5 added 120 characters in body
source | link

According to information available on the net the differences were:

  1. the data used by Cambridge Analytica was improperly shared with them by another company that did the actual scraping. CA then used this, allegedly, that data in the primaries to create targeted ads. DataWhat actual data was used we don't know. Who was actually targeted, we also don't know for sure. Also, that data wasn't used during election.
  2. Obama2012 app users knew their data was to be used in political campaign and that they compromised their friends' personal data. Obama2012 then proceeded to scrape - unconsented - data on 190 million users and deliver political ad disguised as message from friend during election.

That would mean that no, both issues aren't the same.

The problem is that "Cambridge Analytica Scandal" is very much a media fabrication. No doubt CA execs did a lot of damage to themselves, but any proof of legal transgressions by them has yet to surface. It is also designed to "cover" much worse transgressions by "much more palatable ideologically" parties. Very similar in level but much worse in reach (yes, Obama2012).

Or, to put it in words of someone better with them:

But keep in mind that it wasn't the Trump campaign that solicited the collection of the data. And, as we said, it didn't use the data in the general election campaign.

Obama, in contrast, was collecting live data on active users right up until Election Day, and at a scale that dwarfed anything the Trump campaign could access.

More important, the vast majority of people involved in these data-mining operations had no idea they were participating. And in the case of Obama, they had no way of knowing that the Obama campaign material cluttering their feed wasn't really just political urgings from their friends.

There is one other big difference: how these revelations were received by pundits and the press. In 2012, Obama was wildly celebrated in news stories for his mastery of Big Data, and his genius at mining it to get out the vote.

We were told then about how the campaign "won the race for voter data," and how it "connected with young voters." His data analytics gurus were treated as heroes.

This is not to say that Facebook doesn't deserve criticism. Clearly, its data-protection policies have been slipshod.

But the recent fury exposes a massive double standard on the part of those now raising hell.

When Obama was exploiting Facebook users to help win re-election, it was an act of political genius. When Trump attempted something similar, with unclear results, it's a travesty of democracy and further evidence that somehow he stole the election.

Reading material:

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/428530/facebook-the-real-presidential-swing-state/

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/facebook-data-scandal-trump-election-obama-2012/

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/514406/data-won-the-us-election-now-can-it-save-the-world/

According to information available on the net the differences were:

  1. the data used by Cambridge Analytica was improperly shared with them by another company that did the actual scraping. CA then used this data in the primaries to create targeted ads. Data wasn't used during election.
  2. Obama2012 app users knew their data was to be used in political campaign and that they compromised their friends' personal data. Obama2012 then proceeded to scrape - unconsented - data on 190 million users and deliver political ad disguised as message from friend during election.

That would mean that no, both issues aren't the same.

The problem is that "Cambridge Analytica Scandal" is very much a media fabrication. No doubt CA execs did a lot of damage to themselves, but any proof of legal transgressions by them has yet to surface. It is also designed to "cover" much worse transgressions by "much more palatable ideologically" parties. Very similar in level but much worse in reach (yes, Obama2012).

Or, to put it in words of someone better with them:

But keep in mind that it wasn't the Trump campaign that solicited the collection of the data. And, as we said, it didn't use the data in the general election campaign.

Obama, in contrast, was collecting live data on active users right up until Election Day, and at a scale that dwarfed anything the Trump campaign could access.

More important, the vast majority of people involved in these data-mining operations had no idea they were participating. And in the case of Obama, they had no way of knowing that the Obama campaign material cluttering their feed wasn't really just political urgings from their friends.

There is one other big difference: how these revelations were received by pundits and the press. In 2012, Obama was wildly celebrated in news stories for his mastery of Big Data, and his genius at mining it to get out the vote.

We were told then about how the campaign "won the race for voter data," and how it "connected with young voters." His data analytics gurus were treated as heroes.

This is not to say that Facebook doesn't deserve criticism. Clearly, its data-protection policies have been slipshod.

But the recent fury exposes a massive double standard on the part of those now raising hell.

When Obama was exploiting Facebook users to help win re-election, it was an act of political genius. When Trump attempted something similar, with unclear results, it's a travesty of democracy and further evidence that somehow he stole the election.

Reading material:

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/428530/facebook-the-real-presidential-swing-state/

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/facebook-data-scandal-trump-election-obama-2012/

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/514406/data-won-the-us-election-now-can-it-save-the-world/

According to information available on the net the differences were:

  1. the data used by Cambridge Analytica was improperly shared with them by another company that did the actual scraping. CA then used, allegedly, that data in the primaries to create targeted ads. What actual data was used we don't know. Who was actually targeted, we also don't know for sure. Also, that data wasn't used during election.
  2. Obama2012 app users knew their data was to be used in political campaign and that they compromised their friends' personal data. Obama2012 then proceeded to scrape - unconsented - data on 190 million users and deliver political ad disguised as message from friend during election.

That would mean that no, both issues aren't the same.

The problem is that "Cambridge Analytica Scandal" is very much a media fabrication. No doubt CA execs did a lot of damage to themselves, but any proof of legal transgressions by them has yet to surface. It is also designed to "cover" much worse transgressions by "much more palatable ideologically" parties. Very similar in level but much worse in reach (yes, Obama2012).

Or, to put it in words of someone better with them:

But keep in mind that it wasn't the Trump campaign that solicited the collection of the data. And, as we said, it didn't use the data in the general election campaign.

Obama, in contrast, was collecting live data on active users right up until Election Day, and at a scale that dwarfed anything the Trump campaign could access.

More important, the vast majority of people involved in these data-mining operations had no idea they were participating. And in the case of Obama, they had no way of knowing that the Obama campaign material cluttering their feed wasn't really just political urgings from their friends.

There is one other big difference: how these revelations were received by pundits and the press. In 2012, Obama was wildly celebrated in news stories for his mastery of Big Data, and his genius at mining it to get out the vote.

We were told then about how the campaign "won the race for voter data," and how it "connected with young voters." His data analytics gurus were treated as heroes.

This is not to say that Facebook doesn't deserve criticism. Clearly, its data-protection policies have been slipshod.

But the recent fury exposes a massive double standard on the part of those now raising hell.

When Obama was exploiting Facebook users to help win re-election, it was an act of political genius. When Trump attempted something similar, with unclear results, it's a travesty of democracy and further evidence that somehow he stole the election.

Reading material:

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/428530/facebook-the-real-presidential-swing-state/

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/facebook-data-scandal-trump-election-obama-2012/

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/514406/data-won-the-us-election-now-can-it-save-the-world/

4 added 1630 characters in body
source | link

According to information available on the net the differences were:

  1. the data used by Cambridge Analytica was improperly shared with them by another company that did the actual scraping. CA then used this data in the primaries to create targeted ads. Data wasn't used during election.
  2. Obama2012 app users knew their data was to be used in political campaign and that they compromised their friends' personal data. Obama2012 then proceeded to scrape - unconsented - data on 190 million users and deliver political ad disguised as message from friend during election.

That would mean that no, both issues aren't the same.

The problem is that "Cambridge Analytica Scandal" is very much a media fabrication. No doubt CA execs did a lot of damage to themselves, but any proof of wrongdoinglegal transgressions by them has yet to surface. It is also designed to "cover" much worse transgressions by "much more palatable ideologically" parties. Very similar in level but much worse in reach (yes, Obama2012).

Or, to put it in words of someone better with themwords of someone better with them:

But keep in mind that it wasn't the Trump campaign that solicited the collection of the data. And, as we said, it didn't use the data in the general election campaign.

Obama, in contrast, was collecting live data on active users right up until Election Day, and at a scale that dwarfed anything the Trump campaign could access.

More important, the vast majority of people involved in these data-mining operations had no idea they were participating. And in the case of Obama, they had no way of knowing that the Obama campaign material cluttering their feed wasn't really just political urgings from their friends.

There is one other big difference: how these revelations were received by pundits and the press. In 2012, Obama was wildly celebrated in news stories for his mastery of Big Data, and his genius at mining it to get out the vote.

We were told then about how the campaign "won the race for voter data," and how it "connected with young voters." His data analytics gurus were treated as heroes.

This is not to say that Facebook doesn't deserve criticism. Clearly, its data-protection policies have been slipshod.

But the recent fury exposes a massive double standard on the part of those now raising hell.

When Obama was exploiting Facebook users to help win re-election, it was an act of political genius. When Trump attempted something similar, with unclear results, it's a travesty of democracy and further evidence that somehow he stole the election.

Reading material:

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/428530/facebook-the-real-presidential-swing-state/

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/facebook-data-scandal-trump-election-obama-2012/

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/514406/data-won-the-us-election-now-can-it-save-the-world/

According to information available on the net the differences were:

  1. the data used by Cambridge Analytica was improperly shared with them by another company that did the actual scraping. CA then used this data in the primaries to create targeted ads. Data wasn't used during election.
  2. Obama2012 app users knew their data was to be used in political campaign and that they compromised their friends' personal data. Obama2012 then proceeded to scrape - unconsented - data on 190 million users and deliver political ad disguised as message from friend during election.

That would mean that no, both issues aren't the same.

The problem is that "Cambridge Analytica Scandal" is very much a media fabrication. No doubt CA execs did a lot of damage to themselves, but any proof of wrongdoing by them has yet to surface. It is also designed to "cover" much worse transgressions by "much more palatable ideologically" parties. Very similar in level but much worse in reach (yes, Obama2012).

Or, to put it in words of someone better with them:

But keep in mind that it wasn't the Trump campaign that solicited the collection of the data. And, as we said, it didn't use the data in the general election campaign.

Obama, in contrast, was collecting live data on active users right up until Election Day, and at a scale that dwarfed anything the Trump campaign could access.

More important, the vast majority of people involved in these data-mining operations had no idea they were participating. And in the case of Obama, they had no way of knowing that the Obama campaign material cluttering their feed wasn't really just political urgings from their friends.

There is one other big difference: how these revelations were received by pundits and the press. In 2012, Obama was wildly celebrated in news stories for his mastery of Big Data, and his genius at mining it to get out the vote.

We were told then about how the campaign "won the race for voter data," and how it "connected with young voters." His data analytics gurus were treated as heroes.

This is not to say that Facebook doesn't deserve criticism. Clearly, its data-protection policies have been slipshod.

But the recent fury exposes a massive double standard on the part of those now raising hell.

When Obama was exploiting Facebook users to help win re-election, it was an act of political genius. When Trump attempted something similar, with unclear results, it's a travesty of democracy and further evidence that somehow he stole the election.

Reading material:

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/428530/facebook-the-real-presidential-swing-state/

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/facebook-data-scandal-trump-election-obama-2012/

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/514406/data-won-the-us-election-now-can-it-save-the-world/

According to information available on the net the differences were:

  1. the data used by Cambridge Analytica was improperly shared with them by another company that did the actual scraping. CA then used this data in the primaries to create targeted ads. Data wasn't used during election.
  2. Obama2012 app users knew their data was to be used in political campaign and that they compromised their friends' personal data. Obama2012 then proceeded to scrape - unconsented - data on 190 million users and deliver political ad disguised as message from friend during election.

That would mean that no, both issues aren't the same.

The problem is that "Cambridge Analytica Scandal" is very much a media fabrication. No doubt CA execs did a lot of damage to themselves, but any proof of legal transgressions by them has yet to surface. It is also designed to "cover" much worse transgressions by "much more palatable ideologically" parties. Very similar in level but much worse in reach (yes, Obama2012).

Or, to put it in words of someone better with them:

But keep in mind that it wasn't the Trump campaign that solicited the collection of the data. And, as we said, it didn't use the data in the general election campaign.

Obama, in contrast, was collecting live data on active users right up until Election Day, and at a scale that dwarfed anything the Trump campaign could access.

More important, the vast majority of people involved in these data-mining operations had no idea they were participating. And in the case of Obama, they had no way of knowing that the Obama campaign material cluttering their feed wasn't really just political urgings from their friends.

There is one other big difference: how these revelations were received by pundits and the press. In 2012, Obama was wildly celebrated in news stories for his mastery of Big Data, and his genius at mining it to get out the vote.

We were told then about how the campaign "won the race for voter data," and how it "connected with young voters." His data analytics gurus were treated as heroes.

This is not to say that Facebook doesn't deserve criticism. Clearly, its data-protection policies have been slipshod.

But the recent fury exposes a massive double standard on the part of those now raising hell.

When Obama was exploiting Facebook users to help win re-election, it was an act of political genius. When Trump attempted something similar, with unclear results, it's a travesty of democracy and further evidence that somehow he stole the election.

Reading material:

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/428530/facebook-the-real-presidential-swing-state/

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/facebook-data-scandal-trump-election-obama-2012/

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/514406/data-won-the-us-election-now-can-it-save-the-world/

3 added 1630 characters in body
source | link

According to information available on the net the differences were:

  1. the data used by Cambridge Analytica was improperly shared with them by another company that did the actual scraping. CA then used this data in the primaries to create targeted ads. Data wasn't used during election.
  2. Obama2012 app users knew their data was to be used in political campaign and that they compromised their friends' personal data. Obama2012 then proceeded to scrape - unconsented - data on 190 million users and deliver political ad disguised as message from friend during election.

That would mean that no, both issues aren't the same.

The problem is that "Cambridge Analytica Scandal" is very much a media fabrication. No doubt CA execs did a lot of damage to themselves, but any proof of wrongdoing by them has yet to surface. It is also designed to "cover" much worse transgressions by "much more palatable ideologically" parties. Very similar in level but much worse in reach (yes, Obama2012).

Or, to put it in words of someone better with them:

But keep in mind that it wasn't the Trump campaign that solicited the collection of the data. And, as we said, it didn't use the data in the general election campaign.

Obama, in contrast, was collecting live data on active users right up until Election Day, and at a scale that dwarfed anything the Trump campaign could access.

More important, the vast majority of people involved in these data-mining operations had no idea they were participating. And in the case of Obama, they had no way of knowing that the Obama campaign material cluttering their feed wasn't really just political urgings from their friends.

There is one other big difference: how these revelations were received by pundits and the press. In 2012, Obama was wildly celebrated in news stories for his mastery of Big Data, and his genius at mining it to get out the vote.

We were told then about how the campaign "won the race for voter data," and how it "connected with young voters." His data analytics gurus were treated as heroes.

This is not to say that Facebook doesn't deserve criticism. Clearly, its data-protection policies have been slipshod.

But the recent fury exposes a massive double standard on the part of those now raising hell.

When Obama was exploiting Facebook users to help win re-election, it was an act of political genius. When Trump attempted something similar, with unclear results, it's a travesty of democracy and further evidence that somehow he stole the election.

Reading material:

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/428530/facebook-the-real-presidential-swing-state/

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/facebook-data-scandal-trump-election-obama-2012/

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/514406/data-won-the-us-election-now-can-it-save-the-world/

According to information available on the net the differences were:

  1. the data used by Cambridge Analytica was improperly shared with them by another company that did the actual scraping. CA then used this data in the primaries to create targeted ads. Data wasn't used during election.
  2. Obama2012 app users knew their data was to be used in political campaign and that they compromised their friends' personal data. Obama2012 then proceeded to scrape - unconsented - data on 190 million users and deliver political ad disguised as message from friend during election.

That would mean that no, both issues aren't the same.

The problem is that "Cambridge Analytica Scandal" is very much a media fabrication. No doubt CA execs did a lot of damage to themselves, but any proof of wrongdoing by them has yet to surface. It is also designed to "cover" much worse transgressions by "much more palatable ideologically" parties. Very similar in level but much worse in reach (yes, Obama2012).

Reading material:

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/428530/facebook-the-real-presidential-swing-state/

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/facebook-data-scandal-trump-election-obama-2012/

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/514406/data-won-the-us-election-now-can-it-save-the-world/

According to information available on the net the differences were:

  1. the data used by Cambridge Analytica was improperly shared with them by another company that did the actual scraping. CA then used this data in the primaries to create targeted ads. Data wasn't used during election.
  2. Obama2012 app users knew their data was to be used in political campaign and that they compromised their friends' personal data. Obama2012 then proceeded to scrape - unconsented - data on 190 million users and deliver political ad disguised as message from friend during election.

That would mean that no, both issues aren't the same.

The problem is that "Cambridge Analytica Scandal" is very much a media fabrication. No doubt CA execs did a lot of damage to themselves, but any proof of wrongdoing by them has yet to surface. It is also designed to "cover" much worse transgressions by "much more palatable ideologically" parties. Very similar in level but much worse in reach (yes, Obama2012).

Or, to put it in words of someone better with them:

But keep in mind that it wasn't the Trump campaign that solicited the collection of the data. And, as we said, it didn't use the data in the general election campaign.

Obama, in contrast, was collecting live data on active users right up until Election Day, and at a scale that dwarfed anything the Trump campaign could access.

More important, the vast majority of people involved in these data-mining operations had no idea they were participating. And in the case of Obama, they had no way of knowing that the Obama campaign material cluttering their feed wasn't really just political urgings from their friends.

There is one other big difference: how these revelations were received by pundits and the press. In 2012, Obama was wildly celebrated in news stories for his mastery of Big Data, and his genius at mining it to get out the vote.

We were told then about how the campaign "won the race for voter data," and how it "connected with young voters." His data analytics gurus were treated as heroes.

This is not to say that Facebook doesn't deserve criticism. Clearly, its data-protection policies have been slipshod.

But the recent fury exposes a massive double standard on the part of those now raising hell.

When Obama was exploiting Facebook users to help win re-election, it was an act of political genius. When Trump attempted something similar, with unclear results, it's a travesty of democracy and further evidence that somehow he stole the election.

Reading material:

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/428530/facebook-the-real-presidential-swing-state/

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/facebook-data-scandal-trump-election-obama-2012/

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/514406/data-won-the-us-election-now-can-it-save-the-world/

2 added 108 characters in body
source | link
1
source | link