50 million Facebook profiles harvested for firm linked to former Trump adviser

[Charles]

A yet Facebook had zero problem with it when the Obama campaign did the exact same thing.

So you are not going to answer? Fine, I understand.

[Mountain Man]

Answer what? That someone was fired because of political pressure? Or do you not realize that's what happened?

[myth]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...raps-elections

Morality is more complex than you seem to think. Some Christians have a hard time supporting any candidate that condones what we view as murder (abortion). Picking between Trump and Clinton during the last election wasn't a question of picking one morally upright leader over a degenerate: it was instead a question of choosing the lesser of two evils.

[rogue06]

Morality is more complex than you seem to think. Some Christians have a hard time supporting any candidate that condones what we view as murder (abortion). Picking between Trump and Clinton during the last election wasn't a question of picking one morally upright leader over a degenerate: it was instead a question of choosing the lesser of two evils.

I know a number of folks who voted for Hillary that said they did so because they considered her the lesser of two evils and yet poor little jimmy here just can't wrap his noodle around the concept.

Perhaps he sprained his brain trying to figure out what a boy is.

[Charles]

Answer what? That someone was fired because of political pressure? Or do you not realize that's what happened?

So a man who used prostitues and all sorts of dirty methods to put opponents under preassure was fired for political reasons? I do not assume that is your answer. Go back and read again if you forgot the question. I understand why you have a hard time answering.

[Tassman]

Morality is more complex than you seem to think. Some Christians have a hard time supporting any candidate that condones what we view as murder (abortion). Picking between Trump and Clinton during the last election wasn't a question of picking one morally upright leader over a degenerate: it was instead a question of choosing the lesser of two evils.

You disprove of abortion, the majority of Americans do not and favour freedom of choice. And yet you see it as your right to impose your views on the majority, even though it means a deeply immoral adulterer now represents the party of 'family values'. You've thrown the baby out with the bathwater and lost whatever moral high-ground you may once have had.

[Tassman]

A yet Facebook had zero problem with it when the Obama campaign did the exact same thing.

The Obama campaigns use of Facebook material didn't resort to the dirty tricks employed by the Bannon/Mercer sponsored Cambridge Analytica.

[Mountain Man]

So a man who used prostitues and all sorts of dirty methods to put opponents under preassure was fired for political reasons?

The man who CLAIMS to have done that was fired, and, yes, it was very much political as there appears to be no evidence any of that salacious stuff actually happened.

In other news, Facebook turned a blind eye to this sort of thing for years with countless organizations taking advantage of their deliberately lax security.

http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/0...e-at-facebook/

[demi-conservative]

I see why you would like it to be about something else.

Bannon fights fire with fire. Shocking!

Also, whole 'scandal' is doing big rebound on ally of Obama and Hillary, Facebook Inc.

Maybe you should just go back to pressing Amen at odd moments, Charles.

[Tassman]

And according to Facebook, the information was gathered "in legitimate way and through the proper channels".

Not so. Cambridge Analytica "had illegitimately hoovered up Facebook user data".

http://www.businessinsider.com/cambr...merdata-2018-3

And just because it might have given Trump some small advantage in his epic defeat of Hillary, certain people are, of course, crying foul.

Between the 50 million names illegally gathered by Cambridge Analytica in order to spread malign influence plus the influence of the St Petersburg Troll Factory intended to support Trump and discredit Hillary, it is perfectly reasonable to assume that that Trump was massively helped. In short, he dishonestly cheated his way into power.

[Mountain Man]

Not so. Cambridge Analytica "had illegitimately hoovered up Facebook user data".

http://www.businessinsider.com/cambr...merdata-2018-3



Between the 50 million names illegally gathered by Cambridge Analytica in order to spread malign influence plus the influence of the St Petersburg Troll Factory intended to support Trump and discredit Hillary, it is perfectly reasonable to assume that that Trump was massively helped. In short, he dishonestly cheated his way into power.

I've answered in other threads which you have studiously ignored, so I'll just copy my responses from there instead of taking the time to compose a new post.

The vast majority of ads were purchased after the election, Facebook has said that less then 5-million people even saw the ads before the election, and those same "troll factories" promoted militant liberal groups like Black Lives Matter and organized anti-Trump rallies (one of which was famously headlined by Michael Moron).

But I'm sure they had a significant impact on the election in Trump's favor. No, really.

But of course when Obama did the exact same thing, the media praised him for his technological savvy. Compare the following glowing story fom US News & [World] Report which describes Obama's leveraging of social media as "masterful":

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/artic...ebook-election

Or this Guardian story from 2012 which praises Obama for assembling "a unified database on millions of Americans with the power of Facebook to target individual voters to a degree never achieved before":

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ebook-electionhttp://thehill.com/opinion/technolog...comes-to-trump

And Facebook has been turning a blind eye to that sort of thing for years.

Source: Former Employee: �Horrifying� Misuse of User Data Was Routine at Facebook

http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/0...e-at-facebook/

© Copyright Original Source

This is much-ado about nothing. When Obama does it, he's a genius. When Trump does it, he's the devil.

It's like calling Putin to congratulate him on an election win. Obama does it, and the media slavishly praises him as a statesman. Trump does it, and the media denigrates him as a dupe.

Although I suspect Tass and others will continue to ignore this blatant hypocrisy on their part.

[Sparko]

Not so. Cambridge Analytica "had illegitimately hoovered up Facebook user data".

http://www.businessinsider.com/cambr...merdata-2018-3



Between the 50 million names illegally gathered by Cambridge Analytica in order to spread malign influence plus the influence of the St Petersburg Troll Factory intended to support Trump and discredit Hillary, it is perfectly reasonable to assume that that Trump was massively helped. In short, he dishonestly cheated his way into power.

wait! You forgot to say this proves he colluded with foreigners because CA is a British company!

[Tassman]

I've answered in other threads which you have studiously ignored, so I'll just copy my responses from there instead of taking the time to compose a new post.

None of this deals with the likely impact the St Petersburg Troll Factory and Cambridge Analytica on the vote. Given the closeness of the election, especially in certain critical seats which were focused upon by both these bodies, it is highly likely that they brought Trump to power.

wait! You forgot to say this proves he colluded with foreigners because CA is a British company!

"Collusion" is a separate issue, I'm not referring to collusion. I'm referring to the illicit, outside manipulation of public opinion to influence their vote.

[Mountain Man]

So what? If it wasn't wrong when Obama used identical tactics then why is it wrong for Trump?

And this assumes that any of this had a meaningful impact on the election, which is not a given when you consider that very few people even saw the ads before the election, and the majority of ad buys were AFTER the election.

[Charles]

I've answered in other threads which you have studiously ignored, so I'll just copy my responses from there instead of taking the time to compose a new post.

And yet it does not show that the information was gathered "in legitimate way and through the proper channels". Tassman said you were wrong in claiming so. Then you pointed to stuff you had already written which does not prove your statement.