so tell me how Zuckerberg thrilled you......

I'm still considering canceling my FB account.

Problem is I have so many friends from college etc that I don't always keep in contact with, on there. And if I for some weird reason want to contact them, much more difficult without FB
 
White Plains New York is near some of my favorite golf courses. Zuckerberg. What's to dislike?
If he suddenly said he was Republican these tards would line up to stroke him.
 
cawacko said:
People willing put their life story on Facebook for the whole world to see yet we want the government to protect our privacy on the site? SMDH
Click to expand...

Tend to agree, but the way the world is going, (self)protecting privacy is more and more requiring you to disengage from what everyone else is doing.
Once upon a time say, people went bowling. The Dude Lebowski didn't risk his FICO when he rented shoes.
 
Just remember, on Facebook YOU are the product and all that you post there is available to the highest bidder in broken down categorized demographic detail.
I would never post on facebook using my real name or any private information. Only a fool would.
 
Micawber said:
White Plains New York is near some of my favorite golf courses. Zuckerberg. What's to dislike?
If he suddenly said he was Republican these tards would line up to stroke him.
Click to expand...

I don’t dislike the guy. I love his product. More power to him to make money off such a great idea. I get to see friends and family all over the world every day. Something impossible a few years ago. I remember when my dad got to see an old army buddy after 20 years separated by miles. They had been separated, their kids were grown and they had missed it. It was a lot of what they talked about when they got together. I got to see my niece and her family in Germany on almost a daily basis because of Zuckerberg’s idea. I got to see her kids grow up. When we get together I know what they’ve accomplished and a lot about how they’ve been. What a great creation. But I recognize that using it comes with risks.
 
The people who downloaded the app used by Cambridge Analytica did not know their data would be used to aid any political campaigns. The app was billed as a personality quiz that would be used by Cambridge University researchers.
 
How it was accessed
The real divergence is in the way each campaign accessed the data.
The Obama campaign created a Facebook app for supporters to donate, learn of voting requirements, and find nearby houses to canvass. The app asked users’ permission to scan their photos, friends lists, and news feeds. Most users complied.
The people signing up knew the data they were handing over would be used to support a political campaign. Their friends, however, did not.



While the data the two campaigns had access to was largely the same, the way they accessed it, and for what purpose, was very different.
 
Aleksandr Kogan, one of the Cambridge researchers involved in the project, sold the data to the upstart political consulting firm Cambridge Analytica. The company then sold its services not only to the Trump campaign, but to the presidential campaign of Sen. Ted Cruz and the senatorial campaign of Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., among others.
When Facebook discovered a developer had shared users’ data without their consent in 2015, it asked both the original app and the consultancy to delete the data. That didn’t happen.
 
Obama operatives used Facebook data to get users to send their messaging for them, according to Eitan Hersh, a Tufts professor who wrote Hacking the Electorate, a book on Obama’s microtargeting strategies.
Facebook friends lists, tags and photos allowed Obama operatives to identify a person’s close friends, which they then matched with offline public records. (Was this person likely to vote for Obama, but unlikely to get out to vote?) They then told the app users which of their friends they should send campaign messages to.
Cambridge Analytica dialed up what Karpf called the creepiness factor. They combined the survey results with the Facebook data to create psychological profiles they then sold to campaigns. The idea was, if the firm could discover how these people thought, they could target ads toward them.
They then sent targeted ads to the users on the database. The friends of the app users weren’t being targeted by their friends, but by the campaign itself. In other words, the consenting middle man was gone.
 
evince said:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ing-facebook-data-use-obama-cambridge-analyt/


here is a link to the facts
Click to expand...






Our ruling
McCain said that there was a strong equivalence between how the Obama and Trump campaigns accessed user data on Facebook.
The Obama campaign and Cambridge Analytica both gained access to huge amounts of information about Facebook users and their friends, and in neither case did the friends of app users consent.
But in Obama’s case, direct users knew they were handing over their data to a political campaign. In the Cambridge Analytica case, users only knew were taking a personality quiz for academic purposes.
The Obama campaign used the data to have their supporters contact their most persuadable friends. Cambridge Analytica targeted users and their friends directly with digital ads.
Whereas the data gathering and the uses were very different, the data each campaign gained access to was similar. We rate this statement Half True.
 
someone asked, (in a thread I have been banned from),
should Facebook be regulated?
Click to expand...
I wonder what he suggests......should it be fair and balanced like NPR?......should it be publicly funded as well?......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top