Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Facebook Finally Discloses Pro-Brexit Ads (techcrunch.com)

Posted by EditorDavid on from the not-so-instant-messages dept.

"The UK parliament has provided another telling glimpse behind the curtain of Facebook's unregulated ad platform by publishing data on scores of pro-Brexit adverts..." reports TechCrunch, adding that the 2016 ads "were run prior to Facebook having any disclosure rules for political ads. So there was no way for anyone other than each target recipient to know a particular ad existed or who it was being targeted at." An anonymous reader quotes their report: The targeting of the ads was carried out on Facebook's platform by AggregateIQ, a Canadian data firm that has been linked to Cambridge Analytica/SCL... [I]t's not clear how many ad impressions they racked up in all. But total impressions look very sizable. While some of what runs to many thousands of distinctly targeted ads which AIQ distributed via Facebook's platform are listed as only garnering between 0-999 impressions apiece, according to Facebook's data, others racked up far more views. Commonly listed ranges include 50,000 to 99,999 and 100,000 to 199,999 -- with even higher ranges like 2M-4.9M and 5M-9.9M also listed....

The publication of the Brexit ads is, above all, a reminder that online political advertising has been allowed to be a blackhole -- and at times a cesspit -- because cash-rich entities have been able to unaccountably exploit the obscurity of Facebook's systemically dark ad targeting tools for their own ends, and operate in a darkness where only Facebook had oversight (and wasn't exercising any), leaving the public no right of objection let alone reply, despite it being people's lives that are indelibly affected by political outcomes.... The company has been making some voluntary changes to offer a degree of political ad disclosure, as it seeks to stave off regulatory rule. Whether its changes -- which at best offer partial visibility -- will go far enough remains to be seen.
Earlier this month the UK's data watchdog released a report titled "Democracy disrupted?" in which the UK's Information Commissioner recommends an "ethical pause" of political advertising on social media to allow key players "to reflect on their responsibilities in respect to the use of personal data..." And this weekend an interim report from the House of Commons' media committee "said democracy is facing a crisis because the combination of data analysis and social media allows campaigns to target voters with messages of hate without their consent," according to the Associated Press.

"Tech giants like Facebook, which operate in a largely unregulated environment, are complicit because they haven't done enough to protect personal information and remove harmful content, the committee said."

58 of 165 comments (clear)

  1. And this is a problem why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If they paid for the ads, then they should be able to run them. The only thing is that they shouldn't be just given personal information by third parties. People should be paid for having their information disclosed and agree with whom it is disclosed exactly. I'm getting really tired of the lefts' compulsion to censor their political opponents. You will be punished.

    1. Re:And this is a problem why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And this is a problem why?

      Because they were a tissue of lies and half-truths.

    2. Re:And this is a problem why? by Narcocide · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes, of course. But that's how it works. Interesting that in trying to bring up an inflammatory point to attempt to prove (perhaps more to yourself than anyone else) that there's some sort of "moral equivalence on both sides" you've latched onto an idea that nobody was even contesting. Yes, of course the anti-brexit ads were also the same sort of schadenfreude peddled by the exact same shills. That is how this works. They ramp up divisiveness by escalating irrational insecurities of every demographic with clever combinations of lies mixed with half-truths.

    3. Re:And this is a problem why? by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      People should be paid for having their information disclosed and agree with whom it is disclosed exactly.

      Such a legislation is in as big a denial of reality as the copyright folks are.

      Information cannot be contained by mere legislation. The old saying, "information wants to be free", is more or less true. Collecting and Copying information costs so little, and it can be done so casually. Even if there was draconian legislation with totalitarian general writs, what you are trying to stop wouldn't be stopped.

      The genie was never in the bottle.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    4. Re:And this is a problem why? by Rockoon · · Score: 2

      It is the "campaigns" themselves that are the players. BREXIT comes up on a referendum and this creates a financial incentive, because some people/businesses are sure to significantly benefit from a BREXIT while other people/businesses are sure to be substantially hurt by a BREXIT.

      Depending on the stakes of he game, some issues will have an absurd amount of money being used to "campaign" for one side or the other. The amount of money spent "campaigning" is a good proxy for the stakes of the game.

      If a hundred million is being thrown at trying to stop a BREXIT then you can be sure that to the people throwing that kind of money around its worth a bit more than a hundred million to them.

      The real disgrace, I'd say, is that such an issue garners such high stakes. It indicates a vast amount of both past and future corruption.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    5. Re:And this is a problem why? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Informative

      Numerous problems.

      Many of the ads were not identified properly as ads, and didn't give an indication who paid for them.

      They used deceptive competitions that users had no chance of winning (5 trillion to 1 odds) but which harvested their personal data. As you should know by now AggregateIQ is the same people as Cambridge Analytica.

      The various Leave campaign groups colluded and over-spent, which is illegal and some of the key people have been referred to the police by the Electoral Omission.

      Social media ads are not well regulated. For example, if the same ads had been shown on TV or on billboards they would likely have been blocked on the grounds that they were deceptive or outright lies. In the UK advertising must be truthful and not misleading, and there are additional requirements for political ads.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    6. Re:And this is a problem why? by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      No. What anti-brexits ads were lies? (just remember to differentiate between lies and predictions)

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
  2. Facebook is in trouble by Kohath · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Because elites didn't get what they wanted in an election. We must immediately go back to centralized control of media, so elites can regain control of the information everyone has. The present situation is too democratic for them.

    1. Re:Facebook is in trouble by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Because elites didn't get what they wanted in an election.

      Jacob Reese-Mogg (Eaton then Oxford), owns an investment company (now HQ'd in Eurpoe post Article 51), worth about 50 million GBP. Not an elite.

      Boris Johnson (Eton the Oxford), rich enough to consider a 250,000GPB salary as "chicken feed". Not an elite.

      If you think the people running the Brexit shit-show are not elites then I have a bridge to sell you.

      We must immediately go back to centralized control of media, so elites can regain control of the information everyone has.

      Ah yes, like the Daily Torygraph. That pro-remain publication. Or the Daily Fail, that bastion of thruthiness. Or the sun that tiny irrelevance with the most readers.

      You're deluded and paranoid. What you are saying is not reality it's some perverse fantasy.

      The present situation is too democratic for them.

      Not really. The referendum was only an advisory one but is being treated as binding. If it was a binding referendum then legally they'd have to rerun it now due to the campaign fraud. But it was only advisory so they don't.

      So yes, election fraud is "too democratic".

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
  3. give it a rest by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1, Troll

    Yes, every single political development that "progressives' don't like is actually caused by nefarious activities (which noted reactionaries like tech executives of course happily signed on to).

    You could never, you know, just lose ...

    1. Re:give it a rest by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Its called democracy. "People all over the UK voted to remain too" did not win the needed vote.
      How can an open and free vote be "deceiving" AC? People all over the UK went to vote and the vote result was to not stay in the EU.
      Re "voting opposite to your constituents' wishes"
      The democratic vote count as a result was to "exit" the EU AC.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    2. Re:give it a rest by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      AC re "denied a vote". People all over the UK could vote in free and fair election over the question of the EU and the EU controlling the UK.
      AC re "consequences of leaving" Not stating in the UK was the result people voted for.
      AC "not democracy" Getting to vote on an issue is a "democracy" AC.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    3. Re:give it a rest by Zumbs · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What does 'SJW' have to do with this? If people all over the UK voted to exit the EU, a lot of these are also likely to be 'SJW's ... or is ACs claim that 'SJW' is actually just a bucket for 'people you don't like' (because you look to be a pro-Brexiter) actually an astute observation?

      Disclaimer: I'm not a UK citizen, nor do I live there. So it is not up to me to decide on Brexit. I am, however, baffled at the incompetence of leading Tory politicians, regardless of their stance on Brexit.

      --
      The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head
    4. Re:give it a rest by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 1

      It's like those progressive European politicians who decry a system where only the rich have access to politicians are only corporations can pay for lobbyists... then go and have lunch with Soros.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    5. Re: give it a rest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      False. Not all UK residents could vote, including my wife. Literally millions (more than the percentage required to swing the vote to remain) of UK residents could not vote on the referendum as they were not UK citizens. Roughly one million hard working UK residents are EU citizens from countries like Poland, France, Germany, etc.

    6. Re: give it a rest by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      UK citizens got to vote AC. Their vote was counted.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  4. And the BBC? by Vinegar+Joe · · Score: 2

    Has the BBC (funded by a mandatory TV license) been a neutral news source during and since the Brexit campaign?

    --
    "The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
    1. Re:And the BBC? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Given how much airtime was given to Nigel Farage, no it hasn't.

    2. Re:And the BBC? by mfearby · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The BBC gave more air-time to Remainers than it did to Brexiteers, and its editorial line was unashamedly anti-Brexit. Just because you evidently disagreed with Nigel Farage, his participation as the token Brexit voice on air, rudely interrupting your daily stream of EU propaganda, doesn't even bring the BBC's coverage closer to a neutral stance (from its clear Remain bias). If another referendum were held soon on Brexit, the vote would be confirmed, and the margin only widened. Bring it on, I say. Pro-EU supporters need another lesson in democracy, I think.

    3. Re:And the BBC? by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 2

      I haven't seen any evidence that they weren't, why?

      What makes you think they weren't.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    4. Re:And the BBC? by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      Problem being that it would only deepen their anti-democratic tendencies which are already clearly pronounced. Considering the cultural fracturing going on in UK right now, it would be extremely dangerous to push yet another large voting block to cement their clear anti-democratic biases.

    5. Re:And the BBC? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The BBC gave more air-time to Remainers than it did to Brexiteers, and its editorial line was unashamedly anti-Brexit.

      I doubt the former. And it also uncritically repeated the Brexiter's outright lies, like the 350 million per week. The Brexit camp knew it was a lie, the BBC new it was a lie, but in the interests of "neutrality" they simply repeated the lie because that was what the Brexit campaign had.

      Just because you evidently disagreed with Nigel Farage

      Ah yes, pointing out obvious, well known lies is now merely "disagreeing". Right-o.

      Pro-EU supporters need another lesson in democracy, I think.

      That'll be why the exit campaign seems a little tied up in campaign fraud. Is that the lesson? That it doesn't matter if you win legally or not, the only thing that counts is winning?

      Is that "brexit democracy"?

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    6. Re:And the BBC? by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 1

      It's no coincidence that they showed Farage a lot. That's the tactic we see on our "unbiased" state sponsored TV as well: where they disagree, they tend to give most airtime to loudmouth populists like Farage and Wilders as opposed to more reasonable people in the same camp, who can actually argue their point politely and eloquently. Same with the "man in the street" interviews, the difference between people with left and right viewpoints shown is striking, and that has everything to do with selection in the editing room.

      For the record I think that Brexit is a big mistake. But perhaps not as big as the Remainers make it out to be. And why are only pro-Brexit ads being reported on, surely there have been equally inane Remain ads? I remember when we got to vote in a referendum on the EU constitution. When the vote went against, the pro-EU camp decried false ads as well, and claimed those voting against did so out of "emotional considerations" rather than rational ones, while they themselves put out ads equally designed to play on our emotions. We even had our own prime minister appear on TV and state: "If you vote against, the lights will go out and we will have war". In issues like these it would be nice to see some more nuanced argument in the press, on both sides.

      And the funny thing? Between politicians slinging mud at each other and trying to appeal to our baser insincts, a great many people actually stopped to take the time and trouble to educate themselves on the issue at hand. Maybe people aren't as dumb as they're made out to be sometimes.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    7. Re:And the BBC? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      Some people regard not fully supporting Brexit and whatever half baked, competent mess the government is doing this week as literal treason for which people should be prosecuted.

      Given that, merely reporting factual information or offering a balanced view on Brexit equates to far leftist bias from the BBC.

      The funny thing is that there is actually a lot of criticism of the BBC from the left, particularly certain interviewers who don't really hold government ministers to account, e.g. John Humphries.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    8. Re:And the BBC? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      Do you have any idea how many times Nigel Farage has been on Question Time? It's more than his fair share.

      Actually your comment reminds me of an audience member on QT, who was complaining that the BBC only shows dumb people supporting leave and it makes them all look like delusional idiots. Once he heard himself say it out loud even he couldn't help laughing.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    9. Re:And the BBC? by lyovushka · · Score: 1

      Left accuses BBC of right wing bias. Right accuses BBC of left wing bias. I think this means that BBC is pretty neutral.

    10. Re: And the BBC? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Excellent question. The BBC seems to swing towards whatever government and policies are more powerful at the time, before brexit the remain vote was expected to win so the BBC was pro-remain but after the decision to leave was a surprise vote, it's taken time to shift to giving more air-time to promoting leaving the EU as a positive move. Hard brexit is a hard sell though so they're easing the population into it by pushing a soft-brexit success for May and her cronies.

    11. Re:And the BBC? by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      No. and its very sad that a one great institution should fall so far.
      The BBC news used to be incredibly anal about being strictly impartial and just reporting facts, These days, even the news has become very clearly left-leaning and have anti-brexit tendencies. They've also replaced reporting facts and leaving the listener to decide, with editorials and opinion pieces wherever they can cram them in. VERY troubling.

  5. Kohath's credibility is in trouble. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yeah not because of Cambridge Analytica and Russian collusion, because of your "elites" bullshit theory and pizzagate, cuz you say so? Kohath has zero credibility from now on, noted.

    1. Re:Kohath's credibility is in trouble. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Kohath believes Brexit was a by-and-for The People grassroots campaign with no "elite" backing and is a monumental fucking idiot.

    2. Re:Kohath's credibility is in trouble. by Kohath · · Score: 2

      Don't be silly. Posts on message boards don't have credibility. Never did, never will.

    3. Re:Kohath's credibility is in trouble. by ArchieBunker · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Obama using social media in 2012? Groundbreaking and innovative https://www.theguardian.com/wo...

        Trump doing the same thing in 2016? Congressional hearings!

      --
      Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
    4. Re:Kohath's credibility is in trouble. by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      It's pretty much factual that one side had overwhelming amount of elites in that negotiation, while other had barely any.

      This is evident in the fact that aristocratic class can afford to maintain the Project Fear to this day, and effectively took over the Brexit negotiations process entirely to provide a "Brexit without exiting EU" which is what May appears to be working toward. If balance within the aristocratic class on each side was even roughly even, such blatantly undemocratic action would have never been allowed to occur.

      Like or hate Brexit all you want. You cannot reasonably argue that the path in which British elites managed it is in any way, shape or form what was being voted for. And that is what democratic mandate is for. Actually following the will of the people, even if your class privilege puts this against your interests. The entire point of direct democracy is to put constraints on power of elites and people closely aligned with them to influence policy to the point where you have aristocracy rather than democracy.

      I use those words in their accurate definition. Arestos - elites, "the excellent ones". Demos - the people, "the entirety of the peoples". Cracy suffix - system of rule by [prefix].

    5. Re: Kohath's credibility is in trouble. by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      "Project Fear" is widely accepted name for the remain campaign, as it was pointedly all about spreading unsubstantiated fear about Brexit consequences, none of which have come to pass.

      The rest of your argument is literally "aristocracy is better than democracy because side I like lost the democratic vote, but is widely supported by aristocracy". In this regard, you completely reinforce my point.

    6. Re:Kohath's credibility is in trouble. by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Posts on message boards don't have credibility. Never did, never will.

      Your posts, sure. Just because you have no credibility doesn't mean no one else does, though.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    7. Re:Kohath's credibility is in trouble. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      Would have been okay if it had actually been Trump. It's the fact that Russia was campaigning on his behalf that is the problem.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    8. Re: Kohath's credibility is in trouble. by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      You cannot have problems understanding it, because I pre-emptively removed this potential for misunderstanding by providing specific and accurate definitions for the terminology.

      It was also a trap for ideological trolling. Which you nicely fell into.

    9. Re: Kohath's credibility is in trouble. by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      And now that you're unmasked, you just go full retard. Nice.

    10. Re: Kohath's credibility is in trouble. by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      Except that, of course, Project Fear made wide sweeping claims of immediate consequences upon just getting the Brexit voting result.

  6. "has been linked"? by superwiz · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Seriously, this "has been linked" nonsense has to end. Largest investment banks are "linked" to the SEC because the professionals who understand banking well-enough to regulate banks have a very high chance of having worked for some of the banks. The mathematicians and other analysts who work for data analysis companies do change jobs. And this produces links between different data analytics firms.

    It doesn't matter that you don't like what one of them has done. All firms within all professions, which require narrow expertise, are linked because people switch jobs.

    What's the alternative? Top experts at the top firms becoming unemployable? Shall we just revert to cast system? How would news organizations like it if it was done to them? They are doing it to everyone else.

    Let's give it a try. CNN, which is linked to Fox News, has reported that blah, blah, blah.

    --
    Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    1. Re:"has been linked"? by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      Every single news agency on the planet is linked to IS, and their torture and murder of civilians.

      When measuring stick produces outcomes this absurd when applied universally, said measuring stick is useless.

    2. Re:"has been linked"? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Seriously, this "has been linked" nonsense has to end.

      This is called a "summary". It's a short description of the more detailed findings. If you want to know the exact nature of the link, you should read the reports.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    3. Re:"has been linked"? by superwiz · · Score: 1

      No, it's called a summary. It's called a "mischaracterization".

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    4. Re:"has been linked"? by superwiz · · Score: 1

      **not** called a summary... damn it slashdot... the only social platform without an edit feature.

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    5. Re:"has been linked"? by superwiz · · Score: 1

      Right. Except as soon as you quit your job because your firm is doing something sleazy, you'll become unemployable (according to your own standard).

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
  7. Just in time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ...right before they start having an impact. Thanks for being on the ball everyone

  8. less than average intelligence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    People seem to be forgetting that by definition half the population has below average intelligence. Studies show that people with below average intelligence have greater difficulty researching the truth of any statement and are more susceptible to misinformation. Given this it only makes sense to regulate the presentation of ads, which by definition are designed to sway opinion by appealing to biases at least half the population doesn't know they have.

  9. It's still happening... by Richard+Kirk · · Score: 1

    I am still getting links to "Financial experts agree that the Euro may crash in months", "Analysts say EU likely do break up on the next decade", and stuff like that. No citations, no experts that I've ever heard of. And why are they targeting a strong European like me with this junk? unless they are sending it to everyone.

  10. tsunami in a teacup by Idisagree · · Score: 1

    There's really no excuse for Vote Leave to target Facebook users during Brexit...

    It's actually unbelievable how anyone could think they had a right to get their message out there to the people, especially in such a modern democratic society with an allowance for a multitude of different viewpoints...oh wait

    1. Re:tsunami in a teacup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Noone critizes a political campaign involving social media.

      What's at the center of those investigations is, that those ads weren't declared as political ads and they were filled with lies

  11. Re:Because its treason by Tailhook · · Score: 1

    Why should *they*, the Russians, be allowed to interfere in democracy without repercussions?

    Because the alternative — not "allowing" the Russians or anyone else to do "ads" for one reason or another — means that every platform has to be policed by minders from end to end, and those minders will have the means to persecute whomever exhibits sufficient wrongthink when they advertise their views. You're turning all discourse, legitimate or otherwise, into a minefield for anyone that doesn't have an establishment escort, all because you think you lost something in an election.

    I get it

    No, you don't. No amount of ruination is too much to "fix" the outcomes you're not happy with, beginning with polluting your own mind with fictional conspiracies. At some point it's going to dawn on you that the real problem is the damn voters and the fact that they can still vote.

    --
    Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
  12. Re: More evidence Trump is just a planted cunt by johanw · · Score: 1

    Russia isn't the enemy of the US after the cold war, but warmongers like Hillary seem to forget that and threatened to start WW3 in Syria. Fortunartely she was not elected and the world survived.

  13. Re: More evidence Trump is just a planted cunt by johanw · · Score: 1

    Hillary tried to eat my hamster but she nearly choked in her false teeth.

  14. Re:Nope. Lowest unemployment for Blacks was... by johanw · · Score: 1

    F*ucking slave owners, without them there would not be so many blacks in the western countries.

  15. I'll leave this here for the grown-ups... by Tanon · · Score: 1

    ...who are actually interested in hearing the other side of the argument. Fortunately, British politics isn't quite as exciting as the OP sets out. Some relevant info on:

    The pro-Remain journalist spearheading the investigation into the Leave campaign The pro-Remain MP in charge of the DCMS committee Evidence of the Remain campaign doing exactly what the Leave campaign have been accused of, only to a much greater extent The government body in charge of regulating elections and referenda The guy in charge of the Leave campaign

    For those less inclined towards actually verifying facts, the TLDR:

    • Of the elected politicians in the UK, 73% voted to Remain, despite only 48% of the general population of the UK voting the same way, with the figure for the unelected upper house likely much higher
    • In London, where the vast majority of the important public bodies are, on average, 60% of people voted to Remain. In some places it was as high as 70%. Note, this includes all of the major broadcasters and media, government bodies, regulators, big business etc.
    • Since the referendum, the vast majority of British people have respected the outcome, as shown in most polls and it's only a hard core of Eurofanatics, in the right positions, that have pretended to accept the result, while conspiring to prevent the mandate being fulfilled i.e returning control of laws, borders and money and - quelle surprise - are now actively trying to invalidate it altogether.
  16. Re:Because its treason by Aighearach · · Score: 2

    Shorter you: "The world isn't perfect, so don't take any steps to improve anything. (Because the cheaters were on my side, so ha-ha)"

    Not impressed.

  17. CAn someone please explain by JustNiz · · Score: 1

    What actually is wrong with pro-Brexit ads?
    As I recall there were also plenty of remain ad campaigns, yet apparently no-one is complaining about those.
    Why the double-standard and why the incorrect presumption that anything pro-brexit somehow self-evidently justifies being stifled?

  18. Cambridge Anal-ytica is dead... by knorthern+knight · · Score: 1

    ...long live Oxford Vaginal-ytica

    --

    I'm not repeating myself
    I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user