
Leaked email shows how Cambridge Analytica and Facebook first responded in 2015 - node-bayarea
http://www.businessinsider.com/emails-facebook-cambridge-analytica-response-data-scandal-2018-3
======
andy_ppp
The thing about AI enhanced propaganda is that it will learn exactly what to
say to push your buttons and drive you further down a road away from reality
towards something people want you to believe.

No one is impervious to this and I’ve seen many articles on both left and
right that are completely false. We need to be very careful to do proper
research on the likely correctness and fact checking of articles, images and
even videos before they are shared, but you can go too far the other way if
you try to automate this. Social media should probably warn you with
algorithms if you share something likely to be false.

~~~
throwaway5752
What do you see on the left?

~~~
takeda
Similar things, few minutes ago I saw post on reddit essentially saying that
while students were protesting gun laws Trump was golfing and Pence posted on
Twitter about a movie. This probably is true, but that post is essentially to
push people's buttons.

~~~
blackbagboys
Appealing to people’s sense of outrage is perfectly justifiable if the
outragenousness is rooted in facts.

------
vinniejames
Why is the media acting like this is a new revelation?
[https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/dec/11/senator-
ted-...](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/dec/11/senator-ted-cruz-
president-campaign-facebook-user-data)

------
5_minutes
I really do think the momentum has become of Facebook’s demise.

Another side effect is that any other tech company (like Twitter) might close
down their APIs etc even more.

One basic problem which I don’t understand from Facebook which could’ve
prevented most of all this is: why aren’t the default settings of an account
more secure and private?

~~~
dboreham
In reality this is probably a buying opportunity. Regular people don't care
much whether their minds are being manipulated.

~~~
madeofpalk
I don't know... I used to think this, then I talked to 'regular' people (well,
as 'regular' as people are that I meet). I know, I know, 'anecdata', but views
I tend to get are either split between "Facebook is the worst, can't wait for
it to get shut down" vs "It's creepy what all these companies do, but what can
_I_ do?".

~~~
type0
> "It's creepy what all these companies do, but what can I do?"

That goes for everything for those with position of power.

"It's creepy what all these policemen do, but what can I do?" "It's creepy
what all these politicians do, but what can I do?" etc etc

In case of FaceBook, whey know what to do. So "Regular people don't care
much..." is the correct conclusion as as far as I can see.

My anecdata is that I met plenty of people who said "Facebook is the best",
then they take a picture of you to upload it there regardless of what anyone
thinks (would even tag it by the name). And I can't see how they would change
their mind unless it is by public shaming - the same way that smoking has been
reduces in many places.

------
ethbro
If you ask a liar if they lied... what do you do with the answer you receive?

~~~
irishcoffee
Ok I'll bite: show me someone on this planet who isn't a liar. Now what?

~~~
asveikau
An optimist I see.

I think there is something of a threshold for "liar", i.e. the implication is
that it's habitual, or that the consequences are serious (sometimes, but not
always both of those). And there is a huge variation in the trustworthiness or
lie-frequency of individuals, that I think would be fairly consistent if you
watch the same person over time, then compare them to others. A reasonable
person has probably spotted high frequency liars at various points of daily
life and made mental notes not to trust them, or the opposite for the opposite
traits, and made these determinations correctly.

So I think the point is a little facetious.

------
Bukhmanizer
What are the rules on whos private data we're allowed to steal and whos we
aren't?

------
forgotmypw
Is there any way to view the email without going to businessinsider?

~~~
techaddict009
[https://static-
ssl.businessinsider.com/image/5ab2d675a042511...](https://static-
ssl.businessinsider.com/image/5ab2d675a042511a008b4771-2254/screenshot2018-03-21at24522pm.png)

Link to email snapshot.

~~~
forgotmypw
Thank you very much!

------
venning
I believe the "(2015)" label is intended for _articles_ from 2015. This
article is from 2018, but its contents reference 2015. Perhaps a better title
would be "Leaked email shows how Cambridge Analytica and Facebook first
responded in 2015".

~~~
sctb
Thanks! We've updated the title.

