Facebook and Cambridge Analytica
Discussion
Eric Mc said:
You misunderstand me.
Of course Facebook knew their platform was being used by political entities - all over the world.
What I am pretty sure the problem was not that they knew this, but that they underestimated absolutely how destabilising and dangerous it was and how it could be used by those with evil intent. I think they genuinely turned a blind eye to it because they felt it was "a good thing".
Geekism at its highest and most dangerous level.
Which does rather highlight the fact that the current furore is about the fact the "wrong" side has been using the data. Of course Facebook knew their platform was being used by political entities - all over the world.
What I am pretty sure the problem was not that they knew this, but that they underestimated absolutely how destabilising and dangerous it was and how it could be used by those with evil intent. I think they genuinely turned a blind eye to it because they felt it was "a good thing".
Geekism at its highest and most dangerous level.
You choose to believe that this can be determined by reference to terms like "good" or "evil".
JagLover said:
Eric Mc said:
You misunderstand me.
Of course Facebook knew their platform was being used by political entities - all over the world.
What I am pretty sure the problem was not that they knew this, but that they underestimated absolutely how destabilising and dangerous it was and how it could be used by those with evil intent. I think they genuinely turned a blind eye to it because they felt it was "a good thing".
Geekism at its highest and most dangerous level.
Which does rather highlight the fact that the current furore is about the fact the "wrong" side has been using the data. Of course Facebook knew their platform was being used by political entities - all over the world.
What I am pretty sure the problem was not that they knew this, but that they underestimated absolutely how destabilising and dangerous it was and how it could be used by those with evil intent. I think they genuinely turned a blind eye to it because they felt it was "a good thing".
Geekism at its highest and most dangerous level.
You choose to believe that this can be determined by reference to terms like "good" or "evil".
I genuinely believe that Trrump is ALMOST evil. He lacks empathy and lack of empathy combined with vacuous imbecility equates to evilness, in my view.
CzechItOut said:
I like Zuck's pause after the question. He is thinking to himself "Is that a rhetorical question? Will I insult this old boy if I answer it? Gosh, I'd better answer it in as nice a way as I can."
"We run ads".
Smiles.
Zuckerbot in operation - https://i.imgur.com/Mk3FFhw.gifv"We run ads".
Smiles.
FourWheelDrift said:
Zuckerbot in operation - https://i.imgur.com/Mk3FFhw.gifv
we should breed him and Theresa May.Hope this whole mess has eliminated his carefully crafted and in progress plan to become US President one day.
Edited by hyphen on Wednesday 11th April 11:25
Eric Mc said:
"Show boating" is a big part of these proceedings. we see it here to with Parliamentary Committee hearings.
I can only assume these Senators are paid by the word. Some of them waffled on for minutes before asking the most basic of questions.Zuckerberg has actually gone up a great deal in my estimations the more coverage of this I watch.
Not-The-Messiah said:
Shock, they first tried blaming Trump and Brexit on the Russians that's got them nowhere now it's some sort of social brainwashing on facebook. They just can accept that people voted for Trump and Brexit because they wanted to. It's sad really a load of bad losers with a sort of cognitive dissonance who can't accept it.
the problem isn't whose advertising and influencing on social media per se, its they way the bubbles and echo chambers let people willingly seal themselves in to the point a contrary opinion makes them lose their s
t, and a vote that doesn't go the way that is 99% of their world stuns them. And yet still they can't reconcile that others just think along different lines and have arrive at different conclusions. Honestly, the number of people, both social and clients, that just assume I'm anti-brexit, that still just cling to this view that only their world view is right/good. Rarely is there any discussion or questions or intrigue, just assumption that as they see me as a decent person I must be totally onboard.But social media isn't the culprit, only the tool.
ashleyman said:
The biggest take away for me is how the 'people in charge' have no idea.
It would be the same the world over, the people who are asking the questions don't have the knowledge required to ask the questions that matter.
I don't think that matters, I think it it more about their understanding at the end of it.It would be the same the world over, the people who are asking the questions don't have the knowledge required to ask the questions that matter.
I am comparing it to a technical court case, where the judge starts off not knowing much but listens and questions till he understand and so makes a ruling.
ashleyman said:
The biggest take away for me is how the 'people in charge' have no idea.
It would be the same the world over, the people who are asking the questions don't have the knowledge required to ask the questions that matter.
See my earlier post. The "people in charge" may be asking the type of question they think they need to ask on behalf of their constituents - some of whom may be VERY behind when it comes to understanding how social media works and how they might be manipulated by it.It would be the same the world over, the people who are asking the questions don't have the knowledge required to ask the questions that matter.
Eric Mc said:
ashleyman said:
The biggest take away for me is how the 'people in charge' have no idea.
It would be the same the world over, the people who are asking the questions don't have the knowledge required to ask the questions that matter.
See my earlier post. The "people in charge" may be asking the type of question they think they need to ask on behalf of their constituents - some of whom may be VERY behind when it comes to understanding how social media works and how they might be manipulated by it.It would be the same the world over, the people who are asking the questions don't have the knowledge required to ask the questions that matter.
hyphen said:
I don't think that matters, I think it it more about their understanding at the end of it.
I am comparing it to a technical court case, where the judge starts off not knowing much but listens and questions till he understand and so makes a ruling.
I am comparing it to a technical court case, where the judge starts off not knowing much but listens and questions till he understand and so makes a ruling.
Eric Mc said:
See my earlier post. The "people in charge" may be asking the type of question they think they need to ask on behalf of their constituents - some of whom may be VERY behind when it comes to understanding how social media works and how they might be manipulated by it.
I think you both missed my point. My point was the only reason Zuckerberg had it relatively easy in there was because of their tech illiteracy or lack of understanding about Facebook actually works. If that's because they chose to dumb it down so the 'average American' could understand or because they just didn't have a clue he still walked away relatively unscathed.
The people on the senate were basically acting like those grandparents who phone to ask the most basic questions about technology.
Of course, there's also the possibility they're all on the payroll or have been bribed in some way.
ashleyman said:
I think you both missed my point.
My point was the only reason Zuckerberg had it relatively easy in there was because of their tech illiteracy or lack of understanding about Facebook actually works. If that's because they chose to dumb it down so the 'average American' could understand or because they just didn't have a clue he still walked away relatively unscathed.
The people on the senate were basically acting like those grandparents who phone to ask the most basic questions about technology.
Of course, there's also the possibility they're all on the payroll or have been bribed in some way.
You are assuming their questioning style was down to their technical illiteracy. You MAY be right. However, they have a role to play in asking questions which elicit explanations, not just for the Committee, but for their constituents who are watching the enquiry.My point was the only reason Zuckerberg had it relatively easy in there was because of their tech illiteracy or lack of understanding about Facebook actually works. If that's because they chose to dumb it down so the 'average American' could understand or because they just didn't have a clue he still walked away relatively unscathed.
The people on the senate were basically acting like those grandparents who phone to ask the most basic questions about technology.
Of course, there's also the possibility they're all on the payroll or have been bribed in some way.
You see the same technique in TV and radio interviews. The interviewer may know quite a lot, but they deliberately pitch their questions in order to match the lowest level of knowledge that may exist in their audience.
Eric Mc said:
JagLover said:
Eric Mc said:
You misunderstand me.
Of course Facebook knew their platform was being used by political entities - all over the world.
What I am pretty sure the problem was not that they knew this, but that they underestimated absolutely how destabilising and dangerous it was and how it could be used by those with evil intent. I think they genuinely turned a blind eye to it because they felt it was "a good thing".
Geekism at its highest and most dangerous level.
Which does rather highlight the fact that the current furore is about the fact the "wrong" side has been using the data. Of course Facebook knew their platform was being used by political entities - all over the world.
What I am pretty sure the problem was not that they knew this, but that they underestimated absolutely how destabilising and dangerous it was and how it could be used by those with evil intent. I think they genuinely turned a blind eye to it because they felt it was "a good thing".
Geekism at its highest and most dangerous level.
You choose to believe that this can be determined by reference to terms like "good" or "evil".
I genuinely believe that Trrump is ALMOST evil. He lacks empathy and lack of empathy combined with vacuous imbecility equates to evilness, in my view.
As for Facebook being "left leaning" this is also open to interpretation. In the past there have been a number of businesses whose owners have been motivated by high moral principles and have run their businesses accordingly. An example is the Cadbury business which built a model village for its employees.
Facebook's "left" leanings don't apparently require it to even pay its fair share of corporation tax in the countries in which it operates as it diverts profits into tax havens. If you scratch the service of its supposed leanings you will probably find currying favour with power, branding and corporate self interest.
Edited by JagLover on Wednesday 11th April 12:43
ashleyman said:
Of course, there's also the possibility they're all on the payroll or have been bribed in some way.
Woah there, who do you think you are!? Having the cheek to suggest... oh wait.“The congressional panel that got the most Facebook contributions is the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which announced Wednesday morning it would question Zuckerberg on April 11.
Members of the committee, whose jurisdiction gives it regulatory power over Internet companies, received nearly $381,000 in contributions tied to Facebook since 2007, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. The center is a non-partisan, non-profit group that compiles and analyzes disclosures made to the Federal Election Commission.
The second-highest total, $369,000, went to members of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, which announced later that it would have a joint hearing with the Senate Judiciary Committee to question Zuckerberg on Tuesday. Judiciary Committee members have received $235,000 in Facebook contributions.”
Eric Mc said:
You are assuming their questioning style was down to their technical illiteracy. You MAY be right. However, they have a role to play in asking questions which elicit explanations, not just for the Committee, but for their constituents who are watching the enquiry.
You see the same technique in TV and radio interviews. The interviewer may know quite a lot, but they deliberately pitch their questions in order to match the lowest level of knowledge that may exist in their audience.
I think your interpretation is extremely generous. Constituents that clueless aren't going to be watching Senate hearings. See guys like Frank in finance hearings... they don't dumb it down for their constituents.You see the same technique in TV and radio interviews. The interviewer may know quite a lot, but they deliberately pitch their questions in order to match the lowest level of knowledge that may exist in their audience.
ashleyman said:
The biggest take away for me is how the 'people in charge' have no idea.
It would be the same the world over, the people who are asking the questions don't have the knowledge required to ask the questions that matter.
It would be the same the world over, the people who are asking the questions don't have the knowledge required to ask the questions that matter.
I think age played a role in it. The chairman of that committee (Chuck Grassley) is 84 and his deputy the same age. The leading democrat on the committee was 85 and her deputy 78. It was cringeworthy at times.
Should not have taken much to tie Zuckerberg in knots with some prep themselves.
Oh well, business as usual when it blows over.
Really should be a rule that says the T+C start with
"we will monetise the heck out of you, use your details to make me billions and you will not get anything, zilch, nada, nothing. Other companies will do you over and make millions off you" "we promise to lose those details and not do much about it"
"But.... you can post pictures of cats".
Oh well, business as usual when it blows over.
Really should be a rule that says the T+C start with
"we will monetise the heck out of you, use your details to make me billions and you will not get anything, zilch, nada, nothing. Other companies will do you over and make millions off you" "we promise to lose those details and not do much about it"
"But.... you can post pictures of cats".
BlackLabel said:
I think age played a role in it. The chairman of that committee (Chuck Grassley) is 84 and his deputy the same age. The leading democrat on the committee was 85 and her deputy 78. It was cringeworthy at times.
"What is your customer base?"
"How often do you publish?"
"Those are all the questions the committee have to ask at the moment as 2 members need their nap and 1 needs to empty his colostomy bag"
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff