Cambridge Analytica

Wylie is mentioned on the first page of this thread, bags. Surely you could have read that before you asked who he was, as you had posted on that page.

Fewer than 10 tory MPs in the breaches of electoral law debate.
Tommy Sheppard asking for every cabinet member who knew about it to resign. Looks like they have already.

I thought that most of the links are self evident. I cannot be responsible for people following a politics thread but not knowing about the main characters of the moments.

I would strongly advise all those (and I note they are all rightwingers - so nothing to do with trying to shut down uncomfortable truth) not to read them. In fact I wish you wouldn’t

Then there's twisting what one's link actually says, like this:

*infacts.org/6-allegations-suggest-vote-leave-may-cheated/

A simple diagram to show how they cheated.*

The link doesn't "show how they cheated". It doesn't even claim to do that. It is speculation which may or may not turn out to prove something.

I gather he's the CA whistleblower. I will have read his name before but not remembered it.

The thing is, if you want people to trust your reliability you have to give reliable sources and information that is useful even to ignoramuses.

I don't know who Wylie is but that's not the point. I was commenting on the proper way to state one's sources for one's readers' benefit. It's just polite as well as helpful.

What's this Wylie person's other name, btw? I could look them up if I knew.

Bloody hell, bags, if you don't know who Wylie is, why are you bothering about this thread?

I just clicked on that last link. It may be "reliable" but how is anyone to know it's reliable without evidence of its reliability such as who exactly said what exactly and where, in what context. There is nothing with that link that is helpful. Which MP, for instance? And who is Wylie?

primrose perhaps you should ignore my links. I’d be quite happy if you did.

I think you should be able to trust whitewave to put reliable links on.

Debate on parliament channel at the moment.

So you think that whitewave doesn't know the source of all those tweets she puts on?

No, not at all - that's not what I'm saying. It's the people reading the links who have the problem. Of course, the poster knows the source. The problem is no one else does - especially when it's preceded by a comment like 'more evidence'.
It's meaningless. I'm sure people are nervous of reading the links, especially if the poster says they're not technically literate. No one wants to click on what looks like a dodgy link.

To say that someone cannot reference a source because they are unable to cut and paste a link is not reasonable. You can always type 'From Twitter - @Whoever A Sunday Times Journalist' for example.

Then if people want to see the context, they can find it.

The issue is very much like fake news. There are so many bots on twitter and there's no way of knowing what you're actually looking at when all you have is an image with no context or source.

I think people would be less nervous about clicking the link if they had an idea of where it was taking them. It helps the conversation if people know posters take care and only link to reputable sources.

Whylie’s evidence was pretty devastating

More evidence
pbs.twimg.com/media/DZSooQ2W0AAqojP?format=jpg

Jen; yes I did get to it and it was wonderful and uplifting, apart from two men. One of which sniggered and did a 'dickhead' gesture towards the person speaking and another one who actually jumped on the stage and took the microphone away from the speaker ( who was speaking about the effect brexit has had on valuable EU workers in this country), shouting British something or other. Similar things happened at Nottingham.

Yes I use an iPad !

I suppose that explains it - not sure how though, except I followed the instructions you (I think) posted for me. I can’t make it blue though. I suppose I could ask my son when he visits if I remember

Well, I still don't quite understand why you can't 'do' articles and twitter threads, ww, but then, I'm not totally technologically literate either!

But I wonder if it's because you're posting from an iPad? Because it's actually a mystery to me how you manage to get links to all those images; I can't do it but I'm generally using a laptop

I am technologically illiterate I’m afraid?

But in truth silly comments like that go completely over my head.

There's no point in trying to assign a nefarious motive to the uncontextualised links ww posts. The truth is that she still can't 'do' URLS which link to a whole twitter thread or to an article.

And it's nothing at all like 'fake news' petra. What a stupid comment.

So you think that whitewave doesn't know the source of all those tweets she puts on?

primrose
A bit like all those fake news sites then

So am I now correct in thinking they are they are links to the world and his dog on twitter ?

POGS. Sort of. It's not unsafe in my opinion, it's just a useless way to share information. The problem is that you just see the image, you don't know who (or what!) has published that image. There's no way for you to ascertain whether it's promoted by a genuine user or a bot. You simply see an image, created by an unknown person, without the context of the 'tweet' that accompanies it.

The irony of using and promoting this on a thread concerning manipulation of people by social media is not lost on me.

Hello, Tegan. Did you get to Newcastle?

Baggs; can I just point out that the majority of people in this country watch tv and are swayed by what they see; they also read headlines in the gutter press and are swayed by that, too. Not everyone sources current affairs in the way you do....

Emergency debate on it tomorrow, whitewave.