Breaking news:

http://money.cnn.com/2017/09/28/media/blacktivist-russia-facebook-twitter/index.html

Quote

Exclusive: Fake black activist accounts linked to Russian government

A social media campaign calling itself "Blacktivist" and linked to the Russian government used both Facebook and Twitter in an apparent attempt to amplify racial tensions during the U.S. presidential election, two sources with knowledge of the matter told CNN. The Twitter account has been handed over to Congress; the Facebook account is expected to be handed over in the coming days.

 

Where were all those members who previously said this was all a witch hunt and no evidence.  Right....

Just now, craigt3365 said:

Breaking news:

http://money.cnn.com/2017/09/28/media/blacktivist-russia-facebook-twitter/index.html

 

Where were all those members who previously said this was all a witch hunt and no evidence.  Right....

Julian Assange confirms it was a witch hunt - Im scared to post a link to his twitter in case this is not an acceptable source for this website and my post will be removed and labelled a troll. Credibility of Assange vs CNN - it's no contest. Remember CNN with their 98% certainty that Clinton would win - as all their credible polls said? I remember.

 

 I was thinking about the millions that the Democrats wasted during the electoral campaign, how much was the total spent, flights, airtime,stadium booking, all the staff 100m, 500m?? When apparently all they needed was a few Russian internet trolls to win the election. You will be better prepared for the next election I trust?

3 minutes ago, FreddieRoyle said:

Julian Assange confirms it was a witch hunt - Im scared to post a link to his twitter in case this is not an acceptable source for this website and my post will be removed and labelled a troll. Credibility of Assange vs CNN - it's no contest. Remember CNN with their 98% certainty that Clinton would win - as all their credible polls said? I remember.

 

 I was thinking about the millions that the Democrats wasted during the electoral campaign, how much was the total spent, flights, airtime,stadium booking, all the staff 100m, 500m?? When apparently all they needed was a few Russian internet trolls to win the election. You will be better prepared for the next election I trust?

Julian Assange?  The one who's committed crimes and is on the run from the law?  That's your source?  OMG.  Unreal.

 

Agreed.  No links as they aren't credible.

 

You obviously have no idea how polls work.  Sad some go back to that.  But guess what?  Clinton did win the popular vote.  Just like the polls predicted.

On ‎28‎/‎09‎/‎2017 at 7:59 AM, klauskunkel said:

"Trump slams Facebook"

of course he did, he is a Twitter guy

And it has the dirty "book" word, which is a big no no for Trump.  Call it FaceComic and he'd be all over it like a fat kid on a cup cake.  If some one came up with TwoFaceTwitSpace they'd make a fortune off of him.

Edited September 30, 20178 yr by ballpoint

Revealed: 50 million Facebook profiles harvested for Cambridge Analytica in major data breach

 

 

The data analytics firm that worked with Donald Trump’s election team and the winning Brexit campaign harvested millions of Facebook profiles of US voters, in one of the tech giant’s biggest ever data breaches, and used them to build a powerful software program to predict and influence choices at the ballot box.

 

A whistleblower has revealed to the Observer how Cambridge Analytica – a company owned by the hedge fund billionaire Robert Mercer, and headed at the time by Trump’s key adviser Steve Bannon – used personal information taken without authorisation in early 2014 to build a system that could profile individual US voters, in order to target them with personalised political advertisements.

 

Christopher Wylie, who worked with a Cambridge University academic to obtain the data, told the Observer: “We exploited Facebook to harvest millions of people’s profiles. And built models to exploit what we knew about them and target their inner demons. That was the basis the entire company was built on.”

 

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/mar/17/cambridge-analytica-facebook-influence-us-election

9 minutes ago, mtls2005 said:

Revealed: 50 million Facebook profiles harvested for Cambridge Analytica in major data breach

 

 

The data analytics firm that worked with Donald Trump’s election team and the winning Brexit campaign harvested millions of Facebook profiles of US voters, in one of the tech giant’s biggest ever data breaches, and used them to build a powerful software program to predict and influence choices at the ballot box.

 

A whistleblower has revealed to the Observer how Cambridge Analytica – a company owned by the hedge fund billionaire Robert Mercer, and headed at the time by Trump’s key adviser Steve Bannon – used personal information taken without authorisation in early 2014 to build a system that could profile individual US voters, in order to target them with personalised political advertisements.

 

Christopher Wylie, who worked with a Cambridge University academic to obtain the data, told the Observer: “We exploited Facebook to harvest millions of people’s profiles. And built models to exploit what we knew about them and target their inner demons. That was the basis the entire company was built on.”

 

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/mar/17/cambridge-analytica-facebook-influence-us-election

 

Life imitating art or vice versa?

 

 

On 9/30/2017 at 7:43 AM, FreddieRoyle said:

Julian Assange confirms it was a witch hunt - Im scared to post a link to his twitter in case this is not an acceptable source for this website and my post will be removed and labelled a troll. Credibility of Assange vs CNN - it's no contest. Remember CNN with their 98% certainty that Clinton would win - as all their credible polls said? I remember.

 

 I was thinking about the millions that the Democrats wasted during the electoral campaign, how much was the total spent, flights, airtime,stadium booking, all the staff 100m, 500m?? When apparently all they needed was a few Russian internet trolls to win the election. You will be better prepared for the next election I trust?

As for CNN's credibility, clearly you don't get the difference between making predictions and reporting facts.

As for Assange, 

On March 17, 2017, WikiLeaks tweeted that it had never communicated with Roger Stone, a longtime confidante and informal adviser to President Donald Trump. In his interview with the House Intelligence Committee last September, Stone, who testified under oath, told lawmakers that he had communicated with WikiLeaks via an Private Twitter messages obtained by The Atlantic show that Stone and WikiLeaks, a radical-transparency group, communicated directly on October 13, 2016—and that WikiLeaks sought to keep its channel to Stone open after Trump won the election.“intermediary,” whom he identified only as a “journalist.”...

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/02/roger-stones-secret-messages-with-wikileaks/554432/

 

Personally, I think the fixation on "data" in a campaign is overrated. Campaigns are still won the same way they always were. A platform that resonates, a good grassroots ground game, a good volunteer network, pressing the flesh at bad luncheons,  and if you don't have that, lots and lots of money.

 

 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/11/09/clintons-data-driven-campaign-relied-heavily-on-an-algorithm-named-ada-what-didnt-she-see/?utm_term=.1bb8705e23de

37 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

Personally, I think the fixation on "data" in a campaign is overrated.

 

~77,000 votes, in four key battleground states, certainly had an influence.

 

Brad Parscale, Jared Kushner and Steve Bannon were loudly bragging about their success influencing the outcome using "data" right after the election. He quickly sold his stake and kept very quiet. Brad Parscale has been named Trump's 2020 campaign manager, so the fixation on data is a fact.

 

Maybe in the olden days some of your activities (issues, pressing the flesh, loose-meat sandwiches, etc.) were important. But I think we're in a new world now.

 

 

Edited March 18, 20188 yr by mtls2005

2 hours ago, lannarebirth said:

Personally, I think the fixation on "data" in a campaign is overrated. Campaigns are still won the same way they always were. A platform that resonates, a good grassroots ground game, a good volunteer network, pressing the flesh at bad luncheons,  and if you don't have that, lots and lots of money.

 

An understanding of constituent data can get you all of these things.  If you've got no data, how do you know what your constituents want to hear so that your message can resonate?  How do you know where to send your volunteers?

On 9/30/2017 at 7:43 AM, FreddieRoyle said:

Remember CNN with their 98% certainty that Clinton would win - as all their credible polls said? I remember.

 

You need to understand what it means when people are making predictions of probability.

 

In a standard deck of playing cards, you have a 98% chance of blindly drawing a card that is NOT the ace of spades.  If, by chance you do happen to draw the ♠A, is that earlier 98% statistical assessment somehow not credible?