John Gruber seems to think that this revised estimate is part of the age-old drip-drip-drip PR strategy and also links to the Washington Post article that suggests that most of its 2 billion users worldwide have had their public profiles scraped without explicit permission.
He also makes this astute observation that Facebook's users are different from their customers and how this affects Facebook's policies. There's also the fact that Facebook won't extend the new European privacy law globally. All in all, a slimeball of a company.
To those who seem to think that Facebook's privacy shenanigans are nothing to worry about, I suggest a reading of Kashmir Hill's investigative articles on the company.
I have zero outrage over this. I honestly don't even understand how it is a story. You are on Facebook. They collect your data (especially when you agree) and they target ads at you. That is what they do. People are worked up because the ads were political. It's not like they stole your money. Facebook is free. Ignore the ads if you don't like them. Are people angry on the behalf of people whose opinions are swayed but didn't know it? So what, same thing happens every time you see a politician speak or put and ad on TV. And they all have spin and god knows almost none of it is based in fact. Who cares? All sides have been targeting people this way for a long time. Ok, they gathered data that, only some of which was supposed to be shared and used it to put an ad in your feed. It's not like they were giving away your credit card data. Hell, Google scrubs my personal email for keywords to target ads and that seems way more intrusive. Ignore the ads and move on with your life. I do it everyday on Facebook.
It is a story because 300,000 people took the test. The testers then sucked up 87 million more records without permission associated with the 300,000 that agreed to take the test.
Cambridge Analytica and their parent are/were in the business of influencing elections -- not just here, but anywhere in the world. They are essentially mercenaries who provide their services to the highest bidder.
In this case, the problem is not so much that they collected the data -- but what they did with it.
Step#2 was about what they did with the data. Specifically, they used it to identify specific groups and then pin point their weaknesses and vulnerabilities which then led to step #3.
Step #3: was about targeting the weaknesses and vulnerabilities of those groups with specific propaganda to influence which issues they thought about, how they thought about them, and what they believed.
In short: They used modern technology never before available to this degree to try to influence our election. Whether they influenced the election or not is subject to debate. But they're intent to do so is part of the public record.
Quite clearly, this is a weaponization of information. The question that leaves is: How will world wide democracies respond (if at all) to this new weapon? .... Shutting down CA will do no good. The cat is out of the bag and they will be replaced by new and improved versions in future elections. Versions that will be able to blur the distinctions between reality and fiction.
It is hard to delete Facebook, at least for me personally. because of already attached to it for so many years, people still sign up facebook for the business purposes, but actually i am not really an active user, but just feel a need to check the facebook everyday for the news and also want to know what happen to my friend and my relative
Comments
He also makes this astute observation that Facebook's users are different from their customers and how this affects Facebook's policies. There's also the fact that Facebook won't extend the new European privacy law globally. All in all, a slimeball of a company.
And, I am sure few of us are unaware of one of Zuckerberg's original IMs in which called his users, um, intelligent.
Cambridge Analytica and their parent are/were in the business of influencing elections -- not just here, but anywhere in the world. They are essentially mercenaries who provide their services to the highest bidder.
In this case, the problem is not so much that they collected the data -- but what they did with it.
Step#2 was about what they did with the data. Specifically, they used it to identify specific groups and then pin point their weaknesses and vulnerabilities which then led to step #3.
Step #3: was about targeting the weaknesses and vulnerabilities of those groups with specific propaganda to influence which issues they thought about, how they thought about them, and what they believed.
In short: They used modern technology never before available to this degree to try to influence our election. Whether they influenced the election or not is subject to debate. But they're intent to do so is part of the public record.
Quite clearly, this is a weaponization of information. The question that leaves is: How will world wide democracies respond (if at all) to this new weapon?
.... Shutting down CA will do no good. The cat is out of the bag and they will be replaced by new and improved versions in future elections. Versions that will be able to blur the distinctions between reality and fiction.