
Forget Cambridge Analytica. Zuck could use FB data for his own presidential run - hn_hn_hn
http://noblackmirrorthanks.blogspot.com/2018/03/forget-cambridge-analytica-heres-how.html
======
uptown
Probably. But Mark seems so uncomfortable in his own skin that I doubt he’d
have any degree of political success. Dustin Curtis put it well:

“Watching Mark Zuckerberg speak publicly has always made me feel deeply
uncomfortable in a way that is very difficult to articulate.

He’s improved a lot over the years, but I still have an urge to look away when
he speaks. Not great for crisis management communication.”

[https://twitter.com/dcurtis/status/976627812999118848](https://twitter.com/dcurtis/status/976627812999118848)

~~~
TheSpiceIsLife
Watching Donald Trump speak has always made me feel deeply uncomfortable in a
way that is very difficult to articulate.

But here we are.

Edited to add: in my opinion Mark Zuckerberg as US President would probably be
a huge improvement over the incumbent.

~~~
Houshalter
My impression was most people found him much more charismatic than Clinton.
Charisma plays a huge role in elections: From _Influence: Science and
Practice_

>a study of the 1974 Canadian federal elections found that attractive
candidates received more than two and a half times as many votes as
unattractive candidates (Efran & Patterson, 1976). Despite such evidence of
favoritism toward handsome politicians, follow-up research demonstrated that
voters did not realize their bias. In fact, 73 percent of Canadian voters
surveyed denied in the strongest possible terms that their votes had been
influenced by physical appearance; only 14 percent even allowed for the
possibility of such influence (Efran & Patterson, 1976). Voters can deny the
impact of attractiveness on electability all they want, but evidence has
continued to confirm its troubling presence (Budesheim & DePaola, 1994).

Yay representative democracy.

~~~
zimpenfish
> My impression was most people found him much more charismatic than Clinton.

Somewhat helped by the media's constant "Oh, that wacky Donald and his silly
speeches!" vs "SHRILLARY (non)SCANDALS!!!!"

------
pksadiq
> Zuck _could_ use FB data for his own presidential run

Well. It could be true for Google CEO, and many others. Technically, there are
too many bad things that can happen. Laws are what that's preventing those.

My computer can phone home with my every keystroke or technically it's
possible for a modern air conditioning system to release its refrigerant gas
into the room with certain key combination on its remote. But until those are
proven to happen, it's just a conspiracy.

In short, there are so many bad things that _can_ happen, doesn't actually
mean that _will_ happen. At least - for many cases - that's better way to
think, so that we don't have to live a fearful life. And in the cases we can,
be in the safe side, like not using Facebook, using completely free software
OS, putting a tape on camera, etc.

Edit: On a side note, it would be nice if HN team change http urls to https if
the site supports it, and discourage links that requires javascript with no
added value.

~~~
fiblye
When it comes to tech like this, it's good to not just ask "can it happen",
but "why wouldn't it happen".

Pressing a button to fill your room full of gas is doesn't strike me as
serving any good purpose. It doesn't benefit anyone. Computers can phone home
with your every keystroke, and the NSA does indeed track loads of people for
"security" purposes. Zuckerberg could potentially track everyone, and why
wouldn't he? It'd get him loads of valuable info for campaigning and material
to use against his opponents. Once he gets into office, he can grab the entire
legislative and judicial branches by the balls with the info he harvests about
them (if they're married and ever used Tinder or followed a porn star on
Instagram, they wouldn't want those secrets out in the open). The NSA and FBI
wouldn't have any reason to publicly oppose one of their most valuable
surveillance and 4th-Amendment-dodging farms.

If it's easy to do and has a potential to benefit someone, it's good to assume
that someone is taking advantage of it. Zuckerberg would be honestly
incredibly stupid to not use Facebook for his political gain. Even if the
media reported on it, the average person won't understand why it's bad and
won't really care.

------
greenyoda
> Would it be legal for Mark Zuckerberg to use person-level insights gleaned
> from his enormous data trove to fuel his own run for office?

It's not _his_ data trove, it belongs to a corporate entity called "Facebook".
If Facebook gave his campaign access to user data or ad targeting, it would
probably be considered a campaign contribution, valued at whatever price the
same data or ads would fetch if they were sold to any another political
campaign. Such a contribution would need to be publicly disclosed, and it
would get heavily scrutinized and criticized.

But at this point, I think Zuckerberg can lay to rest any hope of ever running
for office. His opponents now have a lot of material they can cite to show his
ethical shortcomings. And the media is going to keep digging for more dirt on
Facebook, since it's something that the public can relate to, the majority of
them being Facebook users. This issue isn't just going to go away.

~~~
notoriousjpg
> But at this point, I think Zuckerberg can lay to rest any hope of ever
> running for office. His opponents now have a lot of material they can cite
> to show his ethical shortcomings. And the media is going to keep digging for
> more dirt on Facebook, since it's something that the public can relate to,
> the majority of them being Facebook users. This issue isn't just going to go
> away.

I wish this were true. If it were would we have a reality TV star with
multiple scandals under his belt? Sad state of affairs. If he did have access
to this kind of data, it would give him an unprecedented level of access to
private conversations, secrets etc. In a darker timeline, imagine the
blackmail/extortion/'leverage' opportunities.

~~~
rs86
Some really scary prospects there...

------
jsemrau
I wrote about this exact problem roughly 2 years back [1]. Tech can be very
influential since you already have captured highly dedicated attention from a
clearly defined market segment. Looks like we have now reached that point
where someone has weaponized this politically.

[1] [https://medium.com/@thisTenqyuLife/uber-and-lift-set-a-
very-...](https://medium.com/@thisTenqyuLife/uber-and-lift-set-a-very-
dangerous-political-precedent-bc6585126198)

------
joshjdr
How fast can I kill all my karma by pointing out that the 3 of the top 4
articles on HN are some realization that Facebook does not give an ef about
anybody's privacy?

~~~
asfasgasg
The most damage you'll do is -4 points per instance of this comment. So, not
that fast.

I do think the hysteria is getting to be a bit much, though. We get it. Also,
Zuck is not going to run for President. I really doubt he ever was.

~~~
Yetanfou
Need I remind you the same was said about Trump when people mentioned he might
run for president? How about Reagan?

Any US-born citizen can run for president, claiming that someone in his
position never will is at best wishful thinking, at worst self-delusion. As to
whether he'd stand a chance mostly depends on who he'd be running against,
there have been plenty of candidates where it would not be inconceivable for
people to vote for him as being the least bad of the set.

~~~
asfasgasg
> claiming that someone in his position never will is at best wishful
> thinking, at worst self-delusion

Recall that "never will" is a colloquialism for "very unlikely will." I
wouldn't call that assertion delusional. The word I'd use is, "probably
correct." You picked two examples of unlikely candidates who did actually run.
But most unlikely candidates don't ever actually run! They just don't come to
mind because they didn't run.

~~~
Yetanfou
Never means never, songs have been written about this [1]. Words have meaning,
words have power; if the idea was to say 'unlikely' it would have been just as
easy to say 'It is highly unlikely that Zuck...'.

Given Zuck's power - or money, but money equals power so it doesn't make much
sense to separate the two - I do not consider it unlikely for him to run for
president if he feels the inclination for doing so. His chance of winning
wholly depends on who he'd be running against. Given his lack of charisma his
chances would not be high but the saying 'in the land of the blind one-eye is
king' still holds.

[1]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=auFSEf-9Xqw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=auFSEf-9Xqw)
Ne dit jamais, jamais.

~~~
asfasgasg
Oh, well, if a song has been written about it. Next you're going to be telling
me about yellow submarines and octopuses' gardens.

------
jaclaz
Maybe it is just myself, but I see a lot of people actually _believing_ that
there is a simple equation:

I have your data=I can make you do whatever I want

Maybe I am too optimistic, but I would believe that - once set aside what the
data/campaigns organizers say (to sell their services) - it is not like
millions of people are so easily tricked into voting for this or that
candidate.

If this is what happens, the big issue seems to me more about educating the
seemingly way too gullible people, before and besides removing "fake news" and
"targeted advertising".

~~~
marci
It's optimistic to believe it mostly affects gullible people (whatever
gullible means to you).

[https://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/30/technology/facebook-
tinke...](https://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/30/technology/facebook-tinkers-with-
users-emotions-in-news-feed-experiment-stirring-outcry.html)

~~~
jaclaz
Well, from the article you cited:

>Mr. Kramer wrote that changing the emotional makeup of the news feeds had a
minimal impact, prompting users to produce an average of one fewer emotional
word per thousand words over the following week.

What I am saying is that I find unlikely that they can change the voting
preference, if not that of really gullible (or if you prefer "very easy to
manipulate") people.

------
partiallypro
Facebook worked in conjunction with the Obama campaign in 2012, allowing them
access to more data than their API allowed, so it wouldn't be unheard of.
Oddly, no one complained then.

~~~
ydt
No one complained because they acquired user consent to use the data.

[http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/page/ct-
perspec-p...](http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/page/ct-perspec-page-
facebook-zuckerberg-obama-20180323-story.html)

~~~
jnbiche
Exactly. Big difference between:

1) asking a user who had signed up for the Obama campaign if the campaign
could contact their friends Johnny and Sue (discovered via their Facebook API)
to ask them to support the Obama campaign.

2) Obtaining Facebook data by a professor for an academic study, who then
turns around and sells said data to Cambridge Analytica, who uses it for
targeted fake news propaganda. All of this without any consent from any user.

Add to this the fact that CA was also self-admittedly conducting political
blackmail and bribery, and allegedly hacking election results, and you have a
pretty ugly picture.

~~~
cyphar
While I agree that the professor acted unethically, above and beyond the
original problem with the Facebook API. This depiction of the Obama campaign
is too rosy:

> 1) _asking a user_ who had signed up for the Obama campaign if the campaign
> _could contact their friends Johnny and Sue (discovered via their Facebook
> API)_ [...]

The idea that Alice has any right to consent to the dissemination of other
people's (Bob and Charlie) data is just ridiculous. Just because they're
called "Facebook friends" doesn't mean they have any more rights to give out
my information than any other stranger. The _entire concept_ is busted. To my
mind that is still unethical, even though Facebook permitted it, and the Obama
campaign was clearly the user of the data (rather than a fourth-party).

~~~
jnbiche
>The idea that Alice has any right to consent to the dissemination of other
people's (Bob and Charlie) data is just ridiculous.

I agree. However, I think it's ridiculous to claim that what the Obama
campaign did and what Cambridge Analytica did is ridiculous. And by the way,
you mention it was unethically of the Prof to sell the data, but what about CA
buying it? Do they get a pass?

~~~
cyphar
> And by the way, you mention it was unethically of the Prof to sell the data,
> but what about CA buying it? Do they get a pass?

I think CA's (or any company's) micro-targeting of advertising using detailed
profiles of the person is unethical in general, but whether or not CA is in
the wrong for _buying_ the data depends on whether they knew it was given them
without the consent of users (I haven't followed whether we know that). But CA
has a lot of other unethical things they do, so they don't get a pass in
general.

But I feel that the bulk of the blame for this should be on Facebook's
shoulders as well as the Prof who sold the data -- they both provided outside
parties data for people that had no reasonable ability to consent to that
dissemination.

------
paulie_a
Zuckerberg running for president is delusional at best.

------
romanovcode
A pigeon has more charisma than Mark Zuckerberg.

He could be a grey cardinal but I highly doubt that he could win an actual
presidential campaign, no matter how much data he has.

------
qwerty456127
Wouldn't it be a way too much? Wouldn't the people get the clue immediately in
such a scenario?

------
JonasJSchreiber
Have you seen this guy on TV? He is not a polished speaker

~~~
newnewpdro
That's very fixable, just look at John Carmack's talks over the years - and he
had to overcome a legitimate nervous tick.

------
Rjevski
I hate Facebook and Zuckerberg but I'd still take him over the garbage we
currently have.

------
MrGando
Yep, you get it.

------
tehwebguy
Forget Zuck. Every ad network knows what porn you watch.

