Facebook Suspends Donald Trump's Data Operations Team For Misusing People's Personal Information (theverge.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: Facebook said late Friday that it had suspended Strategic Communication Laboratories (SCL), along with its political data analytics firm, Cambridge Analytica, for violating its policies around data collection and retention. The companies, which ran data operations for Donald Trump's 2016 presidential election campaign, are widely credited with helping Trump more effectively target voters on Facebook than his rival, Hillary Clinton. While the exact nature of their role remains somewhat mysterious, Facebook's disclosure suggests that the company improperly obtained user data that could have given it an unfair advantage in reaching voters. Facebook said it cannot determine whether or how the data in question could have been used in conjunction with election ad campaigns.

In a blog post, Facebook deputy general counsel Paul Grewal laid out how SCL came into possession of the user data. In 2015, Aleksandr Kogan, a psychology professor at the University of Cambridge, created an app named "thisisyourdigitallife" that promised to predict aspects of users' personalities. About 270,000 people downloaded it and logged in through Facebook, giving Kogan access to information about their city of residence, Facebook content they had liked, and information about their friends. Kogan passed the data to SCL and a man named Christopher Wylie from a data harvesting firm known as Eunoia Technologies, in violation of Facebook rules that prevent app developers from giving away or selling users' personal information. Facebook learned of the violation that year and removed his app from Facebook. It also asked Kogan and his associates to certify that they had destroyed the improperly collected data. Everyone said that they did. The suspension is not permanent, a Facebook spokesman said. But the suspended users would need to take unspecified steps to certify that they would comply with Facebook's terms of service.

Comments

What a joke.

[Narcocide]

And they seriously say they don't know how that information could have been misused? Bullshit. If I can figure it out after spending 20 minutes with their stupid API, then they built it into the business plan and it's not possible they aren't fully aware of exactly how it was meant to work.

Re:What a joke.

[Chris Mattern]

It is rather amazing how they can track everything about you down to what you had for breakfast this morning, but when comes to determining any possible negative information about their operations, why, they just have no idea.

Re:What a joke.

[SharpFang]

From bulk of available data, completely new, formerly unavailable data can be extracted. Correlations, statistics, trends - stuff "hidden in plain sight". Use geolocation and racial background and you can reliably predict credit capacity. Analyze shopping patterns and you can find hobbies. Finding political preferences, in particular "hesitant, open to suggestion" is definitely possible following history of likes on various articles, and sites frequented.

Of course the excuse of "misusing" here is total bullshit. Facebook constantly misuses personal information. Their app listens in while your phone is in sleep mode, to fine tune their ad suggestions,

The only "misuse" here was "regular use, but helping Trump".

Re:What a joke.

[wallsg]

Remember about how about 10 years ago Democrats were gloating about how those old, rickety Republicans were at a tremendous disadvantage because they didn't know how to leverage the internet and social media? It sounds to me like they figured out how to use social media AS THE GREAT DATA SPONGE IT WAS DESIGNED TO BE perfectly fine. The indignation is that the "wrong" people figured it out.

The "shame" is on everyone who freely gives out their personal information for, what? Nothing at all. Here you go, world! I'm so important that I'm sure that EVERYONE wants to know everything about me and exactly what I did today!

Why in the world does everyone want to spew out everything about themselves and then cry that they have no privacy?

Re:What a joke.

[SharpFang]

I read that article. And I deem it bullshit.

"This is functionally equivalent to an always-on phone call from you to Facebook." Except all the preprocessing can be done in the phone boiling the 3kB/s to 20 bytes per second, only when speaking. If you speak 4 hours a day, that's still less than 300K per daily digest. The built-in hardware of the phone is custom-made to make this easy and power-efficient (the GSM encoding!) and since it doesn't keep broadcasting live, with transmitter powered down the power requirements are minimal.

So, no need to keep gigabytes of database on the phone, no need to transmit gigabytes live.

And then their "nail to the coffin" - their description of Narcissistic Fallacy - "we were instantly struck by how small a fraction of Facebook content even triggered interest from the targeting machine. On the order of single-digit percentages[...]"

So over 1% of raw data fed in was producing results valuable for targeting ads? And you're trying to tell me you were disappointed about this, not ecstatic??

Re:What a joke.

[Narcocide]

This whole topic may be bullshit, but I can tell you for absolutely certain that their API allows any app developer to compromise not only your account but everyone in your friend list.

"Nobody can misuse our data but us!"

[Anonymous Coward]

They're only mad that their proprietary data got out, not that it was being "misused." That's the power of marketing, baby!

Re:"Nobody can misuse our data but us!"

[iamhassi]

They're only mad that their proprietary data got out, not that it was being "misused." That's the power of marketing, baby!

Exactly. Can't have other people selling personal data, only Google and Facebook are allowed to do that.

Re:"Nobody can misuse our data but us!"

[shanen]

Terse, but perhaps worth an insightful mod if I ever saw one to give. The soulless and cancerous corporations should NOT own our personal data to abuse for their greater profits. Not even a real problem, since there is no amount of profit that could satisfy the fake problem.

I think we should own our own personal data, including where it is stored and how it is used. In the case where we post something (like this comment) for public consideration, that should be available for public use, and Facebook (but even more so the EVIL google) should add value by sharing the summary statistics back to us in the form of EPR (Earned Public Reputation) so we can use our time better by seeing (preferably in advance) who is worth paying attention to and who has earned a reputation for writing or linking to true things.

Re: "Nobody can misuse our data but us!"

[c6gunner]

The right to bear arms is regularly considered near unlimited, at least with respect to things up to and including AR15s.

The right to privacy implied in the same constitution is regularly limited all over the place. Our personal data should be covered in that right to privacy even if we have to have another amendment to do it.

You're terribly confused. Your right to bear arms is not some magical pixie dust which protects you from everyone; it's a limitation on what the government is allowed to do to you. It has no bearing on private individuals. If I disarm you, I am not violating your 2nd amendment rights. This has been tested in the courts, so feel free to look it up. I may or may not be violating some federal or state law, but as a private individual I can never be said to have infringed on your constitutional rights. Ergo the same applies to your "right to privacy". The government may be constitutionally prevented from violating your privacy, but I am not, and neither is Facebook, or google, or any other corporation.

tl;dr, any amendments you pass wouldn't do dick to protect you from Facebook.

Re: "Nobody can misuse our data but us!"

[Reverend Green]

How much of Facebook's revenue comes from fedgov black budget?

Re:"Nobody can misuse our data but us!"

[Daralantan]

Facebook is just mad that they weren't paid for it.

Re:"Nobody can misuse our data but us!"

[Memnos]

All their base are belong to them.

Re: "Nobody can misuse our data but us!"

[jedidiah]

> If I disarm you, I am not violating your 2nd amendment rights.

If you disarm me, you are committing a common law crime and a tort and I have legal recourse against you.

You are also risking getting shot by the rest of my family including the ones that live nearby. Some of them are within rifle range.

Re:"Nobody can misuse our data but us!"

[quantaman]

They're only mad that their proprietary data got out, not that it was being "misused." That's the power of marketing, baby!

Exactly. Can't have other people selling personal data, only Google and Facebook are allowed to do that.

Like it or not I've given consent to Google and Facebook to use my personal data for targeted ads, search results, etc. You may think I and others who've done this have made a dumb choice, you might think there should be regs that manage this relationship, but there has been consent.

Kogan made an agreement with FB that he's collect data only for his app's benefit. He also made an agreement with each user who used his app that the data would only be used for the app's benefit.

And then he went and sold the data to SLC, breaking both of those promises. And then after Kogan and SLC promised to destroy the data they again broke their promise and lied.

This is about fraudulently acquired data for financial gain, "suspension" is a slap on the wrist.

Re: "Nobody can misuse our data but us!"

[q4Fry]

I think you need to see this for a good laugh.

pure political bs

[harvey the nerd]

Perhaps NSA needs to suspend Facebook operations for a few days. Ya know, aiding and abetting known terrorists and Maoist communists, to probably a number of financial frauds, starting with the founder...

The DC kleptocrats, from DNC-Hill to Sen. Cruz(R) had much more intrusive data operations.

Re:pure political bs

[Narcocide]

The DC kleptocrats, from DNC-Hill to Sen. Cruz(R) had much more intrusive data operations.

By what absurd granule of cognitive dissonance did you come to the conclusion Facebook isn't an integral part of that?

Re:pure political bs

[AmiMoJo]

Slashdot comments are increasingly just ranting conspiracy theories. Sad.

Blame allocation

[bugs2squash]

I would attach more blame to Facebook for allowing people to pull a stunt like this

Re:Blame allocation

[AlanObject]

I would attach more blame to Facebook for allowing people to pull a stunt like this

If you are referring to the elevation of Donald Trump we should attach all blame where it belongs: on the idiots that voted for him.

Whatever stunts were pulled with social media by these guys and the Russians, the essential facts about Donald Trump and what an incredible dishonest, morally cretinous fraud he is were out there for anyone with the slightest inclination to do so could find. They elected this scumbag all pumped up with inane slogans. To this day too many of them defend him regardless of the constant stream of scandals and lies any one of which would have had them calling for the blood of any Democratic president.

On this scale of things Facebook is an innocent bystander.

Re:Blame allocation

[Anonymous Coward]

That's right, fellow Tolerant Liberal! As we all know, ONLY politicians with a (D) should be able to collude with Russians and accept 150 million dollar bribes from them. It's only bad when other people do it!

Re:Blame allocation

[evil_aaronm]

I've had a long day, but I had time during the day - drove from the tail end of Long Island to home in western NY - to think about this. It struck me as odd, like, "Why the f would anyone with a brain vote for Trump?" And then I realized: They empathized with Trump to the extent that they wanted to be him. Like when we were kids - depending on how old you are - and Van Halen was all the rage, lots of people wanted to be EVH, but easily just as many people wanted to be "Diamond" David Lee Roth. Why? Well, the swagger, the charisma, the 'tude, the chicks. Either one had it all, but Roth, in particular, struck me as someone I'd rather emulate. In addition to all the above, he seemed funny, too. That was before I read more about both of them and realized they're people with their own issues and demons. Learning more about them took off a bit of the shine. Now, I know they're not perfect - in fact, they sound like assholes - but that doesn't mean I've completely abandoned them as a fan. I still like them both, but do I want to be them? No. I got my own life to worry about.

But that's the thing: I think a lot of people don't just like Trump; they want to be him. They want what they see in Trump: the TV job; the cars; the helicopters; the glamorous parties; the flash and bling; the commanded "respect," etc. At some point, though, many of us realized that we weren't going to be the next DLR or EVH. We might have even changed our minds completely, and rejected that person after learning of this or that scandal. Evidently, with Trump, the scandals and his obvious inadequacies for the job of president do not register with these folks. Instead of bringing them down to earth, they just dig in deeper. Maybe someone with a better grasp of psychology could tell you why. I'm guessing dissatisfaction with their personal lives, with likely a large touch of insecurity.

Bottom line: Is it really "idiocy," or is it escapism? Are Trump's supporters, in fact, a legion of fantasizing Walter Mittys?

Re: Blame allocation

[Anonymous Coward]

"Polls say Hillary in a landslide. Be prepared to eat crow!"
-You, circa October 2016

Re:Blame allocation

[iamhassi]

Maybe they voted for Trump because he was the better of the two options? I mean, US seems to be doing good from where I'm sitting, at least better than it was before the election. What I wonder is why are there still people that refuse to accept Trump is actually doing a good job?

Re:Blame allocation

[GrimSavant]

How far away are you sitting?

Because you seemed to have missed the unending stream of scandals that are getting pretty hard to keep track of at this point both due to their depth and number. I guess if you don't want a fully functioning US Federal government for whatever reason it looks pretty good, but there big gaping holes in multiple key federal agencies functions, and those holes have only been growing bigger this week. Neither the political appointee level nor the career civil servant level seem particularly healthy. The diplomatic situation is utterly abysmal, and makes the Bush years look good in comparison. I guess the economy seems to be doing well, but that only works until it doesn't.

Will the Trump supporters only realize that there's something wrong with him knocking down the pillars and the walls after the ceiling falls down on our head? Because it will be too late then.

Re:Blame allocation

[BlueStrat]

Line ticket democrats will never, ever admit that a Republican is doing a good job. They will admit grudgingly to Republicans that might have done a good job in the past so long as there is a greater Republican evil in the present.

The people nor the country matter.
It's all about that Blue Tribe.

What's happening today including foreign collusion by political parties, corruption, and the bitter division among people, was foretold with shocking accuracy and precision over 200 years ago.

A portion of a quote on the subject of the dangers of political parties:

"...It serves always to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another. ..." -- George Washington

I don't think Washington could have written more of a spot-on description of the current state of the US body-politic, unless it had a line at the bottom; "sent from my damned iPhone"!

Strat

Re:Blame allocation

[AmiMoJo]

Are you kidding? Trump is running out of staff to fire and just started a damaging trade war. He failed to improve healthcare, backed out of Paris, made the office of POTUS a global laughing stock...

Is there anything positive he has actually done? H1B reform perhaps. He was a useful idiot for Kim. Not much of an achievement.

Re:Blame allocation

[phantomfive]

A lot of people just look at their retirement account, which in the US is tied to the stock market. They saw, "Trump got the stock market up, and all he had to do was get elected." Whether it was actually Trump's fault or not, no one cares. But that attitude is going to spread if the stock market stays up.

As for me, if he doesn't start a war, then he's not the worst president this century.

Re:Blame allocation

[AmiMoJo]

No need to over-think this. He is a populist, a demagogue. Same technique that has worked over and over throughout history. When times are hard someone like Trump can promise simple solutions like getting rid of immigrants, building a wall, opening up obsolete industries and "draining the swamp".

People respond to simple ideas that seem like they will produce quick results. The truth, that the problems are complex and difficult to solve and will require them to charge too is a much harder sell.

Re:Blame allocation

[iamhassi]

Healthcare was ruined by the last president, that needs to be reformatted and reinstalled from scratch, but too many politicians are standing in the way so it's just going to continue to fail. Backing out of Paris was a Very Good Thing since the US was basically going to pay for all the other countries. We don't need to sign some agreement to improve our global warming responsiblities. POTUS was a global laughing stock before Trump whether you admit that or not.

Trump did a few positive things...
1. Supreme Court Judge Gorsuch
2. 59 missiles dropped in Syria
3. He took us out of TPP
4. Illegal immigration is now down 70%( the lowest in 17 years)
5. Consumer confidence highest since 2000 at index 125.6
6. Mortgage applications for new homes rise to a seven year high
7. Arranged from 7% to 24% Tariff on lumber from Canada
8. Bids for border wall are well underway
9. Pulled out of the lopsided Paris accord
10. Keystone pipeline approved
11. NATO allies boost spending by 4.3%
12. Allowing VA to terminate bad employees
13. Allowing private healthcare choices for veterans
14. More than 600,000jobs created
15. Median household income at a 7 year high
16. The Stock Market is at the highest ever in its history
17. China agreed to American import of beef
18. $89 Billion saved in regulation rollbacks
19. Rollback of A Regulation to boost coal mining
20. MOAB for ISIS
21. Travel ban reinstated
22. Executive order for religious freedom
23. Jump started NASA
24. $600 million cut from UN peacekeeping budget
25. Targeting of MS13 gangs
26. Deporting violent illegal immigrants
27. Signed 41 bills to date
28. Created a commission on child trafficking
29. Created a commission on voter fraud
30. Created a commission for opioids addiction
31. Giving power to states to drug test unemployment recipients
32. Unemployment lowest since May 2007
33. Historic Black College University initiative
34. Women In Entrepreneurship Act
35. Created an office for illegal immigrant crime victims
36. Reversed Dodd-Frank
37. Repealed DOT ruling which would have taken power away from local governments for infrastructure planning 38. Order to stop crime against law enforcement
39. End of DAPA program
40. Stopped companies from moving out of America
41. Promoted businesses to create American Jobs
42. Encouraged country to once again - 'Buy American and hire American'
43. Cutting regulations - 2 for every one created
45. Review of all trade agreements to make sure they are America first
46. Apprentice program
47. Highest manufacturing surge in 3 years
48. $78 Billion promised reinvestment from major businesses like Exxon, Bayer, Apple, SoftBank, Toyota
49. Denied FBI a new building
50. $700 million saved with F-35 renegotiation
51. Saves $22 million by reducing white house payroll
52. Dept of Treasury reports a $182 billion surplus for April 2017 (2nd largest in history)
53. Negotiated the release of 6 US humanitarian workers held captive in Egypt
54. Gas prices lowest in more than 12 years
55. Signed An Executive Order To Promote Energy Independence and Economic Growth
56. Has already accomplished more to stop government interference into people's lives than any President in the history of America
57. President Trump has worked with Congress to pass more legislation in his first 100 days than any President since Truman
58. Has given head executive of each branches 6 month time frame, dated March 15, 2017, to trim the fat, restructure and improve
efficiency of their branch. (Observe the push-back the leaks the lies as entrenched POWER refuses to go silently into that good night!)
59. Last, refused his Presidential pay check. Donated it to Veterans issues
60. Repealed the abusive EPA WOTUS regs imposed by Obama.

Re:Blame allocation

[burtosis]

Is there anything positive he has actually done? H1B reform perhaps. He was a useful idiot for Kim. Not much of an achievement.

I hate trump, but one positive thing was the first ever audit of the DOD 'misplacing' 21 thousand billion dollars Given that this could have paid off nearly all national debt, or expanded health care to everyone and paid for free college for all, I think some kind of accounting for unconstitutional appropriation of vast sums of money is a good thing.

Re:Blame allocation

[AmiMoJo]

1. Supreme Court Judge Gorsuch
2. 59 missiles dropped in Syria
3. He took us out of TPP
4. Illegal immigration is now down 70%( the lowest in 17 years)
7. Arranged from 7% to 24% Tariff on lumber from Canada
8. Bids for border wall are well underway
9. Pulled out of the lopsided Paris accord
10. Keystone pipeline approved
11. NATO allies boost spending by 4.3%
12. Allowing VA to terminate bad employees
13. Allowing private healthcare choices for veterans
18. $89 Billion saved in regulation rollbacks
19. Rollback of A Regulation to boost coal mining
20. MOAB for ISIS
21. Travel ban reinstated
22. Executive order for religious freedom
24. $600 million cut from UN peacekeeping budget
29. Created a commission on voter fraud
31. Giving power to states to drug test unemployment recipients
36. Reversed Dodd-Frank
39. End of DAPA program
43. Cutting regulations - 2 for every one created
45. Review of all trade agreements to make sure they are America first
55. Signed An Executive Order To Promote Energy Independence and Economic Growth
56. Has already accomplished more to stop government interference into people's lives than any President in the history of America
58. Has given head executive of each branches 6 month time frame, dated March 15, 2017, to trim the fat, restructure and improve
60. Repealed the abusive EPA WOTUS regs imposed by Obama.

These are all bad things he did.

5. Consumer confidence highest since 2000 at index 125.6
6. Mortgage applications for new homes rise to a seven year high
15. Median household income at a 7 year high
16. The Stock Market is at the highest ever in its history
23. Jump started NASA
27. Signed 41 bills to date
41. Promoted businesses to create American Jobs
47. Highest manufacturing surge in 3 years
52. Dept of Treasury reports a $182 billion surplus for April 2017 (2nd largest in history)
53. Negotiated the release of 6 US humanitarian workers held captive in Egypt
54. Gas prices lowest in more than 12 years

These would have happened anyway.

Re:Blame allocation

[penandpaper]

How is Judge Gorsuch bad? Everything that I have seen and read about Gorsuch has shown a well tempered, honorable, intelligent, and principled man.

If you think he was soooo bad you have to explain why he was appointed to the Circuit court of appeals unanimously by the same people that voted against his Supreme court nomination.

You may not like Trump or what Trump does but Gorsuch is a good judge by every measure.

Re:Blame allocation

[AmiMoJo]

It was supposed to be Obama's pick. The system is stupid but that's how it works, and Obama made a perfectly good choice. Republican's refused because they saw an opportunity to stack the SCOTUS.

Re:Blame allocation

[penandpaper]

Ok, that has nothing to do with Gorsuch. That was politics and a gambit that McConnell bet big and won. Saying Gorsuch is bad because politics is stupid. Saying that the POTUS nomination == confirmation ignores the Constitutional power of the Senate and again has nothing to do with Gorsuch.

You don't have a leg to stand on and that is apparent that your excuse is comes down to the constitutional power of the Senate.

Re:Blame allocation

[quantaman]

But that's the thing: I think a lot of people don't just like Trump; they want to be him. They want what they see in Trump: the TV job; the cars; the helicopters; the glamorous parties; the flash and bling; the commanded "respect," etc. At some point, though, many of us realized that we weren't going to be the next DLR or EVH. We might have even changed our minds completely, and rejected that person after learning of this or that scandal. Evidently, with Trump, the scandals and his obvious inadequacies for the job of president do not register with these folks. Instead of bringing them down to earth, they just dig in deeper. Maybe someone with a better grasp of psychology could tell you why. I'm guessing dissatisfaction with their personal lives, with likely a large touch of insecurity.

I don't think that's quite it.

People overestimate their capabilities, as a result most people feel they're not doing as well as they deserve to be. Who is to blame for this injustice? The system.

That's why every politician runs on change, because people think if you fix system you'll fix the injustice and they'll be better off.

The problem is that system, while flawed, isn't quite as corrupt as they believe, and when confronted by this reality most politicians end up sounding roughly the same.

Trump is completely dishonest and irresponsible, so not only can he promise to fix the system, but when confronted with the reality that his approach causes way more harm than good he just doesn't care and keeps on Trumping.

It's horrific when you realize the damage he's doing, but from that person who just wants to change "the system" he looks like the only person person willing to stand up to it.

Re:Blame allocation

[DerekLyons]

23. Jump started NASA

Trump hasn't raised NASA's budget. Trump hasn't put a cogent NASA or national space policy in place. (In fact, his "policy" is President Obama's with a couple of lines changed and a whole bunch of puffed chest and meaningless propaganda.) Trump has done shit for NASA except to assemble yet another committee to put their political fingers in the pie.

Re:Blame allocation

[quantaman]

Healthcare was ruined by the last president

You mean how more people got coverage, preexisting conditions went away, and the rate of healthcare growing slowed?

Yeah, it was destroyed.

that needs to be reformatted and reinstalled from scratch

How? Trump said he had a brilliant solution during the election... yet for some reason all we got was a gong show from the legislative branch.

Backing out of Paris was a Very Good Thing since the US was basically going to pay for all the other countries.

Good point, except for the fact it was a non-binding agreement for which you didn't have to pay a dime.

We don't need to sign some agreement to improve our global warming responsiblities.

True. But putting industry lackeys in charge of the DOE and EPA who go out of their way to subsidize coal plants isn't a very good way to start.

POTUS was a global laughing stock before Trump whether you admit that or not.

False but irrelevant, saying you were already overweight when you were 220lbs doesn't mean it's fine that you now weigh 300lbs.

Trump did a few positive things...

Oooh! Someone found a list!

I'm sorry but that list is a joke. Most of the positive side effects are a consequence of a healthy global economy where the US is actually lagging and Presidents probably don't have much affect anyway.

And all those positive effects are going to be swamped by the massive bill from the Corporate (GOP Donor) Tax cut.

As for the rest it's part of his proposed trade war (bye-bye stock market), or heavily partisan actions that most people consider a negative.

You even included

29. Created a commission on voter fraud

The gong show run by a conspiracy theorist that was disbanded in an attempt to shield their improperly withheld documents from disclosure.

Re:Blame allocation

[acrimonious howard]

This. People need to pay attention. Trumpers will almost admit they favor authoritarianism. Ask them if they think it's ok that Trump does X thing that's traditionally outside of classical presidential power. Nepotism, back room deals, emoluments, willful blindness, constant open about-faces/outright lying, etc. The answer is always deflection or denial.

Re:Blame allocation

[iamhassi]

Are you sure about that? https://www.cbsnews.com/news/t...

Re:Blame allocation

[iamhassi]

Laughing stock is laughing stock, a bigger laughing stock still means it was TRUE that we were a laughing stock before https://www.usatoday.com/story...

Re:Blame allocation

[iamhassi]

Yes I included the voter fraud commission, just because it was disbanded doesn't mean it was a bad idea, just means this commission didn't work out but voter fraud is a serious issue and Trump should be applauded for at least trying to tackle it https://www.nbcnews.com/politi...

Re:Blame allocation

[rey2]

Maybe they fundamentally disagree with abortion or perhaps something else.. you know things you use your brain to think about.

Re:Blame allocation

[AmiMoJo]

Trump said he had a brilliant solution during the election... yet for some reason all we got was a gong show from the legislative branch.

To be fair though, who knew healthcare was so complicated?!? Certainly not Trump.

Re:Blame allocation

[quantaman]

Yes I included the voter fraud commission, just because it was disbanded doesn't mean it was a bad idea, just means this commission didn't work out but voter fraud is a serious issue and Trump should be applauded for at least trying to tackle it https://www.nbcnews.com/politi...

Voter fraud is not a problem in the US.

I can't recall how many times I heard some Republican claim "oh we found rock solid evidence of 1000 cases of voter fraud!" and you'll later hear that at least 999 of them turned out to be due to crappy government databases and the remaining one almost certainly was as well... but there's also a small chance it was a green card holder who got confused. The GOP just keeps pushing the lie because it serves as an excuse to implement voter IDs, and when you insist that voters need ID to vote, and minorities who vote Democrat are disproportionately likely to lack IDs, then you suppress some of the Democratic vote.

The only kind of voter fraud that might be frequent enough to change elections is with mail-in ballots. But here the fraud (if it really is significant) is more likely to be from husbands "ensuring" their wives vote correctly, and since men vote Republican the GOP doesn't care. But again, we don't really know if this is significant.

And that is fundamentally why the commission was disbanded. Because voter fraud doesn't exist the Republicans had to fabricate evidence, and because they had to fabricate evidence the couldn't share documents with the Democrats, and because the court ordered them to share documents they had to scrap the whole endeavour.

Re:Blame allocation

[DerekLyons]

From the very first fucking line of the article:

The Trump administration is proposing $19.1 billion for NASA in its fiscal 2018 budget blueprint, a 0.8 percent decrease from 2017 funding levels

The next few lines, if you're familiar with NASA other than through Trump's propaganda, are meaningless puffery - they're more-or-less exactly what NASA has been doing all through the Obama administration and some of it as far back as President Bush. When you read the rest of the article, it's just more of the same - exactly what they have been doing, except with very selective politically motivated budget cuts. There's no significant new initiatives or funding. None. Zero. Zip.
 
Like so many other of Trump's "accomplishments", his "jump start" of NASA exists only in the minds of the clueless fools who know only what they've been told to think.

Re:So?

[PopeRatzo]

The companies don't belong to Trump

You're right, it's the other way around.

Cambridge Analytica is owned by SCL which is owned by the hedge fund billionaire Robert Mercer and his harridan daughter/wife, Rebekah. They also own the Breitbart septic tank, as well as the manchurian candidate known as Donald J Trump, who is currently on loan to some Russian oligarchs and a terrorist named Putin who just murdered people in Britain with chemical weapons. One of the people he murdered was business partner of a Russian-born business partner of Donald Trump, a guy named Sater, who is a double-agent and convicted money launderer who tried to get Trump financing for a Moscow Trump Tower and is now an informant for the Mueller investigation.

https://www.rawstory.com/2018/...

https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/16...

This is all gonna make a great movie after Trump is done. It's like Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy, except with vulgar, money-grubbing sleazebags, porn stars, Slovenian prostitutes and two large failsons who like to run around the world killing endangered animals and posting Pepe memes.

Re:Congratulation, Facebook

[iamhassi]

Of course, Facebook can't have competition

virtue signalling?

[Anonymous Coward]

It was not that long ago that the Trump team announced the guy who will run the 2020 re-election campaign is going to be the guy who ran Trump's digital campaign efforts, and there were stories about how he had cleverly taken advantage of a program Facebook offered to BOTH campaigns to embed teams to help with digital outreach (Facebook was NOT favoring Trump, Hillary simply turned down Facebook's offer).

In the modern era of outraged boycotting left wingers who go nuts against any company they suspect has been anything other than hostile to their enemies, is is possible this is Facebook's way of trying to deflect and protect itself from blowback?

Odd and bad things can happen when mobs with torches and pitchforks (real or virtual) are on the rampage.

Re: So?

[PopeRatzo]

Putin only tried to murder people in Britain with chemical weapons: Skripal and his daughter are still alive.

I have trouble keeping up with all the new stuff coming out. Isn't there some Russian oligarch whose name began with the letter "B" who was just found dead? He's the guy who was the business partner of the guy Felix Sater who was Cheetolini's business partner in the Trump Soho and the one who babysat L'il Don and Ivanka when they went to Moscow to kiss the ring.

Yeah, there's dead Russians turning up everywhere, and they all happen to be on Putin's enemies list. No wonder President Jackoff is afraid to say anything about sanctions. He's deathly afraid of Putin.

It's getting like the last part of Goodfellas where Henry's all coked up and paranoid and trying to move money and make a deal with the Feds to rat out Paulie and Jimmy while they're running around whacking guys to try to tidy up before their world ends. You gotta admit, it's entertaining in a Shakespearean/Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight kind of way.

Who shall guard these selfsame mindless mushrooms?

[shanen]

For that you got an insightful mod? Fundamental misconception of lumping the Trump voters into one mass. How can you claim much insight with such a flawed foundation?

There are many small groups that form Trump's constituents. It will be interesting to find out which ones remain in his "deep base" when this next election comes around.

While I sort of agree that collectively they are responsible for the #FatNixon fiasco, this story is about a couple of groups that were subject to convenient manipulation via Facebook. I think the most important descriptor is "mindless mushrooms", but Putin only harvested what we sowed when we destroyed the public schools. We allowed them to be divided and conquered. There are still a few good ones, but most are obedience schools you wouldn't send your dog to. Thoughtful evidence-based citizens was NOT the objective, but most schools now produce future wage slaves or docile prisoners who will obey the ads to buy toothpaste or vote for #PresidentTweety.

Solution to follow in the other comment...

Re: So?

[PopeRatzo]

"According to Buzzfeed" makes it final, right? Right?

Neither of the two links I provided is to Buzzfeed, and neither story mentions Buzzfeed. What does Buzzfeed have to do with this story or anything I've said?

Re: So?

[PopeRatzo]

I figured out the female lead when the movie of this whole tawdry and treasonous Trump/Russia affair is made. This is the story of the nice-looking young lady who went undercover in the Russian troll farm and exposed them to the world.

https://www.npr.org/sections/p...

The problem wasn't being intrusive

[rsilvergun]

the problem was lying about how the data was going to be used. Also, how the hell did they aid/abet Maoist communists? If you mean China a) why the hell are you talking about? You mean because FB is available in China? and b) China couldn't be any less communist if they tried. Hell, you used the word Kleptocrate, you'd think you'd understand China is a Kleptocracy.

Now, would FB have gone after them if Trump hadn't won? Probably not. What would have been the point? But Trump did win (thanks Hilary, you incredibly stupid bitch you). They're expecting Trump & co to pull this shit again and telling them up front it won't be tolerated. Seem legit to me.

Re:The problem wasn't being intrusive

[harvey the nerd]

Various groups ideologically related to Maoist or Soviet origins still exist in the US, long after changes in the mother country.

Re: The problem wasn't being intrusive

[Reverend Green]

You sound like someone who has never read Mao.

Re: The problem wasn't being intrusive

[Reverend Green]

Lick those boots!

Re: The problem wasn't being intrusive

[harvey the nerd]

Where I live right now, outside the US, the Maoists still kill a substantial number of people every year, kind of a mafia. Albeit about 1/6th the rate of 30-40 years ago. When still I see the various less advertised flavors in the US, I see red...

Re: The problem wasn't being intrusive

[Reverend Green]

Naxalites?

Facebook operating as designed

[Anonymous Coward]

But for the wrong side, so we're suspending them.

Seriously, though. The data was from a relatively small number of users who were not necessarily all U.S. voters a year before the firm was hired by the Trump campaign and there's a possibility that maybe not all of it was deleted, so the Verge acts like Facebook confirmed Trump stole the election. Look at the weasel language in the current version of TFA as of this writing (almost the opposite of the excerpt in the summary, incidentally):

Facebook’s disclosure suggests that the company improperly obtained user data that could have given it an unfair advantage in reaching voters.

The Verge thinks that Facebook suggested something might have happened. It just looks like yet another desperate attempt by Hillary supporters to blame anyone other than themselves for losing to the second-worst* presidential candidate ever.

* He appeared to be the worst, but then he did beat someone.

There's plenty of blame to go around

[rsilvergun]

All Hilary had to do was take him seriously and campaign properly (or at all) in the swing states. Instead she wasted time in states like Az where she didn't have a prayer in hell of winning. She thought she was gonna get some sorta Reaganesque style super victory. Funny thing is there were two things that I kept hearing people say they didn't like about her: Cold & Arrogant. And boy, did she prove that right.

Worst thing is the right wing corporate Dems haven't learned a damn thing and they're probably gonna run Hilary 2.0 (Kamala Harris). What they hell is the bloody point of voting for a Democrat who's gonna run things like a Republican?

Re: There's plenty of blame to go around

[c6gunner]

All Hilary had to do was take him seriously and campaign properly (or at all) in the swing states.

Hillary's campaign had and spent about double the money that Trump did on his campaign. Seems they were pretty serious. The thing is ... no matter how much money you spend buying makeup for a pig, it's still going to be a pig.

Re:There's plenty of blame to go around

[fafalone]

Worst thing is the right wing corporate Dems haven't learned a damn thing and they're probably gonna run Hilary 2.0 (Kamala Harris). What they hell is the bloody point of voting for a Democrat who's gonna run things like a Republican?

This is exactly what I'm afraid of. Her reputation is totally disconnected from her actions; it's worth repeating a previous post of mine about her...
[...] from all indications, the Dems have learned nothing from losing to Trump and will find a way to do it again. Probably by trying to run Kamala Harris for instance. So they lose everyone not cool with 'equality is racism/sexism and white men are evil' and eliminating all due process for sex crimes (particularly on college campuses) to staying home or even going (R), then doubly alienate everyone concerned with civil rights (she's a "tough on crime" prosecutor notorious for shitting all over the 1st Amendment and trying to destroy Section 230 from the Backpage case- truly awash in misconduct; defending the conviction of a man based on a confession inserted into a transcript (and saying it wasn't prosecutorial misconduct to submit it when the prosecutor *knew* it was fraudulent), and fighting tooth and nail against improving prison conditions/reducing overcrowding when those were so bad it got ruled cruel and unusual punishment... I could go on).

Harris and a few of the other front runners are catering to two constituencies: the most conservative, hawkish Democrats, and the radical progressives obsessed with identity politics. A large block of liberals just can't bring themselves to vote for candidates like that, since they, ya know, go against normal liberal values, and will stay at home again as they did with Clinton. Especially after the progressives are done painting everyone in their own party who doesn't like Harris as a racist sexist; her being a minority woman will be the absolute only reason anyone could possibly have a problem with her, therefore anyone opposing her is an alt-right nazi.

Re: There's plenty of blame to go around

[DASH-8HYPHEN-8]

All Hilary had to do was take him seriously and campaign properly (or at all) in the swing states.

... Seems they were pretty serious. The thing is ... no matter how much money you spend buying makeup for a pig, it's still going to be a pig.

This passes for argument? She's a pig, that's why she lost? How about she was, and is, hated. And why? What do people around her say?

Yet, among those who know Mrs Clinton, even critics praise her integrity. She is a politician, therefore self-interested and cynical at times—yet driven, they say, by an overarching desire to improve America.

I think the real reason everyone hates her is because negative ads work in politics. She's been in the political eye for 20 years, and for 20 years, republicans have been deathly afraid of such a conservative dem. Here's one article that touches on it:

For more than two years, Republicans did more than demonize her—they criminalized her, first through the Benghazi hearings (a congressional boondoggle if ever there was one), and later, by representing her use of a personal email server—a politically unwise decision, but one that resulted in not a single felony or misdemeanor charge—as a national emergency. It created a toxic environment and false narrative that may have led especially gullible voters to believe that Clinton, if elected, would face imminent impeachment, removal and imprisonment. In its pursuit of this scorched-earth project, the GOP was aided by mainstream journalists who covered the email story far out of proportion to its legal consequence; bad actors who exploited today’s fractured media environment; and the Russian government.

Re: There's plenty of blame to go around

[c6gunner]

tl;dr: the republicans did to her image what the democrats did to Trump's image.

Shocker. Never before in politics have we seen political parties trying to malign the reputation of opposing politicians. This is a truly horrific and completely unexpected development.

Re: There's plenty of blame to go around

[DASH-8HYPHEN-8]

tl;dr: the republicans did to her image what Trump did to Trump's image.

ftfy

Re:Where is the FCC?

[PopeRatzo]

All we need is one enterprising FCC chairman to reintroduce network neutrality with a content neutrality rider packed in with it.

OK, once again, I guess I have to post a definition of Net Neutrality. It has nothing to do with content, or speech, or "Network Neutrality".

https://www.eff.org/issues/net...

Support freedom

[AHuxley]

A brand attempts to stop the freedom of speech?
Great brands will move in to support the freedom of speech.

Re:Support freedom

[Antique Geekmeister]

I'm afraid that "Great brands" is not the same as supporting open competition or the marketplace of ideas. What makes you think that a "great brand" would welcome competition?

Re: Congratulation, Facebook

[Anonymous Coward]

It happened under Johnson with the passing of the Civil Rights Act. Then Nixon (with his Sothern strategy) basically flipped the white southerners to the Republicans. This basically flipped the racial makeup of the two parties.

Re:So?

[PopeRatzo]

Wait, what? He's married to his daughter?

From everything I've seen about them and their relationship, yes. Robert Mercer is "married" to Rebekah. I think it's one of the reasons Donald Trump was drawn to the Mercers. He understands the "special bond" between an ostensibly wealthy man and his daughter.

https://www.google.com/search?...

Re: So?

[c6gunner]

This is what happens when you play too much "Clue" as a kid.

Anything to make the President look bad

[rey2]

Give me a break, this is news; that an analytics company many not have abide by Facebook's rules. Isn't this politics? Here's a hot tip - If it's not illegal the it's legal, Facebook doesn't make the law just yet their candidate didn't win enough electoral votes.

Re: So?

[Dmitri_Yuriescu]

Wow

Re:Who shall guard these selfsame mindless mushroo

[drinkypoo]

For that you got an insightful mod? Fundamental misconception of lumping the Trump voters into one mass. How can you claim much insight with such a flawed foundation?

There are only two kinds of Trump voter: wealthy people who want to keep all their money and don't care about anyone else, and total goddamned idiots who will never, ever get out of Trump what they thought they would get when they voted for him.

Re: So?

[Memnos]

Hmm.. guess I gotta differ there. I vote based on what I think is best for the country, you vote to win a 5th-grade level argument. I'm guessing life treats me nicer than it does you.

Re: So?

[Anonymous Coward]

Different AC. I see Trump as an obvious agent of change. A wrecking ball to the established norms. Sometimes things need to be shaken up. He does that. His opponents are so afraid of losing their fiefdoms that they throw everything at his supporters to shake them loose. Access Hollywood tape, Russian collusion allegations, Stormy Daniels - these are just headline distractions. All day every day much of the press seethes their hatred in every sentence. Whether it be tariffs, taxes or immigration, it does not matter what side of an issue President Trump takes, they find an oppositional view.

Re: So?

[mrclevesque]

This

Curious

[argStyopa]

...I recall the plaudits and praise that was widespread after the 2008/2012 election for the Obama team's aggressive and comprehensive use of Facebook and other online data to target and sway voters.

Funny that the dems went from cutting edge to incompetent in 2 elections, and even more interesting that use of those tools is now somehow considered malignant.
Almost like there's a double standard...

You're making it too complex

[rsilvergun]

they voted for Trump because he ran as a populist. He promised them good jobs, healthcare and a future. Hilary promised them them nothing. At best slightly lower interest rates on their Student Loans.

There's a ton of really desperate folks in swing states. Hilary called them the Blue Firewall and ignored them. Trump listened to them and told them what they wanted to hear. It doesn't matter that he was lying. There was a chance, however small, that he wasn't. They had nothing to lose.

The real problem is America abandoned a significant portion of the working class to abject poverty. That's a terrible idea if you like stability. Large numbers of people (especially men) with nothing to lose are dangerous as hell.

Re:You're making it too complex

[penandpaper]

Was he lying? It seems to me that he is actually trying to fulfill those promises. You may disagree on what he is doing and disagree on whether his policy will help but I honestly do not believe he lied about trying to help those people. He has been keeping is campaign promises.

How has he lied to them?

Re:You're making it too complex

[quantaman]

Was he lying? It seems to me that he is actually trying to fulfill those promises. You may disagree on what he is doing and disagree on whether his policy will help but I honestly do not believe he lied about trying to help those people. He has been keeping is campaign promises.

How has he lied to them?

So he's going to pass steel tariffs and raise the cost of manufacturing in the US? Sure he's kinda fulfilling a promise, but he's actually harming the people he was supposed to help.

What about the "tax cut" which was effectively just a massive wealth transfer to the rich (including himself), which one of his promises was that?

Or when he made a bunch of nonsensical promises on healthcare and then pushed for a healthcare bill that broke all of them?

I'll agree he's trying to keep out immigrants, reduce trade deals, and build a wall. But I don't think for a moment he really cares about helping his base.

Re:You're making it too complex

[penandpaper]

...steel tariffs... Sure he's kinda fulfilling a promise, but he's actually harming the people he was supposed to help.

Again, "You may disagree on what he is doing and disagree on whether his policy will help". I think we both agree that it does count as "fulfilling a promise". Whether it achieves the goal or not is debatable.

"tax cut" which was effectively just a massive wealth transfer to the rich

Taxing less is a wealth transfer? That doesn't make sense. Keeping more of the money you earned is a wealth transfer? I guess if you feel entitled to other peoples money. However, can you explain: "When upper-income Americans prosper, so do middle-income and lower-income Americans. Conversely, when high earners are stagnating, so are income-earners in all other categories." Economics is not a zero sum game. Taxing a person more doesn't help someone else. Just as taxing a person less doesn't hurt another person. Your choice of words "wealth transfer" is odd to me when talking about a tax cut.

nonsensical promises on healthcare and then pushed for a healthcare bill that broke all of them?

He did make a good faith effort and he did succeed in ending the forced mandate. He can't repeal healthcare without Congress.

But I don't think for a moment he really cares about helping his base.

I think he is an idiot that likes the country. I think he does care more so than the average politician. Just my opinion.

Re:You're making it too complex

[quantaman]

...steel tariffs... Sure he's kinda fulfilling a promise, but he's actually harming the people he was supposed to help.

Again, "You may disagree on what he is doing and disagree on whether his policy will help". I think we both agree that it does count as "fulfilling a promise". Whether it achieves the goal or not is debatable.

There were two parts to your claim, first he's trying to fulfill promises, and second, he's trying to help people.

With the tariffs I think it's fulfilling a promise, but I don't think he actually believes it will help people as much as he thinks a trade war will be exciting and good for his poll numbers.

"tax cut" which was effectively just a massive wealth transfer to the rich

Taxing less is a wealth transfer? That doesn't make sense. Keeping more of the money you earned is a wealth transfer?

The money to fund the tax cut is coming from the treasury and massively raising the debt. Sooner or later that money has to be paid back, either through inflation (everyone is a bit less wealthy), raising taxes down the line, or cutting back on other programs.

The tax cut doesn't make the nation wealthier, it just transfers more of that wealth to the richest.

I guess if you feel entitled to other peoples money.

You're assuming that people create wealth in a void and the only role of government is to take from group A and give to group B. Once you acknowledge just how many external factors affect how much money you earn that statement is meaningless from a taxation perspective.

However, can you explain: "When upper-income Americans prosper, so do middle-income and lower-income Americans. Conversely, when high earners are stagnating, so are income-earners in all other categories."

You're citing a paper from a libertarian think-tank, publish in 1996, arguing that the middle class was growing in 1991.... Why do I care about an off-topic publication looking at wealth distribution 27 years ago?

Why don't you look at what's happened in the subsequent decades.

Economics is not a zero sum game. Taxing a person more doesn't help someone else. Just as taxing a person less doesn't hurt another person. Your choice of words "wealth transfer" is odd to me when talking about a tax cut.

I agree economics is not a zero sum game, and in some circumstances corporate tax cuts help the economy as a whole, but these are not those circumstances. If the cut was helping you'd see evidence in the form of raises and investments, instead they're giving out dividends and buying back shares.

The minuscule amount of economic activity generated is not sufficient to pay the cost, hence a wealth transfer.

nonsensical promises on healthcare and then pushed for a healthcare bill that broke all of them?

He did make a good faith effort and he did succeed in ending the forced mandate. He can't repeal healthcare without Congress.

A good faith effort to do what? Show me his good healthcare bill? Heck, show me any good GOP healthcare bill.

The Congressional bill sucked because their ideas suck, the only viable GOP healthcare plan was mandates, and Obama took those. Now all the other things that could improve healthcare are "liberal" ideas they won't touch.

But I don't think for a moment he really cares about helping his base.

I think he is an idiot that likes the country. I think he does care more so than the average politician. Just my opinion.

Evidence?

Re:You're making it too complex

[penandpaper]

it just transfers more of that wealth to the richest.

Again, I have a hard time understanding that phrasing. It assumes that anything the federal government spends money on is worthwhile to the universal benefit. Is that true? Why should it be spent at the federal level? Take the Department of Education. Since 1980, has American education been improved with the billions of taxes we spent? I am not sure there are many successful measures to say that education has been better primarily because we spend more taxes on the DoE. Education in the US has been characterized by dwindling performance and increasing costs. Taxing Bill Gates more doesn't make the poor wealthier just as taxing him less doesn't make the poor poorer.

a paper from a libertarian think-tank, publish in 1996, arguing that the middle class was growing in 1991.

It was about the tax cuts from Reagan and whether the traditional arguments of income inequality hold water. As the editors note mentions: "Nevertheless we believe that, regardless of the possible
motives of those involved in the debate, the authors' presentation usefully reveals marked discrepancies between what often is casually asserted as "fact" about income inequality and what a critical analysis of the pertinent data may suggest". I think talking about the effect on tax cuts from the past is entirely relevant. As is any insight into our assumptions of income inequality particularly so when taxes are proposed as the fix or as you describe as "wealth transfer to the rich" as the defense for a particular policy.

Just my opinion.

Evidence?

Um I am not sure what evidence you are wanting for my opinion but. That is just what I observe and how I interpret his actions and through that motivation his behavior makes sense to me. I think he understands things well enough and particularly good with people and timing. He knew the timing to run for POTUS. He understands people well enough to play the media like a fiddle. However, being a "people" person doesn't address some very obvious short comings. The steel tariffs are an example. Why 25%? Because it is a round number divisible by 5. Making policy on factors of 5 doesn't scream Einstein. He is more bumbling than scheming.

Re:Who shall guard these selfsame mindless mushroo

[drinkypoo]

Then it's fair to say that only Dem sycophants and recipients of Clinton graft were the voters on the other side, n'est-ce pas?

And people who choose the lesser of evils.

She spent $700 million of that

[rsilvergun]

on 4 consultancy firms. I'm pretty sure she got Rhomey'd. e.g. the firms thought they had an easy win so they pocketed the money and didn't campaign. The folks on the ground in the swing states didn't have any support. One guy in an important and competitive district was on tape complaining he only got one short visit from Barney Frank and nobody was going around distributing signs. Meanwhile on election day I had a guy driving around in one of those trucks with advertisements on the back for Trump.

Re: She spent $700 million of that

[c6gunner]

I'm pretty sure she got Rhomey'd. e.g. the firms thought they had an easy win so they pocketed the money and didn't campaign.

If that's the case, she should sue.

It's certainly a possible explanation, but less likely than the alternative. Ockham's Razor says that, all else being equal, the explanation which requires the fewest assumptions is more likely to be true. We know that she was an unlikable candidate with very little "organic" appeal. We know that a massive portion of the people who would normally constitute the Democrat base were extremely pissed off that she got nominated over Bernie. Given those two things, we don't need to bring in lazy contract-violating PR firms to explain why she lost despite spending twice as much as Trump; we already have our explanation without going there.

Call me cynical but...

[morethanapapercert]

It's no doubt cynical of me, but this sounds like Facebook Inc. getting all pissy because someone else was making the profit (measured in votes rather than dollars) instead of them. Apparently, Facebook can give away or sell that data, Farmville and Mafia Wars can do so because Facebook is getting a piece of that. But Facebook doesn't directly profit from a political group "getting out the vote" more effectively, so that is a no-no.

Sure, it is wrong for one political group to have such a decided advantage and I am far from being a Republican, still less a Trump supporter, but having a political organization show a bit more Internet savvy isn't a matter for private corporations to regulate. If the Republicans and Trump team got an advantage in the last election by doing this, you can be sure it is going to become an important part of the Democratic Party's strategy in the next election.

One last cynical note: Tactics like this help a party get insight into the will of the collective people. Which in turn allows them to say the right things to their target demographic and make the most effective attacks on the opposition. As noted above, it helps "get out the vote". I just see zero evidence that any of this actually affects the behaviour of political figures once they are elected.

Might be time for SNS regulation after all

[Etcetera]

Here's the problem with this:

Facebook could legitimately feel that terms were broken, or they might not. They might or might not choose to enforce those terms against customers that they "like" (no pun intended) that just so happen to be affiliated with the other side. There's a normal liberatarian-ish response to just say that private companies can do whatever they want, but the Social Networks are *so* powerful (80%+ engagement, 90%+ ad revenue if you include Google AdWords) that removal of that is a huge competitive disadvantage to disfavored candidates and parties.

We already have some regulations requiring equal broadcasting time and access to over-the-air political ads during a campaign season, which were developed during the time when TV was the most important demographic advertising source around. In 2018, this is social media.

We need real regulation of the handling of personal data and ad networks, to prevent tech industry's overwhelming power being used only for candidates its employees specifically support. These aren't just "regular companies" any more... They have more day-to-day power over American culture than Standard Oil ever did, and unless/until real anti-trust regulation happens and data storage is handled independently from advertising, we need to ensure the situation doesn't get more and more worse.

45 contained the MAFIAA by leaving the TPP

[tepples]

3. He took us out of TPP

These are all bad things he did.

I see this particular item differently: a stopped-clock moment in which President Trump helped save the world from the United States. After the United States left the Trans-Pacific Partnership, it passed without the harmful copyright provisions on which USTR insisted at the behest of the music and film industry associations of America. How is helping to contain the MAFIAA's push to spread copyright maximalism a bad thing?

Re:45 contained the MAFIAA by leaving the TPP

[AmiMoJo]

I completely agree with that assessment. TTP has been very good for the remaining countries that went with it sans I.P. provisions.

The problem is that now the US wants to do individual trade deals, and they are all terrible for the other countries involved. Japan is trying to stall and wait it his presidency, for example.

Pulling out wasn't a terrible thing to do, especially compared to the other stuff, but it would have been better to fix it.

Re:45 contained the MAFIAA by leaving the TPP

[acrimonious howard]

Leaving TPP was a huge win for China, the country that just confirmed dictatorial rule. Just after Trump helped China, he was given a bunch of patents. Like almost all of his decisions, he didn't care about saving anyone from anything, except himself.

We have two years of evidence

[rsilvergun]

Let's see:

a. Backed off on ending DACA and endorsed amnesty. Whatever your opinion (personally I think it'd be nuts to try and deport them at this point) of this it was core promise.

b. Gave Carrier millions in subsidies to keep jobs that they promptly sent to Mexico as soon as nobody was looking.

c. Expanding the number of H1-B & H2-B recipients, failed to repeal Obama's executive order allowing their spouses to work in this country.

d. Did a $1.5 trillion tax cut where 80% of the benefits are for the 1%, the remaining 20% expire in 10 years and his party is already talking about ending Medicare & SS to pay for them (without him saying a word to contradict them).

e. Backed down from Mexico paying for the wall, will have the American tax payer pay for it.

f. Promised to drain swamp, but the same Goldman Sachs guys in charge that everybody does.

I could go on and on, but these are the ones that stand out most. You can't even make the argument that he's just incompetent. He promised us he was the best. If he's a boob he lied about being smart. Trump lies. Realize it, switch the the Democratic party, vote in your primary and for fucks sake elect Bernie or another left winger this time. If you want a populist vote for a real one.

Re:We have two years of evidence

[penandpaper]

lol. What are you talking about?

A) DACA wasn't mentioned in campaign. How was that a lie? Immigration law is being enforced. Illegal immigration is down. Travel bans in place. Promise kept from what I can tell.
B) What does Carrier have to do with anything during the campaign promises? He tried to keep them in the US and htey are leaving anyway... so he kept a promise to try and help. Ok? I think you misunderstand what promise being kept means.
C) Okay.
D) People paying less taxes is lying to them? Lowering corporate tax rates and regulation to expand business to hopefully create jobs in the US is lying to them? Again, you can disagree how that will work or the economics but that isn't a lie that is a promise being kept. The purpose was to create jobs.
E) Wow, you did it. You got one example. Congrats. An over the top slogan.
F) Hillary wasn't elected, Obama appointees are being replaced and fired. Seems like promise kept to me.

You have demonstrated that he has kept his promises more than he has lied about them. And he still has time to fulfill those promises! It seems like your problem is that you don't like it what he is doing. You didn't like his promises and you don't like them being kept.

I never said that Trump doesn't lie but you claimed: " Trump listened to them and told them what they wanted to hear. It doesn't matter that he was lying. ". Yet you have demonstrated that he has kept his promises to those constituents he listened to more often than not.

Why in the blue fuck would I support the democrats or Sanders? I don't like the DNC behavior or rhetoric. Sanders is an idiot who rants and raves about the 1% yet doesn't care that the 1% means $389,436 annual income. He doesn't care about lifting all boats. He cares about sinking a few large ones by creating one massive boat everyone has to deal with.

Re:We have two years of evidence

[acrimonious howard]

I remember seeing how excited everyone was about his "day one" promise to ask his treasury secretary to label China a currency manipulator. He said it sooo many times. It'd be soo easy, and Trumpers in my own family told me how necessary it was and how much they believed in it.
Well, day one came and went. What day are we at?
You don't need congressional approval. Just ask somebody to do something. Instead, he killed TPP, which helped China. And China officially became a dictatorship again. Wow, Trump really kept his promise about fighting China. I guess they did give him a bunch of patents. So maybe he fought them for those. Congrats Trumpers, your president got a bunch of patents.

Amenesty was

[rsilvergun]

all over the place. DACA _is_ amnesty.

You'd support Sanders & the Democrats (NOT the DNC, there's a difference) because unless you're independently wealthy you're a member of the working class and he (and his ilk) are the only ones who genuinely have your interests at heart. If you think you're some kind of mover and shaker who's going to make it in the world, well, you're shit-posting in response to a borderline libtard troll. That ship sailed my friend. Like it or not you're one of us, and Trump & co are going to fuck you royally.

Unless you're one of those Russians I keep hearing about. If so, carry on then.

Re:Amenesty was

[penandpaper]

Yes, DACA is amnesty that started by Obama executive order. There are court battles over DACA renewals and the proper fix is immigration reform via Congress. Trump offered amnesty for DACA for other compromises. That proposal was sank. I don't understand your point. How has he lied about his position on immigration? He brought the conversation of DACA front and center by not renewing it.

I am working class. Sanders doesn't give a shit about working class or poor people. He pays lip service but his policies are a joke that he can't even pass in his own state. He doesn't want to lift all boats. He pays lip service to covetous greed and selfish nature of people.

Re:What, Russia didn't do it?

[HiThere]

No. And you won't reach the end of it. It's an overly simplified causal model, but it has it's element of truth.

Re:Who shall guard these selfsame mindless mushroo

[shanen]

Your main comment is an imposed ontology, but I regard that as unfair. It is important to understand that the binary decision to vote or not vote for #PresidentTweety was overlaid on a rather complicated reality. I actually think the key to understanding Trump's so-called victory is the poor analytic skills of people who could convince themselves that Trump was lying to everyone else, but telling ONLY THEM the truths they wanted to hear. Yes, they might well know that Trump had said exactly opposite things to other people, but they believed he was lying at those times. The amazing thing about a YUGE liar like Trump is that nothing he says can be regarded as more or less accurate just because he said it.

You shouldn't have wasted the keystrokes feeding the (invisible to me) troll below. As someone who doesn't like lawyers in general or Hillary Clinton in particular, I think the "lesser of two evils" is ridiculous as regards 2016. No one is perfect, but Hillary's imperfections were trumped up [humor intended] over decades to portray her as some kind of Bond villain. In reality she is a fine person (well, as fine a person as such a shrewd lawyer can be) while Trump is legitimately evil (though perhaps just coerced into becoming evil by his weakness, ignorance, self-love, and stupidity).

The bottom line is that the First World Cyberwar is over, and America lost. Badly.

He promised his followers no amnesty

[rsilvergun]

for illegals. The reason they didn't want this is that if you could come here illegally and become a citizen everybody would. There's never be any incentive to come here legally. He then reneged on this promise. I don't know how I could make it any simpler.

And you have to start somewhere. Single payer healthcare is a good place. Regulating Wall Street to prevent another market crash is another. Just because good ideas won't pass doesn't mean you throw up your hands and give up. You've surrendered to easily. Our problems _can_ be solved without relying on the invisible hand to save us. Actions speak louder than words. Go out there and vote Bernie (and the Justice Democrats, google the phrase) and you'll see those actions.

Re:He promised his followers no amnesty

[penandpaper]

Go out there and vote Bernie (and the Justice Democrats,

No thanks. I disagree with many items on their platform and frankly Cenk is a buffoon. Additionally, anyone that thinks "ban on assault weapons" is "common-sense" is an idiot which tends to be the type of person to push for more gun regulation because they don't understand guns or the existing laws we currently have. Anyone that thinks suicide will be solved by banning guns is in an idiot (US is average for suicide). Using suicides to inflate the statistics is dishonest, at least they mention only a third are homicide related. However, there is some serious cognitive dissonance when they say "End constitutional overreaches" yet want the government to ignore the 2nd amendment. Any party that wants a gun ban I am vehemently against. Any other plank of their platform is rendered moot even if I agree with it.

I don't think she has it in her

[rsilvergun]

losing to Trump hit her like a brick. At this point she's just a bitter angry old woman. Besides, the lawsuit would go on forever. She'd be suing other multi-millionaires. She'd die before anything came of it.

Yes, if she was less incompetent her firms wouldn't have fleeced her. If she'd had less baggage Trump couldn't have won. If nationalism hadn't grown so much she could have won. If the Russian's hadn't interfered she could have won. If she hadn't ignored the working class she could have won. There's a dozen or more ifs.

Trump is such a monumental failure of our Democracy that no one thing could have made it happen. It took a complete breakdown of this countries institutions to put a shmuck like Trump in the Whitehouse.

Re:So?

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Isn't the whole point of Facebook to deliver customers to advertisers? Why are they being bigoted against some advertisers and not others? I think that should fall under open accomodation laws.

Re:So?

[ganjadude]

tin foil is tight today isnt it?