And yet when Obama used facebook to do the exact same thing, it was lauded as the future of campaigns. The only difference I see is that after Obama won the election, Facebook conveniently decided to change that policy. How do we know that Facebook didn't intentionally leave that policy open to give Obama an edge over what was and was assumed to be at the time going to be a very close election?
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/mar/... (also as I explain latter, i think the "half truth" rating on this link is half truth. Nobody who downloaded the Obama app, knew that their friend list could be used in a way to identify potential voters, especially not in a way that would have raised ethical concerns in the supposed party that "cares" about fair elections)
But of course the left needs to punish Facebook for not properly covering their asses and assuring this weapon could never be used against them.
By the way, what's to say that Hillary Clinton didn't have direct access to the Obama campaign's data as well? I mean considering the fact people's political affiliations very rarely ever change and therefore data mined in 2012 is just as relevant today as it was then, why wouldn't Hillary Clinton and Obama do everything in their power to ensure the left maintains control of the WH; when they essentially wrote the textbook on this kind of thing? (it's also worth pointing out that the cambridge analytica data was mined at the same period in time.)
The very fact that the policy was changed--right after--the election seems to suggest that Facebook had every intention of giving the left all the data they would ever need to get the competitive edge over the right and win future elections.
Put it this way, Facebook HAD to know how it's data was being mined from the Obama app the second it started happening. Why wouldn't they be paying special attention to the behavior of the President's app and it's users?
They also HAD to know the amount of power that data could have when influencing people since that is the very reason why their business is marketable.
And lastly, they HAD to know that putting a plug in it would stop future campaigns from doing the same and the consequences that might ultimately yield on the outcomes of future elections.
I mean we are talking about a company where some of their founders, Sean Parker and Chamath Palihapitiya, talk about how they would have meetings and discuss how they could manipulate their users into becoming addicted to their app. And that is when and where they coined the phrase "dopamine feedback loops".
Which also means we are talking about a company whose primary goal is to design technology that doesn't just try to understand people psychologically, but trying to understand how they can manipulate people psychologically as well.
And we are supposed to just believe Mark Zuckerburg when he says if you asked him 10 years ago if he thought he would be building an app that could one day influence elections, he isn't just full of shit? I wish the senate would have asked him if he knew--6 years--ago that facebook could influence elections...
Also I wish the Senate would have asked him how can he confirm the Obama 2012 Campaign erased their data like they were supposed to, if he couldn't even confirm that Cambridge Analytica did. And then I would want to ask him, in theory is it possible that if the Obama campaign still had access to that data, could it be given to a new campaign. In other words, is it not only possible but strategically likely, that Trump didn't actually even have a competitive edge? and in fact without the Cambridge Analytica data, he would have been at a strict disadvantage considering your policy changed and therefore wasn't able to just take a page out of Obama's book, create his own app, and ultimately receive the same benefits Obama (and potentially HRC) did during their campaigns?
And one last thing, when a user downloads an app on your platform they have a permissions dialog that specifically states what information a user consents to give to the app developer in exchange for using their app. The controversy with Cambridge Analytica's app was that it was misleading users and exposing their friend list's without permission? Can you please explain exactly how Obama's app asked for user's permissions and how Cambridge Analytica didn't? And when asking, did the Obama campaign explain exactly how they intended to use their user's data? When a user consents to give any app (not just facebook) permission to access their info do the user's have the capability to ask why the app is requesting that information exactly?
Can we get comprehensive answers to questions such as,
"Why--exactly--does this app--need--to access my contacts?",
"Why--exactly--does this app--need--to access my friend list?",
"Why--exactly--does this app--need--access to my mic?"
Also is there an internal vetting process in place that ensures app developers are being honest when stating the nature of their intent with regards to permission requests and what they intend to do with the data once it is received? And ultimately why not? Do you believe users deserve--real--transparency with regards to how their data is being used/abused?
Because ultimately at the end of the day, that is how you go about fixing the core issue we have. User's aren't actually being asked cordially for their permission, they are being given just a more "in your face" terms of service without an explanation and the right to negotiate. What if I want to use facebook's app, but i don't want them to be able to access to my mic as they see fit and im okay with the fact that I can't use the 2 features that require it because I only ever use the 500 that never need to use my mic anyways?
What I am ultimately trying to point out here, is that the permissions not actually being permissions issue isn't just facebook's problem. It's an industry wide issue, and the current permission system only seems to exist in the first place to exempt company's from all the legal problems they smell brewing down the road. Something they'd only ever anticipate and institute knowing all along the malicious nature that is underlying their intent. (I mean steve jobs was the pioneer of this shit. Does anybody really think he cares more about us than Apple's profitability.)
I just think it's so sad that we live in a world now where all mainstream apps are essentially malware and its terrifying to realize that nobody really understands that bad software isn't just the kind of software that opens nonstop porn ads on your desktop and thus make your computer run slow.
"I mean considering the fact people's political affiliations very rarely ever change"
Seriously? At least the cliche is that young people tend to be more leftist than older people because students and other young people often work low-end jobs and both experience low-incomes and empathize with people stuck in such jobs for life, but become more conservative as they begin to have higher incomes, own property, etc. and start wanting lower taxes.
I think people discover what their true political affiliations are when they become more educated over time. When I was 18 I thought I was a democrat because I had a very liberal leaning towards social views. And then when I started learning about business, regulations, and etc.
I just found that Government are just a bunch of prom kings and queens telling the kids who created lemonade stands that not only did they owe them a cut of their profits, but how and where they could sell their lemonade. And there is a shitload of corruption involved because they will tell you to move your lemonade stand so that they can give the location to a friend.
I believe we need a Government, but I don't believe we need an omnipotent Government that has the power to employ half of the nation despite not having a notion of equity or a competitive pay scale.
So slowly over time I found that I am actually Libertarian and I vote for Republicans because at the end of the day, the only real way the Government can make people's lives better is to get out of the way (and pockets) of the private sector. Which is the real backbone of this country. The private sector is the only sector that has the real power to improve the quality of life and self esteem of Americans, because as FDR put it in his extended bill of rights, every American has the right to a good job.
I think we should have a constitutional amendment that makes it unconstitutional for Congress to raise taxes above 15% for all Americans, and I think the tax payers should have a say in how 5% of their Tax Dollars get allocated into the budget. The President and Congress gets to say where the other 10% goes.
I think if we had a system like that, then everybody would get a little bit of what they want. You care about the state of our national parks? Then say that is where you want a percentage of your 5% to be allocated for this voting cycle. You think our military sucks? Send your bucks there. You think we need to fund the FCC because they got rid of net neutrality. Then go for it. And if you don't really care and think the President or Congress knows best, then allocate your 5% to be distributed according to their best judgement.
Send your tax dollars where you feel they need to go. It's the best way to get a comprehensive understanding of what exactly the people's concerns are.
Perhaps it would be chaotic, but what is to say that democracy shouldn't have an element of volatile chaos in it?
I assume there's no need to spell out how dangerous this would be.
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2018/05/18/alarming-facebo...
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/mar/... (also as I explain latter, i think the "half truth" rating on this link is half truth. Nobody who downloaded the Obama app, knew that their friend list could be used in a way to identify potential voters, especially not in a way that would have raised ethical concerns in the supposed party that "cares" about fair elections)
But of course the left needs to punish Facebook for not properly covering their asses and assuring this weapon could never be used against them.
By the way, what's to say that Hillary Clinton didn't have direct access to the Obama campaign's data as well? I mean considering the fact people's political affiliations very rarely ever change and therefore data mined in 2012 is just as relevant today as it was then, why wouldn't Hillary Clinton and Obama do everything in their power to ensure the left maintains control of the WH; when they essentially wrote the textbook on this kind of thing? (it's also worth pointing out that the cambridge analytica data was mined at the same period in time.)
The very fact that the policy was changed--right after--the election seems to suggest that Facebook had every intention of giving the left all the data they would ever need to get the competitive edge over the right and win future elections.
Put it this way, Facebook HAD to know how it's data was being mined from the Obama app the second it started happening. Why wouldn't they be paying special attention to the behavior of the President's app and it's users?
They also HAD to know the amount of power that data could have when influencing people since that is the very reason why their business is marketable.
And lastly, they HAD to know that putting a plug in it would stop future campaigns from doing the same and the consequences that might ultimately yield on the outcomes of future elections.
I mean we are talking about a company where some of their founders, Sean Parker and Chamath Palihapitiya, talk about how they would have meetings and discuss how they could manipulate their users into becoming addicted to their app. And that is when and where they coined the phrase "dopamine feedback loops".
Which also means we are talking about a company whose primary goal is to design technology that doesn't just try to understand people psychologically, but trying to understand how they can manipulate people psychologically as well.
And we are supposed to just believe Mark Zuckerburg when he says if you asked him 10 years ago if he thought he would be building an app that could one day influence elections, he isn't just full of shit? I wish the senate would have asked him if he knew--6 years--ago that facebook could influence elections...
Also I wish the Senate would have asked him how can he confirm the Obama 2012 Campaign erased their data like they were supposed to, if he couldn't even confirm that Cambridge Analytica did. And then I would want to ask him, in theory is it possible that if the Obama campaign still had access to that data, could it be given to a new campaign. In other words, is it not only possible but strategically likely, that Trump didn't actually even have a competitive edge? and in fact without the Cambridge Analytica data, he would have been at a strict disadvantage considering your policy changed and therefore wasn't able to just take a page out of Obama's book, create his own app, and ultimately receive the same benefits Obama (and potentially HRC) did during their campaigns?
And one last thing, when a user downloads an app on your platform they have a permissions dialog that specifically states what information a user consents to give to the app developer in exchange for using their app. The controversy with Cambridge Analytica's app was that it was misleading users and exposing their friend list's without permission? Can you please explain exactly how Obama's app asked for user's permissions and how Cambridge Analytica didn't? And when asking, did the Obama campaign explain exactly how they intended to use their user's data? When a user consents to give any app (not just facebook) permission to access their info do the user's have the capability to ask why the app is requesting that information exactly?
Can we get comprehensive answers to questions such as,
"Why--exactly--does this app--need--to access my contacts?",
"Why--exactly--does this app--need--to access my friend list?",
"Why--exactly--does this app--need--access to my mic?"
Also is there an internal vetting process in place that ensures app developers are being honest when stating the nature of their intent with regards to permission requests and what they intend to do with the data once it is received? And ultimately why not? Do you believe users deserve--real--transparency with regards to how their data is being used/abused?
Because ultimately at the end of the day, that is how you go about fixing the core issue we have. User's aren't actually being asked cordially for their permission, they are being given just a more "in your face" terms of service without an explanation and the right to negotiate. What if I want to use facebook's app, but i don't want them to be able to access to my mic as they see fit and im okay with the fact that I can't use the 2 features that require it because I only ever use the 500 that never need to use my mic anyways?
What I am ultimately trying to point out here, is that the permissions not actually being permissions issue isn't just facebook's problem. It's an industry wide issue, and the current permission system only seems to exist in the first place to exempt company's from all the legal problems they smell brewing down the road. Something they'd only ever anticipate and institute knowing all along the malicious nature that is underlying their intent. (I mean steve jobs was the pioneer of this shit. Does anybody really think he cares more about us than Apple's profitability.)
I just think it's so sad that we live in a world now where all mainstream apps are essentially malware and its terrifying to realize that nobody really understands that bad software isn't just the kind of software that opens nonstop porn ads on your desktop and thus make your computer run slow.
Seriously? At least the cliche is that young people tend to be more leftist than older people because students and other young people often work low-end jobs and both experience low-incomes and empathize with people stuck in such jobs for life, but become more conservative as they begin to have higher incomes, own property, etc. and start wanting lower taxes.
I just found that Government are just a bunch of prom kings and queens telling the kids who created lemonade stands that not only did they owe them a cut of their profits, but how and where they could sell their lemonade. And there is a shitload of corruption involved because they will tell you to move your lemonade stand so that they can give the location to a friend.
I believe we need a Government, but I don't believe we need an omnipotent Government that has the power to employ half of the nation despite not having a notion of equity or a competitive pay scale.
So slowly over time I found that I am actually Libertarian and I vote for Republicans because at the end of the day, the only real way the Government can make people's lives better is to get out of the way (and pockets) of the private sector. Which is the real backbone of this country. The private sector is the only sector that has the real power to improve the quality of life and self esteem of Americans, because as FDR put it in his extended bill of rights, every American has the right to a good job.
I think we should have a constitutional amendment that makes it unconstitutional for Congress to raise taxes above 15% for all Americans, and I think the tax payers should have a say in how 5% of their Tax Dollars get allocated into the budget. The President and Congress gets to say where the other 10% goes.
I think if we had a system like that, then everybody would get a little bit of what they want. You care about the state of our national parks? Then say that is where you want a percentage of your 5% to be allocated for this voting cycle. You think our military sucks? Send your bucks there. You think we need to fund the FCC because they got rid of net neutrality. Then go for it. And if you don't really care and think the President or Congress knows best, then allocate your 5% to be distributed according to their best judgement.
Send your tax dollars where you feel they need to go. It's the best way to get a comprehensive understanding of what exactly the people's concerns are.
Perhaps it would be chaotic, but what is to say that democracy shouldn't have an element of volatile chaos in it?