How were any of you damaged by Facebook ads, exactly? Why the outrage now and not before, when Obama (and everyone else) used targeted advertising?
This whole outrage over privacy is disingenuous. It’s painfully obvious the outrage is about Donald Trump being elected president, not personal information used to target ads.
I think it's awkward how obvious this is, and how comfortable the media is with that being the case. From Wired's article a week ago:
> The crisis was familiar in a way: Facebook has burned its fingers on issues of data privacy frequently in its 14 year history. But this time it was different. The data leakage hadn’t helped Unilever sell mayonnaise. It appeared to have helped Donald Trump sell a political vision of division and antipathy.
So a guy you didn't like got elected and now this is a problem. The same journalists could barely keep it in their pants when Obama was squeezing every mile he could out of data in 2008 and 2012.
"It's okay because you weren't personally affected" is so obviously wrong. It's so obviously against the spirit of the law and of society. I find it hard to imagine you're arguing in good faith.
But how about this, then, since you're so intent on making this political? How about we fix this so that no future politicians can benefit from this kind of targeted advertising - both liberal and conservative?
> How about we fix this so that no future politicians can benefit from this kind of targeted advertising - both liberal and conservative?
I’d be fine with it, but the first step is admitting that yes, Obama benefited from harvested social media data as well. No one wants to do that, this is all a Trump thing as far as the media, and therefore the general public, is concerned.
the big difference being that the obama data was harvested via an app branded by obama campaign with the specific purpose being to help the obama campaign... vs a quiz app unrelated to politics where participants were paid small amounts to use, and thus pull data on their social network
the first is explicitly political; the second is actively hiding their intentions
*edit: also they used the data very differently. obama used it to push people’s hopes and dreams; trump used it to push people’s fears. overall, obamas campaign was FAR more positive than trumps
By their own words the Obama Campaign ingested the whole social graph because the single person they targeted could bring in the information of all their friends:
No but seriously why is the first step admitting that Obama benefitted? People are up in arms that their data was misused, why do you care whether they're politically motivated or not?
> People are up in arms that their data was misused, why do you care whether they're politically motivated or not?
Because the forthcoming regulations will inevitably target conservatives if we allow the public discourse on this issue to be dominated by "muh Russia, muh Trump."
>the forthcoming regulations will inevitably target conservatives
The forthcoming regulations are going to have to make it through a republican house, a republican senate and a republican president and not get challenged in our republican courts. Rest assured you're safe.
What Obama did was unethical as far as I'm concerned, as is most modern marketing. (I will say one campaign was selling hope and progressive change while the other was fear mongering and spreading divisiveness. So I think there is a difference.) Having said that, I don't know that it matters. Granting these powers to people we happen to like doesn't mean they won't be abused by people we don't. Modern mass marketing is gross. It's the grand scale manipulation of people by exploiting individual human weakness/bias. I'd like to see some smart regulation around it, but I'm skeptical that will happen.
Ah, the current flavour of the year on reddit when it comes to debates.
It's not whataboutism. It's calling out hypocrisy among the reaction of journalists and general public who either ignored or in fact went on to rave about ingenious use of ads. In fact fb personally went on to remove api rate-limiters for one of the apps used by Obama's campaign. Suddenly now that it's someone that left/liberals don't like is in power, these very same practices are being questioned.
> It's calling out hypocrisy among the reaction of journalists and general public who either ignored or in fact went on to rave about ingenious use of ads.
And more specifically, it's calling out the fact that the whole CA thing could have been prevented if, instead of fawning over the Obama campaign's use of targeted advertising in 2012, the media instead collectively asked, "wait, you did _what_ with our data?"
> It's not whataboutism. It's calling out hypocrisy
So, it's exactly Whataboutism: “Whataboutism (also known as whataboutery) is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument, [...]”
In a way, aren't you deflecting the argument as well by labelling it instead of actually providing a logical answer of Why did everyone ignore or rave about Obama's use of over-reaching fb ads?
And calling out hypocrisy isn't wrong thing to do in this matter. I'm not saying what trump's campaign did was the right thing to do. What i find appalling is the so called "literate/educated" class of people completely ignored and continue to ignore or in fact praised the very same thing Obama did.
Heck, i'm neither a citizen of USA nor a resident and could frankly care less who is in power.
> By refusing to answer upon the clear hypocrisy pointed out in your argument
My only argument in this subthread was that the charge of Whataboutism was correctly made, and cannot be rebutted with a claim of pointing to hypocrisy, since Whataboutism is exactly the fallacy of pointing to hypocrisy to avoid the topic of debate.
And you aptly ignored the context of the argument.
Person i replied to clearly uses whataboutism in negative manner and dismisses valid points of use of extended unauthorized data by OFA (Obama for America).
"What Obama did was unethical as far as I'm concerned, as is most modern marketing. (I will say one campaign was selling hope and progressive change while the other was fear mongering and spreading divisiveness. So I think there is a difference.) Having said that, I don't know that it matters"
Do you see how you have continued to pry the topic away from how to fix this issue that everyone agrees should be fixed? This is the desired outcome of whataboutism. Do you have any input of how to address the issue at hand other than commenting on the details of why people care today or when this problem started?
This argument is disingenuous, and not really more than a projected opinion. Not everyone is this tribal, and people are allowed to be angry when they see the manifest implications of surveillance capitalism without being partisans.
History is being written right now and people are rightly seeing a case of selective memory by the media.
Most people agree that social media surveillance is bad. The majority of the HN comments that bring up Obama 2008/2012 are not trying to justify the CA/Facebook incident, rather they're pointing out a hypocritical double-standard.
I want the surveillance to stop and the record to be set straight. We're dangerously close to public sentiment solidifying around the idea that the CA/Facebook incident was unprecedented and arguably stole an election in 2016. I don't think the truth supports that at all and am trying to use comments like this to keep such false narratives out of textbooks 10 years from now.
I don't think it's disingenuous of the media. I just think it exposes their ignorance and inability to imagine the negative consequences of such data analysis. It took something bad, i.e. Trump winning, for them to wake up to the dangers that they cared about.
Hang on, so what is your solution in this strawman scenario? Should we all smile for the panopticon and embrace total surveillance or do we have to wait until Our Team is in power to be able to complain without question of hypocrisy?
I can't talk of a solution because I don't see a problem.
I'm fine with political campaigns advertising for their candidate. If I see an advertisement for a candidate on Facebook, TV, or anywhere else, and I agree with the advertisement's message or call to action (donating), I'm happy I saw it! If I see an ad for a candidate I don't agree with, then at worst I feel my attention was wasted. To the extent advertisers use personal information to target those advertisements, that just means I see less of the ads that I'm less likely to find valuable. Targeted political ads aren't causing a problem for me personally.
So I don't see a problem with political advertising, but I do see a political bent in the outrage at Cambridge Analytica and its connection to Donald Trump.
While I definitely believe that the motivation behind this latest media surge is suspect, do you really think people aren't justified in being upset about Facebook's abuse? Maybe the outrage is simply because Facebook was new and people weren't aware of the dangers in 2008 and 2012?
People don't have to be "damaged" by something to object to it. How do human rights abuses in third world countries "damage" you, exactly? Just because there isn't a direct link doesn't mean that there's nothing bad going on.
I myself don't care that this data was used to help Donald Trump ascend to the presidency -- besides, I bet that Hilary's campaign did similar sketchy things with private data. The issue is that our private data is being abused by a company that misled us about data use -- and for folks who don't even have a Facebook account, whose information has been harvested via shadow profiles sourced from our less-privacy-conscious friends, data compilation occurred entirely without consent.
This reeks of whataboutism to me. Why are you trying to imply that we shouldn't be concerned about privacy?
More like we should care about privacy but don't. This is the place that considers Snowden a traitor and Obama (the dragnet drone king) a God.
We can pretend that "omg we always cared about data", but that's not the truth. We just hate Trump so much that we're willing to see Zuck for the snake he is. I guess that's not the worse outcome.
> This reeks of whataboutism to me. Why are you trying to imply that we shouldn't be concerned about privacy?
I don't think I've seen a single person use the term "whataboutism" correctly since November 2016.
People in this chain are simply pointing out that if somebody is angry at Cambridge Analytica, but not Obama's 2008/2012 campaigns, they do not actually care about data privacy. They just don't like Donald Trump. You can bet that the next time a data privacy issue comes up, these people will be indifferent so long as the abusing party is aligned with their politics. They also will likely be supportive of people they agree with circumventing any privacy regulations that may arise from this particular scandal.
Asking these questions is a useful filter to help determine how many people actually care about the core privacy issue, and how many are just worried about "their team" having an advantage.
Then we agree. I think that both CA and the Obama campaign's use of personal information on Facebook was a violation of data privacy expectations, and anybody who criticizes one but not the other is a hypocrite and not at all concerned about data privacy.
I was complaining that people are using Obama's data use to justify CA's data use. Obama did it and it was wrong. CA did it and it was still wrong.
This whole outrage over privacy is disingenuous. It’s painfully obvious the outrage is about Donald Trump being elected president, not personal information used to target ads.