Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
captain_to_fire

Amidst the Senate hearing about the Cambridge Analytica controversy, Facebook just launched a "Data Abuse Bounty"

the Cambridge Analytica brouhaha (the poll is private)  

94 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you still use Facebook despite the controversy?

    • Not anymore. I joined #DeleteFacebook movement
      5
    • No because I never signed up for Facebook
      28
    • Yes but rarely
      41
    • I still use it all the time
      20


Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Maxxtraxx said:

Second source link

what are your thoughts on obama's team using an in-team app to influence an election but only his own? because that's the only difference I can find vs cambrilitica o_o

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Maxxtraxx said:

 

-snip-

Firstly, your link doesn't show how the RNC got their data, so the point being made could be moot.

Second, all you have (potentially) proven is that both parties are shitty, which isn't really anything new. I'm Canadian, so my opinion doesn't truly matter in this context, and my point still stands that how you obtain the data matters.

I literally posited that question purely to draw out people such as yourself, and not as a means of trying to prop up the Dems as being the good guys. Because those are the kinds of questions EVERYONE should be asking.


CPU - i5 6600k | RAM - 16 GB DDR4 2133MHz | GPU - MSI Gaming X RX470 4GB | MOBO -  Asus z170-P

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, PocketNerd said:

Firstly, your link doesn't show how the RNC got their data, so the point being made could be moot.

Second, all you have (potentially) proven is that both parties are shitty, which isn't really anything new. I'm Canadian, so my opinion doesn't truly matter in this context, and my point still stands that how you obtain the data matters.

I literally posited that question purely to draw out people such as yourself, and not as a means of trying to prop up the Dems as being the good guys. Because those are the kinds of questions EVERYONE should be asking.

Wow, angry are we?

 

All the sources I've read have shown that the Trump campaign use of Cambridge data was extremely limited and have never any indication from any source anywhere that the RNC ever used data from Cambridge. (BTW the Trump campaign and the RNC are separate entities)

 

If you have any evidence to the contrary please present it.

 

The RNC and the Dems have been gathering voter data far longer than the infantile company known as Cambridge has been.

 

Why are do you seem to be most concerned with the political party usage of Facebook data?

 

Why is ALL of this not entirely Facebook's fault?

 

Why has anyone who has ever used windows 10, Google, Android, Gmail, Yahoo, apple IOS or any other data gathering service that is fronted by a product or service that provides us personally benefit in exchange for them being allowed to gather data to help target us with ads for products and services that we might purchase ever expected any semblance of privacy from or expected personal ownership of the data that they've collected on us?

 

If how you gather the data matters then you need to look at Facebook and others who have made a business out of knowing you and your habits in order to make money off of that and decide if you're ok with what they do... not with the many other entities (including political parties)who have used what these tech companies have made... And if you're not, then stop using their products.

 

15 hours ago, VegetableStu said:

what are your thoughts on obama's team using an in-team app to influence an election but only his own? because that's the only difference I can find vs cambrilitica o_o

I think that both parties will use the best resources they can find to get their respective messages out to those they believe they can impact the most.

 

I personally have no problem with companies collecting data on me to help them target me with ads for products and services that are more relevant and interesting to me.

 

For example, I would rather see ads for PC and automotive parts and products that I might like than to see random ads for feminine hygiene products and geriatric diet supplements.

 

I don't see a moral or ethical problem with what I described above.

 

As an example of what I wouldn't approve of:

 

I would have an issue with that data being used by a police state(like China) to hunt down people that are Christian Church communities or other minorities that are outside of the state's enforced belief or thought system.

 

I'm also not ok with the hipocracy and double standard that seems to be in effect within the media and left wing technomonopolies that decide that it's ok for their political party of preference to use the data but not any other parties, also the idea of Facebook giving more privileged information to one party over another would be a ethical violation in my eyes.

 

So, I'm unsure if I answered your question fully... I think it's ok so long as the playing field is level and no preferential treatment is given and the usage is for ads and promotions and not to enforce thought or silence voices.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason why Cambridge Analytica is different than the Obama campaign is because CA illicitly gained the user data. They bought the data off of Aleksandr Kogan who was supposedly collecting user data using Facebook's tools (Facebook approved of this) for academic purposes and wasn't authorized to sell that data or use it for other purposes.


[Out-of-date] Want to learn how to make your own custom Windows 10 image?

 

Desktop: AMD R9 3900X | ASUS ROG Strix X570-F | Radeon RX 5700 XT | EVGA GTX 1080 SC | 32GB Trident Z Neo 3600MHz | 1TB 970 EVO | 256GB 840 EVO | 960GB Corsair Force LE | EVGA G2 850W | Phanteks P400S

Laptop: Intel M-5Y10c | Intel HD Graphics | 8GB RAM | 250GB Micron SSD | Asus UX305FA

Server 01: Intel Xeon D 1541 | ASRock Rack D1541D4I-2L2T | 32GB Hynix ECC DDR4 | 4x8TB Western Digital HDDs | 32TB Raw 16TB Usable

Server 02: Intel i7 7700K | Gigabye Z170N Gaming5 | 16GB Trident Z 3200MHz

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, 2FA said:

The reason why Cambridge Analytica is different than the Obama campaign is because CA illicitly gained the user data. They bought the data off of Aleksandr Kogan who was supposedly collecting user data using Facebook's tools (Facebook approved of this) for academic purposes and wasn't authorized to sell that data or use it for other purposes.

Then the fault on that front is primarily with Kogan and with Facebook who to my understanding was extremely lax in their data control and usage enforcement for many years and also in in their favoritism in the entities they gave privelidged access to.

 

If they don't enforce the rules and bend them at their own particular whim then problems like this will occur and the fault is primarily their own.

 

edit:

 

I should also specify that I don't absolve Cambridge of wrongdoing, but in their case any wrongdoing is dependent entirely upon the knowledge that they had about the data when it was purchased, if they knew that Kogan selling the data was outside of his allowances in the contractual use of the data... then they would be in the wrong as well. However, if Cambridge was only aware that they were purchasing data... but were unaware of or not told of any restrictions on that data through no fault of their own, then they would be absolved.

 

However, i've not read fully into this particular issue but IMO my suspicion would be that they may have had some knowledge of the data's source but did not expect facebook to attempt enforcement of their rules. (this previous sentence is entirely speculation with no particular source of info)

Edited by Maxxtraxx
more stuff
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, 2FA said:

They bought the data off of Aleksandr Kogan who was supposedly collecting user data using Facebook's tools (Facebook approved of this) for academic purposes and wasn't authorized to sell that data or use it for other purposes.

really hope this gets brought up since Aleksandr should be dealt with prior to anyone else being affected at Facebook. I'm not disputing the fact that we need to reach Europe's level of consumer protection laws: this is a definitive goal if North Americans are to ever have the same quality of life that many Countries in the EU offer. However, in this instance, Aleksandr knowingly violated Facebook's own ToS and app developer policies by wording his Quiz App's ToS to be in direct violation of Facebook's own ToS. Again, I do agree with the knowledge-lacking senate and Mark himself that Facebook has a responsibility to police their platform within reason, but Aleksandr is the first person that needs dealing with before the senate's Facebook employee witch hunt begins since he willfully violated Facebook's own ToS through the app he developed.


Desktop: KRySTaLoGi-PC Build Log (i7-4790K, RTX2060) Mobile: OnePlus 5T | Bell - Unlimited Calling & Texting + 10GB Data
Laptop: Dell XPS 15 9560 (the real 15" MacBook Pro that Apple didn't make) Tablet: iPad Mini 5 | HP Touchpad | ASUS ME302C
Camera: Canon SX280 + Rebel T1i (500D) | Sony HDR-AS50R | Panasonic DMC-TS20D Music: Spotify Premium (CIRCA '08)

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Maxxtraxx said:

Then the fault on that front is primarily with Kogan and with Facebook who to my understanding was extremely lax in their data control and usage enforcement for many years and also in in their favoritism in the entities they gave privelidged access to.

 

If they don't enforce the rules and bend them at their own particular whim then problems like this will occur and the fault is primarily their own.

 

edit:

 

I should also specify that I don't absolve Cambridge of wrongdoing, but in their case any wrongdoing is dependent entirely upon the knowledge that they had about the data when it was purchased, if they knew that Kogan selling the data was outside of his allowances in the contractual use of the data... then they would be in the wrong as well. However, if Cambridge was only aware that they were purchasing data... but were unaware of or not told of any restrictions on that data through no fault of their own, then they would be absolved.

 

However, i've not read fully into this particular issue but IMO my suspicion would be that they may have had some knowledge of the data's source but did not expect facebook to attempt enforcement of their rules. (this previous sentence is entirely speculation with no particular source of info)

Not sure how relevant it may be but one of the founders of CA who left the company a few years ago has described the company very much as the ends justifies the means type of org.


[Out-of-date] Want to learn how to make your own custom Windows 10 image?

 

Desktop: AMD R9 3900X | ASUS ROG Strix X570-F | Radeon RX 5700 XT | EVGA GTX 1080 SC | 32GB Trident Z Neo 3600MHz | 1TB 970 EVO | 256GB 840 EVO | 960GB Corsair Force LE | EVGA G2 850W | Phanteks P400S

Laptop: Intel M-5Y10c | Intel HD Graphics | 8GB RAM | 250GB Micron SSD | Asus UX305FA

Server 01: Intel Xeon D 1541 | ASRock Rack D1541D4I-2L2T | 32GB Hynix ECC DDR4 | 4x8TB Western Digital HDDs | 32TB Raw 16TB Usable

Server 02: Intel i7 7700K | Gigabye Z170N Gaming5 | 16GB Trident Z 3200MHz

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kirashi said:

really hope this gets brought up since Aleksandr should be dealt with prior to anyone else being affected at Facebook. I'm not disputing the fact that we need to reach Europe's level of consumer protection laws: this is a definitive goal if North Americans are to ever have the same quality of life that many Countries in the EU offer. However, in this instance, Aleksandr knowingly violated Facebook's own ToS and app developer policies by wording his Quiz App's ToS to be in direct violation of Facebook's own ToS. Again, I do agree with the knowledge-lacking senate and Mark himself that Facebook has a responsibility to police their platform within reason, but Aleksandr is the first person that needs dealing with before the senate's Facebook employee witch hunt begins since he willfully violated Facebook's own ToS through the app he developed.

I can agree with that being brought up(though i'm not entirely sure about the EU's consumer protection laws... and I seldom tend to be in favor of many of the things i see coming out of the EU(but that is a personal world view and mindset difference on my part more than anything else))

 

I can both agree with and disagree with "policing their platform within reason"

example:

 

Agree with policing for: Content like "backpage" or other flagrant abuses used to exploit people are a definite  NO NO

 

Disagree with policing for: Content like "Diamond and Silk" where another persons beliefs and opinions are censored if they may be even mildly upsetting to anyone and not in line with the company's leanings(liberal/progressive in Facebooks case)

 

Very Secondary note: example of EU things that disturb me: French court ruling that a pro-life commercial depicting Happy people with down syndrome being censored because it may disturb women who have had aborted down syndrome babies... so it must therefore be censored, Short and simple: person A's life cannot be included or celebrated because their existence may disturb person B who made a personal choice entirely separate from person A.

 

1 hour ago, 2FA said:

Not sure how relevant it may be but one of the founders of CA who left the company a few years ago has described the company very much as the ends justifies the means type of org.

I see your point exactly.

 

AND i completely do not believe the individual and the company when they say they disavow that article he wrote, he wrote it as a point of fact for the companies feelings.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it funny how they seemed to think data farming in an election is a new thing, it's been done since prior to the internet xD 

 

Regardless of any of that the EULA nonsense companies try to establish as binding, the lack of user data protection, and the general nonsense tech companies get away with needs to end. I'm not a fan of regulation in general out of principle but I also am not a fan of using users as a commodity in this manner and facebook so ultimately I guess I have mixed feelings about this but in the end see it as a net positive they are getting smacked. However I feel like this is more along the lines of a witch hunt for more Russia nonsense (ie this is a political shitshow and nothing more) which is concerning at this point.


https://linustechtips.com/main/topic/631048-psu-tier-list-updated/ Tier Breakdown (My understanding)--1 Godly, 2 Great, 3 Good, 4 Average, 5 Meh, 6 Bad, 7 Awful

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Maxxtraxx said:

Disagree with policing for: Content like "Diamond and Silk" where another persons beliefs and opinions are censored if they may be even mildly upsetting to anyone and not in line with the company's leanings(liberal/progressive in Facebooks case)

Oh, I'm absolutely on the same page as you there. I should clarify that by policing content I meant only content that is either clearly being used for promoting acts of terror, threats, or heavy handed harassment, or content that promotes drugs & alcohol in an unsafe manner, etc. This is an impossibly difficult thing to do though, since one person's views may not be deemed by some as much right or left winged as another person's views.

 

The real question is "What regulation is the right regulation for the internet as a whole?", which Mark brought up many times in the first 2 hours of the hearing. I do plan to watch the remaining 8+ hours of the hearings when I get around to finishing up day 1 and starting day 2, but so far many valid points have come up regarding privacy and security around services we use on the internet everyday.

 

Normally I couldn't give two midgets shitting into a bucket's worth of car regarding politics because of the under-the-table backroom deals that all political figures make (or have made) at some point in their "careers", even though I do make an effort to vote in every federal, provincial, and municipal election we have in Canada. However, for citizen's privacy and content censorship I'll make an exception, as healthy communication is the most effective way to start solving the world's problems.


Desktop: KRySTaLoGi-PC Build Log (i7-4790K, RTX2060) Mobile: OnePlus 5T | Bell - Unlimited Calling & Texting + 10GB Data
Laptop: Dell XPS 15 9560 (the real 15" MacBook Pro that Apple didn't make) Tablet: iPad Mini 5 | HP Touchpad | ASUS ME302C
Camera: Canon SX280 + Rebel T1i (500D) | Sony HDR-AS50R | Panasonic DMC-TS20D Music: Spotify Premium (CIRCA '08)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted · Original PosterOP
14 minutes ago, kirashi said:

The real question is "What regulation is the right regulation for the internet as a whole?", which Mark brought up many times in the first 2 hours of the hearing.

He said that he will extent GDPR rules not only to EU Facebook users but to everyone in the world. While that would be nice, I don't think I can buy that


There is more that meets the eye
I see the soul that is inside

 

Making Windows Defender as good or even better than paid options

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, hey_yo_ said:

He said that he will extent GDPR rules not only to EU Facebook users but to everyone in the world. While that would be nice, I don't think I can buy that

Are you sure that's what he said?

Because this article I read says that they will not do that. They will extend some of the GDPR changes worldwide, but not all of it. Mark also refused on comment on which parts would or would not be included in the world wide version.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted · Original PosterOP
1 minute ago, LAwLz said:

Are you sure that's what he said?

Because this article I read says that they will not do that. They will extend some of the GDPR changes worldwide, but not all of it. Mark also refused on comment on which parts would or would not be included in the world wide version.

Quote

Mark Zuckerberg stated that the changes Facebook is making in response to the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) will be available worldwide. Zuckerberg made a commitment to not only provide the same privacy controls but making the same kinds of disclosures and treating users’ data the same. The GDPR imposes requirements on how user data is collected, and how user data must be deleted at the user’s request.

https://www.theverge.com/2018/4/11/17224492/zuckerberg-facebook-congress-gdpr-data-protection


There is more that meets the eye
I see the soul that is inside

 

Making Windows Defender as good or even better than paid options

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, hey_yo_ said:

I recommend you read the entire article. The Zucc seems to change his mind a lot, even during the same hearing. 

I would not be so sure all the things will be extended worldwide. Then again, GDPR is more than just adding a few buttons and disclaimers. Maybe all of them will be ported over, but a lot of the administrative backend stuff won't? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×