

The other aspect to consider, is whether or not you could use such measures to promote the negative campaigning adverts/articles which appear very commonly on Facebook.

With a bit of data about someone from their Facebook preferences, you can influence both sides of what they see as well. A targeted ad which says "Here's some reasons Trump is good..." would play well to someone who already "likes" the official Trump page, Republican party page, that kind of thing But equally, they'll also see more of the "Here's why Hilary is bad"

What they WON'T see is the "Here's why that "here's why Hilary is bad" article is actually totally fake" - that can be streamed out unless it is directly shared by someone in their group of friends.

Trump was enormously successful in getting the votes where he needed them, in the swing states. Again, a lot of this data can possibly have been gathered from people in that area, and targeted towards them, and deciding what to show them or not show them based on all these algorithms.

Those entrenched in their position were never the targets of all of this.

[rxe]

CzechItOut said:

I'm not really sure that is correct. A researcher from Cambridge University built a personality app which was used by around 200,000 users (many who were paid to use it) who agreed to share their Facebook friends data with the app. These approximately 30m profiles were shared by the app owner who harvested the data and passed it on to Cambridge Analytica.

Facebook have subsequently closed this "friend of a friend" profile view.

I'm not really sure where Facebook were playing fast and loose with people's data.

They are slack with the data, Facebook hands it over and control ends there. In a panic, they are now sending people into look at Cambridge Analytica did with the data.

Contrast this with any normal company that hands over data, they take a great interest in what happens to the data, what standards the receiving organisation adheres to etc.

[roachcoach]

Facebook has been invasive stware for years now. I hope it all burns down, I really really do. That it has become normalised will be looked back on as one of societies greatest failures of this age.

And to think people thought microsoft were the devil.

[jmorgan]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

That appears to be the nubbin as I understand it. They targeted a few people (ok, quite a few thousand) and said it was for a benign project then sniffed out all the other millions through the networks of like and friends etc. The used that to look for places and how to influence the media.

[CzechItOut]

rxe said:

They are slack with the data, Facebook hands it over and control ends there. In a panic, they are now sending people into look at Cambridge Analytica did with the data.

Contrast this with any normal company that hands over data, they take a great interest in what happens to the data, what standards the receiving organisation adheres to etc.

I agree that Facebook could be described as slack, however their argument is that a user needs to give permission before their data is shared.

There was an interesting court case last year where LinkedIn backed a third-party who was scraping data from profiles. The third party went to court and won with the court ruling that LinkedIn blocking access was harming the third-parties business and blocking access may be anticompetitive.

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/08/14/hiq_linke...

[jjlynn27]

nealeh1875 said:

Haven't been on facebook for about 6 years i think. was sick of reading rubbish and seeing pictures of people i dont like with their ugly babies.

I voted Brexit and had never heard of AC so i don't think they influenced that or the US election. It's an excuse, same with 'russian involvement' just because Remain and Hilary lost it sounds like another excuse.

MZ is in for a shock though, it's not the first time this has happened to him and FB. Piers Morgan wrote a good piece online yesterday about it

Have you heard of the Canadian company called AggregateIQ?

[Murph7355]

The next decade is going to be very interesting where data and privacy are concerned.

We are on the verge of tying ourselves in knots over it IMO. It will be amusing to watch.

[vetrof]

It's almost as if people don't realise that when you give away information for a free commodity, it's actually your information that is the commodity. Pretty obvious isn't it?

[nealeh1875]

jjlynn27 said:

nealeh1875 said:

Haven't been on facebook for about 6 years i think. was sick of reading rubbish and seeing pictures of people i dont like with their ugly babies.

I voted Brexit and had never heard of AC so i don't think they influenced that or the US election. It's an excuse, same with 'russian involvement' just because Remain and Hilary lost it sounds like another excuse.

MZ is in for a shock though, it's not the first time this has happened to him and FB. Piers Morgan wrote a good piece online yesterday about it

Have you heard of the Canadian company called AggregateIQ?

Can't say i have?

[MC Bodge]

vetrof said:

It's almost as if people don't realise that when you give away information for a free commodity, it's actually your information that is the commodity. Pretty obvious isn't it?

Similarly with loyalty cards and the like

[MC Bodge]

Murph7355 said:

The next decade is going to be very interesting where data and privacy are concerned.

We are on the verge of tying ourselves in knots over it IMO. It will be amusing to watch.

Agreed. It seems almost impossible not to contravene the rules if you are a business.