• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why I broke the Facebook story

Lafayette

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 13, 2015
Messages
9,594
Reaction score
2,072
Location
France
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
This from the Guardian: Christopher Wylie - Why I broke the Facebook data story – and what should happen now

Excerpt:

The whistleblower at the centre of the Cambridge Analytica storm asks if Britain will now address the hard issues which it has raised

I’m disappointed, but I also understand it. It is extremely uncomfortable to consider that our democracy may have been corrupted. That potential crimes may have taken place – some of them on Facebook’s servers – that seem to be beyond the reach of law. It’s why I testified last week to parliament. It’s why I have given three binders of evidence about Vote Leave to the UK Electoral Commission and information commissioner’s office.

That evidence proved enough for Facebook to take action and suspend AIQ to investigate. Will Britain now take this evidence seriously?

Because this is not just about data. In Britain, we have strict spending limits for elections. It’s what has kept Britain from following the path of American politics, where elections are the sport of billionaires and corporate interests.

Beyond data, there are two more issues at stake here: overspending and coordination between campaigns. The law forbids campaigns from coordinating, to forestall the potential for shell entities and overspending vehicles. In the digital age, where political campaigns use Facebook as their predominant tool, it’s difficult to enforce. And when four different campaigns – Vote Leave, BeLeave, Veterans for Britain and the DUP – all used the same data firm, AIQ, it’s pretty much impossible.

My intention here, is to set out the issues – and the evidence – as simply as possible.

Well worth the read if you are interested in how pervasive was the political corruption surrounding the compromise of Facebook data information and its use in both the American election and the Brexit vote as well.

As far as the US is concerned, let's not forget that our own election of a PotUS who lost the popular-vote is also of consequence to any functional democracy, which makes us wonder if we are indeed one ...
 
Last edited:
So...this guy is all up in the world's face about mining FB info...but he's not talking about HIS part in the whole thing. I wonder why.

Let's face it...without that data, HE wouldn't have been able to do HIS job, which was to compile and sort that data so it would be useful to CA clients.

Seems that, at the time he was doing his work...and getting paid for it...he wasn't complaining so much about the source of that data or the methods used to acquire it. Why is he complaining now?
 
This from the Guardian: Christopher Wylie - Why I broke the Facebook data story – and what should happen now

Excerpt:



Well worth the read if you are interested in how pervasive was the political corruption surrounding the compromise of Facebook data information and its use in both the American election and the Brexit vote as well.

As far as the US is concerned, let's not forget that our own election of a PotUS who lost the popular-vote is also of consequence to any functional democracy, which makes us wonder if we are indeed one ...
This is WAY the **** too much agenda for a real journalist.
 
This from the Guardian: Christopher Wylie - Why I broke the Facebook data story – and what should happen now

Excerpt:



Well worth the read if you are interested in how pervasive was the political corruption surrounding the compromise of Facebook data information and its use in both the American election and the Brexit vote as well.

As far as the US is concerned, let's not forget that our own election of a PotUS who lost the popular-vote is also of consequence to any functional democracy, which makes us wonder if we are indeed one ...


I find it sad that people think everyone in the US even looks at Facebook, and those that do, and are of voting age, are all little robots that believe every ad they see on it. If there are that many people like that out there, that you think it actually swayed the election, then we deserve extinction.
 
I find it sad that people think everyone in the US even looks at Facebook, and those that do, and are of voting age, are all little robots that believe every ad they see on it. If there are that many people like that out there, that you think it actually swayed the election, then we deserve extinction.

Let's be honest. This is not even an issue if Hillary Clinton is elected president.
 
A TANGLED WEB

So...this guy is all up in the world's face about mining FB info...but he's not talking about HIS part in the whole thing.

He was talking. To parliament. March 27th ...

Let's face it...without that data, HE wouldn't have been able to do HIS job, which was to compile and sort that data so it would be useful to CA clients.

Seems that, at the time he was doing his work...and getting paid for it...he wasn't complaining so much about the source of that data or the methods used to acquire it. Why is he complaining now?

How could he know the import of his work, when (1) there were no US-regulations that outlawed it, and (2) he was just an Information Technician that was obtaining the data as a client had contracted him to do.

The "real-political-operative" in this story was American-billionaire Robert Mercer who financed it all. Wylie was just a very good programmer.

About Mercer, here:
Cambridge Analytica (CA) is a British political consulting firm which combines data mining, data brokerage, and data analysis with strategic communication for the electoral process. It was started in 2013 as an offshoot of the SCL Group. The company is partly owned by the family of Robert Mercer, an American hedge-fund manager who supports many politically conservative causes. The firm maintains offices in London, New York City, and Washington, D.C.

The SCL Group (according to WikiP) is:
SCL Group (formerly Strategic Communication Laboratories) is a private British behavioural research and strategic communication company. In the United States, SCL has gained public recognition mainly through its affiliated corporation Cambridge Analytica.

This "tangled web" of voter manipulation is not so tangled after all. It is funded by one and most only one family - the billionaire Mercers dabbling in US politics because they've nothing better to do ...
 
Last edited:
BILLIONAIRE-WANABEES

I find it sad that people think everyone in the US even looks at Facebook, and those that do, and are of voting age, are all little robots that believe every ad they see on it. If there are that many people like that out there, that you think it actually swayed the election, then we deserve extinction.

You are denying the ability of a site like Facebook to take advantage of personal information, then sell it to third-parties who employ it to "manipulate opinion to sell products/services".

What planet do you live on ... ?

PS:
*The irony of it all is the fact that both Zuckerberg (CEO) and Sandberg cannot seem to understand that they were central to the exploitation of Facebook-provided user information for profit. Which is of a personal nature (belonging to the individual) and they had no legal right to do so without having permission.
*No wonder Sandberg isn't saying "boo!" about her part. Her lawyer probably told her to shut-up?
*Both she and "Zuck" should take the dive - they are both rich enough. Too much money goes straight to the head - no stopping at Go (meaning no-rules), insufficient taxation and thus doing so becomes a billionaire-wannabe's dream-come-true.
*Wakey, wakey, America. Just where the hell are you going ... !
 
Last edited:
You are denying the ability of a site like Facebook to take advantage of personal information, then sell it to third-parties who employ it to "manipulate opinion to sell products/services".

What planet do you live on ... ?

PS:
*The irony of it all is the fact that both Zuckerberg (CEO) and Sandberg cannot seem to understand that they were central to the exploitation of Facebook-provided user information for profit. Which is of a personal nature (belonging to the individual) and they had no legal right to do so without having permission.
*No wonder Sandberg isn't saying "boo!" about her part. Her lawyer probably told her to shut-up?
*Both she and "Zuck" should take the dive - they are both rich enough. Too much money goes straight to the head - no stopping go (meaning no-rules), insufficient taxation thus doing so remains a dream-come-true.
*Wakey, wakey, America. Just where the hell are you going ... !

Nope, not what I said.
 
This is WAY the **** too much agenda for a real journalist.

Put your thinking cap on and argue WHY!

This is a debate-forum, not a MESSAGE BOARD !!!!!!!!!!!!
 
But what I said.

This is a debate forum. Learn how to debate!

Rebut ... !

I don't debate with someone who has twisted my words, then asks what planet I live on, as if I'm the one not understanding what I wrote.

However, to make myself clearer, your OP referred to the election, and no, I don't believe many people chose to vote the way they did just because they saw an ad or post on Facebook. I would hope they put a little more thought into voting, than they would buying some kind of product.
 
Welcome to a "debate forum".

You are making an unacceptable judgement. I am not twisting your words - I am taking them at face-value.

Learn to either "rebut" cogently or just move on ...

However, to make myself clearer, your OP referred to the election, and no, I don't believe many people chose to vote the way they did just because they saw an ad or post on Facebook. I would hope they put a little more thought into voting, than they would buying some kind of product.


Whatever. Have fun with your 'debate'
 
THE MATTER OF PUBLIC DEBATE

I don't debate with someone who has twisted my words, then asks what planet I live on, as if I'm the one not understanding what I wrote.

Welcome to a "debate forum".

You are making an unacceptable judgement. I am not twisting your words - I am taking them at face-value.

Learn to either "rebut" cogently or just move on ...

However, to make myself clearer, your OP referred to the election, and no, I don't believe many people chose to vote the way they did just because they saw an ad or post on Facebook. I would hope they put a little more thought into voting, than they would buying some kind of product.

But they don't in the US.

If you want to see the opposite illness, come to France. Where they debate anything that moves. Useless time spent "exchanging points-of-view".

Whereas in the US, two or three "shows" on TV of the main-participants and bundles, and bundles of mindless TV-adverts passes for an "exchange of opinion" regarding the basics. Every subject is reduced to ridicule by both parties.

Between the two opposites, democracy needs a middle-ground where people "debate and then vote". I maintain we are not getting enough of either by the public. (This present site aside, which is doing a good job getting people to exchange opinions.)

Debates are never fundamental, because people don't like the facts of the matter - and particularly when they are statistical data that are portrayed in amazingly simple-to-understand graphics.

A CASE IN POINT

Once upon a time not long ago, there was a "debate". A bit one sided, but still there was an exchange. It was a man called Martin Luther King who knew how to say the right words about "Blacks are the equals of whites in a true democracy!"

And look at what we have today. They are not being treated with equality. They are being shot-down in the streets by mindless twerps in police-uniforms who think the law gives them the right to take lives with a gun just because they are wearing a badge.

MY POINT

We are not progressing as a nation. We are regressing.

We are not the first to do so. It has happened often enough in history. Two hundred years ago, the notion of "democracy" replaced that of "monarchic autocracy". That was a big shift forward in the evolution of mankind.

However, the US has become stuck in "ideological jargon" nowadays, and the heart of any political matter/problem/desire becomes obfuscated in mindless, pedantic rhetoric*.

How did this happen. Where did secondary and post-secondary schooling fail? When I see how they teach in France, this comes to mind: We do not teach our children "how to debate subjects". That is, to formulate an opinion (and express it adequately) based upon a reasoned evaluation of the matter in question.

Unlike sports, the point of debate is NOT TO WIN THE EXCHANGE. But to elevate the knowledge we have of the subject in order to formulate a well-founded personal opinion.

*Rhetoric: Language designed to have a persuasive or impressive effect, but which is often regarded as lacking in sincerity or meaningful content.
 
Last edited:
* snip*

Excerpt:
Funny this "guy" would only look at one side of the story.

Real question here is why you folks ignore the even more egregious data breach and major scandal of a huge, illegal in-kind election campaign donation by FB to slenderman's campaign in 2012. If they had offered it to everyone, they didnt, it would still be a problem as it (way more) massively took something to give to only one side, slenderman's, that fb didnt own.

Thats called stealing, thats interfering in an election, thats illegal campaign donations and its called major hypocrisy. Will you call for criminal investigations of Slenderman (perhaps midnight raids to him and his acolytes ) of Suckerberg and shamed facebook?

Not holding my breath for you one way streeters.

As we noted earlier, the Obama campaign's use of Facebook data dwarfed anything Trump did. Cambridge Analytica purchased data from an academic, who gathered it in 2014 through an app that said the data would only be used for academic purposes. There's no question that was misleading.

But by the time the general election rolled around, the Trump campaign had dumped Cambridge as a consultant, which means the data Cambridge bought had no impact on the general election.


In contrast, the Obama campaign's use of Facebook was massive, and even more intrusive. About a million people let the campaign gather not only data on themselves, but on all their friends, who didn't know their data was being harvested as well — a number that could easily have reached 190 million, which, at the time, was about equal to every active Facebook user in the U.S.
.

And the campaign aggressively used its unique access to influence millions of people the campaign identified as "persuadable," sending them highly targeted campaign messages that appeared to come from their Facebook friends, rather than the Obama campaign.

Obama's people saw this as a massive advantage, telling the press after the election that it was "the most groundbreaking piece of technology developed for the campaign." The press, in turn, heralded Obama for his brilliance at leveraging social media to activate voters and win an election at a time when its approval ratings were low and the economy was doing poorly.

Apparently, Facebook knew its user data was being harvested en masse, but didn't care.


After the Cambridge Analytica story broke, an Obama campaign staffer, Carol Davidsen, tweeted about how "Facebook was surprised we were able to suck out the whole social graph, but they didn't stop us once they realized what we were doing." By "whole social graph," she presumably meant profiles of every Facebook user in the U.S.

...

She also said that Facebook officials came to the campaign offices after the election recruiting Obama's tech team, and that "they were very candid that they allowed us to do things they wouldn't have allowed someone else to do because they were on our side."

This wasn't entirely new news, by the way. The New York Times reported in 2013, in another glowing piece on Obama's tech team, how "The campaign's exhaustive use of Facebook triggered the site's internal safeguards." Facebook's response, according to one campaign official: "They'd sigh and say, 'You can do this as long as you stop doing it on Nov. 7.'"

That's where the potential legal trouble starts. Despite all the hosannas for Obama's technical prowess, the arrangement between the campaign and Facebook might have been outside the law.

According to Heritage Foundation election expert Hans von Spakovsky, federal law "bans corporations from making 'direct or indirect' contributions to federal candidates."

That ban, he says, doesn't just include cash, but anything of value. "In other words, corporations cannot provide federal candidates with free services of any kind."

He goes on, if "Facebook gave the Obama campaign free access to this type of data when it normally does not do so for other entities — or usually charges for such access — then Facebook would appear to have violated the federal ban on in-kind contributions by a corporation. And the Obama campaign may have violated the law by accepting such a corporate contribution."


To be sure, von Spakovsky isn't saying that Facebook or Obama did break the law, only that, given what Davidsen has now admitted (and so far as we know, no one from Facebook has disputed her claims), the Federal Election Commission, if not the Justice Dept., should investigate.
https://www.investors.com/politics/...nadal-trump-obama-campaign-election-meddling/
 
But what I said.

This is a debate forum. Learn how to debate!

Rebut ... !

For gawdsake, enough coffee for you this morning.

Holbritter's argument is better than yours.

Not only is Facebook a private enterprise, no one is forced to use the platform, and, even if they do, a government should not need to protect normal citizens from propaganda.

Propaganda.

It's not as scary as you might think. Of course, if it scares you, that might be because you don't think.

Fascinating.
 
I don't debate with someone who has twisted my words, then asks what planet I live on, as if I'm the one not understanding what I wrote.

However, to make myself clearer, your OP referred to the election, and no, I don't believe many people chose to vote the way they did just because they saw an ad or post on Facebook. I would hope they put a little more thought into voting, than they would buying some kind of product.

Your point was valid and well made. It's just (in my opinion) that we're seeing a growing faction in our society that insists that everything we see, hear, or even think, must be dictated to us based on what they feel is best. It's not that we no longer have the ability to think for ourselves, it's that they do not have that ability. Hence, they feel a great need to control what everyone sees.

We live in interesting times.
 
Your point was valid and well made. It's just (in my opinion) that we're seeing a growing faction in our society that insists that everything we see, hear, or even think, must be dictated to us based on what they feel is best. It's not that we no longer have the ability to think for ourselves, it's that they do not have that ability. Hence, they feel a great need to control what everyone sees.

We live in interesting times.

An interesting observation for sure.

Good Morning Too U!

:2wave:
 
Good morning to you as well!

:2wave:

It is night for me, I just got done with a catering for 70...the lovely wife will deliver it....and it is awesome.

I FEEL awesome....I barely work anymore and sometimes I miss it.
 
A TANGLED WEB



He was talking. To parliament. March 27th ...



How could he know the import of his work, when (1) there were no US-regulations that outlawed it, and (2) he was just an Information Technician that was obtaining the data as a client had contracted him to do.

The "real-political-operative" in this story was American-billionaire Robert Mercer who financed it all. Wylie was just a very good programmer.

About Mercer, here:


The SCL Group (according to WikiP) is:


This "tangled web" of voter manipulation is not so tangled after all. It is funded by one and most only one family - the billionaire Mercers dabbling in US politics because they've nothing better to do ...

Everyone has some part of this event that chaps their ass. For you, it's the fact that a guy spent his own hard earned money...legally..the way he chose to, though I'm not so sure your contention that he did it "because (he had) nothing better to do" is accurate. People who have a lot of money generally have important (at least to them) reasons for spending their money.

But let's talk about Wylie, since he's the topic of this thread. And, let's talk about MY comment about Wylie. After all, his hypocrisy is what chaps MY ass...when he gets out there talking about the people who gave him his job.

Wylie isn't the guy who figured out how to mine the data. He's the guy who figured out how to use the data. He's the guy who designed the software to use the data to actually target people for political ads.

You call that "voter manipulation", as if that's a bad thing, but it's really no different from what marketers do. It's no different from what EVERY campaign does. It's completely acceptable by our society. For some reason, people's asses are chapped red and raw because C.A. did something that lots of people did. Acquire data (in C.A.'s case, they bought it), manipulate data (Wylie's part) and used the data to sway voters. Heck, Obama did that very same thing back in 2012...two years before C.A. came along. He even acquired his data from FB, as well. Nobody's ass is chapped because Obama manipulated voters...and spent a boatload of money doing so.

Data manipulation is what Wylie does. He did it before C.A. That's why they hired him. Without him, C.A. would have had no reason to buy that FB data from the guy who actually mined it. (nobody seems to want to talk about THAT guy much, either) That data would have been nothing more than a mass of information about people and what they like...until someone like Wylie comes along to make useful sense of it and to put the information to work.

Now...Wylie seems to be chapped because of the web of organizations that may have broken British campaign rules. Okay. Fair enough. But that has nothing to do with the US and there is no indication that C.A. broke any US rules or laws. But Wylie should have known who employed him and what they were doing. After all, he had all those documents. Why did he keep working for them? His hypocrisy is what chaps my ass.

So...if you want to talk about Wylie, I'm all ears. If you want to talk about Mercer and what he does with his money, don't waste my time. Start a new thread.
 
Last edited:
AD NAUSEAM

For you, it's the fact that a guy spent his own hard earned money...legally..the way he chose to, though I'm not so sure your contention that he did it "because (he had) nothing better to do" is accurate.

Yes, you've hit the problem right-on-the-nose. Legally.

Well, this is what legally means in the US when it comes to ultra-low Upper-income Taxation of the super-rich:
2DfGB.png


Know how to read an info-graphic? Probably not.

So I will reduce it to an elementary truth: Taxation in the US is immensely unfair and leads directly to what economists call Income Disparity. It also makes for squandering the money-pile generated by an economy on the rich and ultra-rich whose wealth is so immense they don't know what the hell to do with it.

So, dorks like Mercer (and Koch, et al) meddle in politics by funding "our favorite people". Both are Money-Pits and both are bored silly if they are not manipulating an election result somewhere in the nation.

But, the CENTRAL POINT IS THIS: The money does not go into voter-pockets. That's unjust and unfair and probably illegal. Nope, it goes to Media-Moguls who brainwash the American public over the BoobTube.

And Donald Dork just reduced upper-income taxation so they could obtain even more? Sickening, absolutely sickening!

It works time and time and time again. Ad nauseam ...
 
Last edited:
For gawdsake, enough coffee for you this morning.

Holbritter's argument is better than yours.

Not only is Facebook a private enterprise, no one is forced to use the platform, and, even if they do, a government should not need to protect normal citizens from propaganda.

Propaganda.

It's not as scary as you might think. Of course, if it scares you, that might be because you don't[think]


Sarcasm doesn't work here. This is supposedly a Debate Forum. Look up the word "debate".

(And you're a "Veteran". Of what, the local football game that your son played?)

Not only is Facebook a private enterprise, no one is forced to use the platform, and, even if they do, a government should not need to protect normal citizens from propaganda.

The "youngster" who created Facebook and willingly allowed Cambridge Analytica to investigate harvested information regarding its users to better help Mercer fund electioneering advertising for his favorite candidates was humbled by a DC HofR investigation committee.

Or did that bit of news escape your attention? Or, do you wish simply to gloss over it, because you voted meekishly for Donald Dork and do not wish in the least to question that wrongful decision ... ?
 
I would hope they put a little more thought into voting, than they would buying some kind of product.

Yes, well, hope-away.

Because most people DO MAKE UP THEIR MINDS based upon the mindless media-usage and IT DOES HAVE AN IMPACT. Or megabuck money would not have been spent on TV-advertising. (See estimated Total Advertising-costs for both parties in last election here.)

From here: Do TV Political Ads Still Matter in the Age of Social Media? - excerpt:

Trump's direct access to millions of his followers through social media arguably allowed him to maintain his campaign's momentum whereas an older system — in which the choke points of media exposure roughly correspond to the choke points of political power — would have shut him down long before he won the Republican nomination. Trump's facility with social media raises an important question: Could a digital-only communications strategy have won him the White House?

Trump didn't just use Twitter as a tool to propel his campaign, he used it to supplant traditional earned and paid media strategies. The digital reach of his tweets may have proved far less important than their reverberation throughout the legacy media ecosystem. In this sense, social media moments were no different from provocative TV spots or planned interviews, all of which Trump mastered long ago, and all of which he expected would be amplified through earned coverage.

In 2016, the spectacle of Trump, a skilled pitchman hitting his stride in a newfangled medium, smashing up the rules of political discourse, proved irresistible to the media. By some estimates, Trump's earned media coverage throughout the campaign was worth $5 billion. In the hands of a less skilled self-promoter, social media would likely have been a far less successful tool.

And it's essential to remember that Trump's overnight political success was built on the persona he had crafted during decades in the limelight. Twitter is the latest tool of his celebrity, not its source.

What Americans stoopidly did was to swallow-the-glitter. Trump-the-PotUS was an unintended add-on that we shall live to regret.

And this is not even the important fact. Which is this one: In any True Democracy it is the popular-vote that elects head-of-government. Not some defective voting concoction (called an "Electoral College") more than two centuries old, negotiated at the formulation of the nation when the southern states feared losing their slavery-source of manpower. The intent of the Electoral College was to induce them into signing onto the Constitution of the nation and it was known full-well that the college unfairly exaggerated the weight of the southern states

We have had five PotUSs elected who lost the popular-vote, two in the last 20-years! The historical price (especially the war-dalliancing of Bush2), we have learned, is too steep ... !
 
Last edited:
Funny this "guy" would only look at one side of the story. Real question here is why you folks ignore the even more egregious data breach and major scandal of a huge, illegal in-kind election campaign donation by FB to slenderman's [Obama] campaign in 2012.

No, the real-question is answered in "how the data is used" - not how it was got.

Towards deciding whether it was "fair not not-fair", POLITIFACT says this:

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.
 
No, the real-question is answered in "how the data is used" - not how it was got.

Towards deciding whether it was "fair not not-fair", POLITIFACT says this:

Politifact? Politifact?? :lamo

Youre actually laying down Politifact on me...and then what, I am supposed to pull the wool over my own eyes??? :lamo:lamo:lamo

I will only counter because this is a debate site and, despite the hilarious use of "valid" and "trusted" source like Politifact, when I finish slapping my knee, I will address the point.

:lol: whew...

Politifact here uses a tactic that they use often. They attack at a tangent, finding only a point of weakness to represent the entire argument.

First of all, despite being a media darling as much as a republican can be a, rainy day, darling...very few of us over here would allow John McCain to speak in addressing all that which we would have spoken.

Then watch them, Politi(wrong)fact, try to slip this one by,

"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."

My article discusses this in much better detail,

"In contrast, the Obama campaign's use of Facebook was massive, and even more intrusive. About a million people let the campaign gather not only data on themselves, but on all their friends, who didn't know their data was being harvested as well — a number that could easily have reached 190 million, which, at the time, was about equal to every active Facebook user in the U.S.
.
"

Politico doesnt always tell lies, it just doesnt usually get around to telling the real truths.
 
Back
Top Bottom