(OT) Cambridge Analytica

[Brian W Lawrence]

Last night the BBC's 'This Week', a late night politics program
with a light-hearted approach, had a guest who had made a short
video for the program explaining what the Cambridge Analytica/Facebook
story was all about.

He was Jamie Bartlett, who is a 'tech expert' and has several
books to his name. He did plug his latest book which covers
the topic in some detail.

Obviously, he was asked if they (CA) influenced the 2016 US election.

"I think you could say that Cambridge Analytica probably did swing
the election. A few weeks into the campaign, Brad Parscale, who was
running Trump's digital campaign, received loads of data from CA,
suggesting that there were enough persuadable Trump voters in
Michigan, Wisconsin & Pennsylvania, that he could win those states.
Everyone else said he couldn't. They shifted loads of budget towards
that, and they won each of them by less than 1%."

He said that he spoke to several people inside the campaign, during
the campaign.

It was pointed out to him that Clinton also used similar data, and
that the Obama Admin. told her Pa. was not a slam dunk, but she
ignored that. His response was, "you can't turn a very bad candidate
into a very good one with these techniques".

'This Week' is usually available via the BBC iPlayer and is on YouTube
shortly after broadcast (but not yet). Bartlett's video starts about
7m into the program.

His book is due out on 19 April, the full title is 'The People Vs Tech:
How the internet is killing democracy (and how we save it).

Paperback – 19 Apr 2018, £7.74

"Tech has radically changed the way we live our lives. But have we
unwittingly handed too much away to shadowy powers behind a wall of
code, all manipulated by a handful of Silicon Valley utopians, ad men,
and venture capitalists? And, in light of recent data breach scandals
around companies like Facebook and Cambridge Analytica, what does that
mean for democracy, our delicately balanced system of government that
was created long before big data, total information and artificial
intelligence? In this urgent polemic, Jamie Bartlett argues that through
our unquestioning embrace of big tech, the building blocks of democracy
are slowly being removed. The middle class is being eroded, sovereign
authority and civil society is weakened, and we citizens are losing our
critical faculties, maybe even our free will.

The People Vs Tech is an enthralling account of how our fragile
political system is being threatened by the digital revolution. Bartlett
explains that by upholding six key pillars of democracy, we can save it
before it is too late. We need to become active citizens; uphold a
shared democratic culture; protect free elections; promote equality;
safeguard competitive and civic freedoms; and trust in a sovereign
authority. This essential book shows that the stakes couldn’t be higher
and that, unless we radically alter our course, democracy will join
feudalism, supreme monarchies and communism as just another political
experiment that quietly disappeared."

[Pelle Svanslös]

On 23.3.2018 13:04, Brian W Lawrence wrote:
> Last night the BBC's 'This Week', a late night politics program
> with a light-hearted approach, had a guest who had made a short
> video for the program explaining what the Cambridge Analytica/Facebook
> story was all about.
>
> He was Jamie Bartlett, who is a 'tech expert' and has several
> books to his name. He did plug his latest book which covers
> the topic in some detail.
>
> Obviously, he was asked if they (CA) influenced the 2016 US election.
>
> "I think you could say that Cambridge Analytica probably did swing
> the election. A few weeks into the campaign, Brad Parscale, who was
> running Trump's digital campaign, received loads of data from CA,
> suggesting that there were enough persuadable Trump voters in
> Michigan, Wisconsin & Pennsylvania, that he could win those states.
> Everyone else said he couldn't. They shifted loads of budget towards
> that, and they won each of them by less than 1%."
>
> He said that he spoke to several people inside the campaign, during
> the campaign.
>
> It was pointed out to him that Clinton also used similar data,

As I understand it, Clinton campaign had a lot of other data, but didn't
have the psychometric data. CA collected the Facebook data to get the
psychological profiles of the users and then advertising was targeted
according to the profiles. The Brexit vote was the first election this
was used in.

--
https://img.aws.la-croix.com/2014/08/19/1193729/Comment-Herge-alle-pecher-jurons-favoris-capitaine-Haddock-pointe-Bretagne_1_730_425.jpg

[heyg...@gmail.com]

And CA likely combined that data with the hacked voter rolls to target specific voters with precision. Helps explain the Obama-Trump voting block and the Bernie-Clinton disconnect.

[The Iceberg]

so they just used data from Facebook as market research and targeted voters - like every single election campaign in history just about has done. This has to be the dumbest load of sour grapes ever heard.

[The Iceberg]

will watch this at some point, but his book sounds a total joke - social media is eroding our democracy oh cos politicians have ALWAYS told the truth in their adverts and campaigns and never used in-depth market research/polls before, where all the BILLIONS spent by lobbyists doesn't go on getting voters to side with them LOL What kind of a fantasy does this guy want us to live in, a world where only Demorats/Hillary are allowed to spend $500million on MMS advertising and Saudi backing? only Obama is allowed to use Facebook data analytics?

[Calimero]

On Friday, March 23, 2018 at 12:04:09 PM UTC+1, Brian W Lawrence wrote:
> Last night the BBC's 'This Week', a late night politics program
> with a light-hearted approach, had a guest who had made a short
> video for the program explaining what the Cambridge Analytica/Facebook
> story was all about.
>
> He was Jamie Bartlett, who is a 'tech expert' and has several
> books to his name. He did plug his latest book which covers
> the topic in some detail.
>
> Obviously, he was asked if they (CA) influenced the 2016 US election.
>
> "I think you could say that Cambridge Analytica probably did swing

> the election. ....


I thought dumb women who voted how their husbands told them to did swing the election?


Max

[Calimero]

And Hillary wasn't allowed to grunt ...

Let me guess - you are American?


Max

[bob]

exactly

bob

[Brian W Lawrence]

On 23/03/2018 15:49, The Iceberg wrote:

> so they just used data from Facebook as market research and targeted voters - like
> every single election campaign in history just about has done.

'every single election campaign in history'? Lol

[Whisper]

You suggesting Hillary would never stoop this low just to win?

; )



---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

[bob]

yeah, recent history. :-)

bob

[Carey]

The Atlantic: This is so much bigger than Facebook:

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/03/data-misuse-bigger-than-facebook/556310/

[Guypers]

On Sunday, March 25, 2018 at 11:51:58 AM UTC-4, Carey wrote:
> The Atlantic: This is so much bigger than Facebook:
>
> https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/03/data-misuse-bigger-than-facebook/556310/

Zuckerberg is a scumbag, stole the idea for FB from the Indian and Brazilian grad students!?

[Calimero]

Sure, Guppy.
And now take your meds ...


Max

[Guypers]

Nazi, sukkmy balls, may be will get some brains, scumbag!

[Calimero]

As if you had balls ... lol ...


Max

[Guypers]

Sukkmyasshole, willshit in your mouth, lunch and proteins for the nazi!!

[Calimero]

Since you are an asshole I wouldn‘t know which of your body parts to suck, Guppy boy.


Max

[bob]

On Sun, 25 Mar 2018 09:02:16 -0700 (PDT), Guypers <gap...@gmail.com>
wrote:

2 white guys actually.

bob

[Guypers]

The story begins in the weeks that precede the launch of "thefacebook.com" at Harvard. Eduardo Saverin, cast as the protagonist, has befriended Mark Zuckerberg, and both struggle for social acceptance—Saverin by joining a final club, Zuckerberg by creating a website where girls can be ranked according to their looks. Zuckerberg's stunt, though successful, puts him at odds with the Harvard Administrative Board, and has angered numerous campus women's groups as well as individual female students. An article on the incident in the Harvard Crimson is noticed by three Harvard seniors: twin brothers Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss and Divya Narendra, all of whom who are trying to launch a Harvard dating site. The trio approaches Zuckerberg, convincing him to join in the venture. Zuckerberg, however, feels their site does not have what he thinks is the right approach and begins developing thefacebook with financial help from Saverin and programming from Zuckerberg's roommates.

Once thefacebook.com is launched it becomes an immediate hit on campus. After discovering what Zuckerberg has done, the Winklevoss' and Narendra are infuriated and seek legal advice from their father's lawyer. The story then chronicles the changing relationship between Saverin and Zuckerberg, who have different visions.

[The Iceberg]

so what about the "idea", Zuckerberg went out and made the website. People are always telling me their "ideas" for new websites or whatever, big deal, if somebody else actually goes out and makes the website, they deserve all the fame/money etc.

[Guypers]

He was a god programmer, the court obviously disagreed with you, since Mark had to pay them $65M each?,

[The Iceberg]

yeah prob cos he wrote half their website and instead of totally starting again, he nicked it.

[bob]

On Sun, 25 Mar 2018 19:43:20 -0700 (PDT), Guypers <gap...@gmail.com>

i watched the movie yrs ago, and my recollection was the winklevoss
twins were pushing the idea to launch the site over christmas, at
which pt zuckerberg disappeared for a few wks, only to launch the site
secretely himself cutting them out. scum move, of course. then they
sued and won $50+mil, which was a pittance compared to its value
afterward.

correct? btw, the winklevoss twins are on tv periodically as venture
capitalists touting various tech firms.

bob

[bob]

the problem was that they had a deal, but the kids were obviously too
young to have it all legalized, and zuckerberg didn't just tell them
he was going on his own, he snuck off and did it for a period of time
that they were all supposed to be prepping to launch the site.

bob

[TT]

Cambridge Analytica used Facebook data without permission - and
connecting the dots - the influence campaign was then probably carried
out by Russian bots. So, stolen data & KGB.

[The Iceberg]

they were very rich beforehand anyway.