Timeline for Why is the US Congress getting involved in the privacy issues at Facebook?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 11, 2018 at 9:07 | history | edited | Brythan | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 2647 characters in body
|
| Apr 11, 2018 at 2:48 | comment | added | CramerTV | There are many questions in this answer which obviously do not answer the OP's question. I think this answer would be better without the speculative and leading questions. | |
| Apr 10, 2018 at 22:20 | comment | added | C. Helling | What are you even quoting? Quotation marks denote a quote, of which you seem to be making up as you go. The connection between Cambridge Analytica and Russia should perhaps be the topic of its own conversation, but in short, the Wall Street Journal reported that Alexander Nix, the CEO of Cambridge Analytica, reached out to WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange to help him better organize the stolen Democratic emails his site was publishing.The US Intelligence community believes that Russia is behind the hacking, and the ones to deliver to Assange (perhaps through Trump intermediary Roger Stone). | |
| Apr 10, 2018 at 21:35 | comment | added | RIanGillis | Vs the Obama campaign fb data mining that "used the data of users and their friends to build psychological profiles [on their friends, without their consent] which they then" [used to craft specific targeted messages and prompt the original users to send to their friends who have had their data accessed and psychological profiles built about them, again without their consent]. And I'm pretty sure you are confusing a couple of things. How is the Cambridge Analytica business in any way related to Russia? | |
| Apr 10, 2018 at 20:46 | comment | added | C. Helling | @RIanGillis The difference is that the Obama campaign had those users deliver their messaging to their friends, whereas Cambridge Analytica used the data of users and their friends to build psychological profiles on users which they then sold to 3rd parties and microtargeted with Russian propaganda and fake news stories. One app is a "get your friends to vote" app, the other sold your data to 3rd parties (and the original app itself hid its true purpose, which had nothing to do with politics). Pretending they are in any way equivalent is disingenuous at best. The difference in 1 word: consent. | |
| Apr 10, 2018 at 19:37 | comment | added | RIanGillis | How, exactly, is it any different having my data unknowingly harvested because my "friend" gave permission to some political campaign to access their data who then used that to craft messages specifically targeted to influence me vs my data being unknowingly harvested because my "friend" accessed some personality quiz that gave permission to some random researchers who then sold their/ my data to a third party? (Especially when the Trump campaign apparently didn't even use the Cambridge Analytica data once they were able to obtain the RNC data...). Did you even read your politifact link? | |
| Apr 10, 2018 at 19:08 | comment | added | C. Helling | Second half of this comment is irrelevant and misleading whataboutism. The difference in how the Obama campaign used the data can be found here. It boils down to the difference of people knowingly downloading an "Obama for America" app and providing info to the campaign vs. having users' data unknowingly harvested. Hell, Cambridge Analytica could have even read your private messages. | |
| Apr 10, 2018 at 17:33 | comment | added | Mayo | @TylerH - ahh. That's so very true. Interesting that I didn't read it that way. I guess that's because I'm a lurker here on Politics and didn't keep that in mind while reading it. | |
| Apr 10, 2018 at 16:51 | comment | added | TylerH | @Mayo The point of an answer on Stack Exchange is to answer a question, not to pose several new ones that imply a partisan line of interest. This problem is made more evident by the fact that these new questions are totally irrelevant to the OP or the substantive part of the answer. | |
| Apr 10, 2018 at 16:21 | comment | added | cHao | @Mayo: Why? Because it got caught this time. Publicly doing the same thing with other parties is all but admitting this isn't the first time it's happened. | |
| Apr 10, 2018 at 16:17 | comment | added | user1530 | @Mayo I don't see that as being the case. It appears Facebook has meddled both intentionally and unintentionally with politics in general. Perhaps more citations would help, but, in general, Facebook has been causing a non-partisan mess. | |
| Apr 10, 2018 at 15:58 | comment | added | Mayo | @blip - I don't see a rant. Facebook required one party to act in way not demanded of other parties. Why? On what ground? Is it permissible to treat customers in such vastly different ways? - Brythan brought up valid questions. | |
| Apr 10, 2018 at 15:47 | comment | added | user1530 | First half is a good answer. Second half is an odd, partisan rant. | |
| Apr 10, 2018 at 10:00 | history | answered | Brythan | CC BY-SA 3.0 |