[pratyush6]

I am not on FB. I cant say the same about Whatsapp (which is owned by them too). The network effect keeps them going.
Google knows pretty much everything about us. They have the info, its just what they want to do with it is the question. No one lives without Google.

The thing that gets people is that FB/Google are in a position to sell/use the data to favor people/groups/friends which is in general against any principle of fair competition and natural justice.

[Chetan_Rao]

Everything a far-fetched idea, even 'absurd', until it isn't.

If our only defense to someone capable of doing something is 'Oh no, they wouldn't!', it isn't much of a defense. There really isn't depths companies and individuals won't sink to, actions they would hesitate to take, if it fits their worldview and the position they want in it.

[avira_tk]

Originally Posted by Samurai

How Facebook is destroying democracy... a simple guide.

The level of cringe in that video is unbearable, the complaint is that the other side won. It's like a liberal cult meeting, sort of like the John Oliver show. Only a journalist in the M25 liberal bubble thinks that ordinary people don't have agency to decide the future. Right off the bat, here are a few lies right off the bat

1. Britain's a net contributor to the EU, those roads and institutions weren't made with funds from the magic money tree.
2. Nigel Farage has been cleared of financial wrong doing, long ago I might add, no word about the government funds used to scare people about the negative consequences of voting the "wrong" way.
3. This is the largest democratic exercise in the UK, the leave side won by a sizeable margin. The vote has been ignored and another election to the EU parliament, which doesn't have any law making authority, has taken place.
4. The Japanese car makers leaving Wales have committed a series of blunders that have made their products unpopular, Brexit is just a convenient excuse.
5. How about the numbers with immigration?instead of saying there aren't many in that small town in Wales, ethnic Brits are a minority in London, what more evidence do you want about immigration changing the country.

The big data snake oil salesmen have convinced the gullible that targeted advertising is what made Brexit happen, no word about the entire establishment on overdrive to drown out the ordinary people who had enough of being talked down to. We just had the anniversary of the D day landings, that was long war to defeat a German dominated Europe, now, that has been achieved without firing a shot, with willing collaborators who have nothing but contempt for the people's will.

Here is a take on cambridge analytica hysteria.
https://www.spiked-online.com/2018/0...lyticas-power/

The Trump derangement syndrome of that woman is unbearable, the audience are just getting drivel that strengthens their prejudices, perfect NPC meme material, really surprised they didn't start an "orange man bad" " EU we love you" chant.

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by avira_tk

3. This is the largest democratic exercise in the UK, the leave side won by a sizeable margin.

UK voted to leave the European Union by 51.89% for Leave to 48.11% for Remain, a margin of 3.78%. How is 3.78% a sizable margin? The number is small enough to have been swayed by an aggressive social media misinformation strategy.

Generally, such major (no-return) decisions are subject to 2/3rd majority. This is not something they can correct in the next election.

[avira_tk]

Originally Posted by Samurai

UK voted to leave the European Union by 51.89% for Leave to 48.11% for Remain, a margin of 3.78%. How is 3.78% a sizable margin? The number is small enough to have been swayed by an aggressive social media misinformation strategy.

Generally, such major (no-return) decisions are subject to 2/3rd majority. This is not something they can correct in the next election.

This is a referendum in a country that has the first past the post system, the majority however small is the deciding factor. The numbers weren't swayed by Facebook, just identity politics gone berserk. Brexit have a million more votes despite the entire establishment working for remain. The leave vote would have been higher if the media bias was reined in and journalists, like the sanctimonious woman giving the TED talk bothered to talk to people outside her champagne guzzling social circle. She talked to the people after the vote. Mass media campaign of misinformation didn't get the outcome the elite desired, so Facebook is to blame.

Sorry, the 2/3 rule is just spin, the EU technique is to let the people vote and change the treaty afterwards. The Brits had enough of this, they got one chance to tell the elite to buzz off and they seized it.

[blacksport]

Originally Posted by Samurai

Surveillance is not just limited to FB anymore. Here is something from the congressional hearing. It is chilling to hear.

They are turning these congressional hearings into a sham. Bring in some leftist professors who will mouth whatever conspiracy theories that fit your agenda. It is all a joke.

[Samurai]

When Mark Zuckerberg testified last time, he was able to make lots of non-tech savvy lawmakers look like idiots.

However, this time he was up against one of the most tech-savvy congresswoman, who is also known for asking the most incisive questions in the congressional hearing.

AOC: When did you first become aware of Cambridge Analytica?
Mark: With everyone else... I think March 2018... I could be wrong.
AOC: Did anyone in your leadership team know about it before the Guardian report on Cambridge Analytica in Dec 2015?

Oops!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G272R50v6ww

[avira_tk]

Originally Posted by Samurai

When Mark Zuckerberg testified last time, he was able to make lots of non-tech savvy lawmakers look like idiots.

However, this time he was up against one of the most tech-savvy congresswoman, who is also known for asking the most incisive questions in the congressional hearing.

AOC: When did you first become aware of Cambridge Analytica?
Mark: With everyone else... I think March 2018... I could be wrong.
AOC: Did anyone in your leadership team know about it before the Guardian report on Cambridge Analytica in Dec 2015?

Oops!

AOC is clearly reading off a script, what are the chances she knows the exact date the guardian (a partisan news source) published this report? What catastrophic events happened in 2016?

She's a nut who thinks unemployment is low because people are working 2 jobs, earned NY state 5 billion by opposing Amazon HQ2 and thinks feelings about climate change should be the deciding factor in trillions of additional spending. Also the world will end in 12 years, so I guess its too late anyway.

In what world does a man who built a multi billion dollar business and employs thousands have to cede the moral high ground to a tax payer funded agitator who has absolutely zero business experience. The whole charade is to harass Facebook for not censoring anyone who is not a Democrat supporter. Zuckerberg thinks people can decide for themselves, that's what concerns the establishment.

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by avira_tk

AOC is clearly reading off a script, what are the chances she knows the exact date the guardian (a partisan news source) published this report? What catastrophic events happened in 2016?

If the news is true, why does it matter which way guardian news paper leans? Are you saying Ted Cruz didn't use Cambridge Analytica?

It was probably the biggest scandal to hit Facebook. And somehow Mark Zuckerberg doesn't remember how it started? I am sorry, I am not that naive, I won't buy that story.

Originally Posted by avira_tk

She's a nut who thinks unemployment is low because people are working 2 jobs, earned NY state 5 billion by opposing Amazon HQ2 and thinks feelings about climate change should be the deciding factor in trillions of additional spending. Also the world will end in 12 years, so I guess its too late anyway.

This thread is discussing Facebook's business practices. AOC is not perfect, she is a very passionate young debater/orator, and while speaking unscripted, gaffes do happen.

Why are you focusing on AOC? Zuckerberg was the witness here, let's focus on him.

Originally Posted by avira_tk

In what world does a man who built a multi billion dollar business and employs thousands have to cede the moral high ground to a tax payer funded agitator....

That's a very Trumpian logic. What next? Zuckerberg can shoot a person in Menlo Park and he should get away with it? Just because he built a big business? The question is asked by a member of a congressional committee which has the power to subpoena citizens and question them. It is all very legal, if you are not aware.

Originally Posted by avira_tk

The whole charade is to harass Facebook for not censoring anyone who is not a Democrat supporter.

I am not interested in your politics, which is anyway out of bounds in this forum.

Originally Posted by avira_tk

Zuckerberg thinks people can decide for themselves, that's what concerns the establishment.

Zuckerberg sold access to Cambridge Analytica to manipulate the US election by selectively targeting gullible Facebook users, who had no idea they were victims of a targeted political campaign. Most people are not equipped to identify and reject cleverly designed propaganda content. The daily nonsense people forward on whatsapp and share on FB are ample proof of that. Zuckerberg is being extremely disingenuous when he claims people can decide for themselves.

[alpha1]

Originally Posted by avira_tk

In what world does a man who built a multi billion dollar business and employs thousands have to cede the moral high ground to a tax payer funded agitator who has absolutely zero business experience. The whole charade is to harass Facebook for not censoring anyone who is not a Democrat supporter. Zuckerberg thinks people can decide for themselves, that's what concerns the establishment.

Not taking any Democrats vs Republican side here, but what are your views on privacy of data of an individual - in other words is it OK to share a person / customer without his permission and without letting him know where all this data would be used?

What is your stand on usage of such data to swing your opinion?

My opinion is that with modern connected lives we are willingly sharing our private data with the world KNOWINGLY in order to get some returns (like appreciation, popularity, sales/deals).

However what concerns me a tad is the unknown angle of where all this data can be used to manipulate my feelings. What concerns me even more is how someone can trick me by knowing my profile and feeding with questionable information trying to polarize me. And what makes me scared for my life is the hordes of sheep in human clothing who do not have analytical brain of their own and are extremely impatient, impulsive and jumpy.

You how know there is a very thin line between a good salesman and a con-man. (Any practical guy with business experience will acknowledge this). The same is here.

[poloman]

Originally Posted by Samurai

Zuckerberg sold access to Cambridge Analytica to manipulate the US election by selectively targeting gullible Facebook users, who had no idea they were victims of a targeted political campaign. Most people are not equipped to identify and reject cleverly designed propaganda content. The daily nonsense people forward on whatsapp and share on FB are ample proof of that. Zuckerberg is being extremely disingenuous when he claims people can decide for themselves.

If personal data can be used to sell all kinds of products why not politics? What else is the purpose of data analytics other than selective targeting and marketing? How people in US become so gullible that a targeted ad can influence their voting choices?

This is as ridiculous as claims of Russia influencing American voters. Ironic to see this hue and cry made by Americans who are busy mantling and dismantling governments across the world.

You can't have it both ways. Either ban the use of personal data entirely or stop doing selective outrage.

[avira_tk]

Originally Posted by alpha1

Not taking any Democrats vs Republican side here, but what are your views on privacy of data of an individual - in other words is it OK to share a person / customer without his permission and without letting him know where all this data would be used?

What is your stand on usage of such data to swing your opinion?

.

If you use Facebook and think its free, you don't deserve to have your privacy protected. You should have the right to opt out, Facebook doesn't have a gun to your head, you can choose to not use it. However, people who are great fans of data privacy when Facebook is the entity have no trouble supporting government coercion to enforce data sharing with unreliable entities.

I didn't respond to an earlier post quoting me because I don't believe using data to upswing opinion works. The proponents of big data usually hide their contempt for ordinary people by claiming successful manipulation, denying them any agency.

We have a history of our country to prove mass manipulation doesn't work, people have voted out corrupt, brutal and incompetent governments despite propaganda and money power. This was before big data and advanced communications technologies appeared on the scene.

[Chetan_Rao]

Originally Posted by avira_tk

...This was before big data and advanced communications technologies appeared on the scene.

Have you considered that may the difference here?

The ability to collect data and use it to track minute patterns/preferences for a large user base individually, then tailor targeted initiatives (something as innocuous as subtly pushing one brand over another for something you frequently buy online) had never existed until now.

Influencing opinion doesn't have to be, and often isn't blatant, because a large chunk of the audience will suspect something's up if you push too far at one go, people are smart, like you say.

It starts with pushing one news source you wouldn't usually read into your online feed that has a slightly contrarian opinion to your usual preferences, track how you react to it over a period of time, then push more until you're consuming news from sources that push a certain narrative, not because you signed up to be manipulated explicitly, but you're nonetheless being led to consider a different POV.

When they use horses to create anti-venom, they don't pump them full of fatal doses of venom at once. They do it in measured doses. Humans, insulting as it may see to some to be drawn into that parallel, react the exact same way.

If I tell you upfront someone is a pedophile or baby-killer, you'll call me a nutjob and wonder where I got my tinfoil hat (rightfully so). If I instead feed you info in a slow trickle that ultimately makes you think said person is of questionable character, I've achieved the same end result.

Brutal dictatorships of the past would've loved big data, social media (not just Facebook) and 24/7 news cycles!

P.S. Saying one has a choice not to use something, in the absence of a viable comparable alternative is as absurd as saying I have a choice not to use the road that leads to my apartment because I think the potholes are dangerous, and that I should airdrop in instead.

[luvDriving]

There is an old saying - If you reveal your secrets to the wind, do not blame it for revealing them to the trees. All the social media owners of twitter, google, facebook and others are big wind creators. If you use these sites and applications then be sure that your information will be put to use for their benefit (read revenue generation).

And such information gathering begins at the very basic levels - phone companies, those people in our malls collecting only your name and phone offering a bumper prize, even educational institutions, call centers, employment sites. Once I bought a idea postpaid card and inserted it into my phone. I had not shared this number with anyone else but as soon as I booted my phone, I got a call from a marketing agent. Another example is google snooping on emails for keywords. If I mention Australia in some mail, be sure to see ads for low price flights to Australia and Hong Kong.

Everything that we share online comes in the public domain and is ultimately searchable by someone anonymously. Hence the need is to watch what you share on the internet. Don't be paranoid but think for a moment before putting out photos of each and every living moment out on facebook, WhatsApp and twitter.

[V.Narayan]

This morning I get a call from some call centre agent who introduced him self as being from Mahindra & Mahindra. Now I am not on FaceBook or Twitter or Instagram. By the norms of today I keep a low social media footprint. This call centre agent then says, "that you visited our website a few days ago and hence I am calling you to check your interest in our products". Fact is I did visit their website through my android hand held but can they pick up my phone number by my simply visiting their site for less than two minutes? Can the IT experts opine. Or is it that it is just common practise to say such things.