I get that Twitter is great for blasting small pieces of content into the world, but stitching tweets together into a a news story creates zero cohesion because Twitter doesn't allow users to write with form in mind.
An article or even a blog post usually aims to prove a point, and it is structured to introduce the issue, make the author's point and give some conclusions.
In this case the effort is all on part of the reader, to piece togheter what is the actual point being made, it's really not a "cosmetic thing".
> that's interesting news: Aleksandr Kogan refused to be interviewed by ICO Commissioner Denham's investigation. Yes, same Kogan who allegedly with his equal partner, Joseph Chancellor, harvested 80+ million Facebook records and sold tens of millions to SCL/Cambridge Analytica.
What's the ICO Commissioner's investigation? What's the ICO? Obviously I have the Google available to search, but this "Twitter as Journalism" needs to stop.
Funny, I would have thought that it would be the integrity of our democratic processes that must change, and that trust and confidence in it were secondary effects.
Also it seems overly optimistic to think that when the average person has a better idea of what is going on behind the scenes that their trust and confidence in the process would _improve_.
One of the modifications of democracy we discussed in A-level philosophy was getting one vote for existing, another for having a degree, another for being a parent, etc.
Of course state propaganda is as invalid as anyone else’s! And all states equally, too!
Neither attempting to block nor failing to block solves the problem of discovering what the truth is. The former because it presupposes you already know the answer, the latter because it’s trivial to algorithmically create endless variations and combinations of lies and truths so that there literally isn’t enough time to decide what to believe.
Even intelligence agencies fall for fabrications. What hope do the rest of us have?
I think they can.
They largely don't however, otherwise advertising wouldn't be such a successful industry.
No, of course they can't. Is it not generally the case that most people do not know anything about the basic facts of how their country is governed? And roughly the history of the place? Isn't it the case that most people don't bother with following politics most of the time?
>> During the course of our investigation, we obtained information that the Liberal Democrats had sold the personal data of its party members to BSiE [Britain Stronger in Europe] for approximately £100,000.
>>Both the Liberal Democrats and Open Britain denied that party members’ personal data had been sold. Instead, both confirmed that the In Campaign bought Electoral Register information from the Liberal Democrats.
>>We are still looking at how the Remain side of the referendum campaign handled personal data, including the electoral roll, and will be considering whether there are any breaches of data protection or electoral law requiring further action.
Page 54 in the report from the ICO: https://ico.org.uk/media/action-weve-taken/reports/2260277/i...
Your link confirms my statement. In 64 pages there is one section about Remain with the mild statement, "We are still looking at how the Remain side of the referendum campaign handled personal data, including the electoral roll, and will be considering whether there are any breaches of data protection or electoral law requiring further action."... That is a very mild statement, and the rest of the 98% of the document is about much more serious Leave investigations.
You are conflating their findings that there was a coordinated effort with law-breaking activities in the Leave campaign, with ongoing investigations and crimes, with the Remain campaign, where they are looking at whether much more minor to clean up and analyze data that was 100% legally acquired didn't violate privacy agreements.
There is no equivalence whatsoever.