Bye Bye Cambridge Analytica.

Good riddance i say.

This organisation in my opinion is the dregs. The first four letters of Analytica is where it should be shoved.

www.bbc.co.uk...

a reply to: alldaylong

Better get loose, that's a lot of stuffing right there!

originally posted by: alldaylong
Good riddance i say.

This organisation in my opinion is the dregs. The first four letters of Analytica is where it should be shoved.

www.bbc.co.uk...

Right on👍👍

Toodely pippely you lumps of poo...

Au revoir and may you have humongous expensive legal issues in the future...

Lags

They doing this to stop any potential law suits?

Change of name, and they will be up and running again

This is how Obama won the presidency

I love it everytime a Democrat plan backfires in their face

It has happened everytime

Shutting down before or after they sell their data to the highest bidder?

As long as Democrats were the ones benefiting, it was fair game. The second their opposition adopted the tactic, the rules had to be changed.

better delete that god forbid I say anything true

They will be back next month with a different name and new face behind the company but it will be the same puppet masters pulling the strings to play kingmaker all over the place to take a huge dump on the concept of democracy

I know this won't be a popular opinion, but I really don't understand why people are so outraged by what this organisation did... How is this some big scandal?

Having an account on FB and then getting all upset about having your data harvested, is equivalent to eating fish & chips at the beach, then getting pissed when the seagulls rock up.

Lol. Maybe read the terms of service before giving away your soul to the zuckman. Facebooks address is 1 hacker way. They’re building a multi billion dollar behemoth of a building paid for by you and your vanity. You as in those who are the willing participants, not necessarily the op. It’s how these social media sites work. Even ats gets more money the more users it has. Wasn’t a big deal until Trump won.

a reply to: Subaeruginosa

the outrage is all about the fact that the Dem's little trick has been uncovered and since it was used by Trump it's now bad, even though they all used it the past few years to win

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
I know this won't be a popular opinion, but I really don't understand why people are so outraged by what this organisation did... How is this some big scandal?

It isn't. It's just that people are shocked when they finally realize that public information is publicly available.

a reply to: Subaeruginosa

I really don't understand why people are so outraged by what this organisation did... How is this some big scandal?

I think it's accusations such as this that has caused outrage

Cambridge Analytica boss Alexander Nix was apparently filmed giving examples of how his firm could discredit political rivals by arranging various smear campaigns, including setting up encounters with prostitutes and staging situations in which apparent bribery could be caught on camera.

www.bbc.co.uk...

originally posted by: Thejoncrichton
As long as Democrats were the ones benefiting, it was fair game. The second their opposition adopted the tactic, the rules had to be changed.

I see this has gotten to be a meme and judging by the stars, people are eager to suck it down. Let me start by saying that you're flat wrong and have no idea what you're talking about (otherwise, you might be right!).

As to the thrust of your false claim, if you want to argue about who did what first, the first widespread use of microtargeting in a presidential campaign was by the Bush campaign in 2004. IIRC, it was TargetPoint who did the work for them. You can look that up and please, after doing so, stop spreading misinformation.

More generally, microtargeting isn't something that was devised by electioneers, it started in marketing way before political campaigns picked up on it and in fact, it's used for all manners of advertising and political advertising is only a fraction (albeit an important one) of microtargeted advertising.

As to the second part of your false claim, this isn't something that's going away. Cambridge Analytica was both new to the market and a small player.

That said, there are some differences between what Cambridge Analyitica/SCL (is SCL going away?) do/have done and what ostensibly similar companies do. Cambridge Analytica's main public selling point is "psychographic" modeling which is in turn used for microtargeting, however CA and SCL Elections have been involved in things ranging from old school "dirty tricks" to employing Israeli hackers to steal an opposing candidate's medical records.

What really got the controversy over CA kicked up was their use of data obtained on millions of FB users through fraud and exploitation of the platform.

The whole situation with massive data collection and microtargeting has quietly gotten way out of hand and the seamless integration with social media, web ads, etc is something that should concern everyone greatly. Don't be upset that CA is shutting down, they're more than likely the absolute worst of the bunch even if they're far from the biggest. Instead, see it as a first small step in the right direction.

originally posted by: theantediluvian


As to the thrust of your false claim, if you want to argue about who did what first, the first widespread use of microtargeting in a presidential campaign was by the Bush campaign in 2004. IIRC, it was TargetPoint who did the work for them. You can look that up and please, after doing so, stop spreading misinformation.

Did the dems use them or not? Did Obama benefit or not? As the statement you suggest is false all they are saying is it wasn't until the Dems lost this time that it has become a point of interest.

a reply to: alldaylong

I’m not sure if having to close shop because of the unfounded allegations, in combination with a sensationalist press and a Twitter mob, is very just at all.

a reply to: Subaeruginosa
a reply to: schuyler

Actually no. The data that CA obtained was collected fraudulently and having a social media account shouldn't mean that you don't have some expectation of privacy, particularly when the platform gives you that impression.

I posted about a lot of this on November 5, 2016: The Billionare's Brain Hackers (so yes, sometimes we at ATS are way ahead of the curve)

Briefly without getting into all the gory details, an app was developed that paid Facebook users to take surveys. Where the fraud comes in is that the data was supposed to be collected for scientific research, would be guarded, etc and continues into exploitation because unbeknownst to participants, the app wasn't just taking their survey results, it was accessing their FB profile and *EVERYTHING* that it could access from there, including all the data from friends who were sharing it with the participants.

In other words, for every 1 participant, not only were they slurping up all that person's data, they were getting all this data on hundreds of people who didn't participate. (basically about 340 to 1)

Worse, these hundreds of other users per participant could have had privacy settings engaged to protect their data from being accessible by the public and it was gathered anyway.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Unfounded allegations of what? Please, elaborate.

So when is Catalist going bye bye?

*crickets.