Jump to content


Cambridge Analytica/Social Media


Recommended Posts

17 hours ago, funhusker said:

Poor analogy:  I'm an organized crime kingpin.  I make a really good living running books, money laundering, and all kinds of illegal things.  I understand that the FBI has every right to bust up my ring, but I'm not going to be excited about it.  In fact I might do whatever I can to disrupt the investigation and make the FBI seem like the bad guys....

Are you Donald Trump?

  • Plus1 2
Link to comment

1 hour ago, jsneb83 said:

Are you Donald Trump?

No, I'm not so lucky!  I'm just a regular old joe named David Dennison.  I wish I was as successful and handsome as Donald.  My gosh!  Have you seen his hands?  They're YUGE.  I bet he can throw a spiral through a tire from 50 yards away.  And how bout that guy and how the women, THE MOST BEAUTIFUL WOMEN, surround him.  I like his big brain too, his intellect is much smarter than other people.  STUD!!!

  • Plus1 2
Link to comment
2 hours ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

Nothing to do with my reply. We've had topics about ugly stuff the U.S. has done. It's still a non factor in how angry and vocal we should be about someone doing it to us.

 

But...but...isn't that a factor or even the MAIN factor in half the debates around here?

 

Putting the shoe on the other foot?

 

We need to be extremely vigilant about what Russia and others are capable of doing via cyber attack. It really is the future.

 

But if there was one political takeaway from the Russia intervention, it should be the question: "why would Vladamir Putin prefer Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton?" 

Link to comment
57 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

But...but...isn't that a factor or even the MAIN factor in half the debates around here?

 

Putting the shoe on the other foot? 

 

 

What the US has done in the past shouldn't be a factor at all in how we respond to other countries doing it to us.

Link to comment

32 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

True. But it should be a factor on private message boards where we ask ourselves slightly more difficult questions. 

 

 

Why?

 

Why should whether the U.S. meddles in elections/governments be a factor in how the US reacts to other countries doing it to us?

 

Or even how US citizens react to it? You haven't made a case for it being relevant.

 

 

To use a more serious example, we did some stuff to piss Osama Bin Laden off, which is why he claimed 9/11 happened.

 

Should our reaction (as a country and as citizens) to 9/11 have been different based on whether we made Bin Laden mad or not?

Edited by Moiraine
Link to comment

If a kid made this argument about how he treated people and how he expected to be treated, you would sit him down and explain how ethical behavior works.

 

Again. This is a private message board. I'm not speaking as a public official instigating or defending U.S. policy. 

 

Also, if we had taken a minute or two to recognize why we had made Bin Laden mad, and addressed the hypocrisy of U.S. actions among the population we were supposedly defending, millions of lives and billions of dollars could have been saved.

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

If a kid made this argument about how he treated people and how he expected to be treated, you would sit him down and explain how ethical behavior works.

 

Again. This is a private message board. I'm not speaking as a public official instigating or defending U.S. policy. 

 

Also, if we had taken a minute or two to recognize why we had made Bin Laden mad, and addressed the hypocrisy of U.S. actions among the population we were supposedly defending, millions of lives and billions of dollars could have been saved.

 

 

But none of that has anything to do with how we should react when we're attacked, literally or our elections/system of government. This applies to both our government and us as citizens. What the U.S. did should not factor into how pissed we are that a foreign country meddled in our elections.

 

The only thing it should be a factor in is how we conduct ourselves in the future when it comes to doing more meddling.

Link to comment
 
Quote

 

Personal information of up to 87 million people — mostly in the United States — may have been "improperly shared" with Cambridge Analytica, a data analytics firm used by the Trump campaign that has recently come under fire. The number previously reported was 50 million.

Facebook's Chief Technology Officer Mike Schroepfer gave the figure Wednesday at the end of a lengthy blog post outlining ways the social media giant is working to better protect user data.

 

 

Edited by BigRedBuster
Link to comment

I listened to much of today's hearing and @BigRedBuster has a good point - a lot of things asked and spoken about today came from a position of moderate ignorance.

 

Now, I'm sure a lot of politicians in D.C. host hearings and ask questions so they can learn and better understand topics they don't understand. Some of things today were just ridiculous though, including a failure to understand common phrases and functions associated with Facebook.

 

One of my favorite parts of the hearing was when they criticized Facebook's terms of service, almost as if they're the only company that produces what equates to a small bible and ask users to read it. I bet most of the people in this country can count on one hand the number of times they've ever read a terms of service.

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...