[ rss / options / help ]
post ]
[ b / iq / g / zoo ] [ e / news / lab ] [ v / nom / pol / eco / emo / 101 / shed ]
[ art / A / beat / boo / com / fat / job / lit / map / mph / poof / £$€¥ / spo / uhu / uni / x / y ] [ * | sfw | o ]

Return ]

Posting mode: Reply
Reply ]
Subject   (reply to 83991)
File  []
>> No. 83991 Anonymous
21st March 2018
Wednesday 4:03 am
83991 Fall Guy
Clearly a slippery character and the whole thing doesn't seem good for him personally. Lying to parliament/congress is never a good look.

What happens next with Cambridge Analytica? Will this have any impact at all on the 2020 election? What happens when it all comes out about them and Brexit?

Personally I am not sure much will change, but it has been a political soap opera of a day...
Expand all images.
>> No. 83992 Anonymous
21st March 2018
Wednesday 6:27 am
83992 spacer
>What happens next with Cambridge Analytica?

Probably they'll get even more business than before.

>What happens when it all comes out about them and Brexit?

I can't see much happening, though it might tip the scales in favour of launching a second vote. Not really because of this - more because Brexiteers are not likely to ever reach a proper plan of action with the NI border and this would be a good way to roll back a bit without committing political suicide. The whole thing is even more of a mess internally, apparently.

Like you I don't believe much will really change. The government can't really push too hard on things like digital privacy when they're up to the sort of things they're up to as a matter of policy.

I'm having lunch with a chap who has his fingers in these sorts of pies, so I'll do my best to squeeze something out of him. I might try the Masons handshake on him, who knows.
>> No. 83993 Anonymous
21st March 2018
Wednesday 6:41 am
83993 spacer
What's actually happened with this because I lose interest when I start reading articles about it? They've been targeting Facebook adverts at people or something?
>> No. 83994 Anonymous
21st March 2018
Wednesday 6:56 am
83994 spacer

Essentially they took user's data and used it to build detailed profiles of these users personalities and tendencies. With that sort of information they could identify 'persuadable voters' and absolutely definitely theoretically serve them persuasive content to affect their vote.

The working assumption is that they're the technology behind the Russians colluding in the US election, as well as Brexit.

Honestly though from where I'm standing, the chilling thing is I'm not quite sure they've even done anything illegal.
>> No. 83995 Anonymous
21st March 2018
Wednesday 7:06 am
83995 spacer
Is this much different from Obama's victory in 2008 being dubbed the "Facebook election" due to the amount of targeted adverts he used in the campaign and even having co-founders and former senior members of Facebook staff in his strategy team?
>> No. 83996 Anonymous
21st March 2018
Wednesday 7:35 am
83996 spacer

Obama didn't lose the popular vote by 3 million. This is much more surgical.
>> No. 83997 Anonymous
21st March 2018
Wednesday 7:46 am
83997 spacer
>This is much more surgical.

Is this another way of saying they focused on the marginal swing states you actually need to win if you want to be President?
>> No. 83998 Anonymous
21st March 2018
Wednesday 8:24 am
83998 spacer

Even more precise then that. They targeted the swing voters of those states with fake news targeted specifically at their demographic. And soft democrats in those areas with fake news that would diswade them from voting. Via profiling them on social media.
>> No. 83999 Anonymous
21st March 2018
Wednesday 11:33 am
83999 spacer
>Honestly though from where I'm standing, the chilling thing is I'm not quite sure they've even done anything illegal.
It very likely would have been illegal here, and almost certainly is illegal under GDPR. Not only did the game collect profile data without disclosing what it would actually be used for, it also slurped profile data of people who had not even seen the thing, let alone consented to it.

But then again that's moot because, as usual, it'll be the cover-up that does them in.
>> No. 84000 Anonymous
21st March 2018
Wednesday 2:25 pm
84000 spacer
Does he have an opaque moustache or just no top lip whatsoever? I've got my glasses on, but I still can't make my mind up.
>> No. 84001 Anonymous
21st March 2018
Wednesday 5:01 pm
84001 spacer
He has one of those classic "stiff upper lip" mouths. Add in the Eton breeding, its why he was so convincing.
>> No. 84002 Anonymous
21st March 2018
Wednesday 8:58 pm
84002 spacer

Oh my.
>> No. 84003 Anonymous
21st March 2018
Wednesday 9:14 pm
84003 spacer
I'm a dunce. Can you explain what I'm looking at here?
>> No. 84004 Anonymous
21st March 2018
Wednesday 9:42 pm
84004 spacer
Those are insiders selling their stock over the last week. When you get to a certain level of seniority in a firm, your stock purchases/sales are made public (and you are known as an insider). Most public companies have very strict rules around that, to avoid the suggestion of insider dealing. I'm quite sure they'll say it was all planned in advance of this unexpected news coming out, but looks very bad.

I never thought I would write this for quite a few years - Facebook are now in a lot of trouble.
>> No. 84005 Anonymous
21st March 2018
Wednesday 9:48 pm
84005 spacer

Records from the end of January to today, showing that Mark Zuckerberg and several other Facebook executives have been selling off substantial amounts of their Facebook shares. Zuckerberg has sold off half his shares in the space of two months. Facebook shares slumped in early February and have taken another big hit over the last few days. Zuckerberg says that he's selling his shares to fund his philanthropic efforts, but there's a clear implication that Facebook will be the subject of a major investigation and Zuckerberg is selling up before the shit hits the fan.
>> No. 84006 Anonymous
21st March 2018
Wednesday 9:55 pm
84006 spacer
Ah right, thanks lads (thads). Yeah that's pretty fucked. Not really surprising though I guess. Surely anyone with half a brain knows these cunts are/have been up to their necks in shit for years.

Will be quite satisfying if facebook gets well and truly cunted off to be honest. Fuck them.
>> No. 84007 Anonymous
21st March 2018
Wednesday 10:19 pm
84007 spacer

Holy shit.

I don't think I've ever seen such prominent signalling.
>> No. 84008 Anonymous
21st March 2018
Wednesday 10:30 pm
84008 spacer
>his philanthropic efforts

I think his heart is in the right place on some of his efforts, but it is also clear, having watched his platform get (mis)used by others to get Trump into the White House, he fancies a go at that too.

If Trump and CA could do it, imagine what he could do with all the data at his disposal. Quite obvious that he was planning to enter the race in 2020, but I think this has put paid to all that.
>> No. 84009 Anonymous
21st March 2018
Wednesday 10:36 pm
84009 spacer
Mark Zuckerberg announced in September 2017 his plan to sell 35 to 75 million Facebook shares over the course of 18 months to his venture philanthropy foundation, which certainly isn't a tax dodge in more than one way, and these are being sold under SEC Rule 10b5-1 which means that a predetermined number of shares are sold at a predetermined time, often regular intervals, to try to avoid insider trading.

Zuckerberg has actually been selling large quantities of shares on a regular basis since at least August 2016 - https://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/own-disp?CIK=0001548760&action=getowner - so what's happened is that someone has taken a snapshot out of context to try and shit stir, safe in the knowledge that most people either won't understand what they're looking at so will jump to conclusions or they won't try to look at it objectively because it fits in with their pre-existing biases.
>> No. 84010 Anonymous
22nd March 2018
Thursday 1:12 am
84010 spacer
>pre-existing biases

Harsh but fair.
>> No. 84011 Anonymous
22nd March 2018
Thursday 1:19 am
84011 spacer
I don't know if I'm just misreading it, but I can't get those numbers to add up. How does someone with 9,342,383 shares sell 465,400 shares and end up with 9,131,983 shares? I know Trump's still in the White House but I don't think his reality distortion powers extend to making maths work differently so I suspect I'm missing something here.
>> No. 84012 Anonymous
22nd March 2018
Thursday 1:28 am
84012 spacer
Some of them are option exercises.
>> No. 84013 Anonymous
22nd March 2018
Thursday 1:29 am
84013 spacer


This is fascinating. Shit's going down.
>> No. 84020 Anonymous
24th March 2018
Saturday 8:42 am
84020 spacer

Apparently they were wheeling boxes out before the search last night. It's from reddit so fuck knows if it's accurate, but I'd not be surprised.
>> No. 84021 Anonymous
24th March 2018
Saturday 9:09 am
84021 spacer
Teacrate. It's says it on the box. It's crates of tea.

It's obvious what's happened here. They've decided to reduce their Teacon status.
>> No. 84022 Anonymous
24th March 2018
Saturday 9:15 am
84022 spacer
If they were trying to remove anything incriminating knowing the warrant was likely to be granted, that's obstruction and the courts take a very dim view of it. If that's what happened, then take it as an admission that what they have is worth taking a charge for perverting.
>> No. 84023 Anonymous
24th March 2018
Saturday 10:43 am
84023 spacer

It's probably just a scumbag clever photographer who's been waiting outside their building for anyone carrying a box. Do CA occupy an entire building? This could really be anything to be fair.
>> No. 84024 Anonymous
24th March 2018
Saturday 11:04 am
84024 spacer
It is annoying me how people are finding voter targeting appalling. Either they are ignorant of it in the past, or they simply don't like Bad Guys doing it.
>> No. 84025 Anonymous
24th March 2018
Saturday 11:14 am
84025 spacer

It's because this might be better classified as voter manipulation. Even if you don't agree with that statement, they've still very likely broken the law.
>> No. 84027 Anonymous
24th March 2018
Saturday 11:35 am
84027 spacer
Wouldn't all party political broadcasts and advertising count as 'voter manipulation'? Thats the name of the game, getting people to do or think, what you want.
>> No. 84028 Anonymous
24th March 2018
Saturday 11:45 am
84028 spacer
The main issue is that if you watch a political broadcast, you know what it is, and there (should be) well documented evidence of who paid for it, any potential conflicts of interest, and the source of any facts mentioned.
With cambridge analytica, there was content directly funded by political parties, which was obfuscated behind other names.

Also see:

>> No. 84029 Anonymous
24th March 2018
Saturday 12:08 pm
84029 spacer
It largely seems to boil down to "the side I don't like won so I'm going to throw my toys out of the pram".

Most people have shrugged their shoulders and moved on. It's only The Guardian giving it some mileage and that's because the whistleblower went to them and, on this occasion, they've decided to listen to what they say instead of fobbing them off like they did to the whistleblowers at Save The Children.
>> No. 84030 Anonymous
24th March 2018
Saturday 12:16 pm
84030 spacer
Shush lad, grown-ups are talking.
>> No. 84031 Anonymous
24th March 2018
Saturday 12:33 pm
84031 spacer

>> No. 84032 Anonymous
24th March 2018
Saturday 2:38 pm
84032 spacer

Given Channel 4 has footage of the former ceo confessing to blackmail and offices were just raided by the police let's assume that there might just be something more there.
>> No. 84033 Anonymous
24th March 2018
Saturday 7:11 pm
84033 spacer
No lad - firstly it is the fact that parties used to have to declare how much they spent on advertising (in print and TV) and with these methods, it is far more opaque. Secondly, they have been breaking data protection laws while doing so. Third, the CEO has been caught on TV suggesting they use various kinds of illegal activities to shift elections in different countries. Lastly, there are strict limits in many countries on who can work on campaigns, and they have been riding roughshod over those rules.

Most people have not shrugged their shoulders and moved on.
>> No. 84034 Anonymous
25th March 2018
Sunday 3:06 am
84034 spacer

This is more of an android permissions problem in the grand scheme, but still.
>> No. 84035 Anonymous
25th March 2018
Sunday 6:21 am
84035 spacer


Fuck this lads I'm moving to Canada.
>> No. 84036 Anonymous
25th March 2018
Sunday 6:24 am
84036 spacer

It's a great place - did a long trip (okay 3 weeks) in huge RV, amazing country. Like the best bits of the US mixed with the best bits of France, only the people were much lovelier. The population density is very low and the country is huge, you drive for an hour and see nothing. Loved it. Would move there in a heartbeat.

Also: fucking cold in the winter.
>> No. 84037 Anonymous
25th March 2018
Sunday 6:41 am
84037 spacer

Screen Shot 2018-03-25 at 06.40.05.png
>What happens when it all comes out about them and Brexit?


Return ]

Delete Post []