No he is not. That's why the UK is raiding their office because they know the extent.
Now let me disagree with you.
Again, you cant blame Facebook for allowing Cambridge Analytica to get in and do what they do and not say they themselves didn't break any laws and aren't in trouble. It takes two to tango.
If I rob a bank and you're with me, you're an accomplice.
BTW, CA lied about working with any Russians, when it was recently made public they were working with Russians to target American voters. And it will become public what role Bannon, Kushner and Manafort played in all this and how deep this rabbit hole goes. I don't need to expand any further.
Cant wait for the video where they admit they helped Trump win the election. They said they would release that one today.
Facebook could be paying fines for violating the consent decree but I don't see any legal trouble for CA's work during the election.
That is a terrible analogyNow let me disagree with you.
Again, you cant blame Facebook for allowing Cambridge Analytica to get in and do what they do and not say they themselves didn't break any laws and aren't in trouble. It takes two to tango.
If I rob a bank and you're with me, you're an accomplice.
Facebook's terms of service aren't laws.
Look at the video TSA.
In short, according to the Times’ reporting, which is borne out by many other reports of the time, the Obama campaign engaged in nearly identical activity to what Cambridge Analytica is claimed to have done: they took a set of users who willingly contributed their data to a cause and quietly mined their friend lists, downloading immense volumes of private material from unwitting individuals that never authorized, let alone had any idea, that a political campaign was harvesting their information from Facebook simply because a person they were connected with had given the organization permission to harvest their information.
In Obama’s case, the original contributors at least explicitly knew they were contributing to a campaign effort, even if their millions of unwitting friends had no idea their private information was being harvested to attempt to sway their voting behavior. In Cambridge Analytica’s case, users knew only that they were contributing to an academic research project, but the line between academia and the corporate world is ever more blurred in the data world and it is routine for academic ins utions to engage in corporate-supported research using data owned by the ins ution in the support of commercial agendas. Indeed, the claims that Facebook data was collected for academic research and then made available to a commercial enterprise are hardly unsurprising for anyone familiar with the processes and procedures at most top US research universities, especially their corporate funded research and their licensing and commercialization programs.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevle.../#7664499c4838
Does the video include Trump campaign members?
Look at the video TSA.
Could you point out the consent decree statute and fining guidelines?
Since you're only going to talk about Facebook and completely ignore everything about CA, go ahead and make your case.
The video includes his campaign firm. Managed by his campaign members. Do you excuse bribery and entrapment?
Still *ding*ing
Dude, Bannon was a VP of this company.
You've accused Hillary of eating babies because her campaign official knows a weird artist, but somehow this is too difficult for you to imagine.
Tsa spin in 3...2..
Data Firm Says ‘Secret Sauce’ Aided Trump; Many Scoff
Cambridge is no longer in contention to work for Mr. Trump at the Republican National Committee, a company spokesman confirmed, nor is it working for America First Policies, a new nonprofit formed to help advance the president’s agenda.
In recent months, the value of Cambridge’s technology has been debated by technology experts and in some media accounts. But Cambridge officials, in recent interviews, defended the company’s record during the 2016 election, saying its data analysis helped Mr. Trump energize critical support in the Rust Belt. Mr. Nix said the firm had conducted tens of thousands of polls for Mr. Trump, helping guide his message and identify issues that mattered to voters.
But when asked to name a single race where the firm’s flagship product had been critical to victory, Mr. Nix declined.
“We bake a cake, it’s got 10 ingredients in it. Psychographics is one of them,” he said. “It’s very difficult to isolate exactly what the impact of that ingredient is.”
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/03/0...ww.google.com/
I'm just going off of djohns article. If you want to talk about laws broken by CA then lets talk about them. What laws did CA break?
Oh so CA was dumped by Trump in 2017. Neat.
in a you're re ed
In late September 2016, Cambridge and other data vendors were submitting bids to the Trump campaign. Then-candidate Trump's campaign used Cambridge Analytica during the primaries and in the summer because it was never certain the Republican National Committee would be a willing, cooperative partner. Cambridge Analytica instead was a hedge against the RNC, in case it wouldn't share its data.
The crucial decision was made in late September or early October when Mr. Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner and Brad Parscale, Mr. Trump's digital guru on the 2016 campaign, decided to utilize just the RNC data for the general election and used nothing from that point from Cambridge Analytica or any other data vendor. The Trump campaign had tested the RNC data, and it proved to be vastly more accurate than Cambridge Analytica's, and when it was clear the RNC would be a willing partner, Mr. Trump's campaign was able to rely solely on the RNC.
https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/tru...mpression=true
muh primaries
Sorry, you've been called out.
Since you're only going to talk about Facebook and completely ignore everything about CA, go ahead and make your case.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
