Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » To election junkies like me the Cambridge Analytica stuff is f

SystemSystem Posts: 5,841
edited March 21 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » To election junkies like me the Cambridge Analytica stuff is fascinating but where is it going to lead?

Given the amount of publicity the Cambridge Analytica story has had over the past few days both in the UK and in the US the big question is where is this all going to lead politically?

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 2,028
    First!
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 19,334
    edited March 21
    Fecund!

    when I read the threader title, my first thought was: "jail!"

    Sadly, I don't know law well enough (or at all) to even guess what laws might have been broken.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 5,792
    dixiedean said:

    First!

    Other bus and train operators are also available...
  • DavidGDavidG Posts: 1
    You dismiss this, and it may be my naivety, but i didnt realise taking part in these innocent facebook quizzes could be used by Trump or the Tories to influence elections
  • FPT but apt here

    Apropos of nothing

    Somebody has just reminded me of the following

    During the 2015 general election campaign here's how much the Tories and Labour spent on Facebook ads.

    Labour £16.5k

    Tories £1.2 million.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 17,860

    During the 2015 general election campaign here's how much the Tories and Labour spent on Facebook ads.

    Labour £16.5k

    Tories £1.2 million.

    So even the Tory majority that gave us the referendum was dodgy.
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 7,191
    DavidG said:

    You dismiss this, and it may be my naivety, but i didnt realise taking part in these innocent facebook quizzes could be used by Trump or the Tories to influence elections

    It shouldn't have been. CA certified that the data it was collecting - not from the participant but much more importantly all of their friends - was for academic purposes. Or so I understand...
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 27,476
    DavidG said:

    You dismiss this, and it may be my naivety, but i didnt realise taking part in these innocent facebook quizzes could be used by Trump or the Tories to influence elections

    If you use any app or the internet at all you are having data collected on you constantly, that is eventually sold and used by all political parties.
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 4,273
    edited March 21
    On topic, this is on the new USA branch of the Speccy. It broadly matches the last half of OGH's article.

    https://spectator-usa.com/2018/03/the-great-cambridge-analytica-conspiracy-theory/
  • During the 2015 general election campaign here's how much the Tories and Labour spent on Facebook ads.

    Labour £16.5k

    Tories £1.2 million.

    So even the Tory majority that gave us the referendum was dodgy.
    Nah.

    It was down to the awesome of Dave and George.

    Jim Messina/Facebook played an inconsequential role.

    The Tory general election strategy for years was based based on

    1) Dave's leadership/Ed M never looking Prime Ministerial

    2) The long term economic plan

    The third campaign line came at the very last moment (Ed Miliband would stab the country in the back like he did with his brother so he'll go into coalition with the SNP)
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 39,676
    I think this affair has more implications for data security, Facebook and Cambridge Analytics than political campaigns themselves as such, see the big fall in the Facebook share price.
  • So Facebook's going to go the way of MySpace?

    Whatever happened to Tom?
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 4,273
    HYUFD said:

    See the big fall in the Facebook share price.

    Boo, and indeed, hoo for them.
  • JonathanDJonathanD Posts: 2,064
    Tusk is a class act.
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 660

    During the 2015 general election campaign here's how much the Tories and Labour spent on Facebook ads.

    Labour £16.5k

    Tories £1.2 million.

    So even the Tory majority that gave us the referendum was dodgy.
    The Tory general election strategy for years was based based on

    1) Dave's leadership/Ed M never looking Prime Ministerial

    2) The long term economic plan

    The third campaign line came at the very last moment (Ed Miliband would stab the country in the back like he did with his brother so he'll go into coalition with the SNP)
    That 3rd campaign line was a good one!

    Think it was a useful one this time as well. Next time I'm not so sure....
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 43,050

    So Facebook's going to go the way of MySpace?

    Whatever happened to Tom?

    Living an anonymous but completely minted life.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 41,900
    Meanwhile, in incredibly stupid news (F1 edition):
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 39,676
    edited March 21

    During the 2015 general election campaign here's how much the Tories and Labour spent on Facebook ads.

    Labour £16.5k

    Tories £1.2 million.

    So even the Tory majority that gave us the referendum was dodgy.
    Nah.

    It was down to the awesome of Dave and George.

    Jim Messina/Facebook played an inconsequential role.

    The Tory general election strategy for years was based based on

    1) Dave's leadership/Ed M never looking Prime Ministerial

    2) The long term economic plan

    The third campaign line came at the very last moment (Ed Miliband would stab the country in the back like he did with his brother so he'll go into coalition with the SNP)
    A pivotal part of it was also the EU referendum promise which enabled the Tories to pick up LD votes in the Southwest without losing large numbers of voters to UKIP. However while that enabled the Tory majority it also signed Cameron and Osborne's death warrant ironically.

    Had there been another hung parliament with the Tories largest party and the LDs holding a few more of their West Country seats in 2015 there would have been no EU referendum and Cameron would likely still be PM and Osborne would still be Chancellor
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 13,669



    No shit Sherlock. If it was going to be all wrapped up in a pretty ribbon already then we wouldn't need a transition period.

    The key point though is we will have left. Are you still thinking we won't?

    I still think we won't. The political logic for a second referendum is overwhelming.
    I think the grounds for a second referendum are superb. However the mechanics for getting there (the political logic) is less clear or shall we say certain.

    It would need Corbyn (or his replacement!) to commit to it as a necessary first step. LDs and SNP would of course be pro, but we can be sure that the Tory whip and DUP would be against.
    I don't see the mechanics that way. The two most important factors are which side of the bed Theresa May gets out of, and whether the Article 50 deal has a majority in the House of Commons.
    No, the mechanics are far, far more complicated than that.

    To get a second referendum, you need an Act of Parliament. That cannot simply be rammed through in a few days, not least because the Lords, where the government doesn't have a majority, almost certainly wouldn't allow it but also because there are important battles to be fought as part of the parliamentary process which will tip the scales one way or the other in a future campaign. Tim Shipman's All out War has a good chapter on four key victories that Leave won during the passage of the Act that provided for the 2016 vote. In reality, you can expect a bill to take at least a month to be passed.

    The electoral Commission will then need to give official designations to the 'Yes' and 'No' cmapaigns - or whatever the answers on the ballot are - for which the campaigns will need to exist and have reasonable time to form and put their case for designation. give it at least another month.

    On top of that, you'd have a minimum of a month for the campaign and also a reasonable lead-in time. You'd also need time on the far side of the referendum to deal with the fall out of whatever the decision was.

    In theory, that means a bill could be introduced this Autumn but that's cutting every stage to the bone, as well as assuming that there's something in place to hold a referendum on. In reality, a referendum bill would probably have to be introduced well before the Summer recess, which would not only conflict with the negotiations but which is a deadline rapidly looming.

    Short of an extension to A50 being agreed in advance, I don't see the timetable as viable.

    but the biggest political problem for those who want a 2nd referendum is that neither the Tory nor labour leadership wants one now. By the time that either might, it'll be too late.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 14,430

    So Facebook's going to go the way of MySpace?

    Whatever happened to Tom?

    It would he a great shame for many millions of people if Facebook failed. It has become a very important means of contact for people and no other platform comes close to matching it.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 17,860

    Meanwhile, in incredibly stupid news (F1 edition)

    What if there's no action? Isn't that what highlights are for?
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 7,191

    So Facebook's going to go the way of MySpace?

    Whatever happened to Tom?

    It would he a great shame for many millions of people if Facebook failed. It has become a very important means of contact for people and no other platform comes close to matching it.
    Something will rise in its ashes
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 13,179
    JonathanD said:

    Tusk is a class act.
    In the meeting in Russia today only Venezeula and Serbia backed Putin's position. Very embarrassing for them but of course they can rely on comrade Corbyn here in the UK
  • PClippPClipp Posts: 1,467

    During the 2015 general election campaign here's how much the Tories and Labour spent on Facebook ads.

    Labour £16.5k

    Tories £1.2 million.

    So even the Tory majority that gave us the referendum was dodgy.

    During the 2015 general election campaign here's how much the Tories and Labour spent on Facebook ads.

    Labour £16.5k

    Tories £1.2 million.

    So even the Tory majority that gave us the referendum was dodgy.
    Decidedly, Mr Glenn. Some people would even class the 2015 government as illegitimate on the basis of it. And the subsequent 2017 government, of course, and the Referendum.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 13,179

    So Facebook's going to go the way of MySpace?

    Whatever happened to Tom?

    It would he a great shame for many millions of people if Facebook failed. It has become a very important means of contact for people and no other platform comes close to matching it.
    Believe there is a class action about to take place in the US from existing shareholders
  • Pulpstar said:

    So Facebook's going to go the way of MySpace?

    Whatever happened to Tom?

    Living an anonymous but completely minted life.
    Just googled to see what he is up to.

    Long before Facebook and Instagram took over the world, there was another social network that hooked millions of teenagers around the world – Myspace! And avid users of the site will have fond memories of their very first friend, Myspace Tom, whose profile appeared in everyone's top eight.

    Tom Anderson was the co-founder of the social networking site, but sold the business to News Corp for a huge $580million (around £408million) in 2005, before retiring in 2009. But what has he been up to since?

    Well, the 47-year-old lives in Hawaii and appears to be leading an amazing life as a travel photographer, exploring the world and sharing his beautiful snaps from exotic destinations such as Thailand, Bhutan and the Maldives on his Instagram and Twitter accounts.

    Named @myspacetom, the entrepreneur doesn't have quite as many followers as he did in his Myspace days, but does have an impressive 617,000 fans admiring his impressive photography.



    https://www.hellomagazine.com/travel/2018012645793/tom-myspace-founder-travel-photographer/
  • Torby_FennelTorby_Fennel Posts: 190
    I'm an enthusiastic user of both Facebook and Instagram and I quite simply couldn't care less about this story. Surely any sensible Facebook user with any sense knows how the company operates and, therefore, choosing how and if to interact with any of the features there is a personal choice.

    This story has not, as of yet, attracted any comments at all from any of my Facebook friends either (and a lot of them do comment frequently on other political stories)... it's not a very representative sample, I admit, I'm only talking about 79 people including myself... Still, I find it fascinating that people are getting whipped up into a frenzy here yet I've not seen even a ripple of concern in my Facebook feed where people might actually be affected.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 41,900
    Mr. Glenn, well, quite. Excepting the first lap, it's not possible to predict when action will be. Strategy screw-ups, sudden rain, crashes, passing don't happen to schedule.

    They should compromise. Brundle doesn't do the pause for a lap, and Croft doesn't speak for the entire race weekend.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 17,860

    No, the mechanics are far, far more complicated than that.

    To get a second referendum, you need an Act of Parliament. That cannot simply be rammed through in a few days, not least because the Lords, where the government doesn't have a majority, almost certainly wouldn't allow it but also because there are important battles to be fought as part of the parliamentary process which will tip the scales one way or the other in a future campaign. Tim Shipman's All out War has a good chapter on four key victories that Leave won during the passage of the Act that provided for the 2016 vote. In reality, you can expect a bill to take at least a month to be passed.

    The electoral Commission will then need to give official designations to the 'Yes' and 'No' cmapaigns - or whatever the answers on the ballot are - for which the campaigns will need to exist and have reasonable time to form and put their case for designation. give it at least another month.

    On top of that, you'd have a minimum of a month for the campaign and also a reasonable lead-in time. You'd also need time on the far side of the referendum to deal with the fall out of whatever the decision was.

    In theory, that means a bill could be introduced this Autumn but that's cutting every stage to the bone, as well as assuming that there's something in place to hold a referendum on. In reality, a referendum bill would probably have to be introduced well before the Summer recess, which would not only conflict with the negotiations but which is a deadline rapidly looming.

    Short of an extension to A50 being agreed in advance, I don't see the timetable as viable.

    but the biggest political problem for those who want a 2nd referendum is that neither the Tory nor labour leadership wants one now. By the time that either might, it'll be too late.

    The Lords would not hold up a second referendum if the Commons voted for it - there'd be a big majority and you could justify using the fast-track process - especially since it would essentially just replicate the legislation for the 2016 referendum.

    I think it's one of those things like calling an election in the middle of a parliament under the FTPA that sounds prohibitively difficult on paper, but in practice, once a decision has been made, the momentum carries it through in no time.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 14,430

    So Facebook's going to go the way of MySpace?

    Whatever happened to Tom?

    It would he a great shame for many millions of people if Facebook failed. It has become a very important means of contact for people and no other platform comes close to matching it.
    Something will rise in its ashes
    Of course but in the meantime it causes vast amounts of hassle for vast numbers of people. Facebook has managed to do a very important thing that no other social media platform has done which is to bridge the age divide. Kids might say it is no longer cool because their parents and grandparents use it but that is a hugely important attribute.

    If Facebook does tall then it will take years to get many of those people back onto social media.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 64,284
    edited March 21
    @steve_hawkes: Just as Labour tries to clinch key London boroughs

  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 18,108
    edited March 21
    The public don't seem to be terribly fussed about on-line privacy; if they were, they wouldn't be using Facebook in the first place. What's more, it's not even clear what harm they have suffered as a result of the alleged illegal activity: if you use Facebook, you get targeted ads. That's kinda the idea, right? I wouldn't touch it with a bargepole personally, but billions of people seem cool with it.

    So I think Mike is right: there's no obvious 'gotcha' here, for now at least, and he's also right that there is a large dose of anti-Trump and possibly anti-Brexit motivation in this.

    What is more likely to be significant is tightening up of regulations both in the US and here, so that the use of advanced techniques using Facebook data in future elections is likely to be much more difficult. At the moment, in the UK, Momentum probably has harvested the most data, along with Aaron Banks. The legal status of that data could be interesting.
  • Mr. Glenn, well, quite. Excepting the first lap, it's not possible to predict when action will be. Strategy screw-ups, sudden rain, crashes, passing don't happen to schedule.

    They should compromise. Brundle doesn't do the pause for a lap, and Croft doesn't speak for the entire race weekend.

    Leave Crofty alone
  • The public don't seem to be terribly fussed about on-line privacy; if they were, they wouldn't be using Facebook in the first place. What's more, it's not even clear what harm they have suffered as a result of the alleged illegal activity: if you use Facebook, you get targeted ads. That's kinda the idea, right? I wouldn't touch it with a bargepole personally, but billions of people seem cool with it.

    So I think Mike is right: there's no obvious 'gotcha' here, for now at least, and he's also right that there is a large dose of anti-Trump and possibly anti-Brexit motivation in this.

    What is more likely to be significant is tightening up of regulations both in the US and here, so that the use of advanced techniques on Facebook data in the future is likely to be much more difficult. At the moment, in the UK, Momentum probably has harvested the most data, along with Aaron Banks. The legal status of that data could be interesting.

    If UKIP do go mammary glands up, it'll be interesting if they try and sell on the UKIP database, and who owns it now.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 13,179

    I'm an enthusiastic user of both Facebook and Instagram and I quite simply couldn't care less about this story. Surely any sensible Facebook user with any sense knows how the company operates and, therefore, choosing how and if to interact with any of the features there is a personal choice.

    This story has not, as of yet, attracted any comments at all from any of my Facebook friends either (and a lot of them do comment frequently on other political stories)... it's not a very representative sample, I admit, I'm only talking about 79 people including myself... Still, I find it fascinating that people are getting whipped up into a frenzy here yet I've not seen even a ripple of concern in my Facebook feed where people might actually be affected.

    Nor have my wife or I
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 39,676

    No, the mechanics are far, far more complicated than that.

    To get a second referendum, you need an Act of Parliament. That cannot simply be rammed through in a few days, not least because the Lords, where the government doesn't have a majority, almost certainly wouldn't allow it but also because there are important battles to be fought as part of the parliamentary process which will tip the scales one way or the other in a future campaign. Tim Shipman's All out War has a good chapter on four key victories that Leave won during the passage of the Act that provided for the 2016 vote. In reality, you can expect a bill to take at least a month to be passed.

    The electoral Commission will then need to give official designations to the 'Yes' and 'No' cmapaigns - or whatever the answers on the ballot are - for which the campaigns will need to exist and have reasonable time to form and put their case for designation. give it at least another month.

    On top of that, you'd have a minimum of a month for the campaign and also a reasonable lead-in time. You'd also need time on the far side of the referendum to deal with the fall out of whatever the decision was.

    In theory, that means a bill could be introduced this Autumn but that's cutting every stage to the bone, as well as assuming that there's something in place to hold a referendum on. In reality, a referendum bill would probably have to be introduced well before the Summer recess, which would not only conflict with the negotiations but which is a deadline rapidly looming.

    Short of an extension to A50 being agreed in advance, I don't see the timetable as viable.

    but the biggest political problem for those who want a 2nd referendum is that neither the Tory nor labour leadership wants one now. By the time that either might, it'll be too late.

    The Lords would not hold up a second referendum if the Commons voted for it - there'd be a big majority and you could justify using the fast-track process - especially since it would essentially just replicate the legislation for the 2016 referendum.

    I think it's one of those things like calling an election in the middle of a parliament under the FTPA that sounds prohibitively difficult on paper, but in practice, once a decision has been made, the momentum carries it through in no time.
    But the Commons aren't going to vote for it. Certainly not the vast majority of Tory MPs, the DUP and Labour Leavers like Field and Hoey so until there is a Labour + LD +SNP + Plaid +Green majority in Parliament talk of a second EU referendum is irrelevant, same as talk of staying in the single market
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 27,476
    edited March 21

    So Facebook's going to go the way of MySpace?

    Whatever happened to Tom?

    He has become a photographer....he travels the world taking very arty photos for Instagram.

    https://www.instagram.com/myspacetom

    https://www.architecturaldigest.com/story/myspace-tom-now-taking-stunning-photos-around-the-globe

    Basically he has become like lots of people want to be, an Instagram star :-)
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 13,179

    No, the mechanics are far, far more complicated than that.

    To get a second referendum, you need an Act of Parliament. That cannot simply be rammed through in a few days, not least because the Lords, where the government doesn't have a majority, almost certainly wouldn't allow it but also because there are important battles to be fought as part of the parliamentary process which will tip the scales one way or the other in a future campaign. Tim Shipman's All out War has a good chapter on four key victories that Leave won during the passage of the Act that provided for the 2016 vote. In reality, you can expect a bill to take at least a month to be passed.

    The electoral Commission will then need to give official designations to the 'Yes' and 'No' cmapaigns - or whatever the answers on the ballot are - for which the campaigns will need to exist and have reasonable time to form and put their case for designation. give it at least another month.

    On top of that, you'd have a minimum of a month for the campaign and also a reasonable lead-in time. You'd also need time on the far side of the referendum to deal with the fall out of whatever the decision was.

    In theory, that means a bill could be introduced this Autumn but that's cutting every stage to the bone, as well as assuming that there's something in place to hold a referendum on. In reality, a referendum bill would probably have to be introduced well before the Summer recess, which would not only conflict with the negotiations but which is a deadline rapidly looming.

    Short of an extension to A50 being agreed in advance, I don't see the timetable as viable.

    but the biggest political problem for those who want a 2nd referendum is that neither the Tory nor labour leadership wants one now. By the time that either might, it'll be too late.

    The Lords would not hold up a second referendum if the Commons voted for it - there'd be a big majority and you could justify using the fast-track process - especially since it would essentially just replicate the legislation for the 2016 referendum.

    I think it's one of those things like calling an election in the middle of a parliament under the FTPA that sounds prohibitively difficult on paper, but in practice, once a decision has been made, the momentum carries it through in no time.
    Grasping at straws comes to mind
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 39,676

    @steve_hawkes: Just as Labour tries to clinch key London boroughs

    Bang goes Barnet!
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 17,465

    The public don't seem to be terribly fussed about on-line privacy; if they were, they wouldn't be using Facebook in the first place. What's more, it's not even clear what harm they have suffered as a result of the alleged illegal activity: if you use Facebook, you get targeted ads. That's kinda the idea, right? I wouldn't touch it with a bargepole personally, but billions of people seem cool with it.

    So I think Mike is right: there's no obvious 'gotcha' here, for now at least, and he's also right that there is a large dose of anti-Trump and possibly anti-Brexit motivation in this.

    What is more likely to be significant is tightening up of regulations both in the US and here, so that the use of advanced techniques on Facebook data in the future is likely to be much more difficult. At the moment, in the UK, Momentum probably has harvested the most data, along with Aaron Banks. The legal status of that data could be interesting.

    If UKIP do go mammary glands up, it'll be interesting if they try and sell on the UKIP database, and who owns it now.
    There'll be so many copies of it having been made, it will have zero commercial value.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 27,476

    @steve_hawkes: Just as Labour tries to clinch key London boroughs

    Tourettes suffers say less sweary words a day than Ken mentions Hitler.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 17,417
    Well said Mike, I think this is a key moment in the evolution of online privacy. Facebook’s entire business model is selling data, and more and more people are now aware of how it works and how data can be used to influence opinion rather than reflect it.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 18,108

    The public don't seem to be terribly fussed about on-line privacy; if they were, they wouldn't be using Facebook in the first place. What's more, it's not even clear what harm they have suffered as a result of the alleged illegal activity: if you use Facebook, you get targeted ads. That's kinda the idea, right? I wouldn't touch it with a bargepole personally, but billions of people seem cool with it.

    So I think Mike is right: there's no obvious 'gotcha' here, for now at least, and he's also right that there is a large dose of anti-Trump and possibly anti-Brexit motivation in this.

    What is more likely to be significant is tightening up of regulations both in the US and here, so that the use of advanced techniques on Facebook data in the future is likely to be much more difficult. At the moment, in the UK, Momentum probably has harvested the most data, along with Aaron Banks. The legal status of that data could be interesting.

    If UKIP do go mammary glands up, it'll be interesting if they try and sell on the UKIP database, and who owns it now.
    I have a recollection that it's not UKIP but Aaron Banks who owns it. I might be wrong on that, though.
  • PClippPClipp Posts: 1,467

    The electoral Commission will then need to give official designations to the 'Yes' and 'No' cmapaigns - or whatever the answers on the ballot are - for which the campaigns will need to exist and have reasonable time to form and put their case for designation. give it at least another month.

    The Lords would not hold up a second referendum if the Commons voted for it - there'd be a big majority and you could justify using the fast-track process - especially since it would essentially just replicate the legislation for the 2016 referendum.
    I think it's one of those things like calling an election in the middle of a parliament under the FTPA that sounds prohibitively difficult on paper, but in practice, once a decision has been made, the momentum carries it through in no time.
    Well, I hope very much that if we do have another referendum to approve the conditions agreed by the government, the question is not determined by the Conservatives, with the two opposed camps being headed by Conservatives and the whole interpretation of the meaning of the question being decided afterwards by the Conservatives.

    The big problem is that, if people were voting against the Conservatives in the Referendum - which I think they were - who knows which fragment of the Conservative Party they were voting against?
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 17,860
    "All Stalin wanted was this barrier of East European states under his control."
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 27,476
    edited March 21
    Isn't all the Maomentum personal data of supporters passed to a private company owned by Lansman, rather than the actual political / campaigning organization.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 2,028
    This is all very well, but had Trump not been so unconventional thus attracting new support, and Hilary so adept at putting off her natural supporters, we wouldn't be hearing about CA at all. (Some may draw parallels with our last few votes).
    They have clearly developed an effective tool for electioneering.
    But it isn't a magic wand.
    The candidates still matter.
  • The public don't seem to be terribly fussed about on-line privacy; if they were, they wouldn't be using Facebook in the first place. What's more, it's not even clear what harm they have suffered as a result of the alleged illegal activity: if you use Facebook, you get targeted ads. That's kinda the idea, right? I wouldn't touch it with a bargepole personally, but billions of people seem cool with it.

    So I think Mike is right: there's no obvious 'gotcha' here, for now at least, and he's also right that there is a large dose of anti-Trump and possibly anti-Brexit motivation in this.

    What is more likely to be significant is tightening up of regulations both in the US and here, so that the use of advanced techniques on Facebook data in the future is likely to be much more difficult. At the moment, in the UK, Momentum probably has harvested the most data, along with Aaron Banks. The legal status of that data could be interesting.

    If UKIP do go mammary glands up, it'll be interesting if they try and sell on the UKIP database, and who owns it now.
    I have a recollection that it's not UKIP but Aaron Banks who owns it. I might be wrong on that, though.
    That's what I thought too, but can't seem to find evidence to confirm it.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 13,179
    dixiedean said:

    This is all very well, but had Trump not been so unconventional thus attracting new support, and Hilary so adept at putting off her natural supporters, we wouldn't be hearing about CA at all. (Some may draw parallels with our last few votes).
    They have clearly developed an effective tool for electioneering.
    But it isn't a magic wand.
    The candidates still matter.

    Absolutely
  • MJWMJW Posts: 294
    It pains me to say it, as someone who thinks Brexit will be a very bad thing for the country, but there's a much better case that CA swung the election for Trump than swung Brexit. Trump's victory was delivered by tens of thousands of votes in key counties. It's easy to see how a firm could have swung it by targeting key voters with dubious tactics - i.e. depressing African American turnout by pushing nasty stuff about Clinton. Even, if CA did provide advice to Russia, as has been alleged, malicious falsehoods. Obviously there were far bigger factors - the Comet letter, the absurd coverage of the emails for almost a year, Clinton's own failings, but the alleged malfeasance may still be a tipping point.

    Brexit, the gap was wider and across the whole nation. You can't have the same effect. What it may do, however, is add to the bad smell around the leave campaign that's grown since the referendum. Then, if/when we end up in a bad place on the deal, it will provide an additional justification for arguing we should be allowed to have a rethink, as the campaign bore no relation to the reality. But no more, really, than it was a stupid idea by Cameron to frame the referendum in a way that allowed different groups of leavers to promise contradictory and impossible things, while others reassured waverers nothing would change.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 43,050
    dixiedean said:

    This is all very well, but had Trump not been so unconventional thus attracting new support, and Hilary so adept at putting off her natural supporters, we wouldn't be hearing about CA at all. (Some may draw parallels with our last few votes).
    They have clearly developed an effective tool for electioneering.
    But it isn't a magic wand.
    The candidates still matter.

    I think the recent special elections have shown there is no inherent anti-Democrat bias amongst suburban USA in the 'middle states'.
    More an anti-Hilary bias...
  • Torby_FennelTorby_Fennel Posts: 190



    Nor have my wife or I

    Interesting isn't it? The people most angry about it are the people who already distrust social media to begin with and wouldn't ever use it. Those of us who do use and enjoy social media had already priced in these possibilities and accepted them. Frankly anyone who post up stuff on social media that they wouldn't be willing to make known in real life is a bit daft to begin with.

  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 17,417

    Isn't all the Maomentum personal data of supporters passed to a private company owned by Lansman, rather than the actual political / campaigning organization.

    Yes, Jeremy for Labour Ltd.
    https://www.duedil.com/company/gb/09655767/jeremy-for-labour-limited
    Formerly Momentum Campaign Ltd
    https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/momentum_uk_578e4b4ee4b019ee5fd89ee0
    One director, Jon Lansman.
  • chrisoxonchrisoxon Posts: 204

    The public don't seem to be terribly fussed about on-line privacy; if they were, they wouldn't be using Facebook in the first place. What's more, it's not even clear what harm they have suffered as a result of the alleged illegal activity: if you use Facebook, you get targeted ads. That's kinda the idea, right? I wouldn't touch it with a bargepole personally, but billions of people seem cool with it.

    So I think Mike is right: there's no obvious 'gotcha' here, for now at least, and he's also right that there is a large dose of anti-Trump and possibly anti-Brexit motivation in this.

    What is more likely to be significant is tightening up of regulations both in the US and here, so that the use of advanced techniques on Facebook data in the future is likely to be much more difficult. At the moment, in the UK, Momentum probably has harvested the most data, along with Aaron Banks. The legal status of that data could be interesting.

    If UKIP do go mammary glands up, it'll be interesting if they try and sell on the UKIP database, and who owns it now.
    I have a recollection that it's not UKIP but Aaron Banks who owns it. I might be wrong on that, though.
    That's what I thought too, but can't seem to find evidence to confirm it.
    The Data Protection Act and incoming GDPR means that who owns the data is not the most important element of this equation. What matters is how data subjects have consented for their data to be used. You can't legally sell data to third parties without permission and you can't use data for purposes that they have not consented to.

    This is bread and butter stuff for the ICO...
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 17,417
    Pulpstar said:

    dixiedean said:

    This is all very well, but had Trump not been so unconventional thus attracting new support, and Hilary so adept at putting off her natural supporters, we wouldn't be hearing about CA at all. (Some may draw parallels with our last few votes).
    They have clearly developed an effective tool for electioneering.
    But it isn't a magic wand.
    The candidates still matter.

    I think the recent special elections have shown there is no inherent anti-Democrat bias amongst suburban USA in the 'middle states'.
    More an anti-Hilary bias...
    Indeed. And yet the Democrats look like they’re going to make the same mistake again and pick someone who will run up massive majorities in NY and CA by talking about social issues, when Trump will be talking about jobs in the swing states.
  • oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 3,545

    "All Stalin wanted was this barrier of East European states under his control."
    He really is an odious little sh!t isn't he?

    A stain on our political system
  • oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 3,545
    chrisoxon said:

    The public don't seem to be terribly fussed about on-line privacy; if they were, they wouldn't be using Facebook in the first place. What's more, it's not even clear what harm they have suffered as a result of the alleged illegal activity: if you use Facebook, you get targeted ads. That's kinda the idea, right? I wouldn't touch it with a bargepole personally, but billions of people seem cool with it.

    So I think Mike is right: there's no obvious 'gotcha' here, for now at least, and he's also right that there is a large dose of anti-Trump and possibly anti-Brexit motivation in this.

    What is more likely to be significant is tightening up of regulations both in the US and here, so that the use of advanced techniques on Facebook data in the future is likely to be much more difficult. At the moment, in the UK, Momentum probably has harvested the most data, along with Aaron Banks. The legal status of that data could be interesting.

    If UKIP do go mammary glands up, it'll be interesting if they try and sell on the UKIP database, and who owns it now.
    I have a recollection that it's not UKIP but Aaron Banks who owns it. I might be wrong on that, though.
    That's what I thought too, but can't seem to find evidence to confirm it.
    The Data Protection Act and incoming GDPR means that who owns the data is not the most important element of this equation. What matters is how data subjects have consented for their data to be used. You can't legally sell data to third parties without permission and you can't use data for purposes that they have not consented to.

    This is bread and butter stuff for the ICO...
    The GDPR is causing a lot of headaches for all sorts of people. Very few non-professionals know how it is really supposed to operate so that they can stay within the law. It will take time to settle in - that is for sure.

    And by the time any data breach has happened, the damage is done. So rogue elements will always exploit data.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 39,676
    edited March 21
    Sandpit said:

    Pulpstar said:

    dixiedean said:

    This is all very well, but had Trump not been so unconventional thus attracting new support, and Hilary so adept at putting off her natural supporters, we wouldn't be hearing about CA at all. (Some may draw parallels with our last few votes).
    They have clearly developed an effective tool for electioneering.
    But it isn't a magic wand.
    The candidates still matter.

    I think the recent special elections have shown there is no inherent anti-Democrat bias amongst suburban USA in the 'middle states'.
    More an anti-Hilary bias...
    Indeed. And yet the Democrats look like they’re going to make the same mistake again and pick someone who will run up massive majorities in NY and CA by talking about social issues, when Trump will be talking about jobs in the swing states.
    Not at the moment, Biden and Sanders lead current Democratic primary polls.

    If they pick Warren or Harris maybe
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 7,191

    chrisoxon said:

    The public don't seem to be terribly fussed about on-line privacy; if they were, they wouldn't be using Facebook in the first place. What's more, it's not even clear what harm they have suffered as a result of the alleged illegal activity: if you use Facebook, you get targeted ads. That's kinda the idea, right? I wouldn't touch it with a bargepole personally, but billions of people seem cool with it.

    So I think Mike is right: there's no obvious 'gotcha' here, for now at least, and he's also right that there is a large dose of anti-Trump and possibly anti-Brexit motivation in this.

    What is more likely to be significant is tightening up of regulations both in the US and here, so that the use of advanced techniques on Facebook data in the future is likely to be much more difficult. At the moment, in the UK, Momentum probably has harvested the most data, along with Aaron Banks. The legal status of that data could be interesting.

    If UKIP do go mammary glands up, it'll be interesting if they try and sell on the UKIP database, and who owns it now.
    I have a recollection that it's not UKIP but Aaron Banks who owns it. I might be wrong on that, though.
    That's what I thought too, but can't seem to find evidence to confirm it.
    The Data Protection Act and incoming GDPR means that who owns the data is not the most important element of this equation. What matters is how data subjects have consented for their data to be used. You can't legally sell data to third parties without permission and you can't use data for purposes that they have not consented to.

    This is bread and butter stuff for the ICO...
    The GDPR is causing a lot of headaches for all sorts of people. Very few non-professionals know how it is really supposed to operate so that they can stay within the law. It will take time to settle in - that is for sure.

    And by the time any data breach has happened, the damage is done. So rogue elements will always exploit data.
    The existing DPA put business on notice of what they needed to do, but it encouraged a "think about it then forget it" mentality, which will now have to change
  • MJWMJW Posts: 294

    I'm an enthusiastic user of both Facebook and Instagram and I quite simply couldn't care less about this story. Surely any sensible Facebook user with any sense knows how the company operates and, therefore, choosing how and if to interact with any of the features there is a personal choice.

    This story has not, as of yet, attracted any comments at all from any of my Facebook friends either (and a lot of them do comment frequently on other political stories)... it's not a very representative sample, I admit, I'm only talking about 79 people including myself... Still, I find it fascinating that people are getting whipped up into a frenzy here yet I've not seen even a ripple of concern in my Facebook feed where people might actually be affected.

    Nor have my wife or I
    The problem is that it wasn't. The 50 million profiles harvested were not just from people who clicked on the personality quiz app but anyone who was friends with them. So many will have been profiled involuntarily. Facebook also takes data from any site which is linked to the platform. So, if you've read a story you read on a website, the company knows. The scandal is that Facebook totally failed to police a company that utilised its platform to grab data, meaning that they did no proper checks as to how the data was being used. It's potentially huge, because although CA has understandably made headlines due to the political implications, It's more about the fact Facebook were apparently utterly negligent in their procedures. Which means there's a lot more to come, not necessarily about CA but about whether Facebook allowed masses of dodgy companies to spy on their users with almost no safeguards as to what they then did. And, for a period, roughly from 2010 to 2014 that also included stuff given entirely unknowingly.
  • chrisoxonchrisoxon Posts: 204

    chrisoxon said:

    The public don't seem to be terribly fussed about on-line privacy; if they were, they wouldn't be using Facebook in the first place. What's more, it's not even clear what harm they have suffered as a result of the alleged illegal activity: if you use Facebook, you get targeted ads. That's kinda the idea, right? I wouldn't touch it with a bargepole personally, but billions of people seem cool with it.

    So I think Mike is right: there's no obvious 'gotcha' here, for now at least, and he's also right that there is a large dose of anti-Trump and possibly anti-Brexit motivation in this.

    What is more likely to be significant is tightening up of regulations both in the US and here, so that the use of advanced techniques on Facebook data in the future is likely to be much more difficult. At the moment, in the UK, Momentum probably has harvested the most data, along with Aaron Banks. The legal status of that data could be interesting.

    If UKIP do go mammary glands up, it'll be interesting if they try and sell on the UKIP database, and who owns it now.
    I have a recollection that it's not UKIP but Aaron Banks who owns it. I might be wrong on that, though.
    That's what I thought too, but can't seem to find evidence to confirm it.
    The Data Protection Act and incoming GDPR means that who owns the data is not the most important element of this equation. What matters is how data subjects have consented for their data to be used. You can't legally sell data to third parties without permission and you can't use data for purposes that they have not consented to.

    This is bread and butter stuff for the ICO...
    The GDPR is causing a lot of headaches for all sorts of people. Very few non-professionals know how it is really supposed to operate so that they can stay within the law. It will take time to settle in - that is for sure.

    And by the time any data breach has happened, the damage is done. So rogue elements will always exploit data.
    Yes, it's a nightmare. However, much of what has been discussed upthread (selling UKIPs data) would be illegal under current data provisions.

    Admittedly enforcement happens after the breach, but no political actor is going to want to buy data which is going to see them compared to CA in a heartbeat.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 13,179



    Nor have my wife or I

    Interesting isn't it? The people most angry about it are the people who already distrust social media to begin with and wouldn't ever use it. Those of us who do use and enjoy social media had already priced in these possibilities and accepted them. Frankly anyone who post up stuff on social media that they wouldn't be willing to make known in real life is a bit daft to begin with.

    Spot on
  • Rexel56Rexel56 Posts: 569
    Facebook is not the story here, it’s the alleged fabrication of negative material on opponents through entrapment to provoke fears and change behaviours. The targeting of the resultant material using Facebook data is secondary.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 23,570
    Fair article by OGH.

    FWIW, I’m not sure I particularly like Cambridge Analytica or its CEO but I suspect this is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to shady data mining.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 13,179
    MJW said:

    I'm an enthusiastic user of both Facebook and Instagram and I quite simply couldn't care less about this story. Surely any sensible Facebook user with any sense knows how the company operates and, therefore, choosing how and if to interact with any of the features there is a personal choice.

    This story has not, as of yet, attracted any comments at all from any of my Facebook friends either (and a lot of them do comment frequently on other political stories)... it's not a very representative sample, I admit, I'm only talking about 79 people including myself... Still, I find it fascinating that people are getting whipped up into a frenzy here yet I've not seen even a ripple of concern in my Facebook feed where people might actually be affected.

    Nor have my wife or I
    The problem is that it wasn't. The 50 million profiles harvested were not just from people who clicked on the personality quiz app but anyone who was friends with them. So many will have been profiled involuntarily. Facebook also takes data from any site which is linked to the platform. So, if you've read a story you read on a website, the company knows. The scandal is that Facebook totally failed to police a company that utilised its platform to grab data, meaning that they did no proper checks as to how the data was being used. It's potentially huge, because although CA has understandably made headlines due to the political implications, It's more about the fact Facebook were apparently utterly negligent in their procedures. Which means there's a lot more to come, not necessarily about CA but about whether Facebook allowed masses of dodgy companies to spy on their users with almost no safeguards as to what they then did. And, for a period, roughly from 2010 to 2014 that also included stuff given entirely unknowingly.
    I simply cannot get exercised by this
  • John_MJohn_M Posts: 6,466
    Facebook knows I like dogs. Twitter probably knows a lot more, but tbh, I don't gaf.
  • oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 3,545
    chrisoxon said:

    chrisoxon said:

    The public don't seem to be terribly fussed about on-line privacy; if they were, they wouldn't be using Facebook in the first place. What's more, it's not even clear what harm they have suffered as a result of the alleged illegal activity: if you use Facebook, you get targeted ads. That's kinda the idea, right? I wouldn't touch it with a bargepole personally, but billions of people seem cool with it.

    So I think Mike is right: there's no obvious 'gotcha' here, for now at least, and he's also right that there is a large dose of anti-Trump and possibly anti-Brexit motivation in this.

    What is more likely to be significant is tightening up of regulations both in the US and here, so that the use of advanced techniques on Facebook data in the future is likely to be much more difficult. At the moment, in the UK, Momentum probably has harvested the most data, along with Aaron Banks. The legal status of that data could be interesting.

    If UKIP do go mammary glands up, it'll be interesting if they try and sell on the UKIP database, and who owns it now.
    I have a recollection that it's not UKIP but Aaron Banks who owns it. I might be wrong on that, though.
    That's what I thought too, but can't seem to find evidence to confirm it.
    The Data Protection Act and incoming GDPR means that who owns the data is not the most important element of this equation. What matters is how data subjects have consented for their data to be used. You can't legally sell data to third parties without permission and you can't use data for purposes that they have not consented to.

    This is bread and butter stuff for the ICO...
    The GDPR is causing a lot of headaches for all sorts of people. Very few non-professionals know how it is really supposed to operate so that they can stay within the law. It will take time to settle in - that is for sure.

    And by the time any data breach has happened, the damage is done. So rogue elements will always exploit data.
    Yes, it's a nightmare. However, much of what has been discussed upthread (selling UKIPs data) would be illegal under current data provisions.

    Admittedly enforcement happens after the breach, but no political actor is going to want to buy data which is going to see them compared to CA in a heartbeat.
    But you don't need to buy it - you just need access to it...
  • ReggieCideReggieCide Posts: 2,631
    John_M said:

    Facebook knows I like dogs. Twitter probably knows a lot more, but tbh, I don't gaf.

    "dogs" is a bit unfortunate!
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 23,570
    After you were vociferously defending Juncker yesterday for his totally ‘different’ tone.

    Lord Haw Haw strikes again.
  • ReggieCideReggieCide Posts: 2,631

    chrisoxon said:

    chrisoxon said:

    The public don't seem to be terribly fussed about on-line privacy; if they were, they wouldn't be using Facebook in the first place. What's more, it's not even clear what harm they have suffered as a result of the alleged illegal activity: if you use Facebook, you get targeted ads. That's kinda the idea, right? I wouldn't touch it with a bargepole personally, but billions of people seem cool with it.

    So I think Mike is right: there's no obvious 'gotcha' here, for now at least, and he's also right that there is a large dose of anti-Trump and possibly anti-Brexit motivation in this.

    What is more likely to be significant is tightening up of regulations both in the US and here, so that the use of advanced techniques on Facebook data in the future is likely to be much more difficult. At the moment, in the UK, Momentum probably has harvested the most data, along with Aaron Banks. The legal status of that data could be interesting.

    If UKIP do go mammary glands up, it'll be interesting if they try and sell on the UKIP database, and who owns it now.
    I have a recollection that it's not UKIP but Aaron Banks who owns it. I might be wrong on that, though.
    That's what I thought too, but can't seem to find evidence to confirm it.
    The Data Protection Act and incoming GDPR means that who owns the data is not the most important element of this equation. What matters is how data subjects have consented for their data to be used. You can't legally sell data to third parties without permission and you can't use data for purposes that they have not consented to.

    This is bread and butter stuff for the ICO...
    The GDPR is causing a lot of headaches for all sorts of people. Very few non-professionals know how it is really supposed to operate so that they can stay within the law. It will take time to settle in - that is for sure.

    And by the time any data breach has happened, the damage is done. So rogue elements will always exploit data.
    Yes, it's a nightmare. However, much of what has been discussed upthread (selling UKIPs data) would be illegal under current data provisions.

    Admittedly enforcement happens after the breach, but no political actor is going to want to buy data which is going to see them compared to CA in a heartbeat.
    But you don't need to buy it - you just need access to it...
    and not get caught
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 17,860

    After you were vociferously defending Juncker yesterday for his totally ‘different’ tone.

    Lord Haw Haw strikes again.
    The good cop is not on the side of the criminal...
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 23,570
    HYUFD said:

    During the 2015 general election campaign here's how much the Tories and Labour spent on Facebook ads.

    Labour £16.5k

    Tories £1.2 million.

    So even the Tory majority that gave us the referendum was dodgy.
    Nah.

    It was down to the awesome of Dave and George.

    Jim Messina/Facebook played an inconsequential role.

    The Tory general election strategy for years was based based on

    1) Dave's leadership/Ed M never looking Prime Ministerial

    2) The long term economic plan

    The third campaign line came at the very last moment (Ed Miliband would stab the country in the back like he did with his brother so he'll go into coalition with the SNP)
    A pivotal part of it was also the EU referendum promise which enabled the Tories to pick up LD votes in the Southwest without losing large numbers of voters to UKIP. However while that enabled the Tory majority it also signed Cameron and Osborne's death warrant ironically.

    Had there been another hung parliament with the Tories largest party and the LDs holding a few more of their West Country seats in 2015 there would have been no EU referendum and Cameron would likely still be PM and Osborne would still be Chancellor
    Wrong. There still would have been an EU referendum but purdah would have been different and EU citizens probably would have been granted suffrage, so probably a narrow win for Remain.
  • oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 3,545

    MJW said:

    I'm an enthusiastic user of both Facebook and Instagram and I quite simply couldn't care less about this story. Surely any sensible Facebook user with any sense knows how the company operates and, therefore, choosing how and if to interact with any of the features there is a personal choice.

    This story has not, as of yet, attracted any comments at all from any of my Facebook friends either (and a lot of them do comment frequently on other political stories)... it's not a very representative sample, I admit, I'm only talking about 79 people including myself... Still, I find it fascinating that people are getting whipped up into a frenzy here yet I've not seen even a ripple of concern in my Facebook feed where people might actually be affected.

    Nor have my wife or I
    The problem is that it wasn't. The 50 million profiles harvested were not just from people who clicked on the personality quiz app but anyone who was friends with them. So many will have been profiled involuntarily. Facebook also takes data from any site which is linked to the platform. So, if you've read a story you read on a website, the company knows. The scandal is that Facebook totally failed to police a company that utilised its platform to grab data, meaning that they did no proper checks as to how the data was being used. It's potentially huge, because although CA has understandably made headlines due to the political implications, It's more about the fact Facebook were apparently utterly negligent in their procedures. Which means there's a lot more to come, not necessarily about CA but about whether Facebook allowed masses of dodgy companies to spy on their users with almost no safeguards as to what they then did. And, for a period, roughly from 2010 to 2014 that also included stuff given entirely unknowingly.
    I simply cannot get exercised by this
    Me either

    I probably should - but I can't. We are in a new age where we put so much of our life online. People will notice and use that information. It is up to us whether we choose to let them influence us. We have to take responsibility for our own choices.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 13,179

    MJW said:

    I'm an enthusiastic user of both Facebook and Instagram and I quite simply couldn't care less about this story. Surely any sensible Facebook user with any sense knows how the company operates and, therefore, choosing how and if to interact with any of the features there is a personal choice.

    This story has not, as of yet, attracted any comments at all from any of my Facebook friends either (and a lot of them do comment frequently on other political stories)... it's not a very representative sample, I admit, I'm only talking about 79 people including myself... Still, I find it fascinating that people are getting whipped up into a frenzy here yet I've not seen even a ripple of concern in my Facebook feed where people might actually be affected.

    Nor have my wife or I
    The problem is that it wasn't. The 50 million profiles harvested were not just from people who clicked on the personality quiz app but anyone who was friends with them. So many will have been profiled involuntarily. Facebook also takes data from any site which is linked to the platform. So, if you've read a story you read on a website, the company knows. The scandal is that Facebook totally failed to police a company that utilised its platform to grab data, meaning that they did no proper checks as to how the data was being used. It's potentially huge, because although CA has understandably made headlines due to the political implications, It's more about the fact Facebook were apparently utterly negligent in their procedures. Which means there's a lot more to come, not necessarily about CA but about whether Facebook allowed masses of dodgy companies to spy on their users with almost no safeguards as to what they then did. And, for a period, roughly from 2010 to 2014 that also included stuff given entirely unknowingly.
    I simply cannot get exercised by this
    Me either

    I probably should - but I can't. We are in a new age where we put so much of our life online. People will notice and use that information. It is up to us whether we choose to let them influence us. We have to take responsibility for our own choices.
    So true
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 17,860

    HYUFD said:

    During the 2015 general election campaign here's how much the Tories and Labour spent on Facebook ads.

    Labour £16.5k

    Tories £1.2 million.

    So even the Tory majority that gave us the referendum was dodgy.
    Nah.

    It was down to the awesome of Dave and George.

    Jim Messina/Facebook played an inconsequential role.

    The Tory general election strategy for years was based based on

    1) Dave's leadership/Ed M never looking Prime Ministerial

    2) The long term economic plan

    The third campaign line came at the very last moment (Ed Miliband would stab the country in the back like he did with his brother so he'll go into coalition with the SNP)
    A pivotal part of it was also the EU referendum promise which enabled the Tories to pick up LD votes in the Southwest without losing large numbers of voters to UKIP. However while that enabled the Tory majority it also signed Cameron and Osborne's death warrant ironically.

    Had there been another hung parliament with the Tories largest party and the LDs holding a few more of their West Country seats in 2015 there would have been no EU referendum and Cameron would likely still be PM and Osborne would still be Chancellor
    Wrong. There still would have been an EU referendum but purdah would have been different and EU citizens probably would have been granted suffrage, so probably a narrow win for Remain.
    Probably more significantly, Corbyn wouldn't have been Labour leader, so the Labour party machine would have been fully engaged in the Remain campaign.
  • oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 3,545
    I suspect his Polish heritage influences how he reacts to all things Russian
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 43,050

    MJW said:

    I'm an enthusiastic user of both Facebook and Instagram and I quite simply couldn't care less about this story. Surely any sensible Facebook user with any sense knows how the company operates and, therefore, choosing how and if to interact with any of the features there is a personal choice.

    This story has not, as of yet, attracted any comments at all from any of my Facebook friends either (and a lot of them do comment frequently on other political stories)... it's not a very representative sample, I admit, I'm only talking about 79 people including myself... Still, I find it fascinating that people are getting whipped up into a frenzy here yet I've not seen even a ripple of concern in my Facebook feed where people might actually be affected.

    Nor have my wife or I
    The problem is that it wasn't. The 50 million profiles harvested were not just from people who clicked on the personality quiz app but anyone who was friends with them. So many will have been profiled involuntarily. Facebook also takes data from any site which is linked to the platform. So, if you've read a story you read on a website, the company knows. The scandal is that Facebook totally failed to police a company that utilised its platform to grab data, meaning that they did no proper checks as to how the data was being used. It's potentially huge, because although CA has understandably made headlines due to the political implications, It's more about the fact Facebook were apparently utterly negligent in their procedures. Which means there's a lot more to come, not necessarily about CA but about whether Facebook allowed masses of dodgy companies to spy on their users with almost no safeguards as to what they then did. And, for a period, roughly from 2010 to 2014 that also included stuff given entirely unknowingly.
    I simply cannot get exercised by this
    Me either

    I probably should - but I can't. We are in a new age where we put so much of our life online. People will notice and use that information. It is up to us whether we choose to let them influence us. We have to take responsibility for our own choices.
    I've got some fake info up on my FB profile. The main group I know that posts fake or semi-fake profiles are my teaching friends.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 23,570

    HYUFD said:

    During the 2015 general election campaign here's how much the Tories and Labour spent on Facebook ads.

    Labour £16.5k

    Tories £1.2 million.

    So even the Tory majority that gave us the referendum was dodgy.
    Nah.

    It was down to the awesome of Dave and George.

    Jim Messina/Facebook played an inconsequential role.

    The Tory general election strategy for years was based based on

    1) Dave's leadership/Ed M never looking Prime Ministerial

    2) The long term economic plan

    The third campaign line came at the very last moment (Ed Miliband would stab the country in the back like he did with his brother so he'll go into coalition with the SNP)
    A pivotal part of it was also the EU referendum promise which enabled the Tories to pick up LD votes in the Southwest without losing large numbers of voters to UKIP. However while that enabled the Tory majority it also signed Cameron and Osborne's death warrant ironically.

    Had there been another hung parliament with the Tories largest party and the LDs holding a few more of their West Country seats in 2015 there would have been no EU referendum and Cameron would likely still be PM and Osborne would still be Chancellor
    Wrong. There still would have been an EU referendum but purdah would have been different and EU citizens probably would have been granted suffrage, so probably a narrow win for Remain.
    Probably more significantly, Corbyn wouldn't have been Labour leader, so the Labour party machine would have been fully engaged in the Remain campaign.
    That doesn’t follow. Corbyn’s election followed extreme frustration that Ed Miliband failed to win following a platform that was to the Left of Brown/Blair, but still nodded to reality on austerity and was still rejected by the electorate.

    Now, you could argue that if the LDs had been in a second coalition with the Tories in Government then there might have been a bit less frustration in the left-wing base but, personally, I don’t see it. Corbyn got over 50% of the vote and from people who despised the LDs almost as much as the Tories.

    I think they would have turned out regardless.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 1,973
    edited March 21

    MJW said:

    I'm an enthusiastic user of both Facebook and Instagram and I quite simply couldn't care less about this story. Surely any sensible Facebook user with any sense knows how the company operates and, therefore, choosing how and if to interact with any of the features there is a personal choice.

    This story has not, as of yet, attracted any comments at all from any of my Facebook friends either (and a lot of them do comment frequently on other political stories)... it's not a very representative sample, I admit, I'm only talking about 79 people including myself... Still, I find it fascinating that people are getting whipped up into a frenzy here yet I've not seen even a ripple of concern in my Facebook feed where people might actually be affected.

    Nor have my wife or I
    ed stuff given entirely unknowingly.
    I simply cannot get exercised by this
    Without being disrespectful, there may be a generation gap here.

    1. Those under 40 have spent much of their lives online, and are much more comfortable with sharing their data, after all everyone else is doing it. But - that doesn’t mean they are fair game.

    2. The ability to personalise messaging is now weapons-grade. This ain’t the advertising you grew up with.

    The problem here is manifold:

    - the improper use of data; against Facebook guidelines
    - the lack of real consent from those whose data was used (especially those whose data was sucked up because they were friends with someone who decided to do a personality survey).
    - the *weaponising* of data to provide precision-targeted communications, often to deliver fake news and messaging well outside standars political discourse
    - the unethical nature and intent of the data use, for eg discouraging turnout by minorities
    - the possible collusion with Russian social media astroturfers.

    The problem is largely CA, who seem to be thoroughly disreputable. But Facebook seem to have turned a blind eye and been totally cavalier about the whole business, and additionally seem to spend most of their time covering things up.

    Clean the stables now.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 2,726
    edited March 21
    I think there are two issues here.

    Short-term there is the issue of whether CA acted illegally in collecting personal data, possibly under false pretences, and whether Facebook was negligent in any way. Time will tell.

    A bigger long-term issue is the coming together of:

    a) availability of social media data (combined with other data)
    b) powerful data-mining technology including neural networks to pick up patterns
    c) penetrating psychological insights into the cognitive weaknesses and biases of the human mind
    d) the ability to direct personalised messages to individuals
    e) the willingness of powerful political forces to use these developments, together with a willingness to create completely false but vivid stories, to achieve their political ends.

    In a sense, none of this is new.
    a) we've collected canvass data
    b) we've done basic statistical analysis
    c) we've read "The Hidden Persuaders"
    d) we've used target letters
    e) we've used dodgy bar charts.

    What is new is the power and scale and covertness of these developments.

    Our minds are weak and susceptible enough, but we are generally able to evaluate Daily Mail headlines and LibDem bar charts, and postings on PB for what they are, without being subverted.

    The danger is we will, as a whole, lose that control and ability to unseen actors - either very wealthy individuals with an agenda or unfriendly nations.
  • ReggieCideReggieCide Posts: 2,631

    HYUFD said:

    During the 2015 general election campaign here's how much the Tories and Labour spent on Facebook ads.

    Labour £16.5k

    Tories £1.2 million.

    So even the Tory majority that gave us the referendum was dodgy.
    Nah.

    It was down to the awesome of Dave and George.

    Jim Messina/Facebook played an inconsequential role.

    The Tory general election strategy for years was based based on

    1) Dave's leadership/Ed M never looking Prime Ministerial

    2) The long term economic plan

    The third campaign line came at the very last moment (Ed Miliband would stab the country in the back like he did with his brother so he'll go into coalition with the SNP)
    A pivotal part of it was also the EU referendum promise which enabled the Tories to pick up LD votes in the Southwest without losing large numbers of voters to UKIP. However while that enabled the Tory majority it also signed Cameron and Osborne's death warrant ironically.

    Had there been another hung parliament with the Tories largest party and the LDs holding a few more of their West Country seats in 2015 there would have been no EU referendum and Cameron would likely still be PM and Osborne would still be Chancellor
    Wrong. There still would have been an EU referendum but purdah would have been different and EU citizens probably would have been granted suffrage, so probably a narrow win for Remain.
    Probably more significantly, Corbyn wouldn't have been Labour leader, so the Labour party machine would have been fully engaged in the Remain campaign.
    "what ifs" are such fun, aren't they?
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 23,570

    After you were vociferously defending Juncker yesterday for his totally ‘different’ tone.

    Lord Haw Haw strikes again.
    The good cop is not on the side of the criminal...
    That means nothing.

    You simply defend whatever any EU apparatik says or does any of the time, often with a back-handed sneer at the UK, and argue it’s the way of the enlightened.

    A TV televangelist would be embarrassed by the level of uncensored zeal you preach on the EU.
  • MJWMJW Posts: 294

    MJW said:

    I'm an enthusiastic user of both Facebook and Instagram and I quite simply couldn't care less about this story. Surely any sensible Facebook user with any sense knows how the company operates and, therefore, choosing how and if to interact with any of the features there is a personal choice.

    This story has not, as of yet, attracted any comments at all from any of my Facebook friends either (and a lot of them do comment frequently on other political stories)...

    Nor have my wife or I
    The problem is that ...
    I simply cannot get exercised by this
    Fair enough, you Don't have to. The political dimension may be the least interesting, however, it potentially undermines Facebook's business model as It's two separate but connected 'scandals'. The first is the extent to which Facebook's business model relies on allowing companies to use data to microtarget people, mainly with ads, but also insurance or credit companies to utilise its data. This affects everyone, and by and large seems harmless. In fact, It's part of Zuckerberg's spiel that It's all helpful. He used to talk about radical openness - how his mission was to get people to allow Facebook into their lives so it could help them. This was largely known, although ignored, as it was inconvenient and didn't seem too problematic. You could, as a user avoid third party apps, safe in the knowledge that while Facebook might know more than you wanted, they had policies that ensured nothing too bad would happen.

    The second scandal, which has been highlighted by CA is that Facebook was either unwilling or unable to enforce its supposed safeguards on who got their hands on it and what they did with it. Whistleblowers have said the worst companies got was a warning not to misbehave - with little or no enforcement to stop them not doing asvasked. Potentially disastrous as no one could police who a company like CA allowed access to it. That's potentially a huge breach of data laws, and I'd expect lawsuits - and the repercussions could badly undermine its business model.

  • ReggieCideReggieCide Posts: 2,631

    I suspect his Polish heritage influences how he reacts to all things Russian
    What about things German?
  • ReggieCideReggieCide Posts: 2,631
    Pulpstar said:

    MJW said:

    I'm an enthusiastic user of both Facebook and Instagram and I quite simply couldn't care less about this story. Surely any sensible Facebook user with any sense knows how the company operates and, therefore, choosing how and if to interact with any of the features there is a personal choice.

    This story has not, as of yet, attracted any comments at all from any of my Facebook friends either (and a lot of them do comment frequently on other political stories)... it's not a very representative sample, I admit, I'm only talking about 79 people including myself... Still, I find it fascinating that people are getting whipped up into a frenzy here yet I've not seen even a ripple of concern in my Facebook feed where people might actually be affected.

    Nor have my wife or I
    The problem is that it wasn't. The 50 million profiles harvested were not just from people who clicked on the personality quiz app but anyone who was friends with them. So many will have been profiled involuntarily. Facebook also takes data from any site which is linked to the platform. So, if you've read a story you read on a website, the company knows. The scandal is that Facebook totally failed to police a company that utilised its platform to grab data, meaning that they did no proper checks as to how the data was being used. It's potentially huge, because although CA has understandably made headlines due to the political implications, It's more about the fact Facebook were apparently utterly negligent in their procedures. Which means there's a lot more to come, not necessarily about CA but about whether Facebook allowed masses of dodgy companies to spy on their users with almost no safeguards as to what they then did. And, for a period, roughly from 2010 to 2014 that also included stuff given entirely unknowingly.
    I simply cannot get exercised by this
    Me either

    I probably should - but I can't. We are in a new age where we put so much of our life online. People will notice and use that information. It is up to us whether we choose to let them influence us. We have to take responsibility for our own choices.
    I've got some fake info up on my FB profile. The main group I know that posts fake or semi-fake profiles are my teaching friends.
    Oh what clever company you keep.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 1,973
    Barnesian said:

    I think there are two issues here.

    Short-term there is the issue of whether CA acted illegally in collecting personal data, possibly under false pretences, and whether Facebook was negligent in any way. Time will tell.

    A bigger long-term issue is the coming together of:

    a) availability of social media data (combined with other data)
    b) powerful data-mining technology including neural networks to pick up patterns
    c) penetrating psychological insights into the cognitive weaknesses and biases of the human mind
    d) the ability to direct personalised messages to individuals
    e) the willingness of powerful political forces to use these developments, together with a willingness to create completely false but vivid stories, to achieve their political ends.

    In a sense, none of this is new.
    a) we've collected canvass data
    b) we've done basic statistical analysis
    c) we've read "The Hidden Persuaders"
    d) we've used target letters
    e) we've used dodgy bar charts.

    What is new is the power and scale and covertness of these developments.

    Our minds are weak and susceptible enough, but we are generally able to evaluate Daily Mail headlines and LibDem bar charts, and postings on PB for what they are, without being subverted.

    The danger is we will, as a whole, lose that control and ability to unseen actors - either very wealthy individuals with an agenda or unfriendly nations.

    Yes, spot on.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 43,050
    My main worry about Facebook advertising is special offers for your garden send to the missus to be perfectly honest.
  • It's true, everyone is jealous of all things Cambridge.

  • kingbongokingbongo Posts: 101

    I suspect his Polish heritage influences how he reacts to all things Russian
    What about things German?
    Daniel Kawczyinski's Polish heritage doesn't seem to stop him lapping up Russian propaganda - he loves blaming Ukraine for having itself invaded for example - mind you he's not alone in that as it's a popular myth on the left too.
  • notmenotme Posts: 2,401
    FRom previous thread, here are the homelessness figures. These are the comprehensive figures that have been collected more or less in the same way for decades, the reporting of by local councils. It includes the entire data. Roger claimed it was much more than it was before the crisis. Despite significant population growth we can see it's substantially lower.

    http://a65.tinypic.com/s1htlc.jpg
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 17,860
    kingbongo said:

    I suspect his Polish heritage influences how he reacts to all things Russian
    What about things German?
    Daniel Kawczyinski's Polish heritage doesn't seem to stop him lapping up Russian propaganda - he loves blaming Ukraine for having itself invaded for example - mind you he's not alone in that as it's a popular myth on the left too.
    While the right blame the EU for negotiating the kind of trade deal they want for the UK.
  • ReggieCideReggieCide Posts: 2,631

    After you were vociferously defending Juncker yesterday for his totally ‘different’ tone.

    Lord Haw Haw strikes again.
    The good cop is not on the side of the criminal...
    That means nothing.

    You simply defend whatever any EU apparatik says or does any of the time, often with a back-handed sneer at the UK, and argue it’s the way of the enlightened.

    A TV televangelist would be embarrassed by the level of uncensored zeal you preach on the EU.
    Hallelujah brother
  • kingbongo said:

    I suspect his Polish heritage influences how he reacts to all things Russian
    What about things German?
    Daniel Kawczyinski's Polish heritage doesn't seem to stop him lapping up Russian propaganda - he loves blaming Ukraine for having itself invaded for example - mind you he's not alone in that as it's a popular myth on the left too.
    Daniel Kawczynski is thick as pig poop, he's the modern Lord Halifax.

    I'd rather vote for Mark Reckless than Daniel Kawczynski.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 13,179
    edited March 21


    I simply cannot get exercised by this



    Without being disrespectful, there may be a generation gap here.

    1. Those under 40 have spent much of their lives online, and are much more comfortable with sharing their data, after all everyone else is doing it. But - that doesn’t mean they are fair game.

    2. The ability to personalise messaging is now weapons-grade. This ain’t the advertising you grew up with.

    The problem here is manifold:

    - the improper use of data; against Facebook guidelines
    - the lack of real consent from those whose data was used (especially those whose data was sucked up because they were friends with someone who decided to do a personality survey).
    - the *weaponising* of data to provide precision-targeted communications, often to deliver fake news and messaging well outside standars political discourse
    - the unethical nature and intent of the data use, for eg discouraging turnout by minorities
    - the possible collusion with Russian social media astroturfers.

    The problem is largely CA, who seem to be thoroughly disreputable. But Facebook seem to have turned a blind eye and been totally cavalier about the whole business, and additionally seem to spend most of their time covering things up.

    Clean the stables now.




    You are not being disrespectful and your analysis may well be right but normal everyday facebook users will not see the conspiracy nature of this and probably care less.

    We use it to keep in touch with our family and friends but disregard ever advert, survey or anything else that is not relevant.

    I would suggest that Amazon, Asda, Tesco, Vodafone, Marks and Spencers and tens of thousand companies have masses of information on you and it is a fact of life in 2018.

    If there is evidence of anything illegal it needs dealing with but again this is a story for the bubble and the those who look for a conspiracy in every corner
  • ElliotElliot Posts: 975
    I don't get this "everybody does it" argument. Is there any evidence any other political consulting firms have taken Facebook data from them without their consent or offered honeytraps for rival candidates?
  • So we'll have to sell out Northern Ireland and Gibraltar to get a good Brexit deal.

    Seems a fair price.

  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 14,430
    I am loving the irony at the moment of seeing so many people going.onto social media to moan about ... social media.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 39,676

    HYUFD said:

    During the 2015 general election campaign here's how much the Tories and Labour spent on Facebook ads.

    Labour £16.5k

    Tories £1.2 million.

    So even the Tory majority that gave us the referendum was dodgy.
    Nah.

    It was down to the awesome of Dave and George.

    Jim Messina/Facebook played an inconsequential role.

    The Tory general election strategy for years was based based on

    1) Dave's leadership/Ed M never looking Prime Ministerial

    2) The long term economic plan

    The third campaign line came at the very last moment (Ed Miliband would stab the country in the back like he did with his brother so he'll go into coalition with the SNP)
    A pivotal part of it was also the EU referendum promise which enabled the Tories to pick up LD votes in the Southwest without losing large numbers of voters to UKIP. However while that enabled the Tory majority it also signed Cameron and Osborne's death warrant ironically.

    Had there been another hung parliament with the Tories largest party and the LDs holding a few more of their West Country seats in 2015 there would have been no EU referendum and Cameron would likely still be PM and Osborne would still be Chancellor
    Wrong. There still would have been an EU referendum but purdah would have been different and EU citizens probably would have been granted suffrage, so probably a narrow win for Remain.
    No there wouldn't as without a Tory majority the LDs, Labour and the SNP would have blocked an EU referendum and Cameron would not probably have put it to a parliamentary vote anyway as he did not get the majority he needed to implement his manifesto commitment for an EU referendum
This discussion has been closed.