Brexit, for once some facts.

[oldgroaner]

Yes. Correct. That is the point.

When the people who had their data used they had already ticked a box allowing this to happen as they took part in a free 'personality' test.

I could go on and explain more but it's pointless with you. If I said toilets were a good thing you would disagree. You are so far down the rabbit hole you should be called thumper.

Although I think I will point out one thing. 2016 is before 2018. The law was changed after the ref. 2018 is after 2016 and was changed because of the ref.

Idiot.

I ballsed the dates up, didn't I? sorry about that.
However
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/mar/17/facebook-cambridge-analytica-kogan-data-algorithm
The academic had developed a Facebook app which featured a personality quiz, and Cambridge Analytica paid for people to take it, advertising on platforms such as Amazon’s Mechanical Turk.

The app recorded the results of each quiz, collected data from the taker’s Facebook account – and, crucially, extracted the data of their Facebook friends as well.

The results were paired with each quiz-taker’s Facebook data to seek out patterns and build an algorithm to predict results for other Facebook users. Their friends’ profiles provided a testing ground for the formula and, more crucially, a resource that would make the algorithm politically valuable.

To be eligible to take the test the user had to have a Facebook account and be a US voter, so tens of millions of the profiles could be matched to electoral rolls. From an initial trial of 1,000 “seeders”, the researchers obtained 160,000 profiles – or about 160 per person. Eventually a few hundred thousand paid test-takers would be the key to data from a vast swath of US voters.

It was extremely attractive. It could also be deemed illicit, primarily because Kogan did not have permission to collect or use data for commercial purposes. His permission from Facebook to harvest profiles in large quantities was specifically restricted to academic use.

And although the company at the time allowed apps to collect friend data, it was only for use in the context of Facebook itself, to encourage interaction. Selling that data on, or putting it to other purposes, – including Cambridge Analytica’s political marketing – was strictly barred.

It also appears likely the project was breaking British data protection laws, which ban sale or use of personal data without consent. That includes cases where consent is given for one purpose but data is used for another.

The paid test-takers signed up to T&Cs, including collection of their own data, and Facebook’s default terms allowed their friends’ data to be collected by an app, unless they had changed their privacy settings. But none of them agreed to their data possibly being used to create a political marketing tool or to it being placed in a vast campaign database.

Not illegal?????

 

[Fingers]

Well done, you nearly understood the situation, apart from the following
They did harvest information illegally the act making it illegal took force a month before the referendum
https://ico.org.uk/.../investigation-into-data-analytics-for-political-purposes-update.pdf

And since you freely admit (at last) in your post that in your own words
"But yes You Tube, Face twot, twatter were massive reasons, if not the main reasons Trump and Brexit won.
The way things will go in future are there for all to see.
Money buys political power, only in the interests of those wielding it.

Now forgetting our usual clashes, ask yourself what future is there for democracy when groups or individuals can target a part of the population that normally is either not interested in politics, or unable to make a decision on what they want, but are identified by spying on them, and deliberately inflamed to come down on a side of the argument they may well not be well enough informed on to know it is not in their interests to support?

Basically it make a mockery of the principle of democracy, replacing it with whoever can incite the vote of the easily persuaded, while you have pinned them into a corner and they are a captive audience.
If as happened the last days before the referendum, the ideas they have been exposed to are not contradicted, you have them literally where you want them vote wise, and as the balance to and for leaving the EU was so close, your half billion spent on this scam paid off.
No wonder vote leave was happy to pay off the measly fine!

The words for this are
Brain washing

Unless this is stopped democracy is no longer a viable system, it can be bought at will

No. I don't think it makes a mockery of democracy. If anything it strengthened it. Some of these people had never voted in their lives before this vote. Just because someone found another way of delivering their message that was different to your own isn't wrong. Show me where they broke the law of that time....


The establishment was caught napping. It's not about it being stopped it's having tougher regulation.

This isn't going away.

Wake up. Your utter condescension

can target a part of the population that normally is either not interested in politics, or unable to make a decision on what they want, but are identified by spying on them, and deliberately inflamed to come down on a side of the argument they may well not be well enough informed on to know it is not in their interests to support?

Basically it make a mockery of the principle of democracy, replacing it with whoever can incite the vote of the easily persuaded, while you have pinned them into a corner and they are a captive audience



and arrogance is why you are being left behind in the argument. Things have moved on.

I am about as much a leaver as Johnson is. Probably 55/45 leave. But the way the establishment and the losing voters have reacted makes me happy to say I'm a leaver and want it to happen.

Because you lost a vote democracy isn't working anymore. Lol.

I wish you had the brains to see yourself as we see you.

 

[Fingers]

I ballsed the dates up, didn't I? sorry about that.
However
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/mar/17/facebook-cambridge-analytica-kogan-data-algorithm
The academic had developed a Facebook app which featured a personality quiz, and Cambridge Analytica paid for people to take it, advertising on platforms such as Amazon’s Mechanical Turk.

The app recorded the results of each quiz, collected data from the taker’s Facebook account – and, crucially, extracted the data of their Facebook friends as well.

The results were paired with each quiz-taker’s Facebook data to seek out patterns and build an algorithm to predict results for other Facebook users. Their friends’ profiles provided a testing ground for the formula and, more crucially, a resource that would make the algorithm politically valuable.

To be eligible to take the test the user had to have a Facebook account and be a US voter, so tens of millions of the profiles could be matched to electoral rolls. From an initial trial of 1,000 “seeders”, the researchers obtained 160,000 profiles – or about 160 per person. Eventually a few hundred thousand paid test-takers would be the key to data from a vast swath of US voters.

It was extremely attractive. It could also be deemed illicit, primarily because Kogan did not have permission to collect or use data for commercial purposes. His permission from Facebook to harvest profiles in large quantities was specifically restricted to academic use.

And although the company at the time allowed apps to collect friend data, it was only for use in the context of Facebook itself, to encourage interaction. Selling that data on, or putting it to other purposes, – including Cambridge Analytica’s political marketing – was strictly barred.

It also appears likely the project was breaking British data protection laws, which ban sale or use of personal data without consent. That includes cases where consent is given for one purpose but data is used for another.

The paid test-takers signed up to T&Cs, including collection of their own data, and Facebook’s default terms allowed their friends’ data to be collected by an app, unless they had changed their privacy settings. But none of them agreed to their data possibly being used to create a political marketing tool or to it being placed in a vast campaign database.

Not illegal?????

If you hadn't been such a dick I would have explained this all to you.

This is why the law was changed.

Why don't you and @oyster get this?

At the time it hadn't happened before...

Oh do you know what. Life is too short.

Work it out for yourself.

 

[daveboy]

Like Farage

Hold on a minute !!!
So it's ok for you to have a go at Farage but not for me to have a go at Diane (thick as mince)Abbott . Bit hypocritical don't you think.

 

[oldgroaner]

I would have to be stupid to hold the view you do

 

[oldgroaner]

Hold on a minute !!!
So it's ok for you to have a go at Farage but not for me to have a go at Diane (thick as mince)Abbott . Bit hypocritical don't you think.

One is foolish the other evil.
I see nothing hypocritical about knowing the difference.
Why use the word evil for Farage? His latest stunt is to start a company to raise money to dig the dirt as he puts it on remain supporters to smear them using untraceable and unlimited American donations
The man is a rat

 

[daveboy]

One is foolish the other evil.
I see nothing hypocritical about knowing the difference.
Why use the word evil for Farage? His latest stunt is to start a company to raise money to dig the dirt as he puts it on remain supporters to smear them using untraceable and unlimited American donations
The man is a rat

What you really mean is one suits your agenda and the other one doesn't, They are both in the public eye and are both open to criticism. By the way, I'm not a fan of either.

 

[oldgroaner]

If you hadn't been such a dick I would have explained this all to you.

This is why the law was changed.

Why don't you and @oyster get this?

At the time it hadn't happened before...

Oh do you know what. Life is too short.

Work it out for yourself.

The remain camp didn't lose the vote.
The vote was corruptly obtained by an underhand method that was already illegal before the law was changed, if you weren't such a dick you would understand that, and you still don't seem to realize how dangerous this sort of thing is

 

[oldgroaner]

What you really mean is one suits your agenda and the other one doesn't, They are both in the public eye and are both open to criticism. By the way, I'm not a fan of either.

Completely wrong, I have no time for either, that is simply your assumption, but there is a difference between them a mile wide.
I have no agenda concerning the labour party as it currently stands , except for the hope they stay out of power till this Brexit farce is over and done with and the blame rests entirely on the Tories.

 

[Fingers]

It was already illegal before the law was changed, if you weren't such a dick you would understand that, and you still don't seem to realize how dangerous this sort of thing is

I know you are but what am I?

 

[oldgroaner]

I know you are but what am I?

Repeating an earlier post

 

[oldgroaner]

The Liar King is misusing the media again

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1155415434910404608

 

[Fingers]

Repeating an earlier post

Editing your posts and changing them completely again?

Your posts change every 5 mins.

So strange.

 

[Zlatan]

OG
So 60,000 plus posts and the only thing you can come up with is a Coalition government. Simply staggering. Demonstrates the circles you, ve been going around in. Surely after all this time you, d have come up with something a little more succinct.
I, d guess you mean a Coalition led by Corbyn, putting forward unworkable tax regimes and rewarding laziness, by a weak government.
Please explain how on earth saying "Coaltion government" solves anything. We, d be in exactly same position as now. The Government for all intents and purposes, with its weaj majority, is just about a coalition and its that causing the problem. No decisions are being made. At least BJ is attempting to do so but with his weak majority is unlikely to succeed. How would an arguing coalition help?
A coalition of whom? And generally for a Coalition to work involved parties have to put asside their ideology to work on a common goal. Now imagine JRM and Corbyn doing that You are living in a dream world and like the rest of us have no answers. BJ should be applauded for setting the task on. As should May have.

 

[oyster]

Taking cocaine a hundred years ago wasn't illegal.

Not sure that it is illegal in itself even now. As far as I know, it is possession, dealing and making that are specifically illegal. Not taking except insofar as possession would usually be a step in taking.

https://www.gov.uk/penalties-drug-possession-dealing

The Data Protection Act 2018 is fundamentally the UK's implementation of the GDPR - which was agreed in early 2016 - after lengthy discussions. In that sense, the DPA 2018 is not due to the referendum of 2016.

 

[oldgroaner]

Editing your posts and changing them completely again?

Your posts change every 5 mins.

So strange.

I was replying to your question "what am I"
with "repeating an earlier post"
What on earth are you on about now?

 

[oldgroaner]

Just trying a new browser called "Brave" it has feature called "Brave shields" which blocks trackers and posts a number against each site. this one blocks just 3
Independent shows 99+
Guardian 51
Sun 7
Mail 50
Mirror 21
Times 5
Telegraph 7
Star 14
Express 13
FT 9

Presumably there is significance in these figures?

 

[oldgroaner]

OG
So 60,000 plus posts and the only thing you can come up with is a Coalition government. Simply staggering. Demonstrates the circles you, ve been going around in. Surely after all this time you, d have come up with something a little more succinct.
I, d guess you mean a Coalition led by Corbyn, putting forward unworkable tax regimes and rewarding laziness, by a weak government.
Please explain how on earth saying "Coaltion government" solves anything. We, d be in exactly same position as now. The Government for all intents and purposes, with its weaj majority, is just about a coalition and its that causing the problem. No decisions are being made. At least BJ is attempting to do so but with his weak majority is unlikely to succeed. How would an arguing coalition help?

Oh not again, the same old dreary nonsense
A coalition Government got us through the second world war, and I don't recall saying that i had expressed a preference for who was leading a modern coalition government.
In theory it should not make a big difference, should it?
You really do make things up as you go along, I mentioned this idea over a year ago.
For your information we do not have a coalition government at the moment, just a single party in power that are a rabble.
All that has changed is a different rat stands at the dispatch box

And as to this
"A coalition of whom? And generally for a Coalition to work involved parties have to put asside their ideology to work on a common goal. Now imagine JRM and Corbyn doing that "

Haven't you noticed? they are both in favour of Brexit?

 

[oldgroaner]

Not sure that it is illegal in itself even now. As far as I know, it is possession, dealing and making that are specifically illegal. Not taking except insofar as possession would usually be a step in taking.

https://www.gov.uk/penalties-drug-possession-dealing

The Data Protection Act 2018 is fundamentally the UK's implementation of the GDPR - which was agreed in early 2016 - after lengthy disucssions. In that sense, the DPA 2018 is not due to the referendum of 2016.

Don't bother fingers with facts.

 

[50Hertz]

you said "leave told a better quality of lie than remain". That is a definition of fake news.

No. The better quality of lie referred to fake promises about something which may or may not happen in the future. Fake news is to deliberately report an event which has already happened in an inaccurate and misleading way.

For example;

"Jeremy Corbyn has been caught having sex with a goat." That would be fake news.

"A no deal Brexit will create thousands of jobs in the car industry." That is a lie.

There is a difference.