Cambridge Analytica

Investigative journalism is all well and good and has exposed all sorts of murky goings on.However there has to be hard evidence other than ‘he said’ and ‘she did’.If there is real evidence then hopefully it will be brought to light but I haven’t seen or heard any so far.
The use of posters data from FB ( without their approval or consent) may be the only wrongdoing that comes out of this,but as usual we have to wait and see.

Oh, is that all? It's not wrongdoing, it's illegal.

And obviously you haven't looked at any of the posts showing what happened to the money.

kittysjones.wordpress.com/2018/03/25/ian-blackford-confronts-the-prime-minister-with-links-to-cambridge-analytica-but-what-about-the-other-companies/

Important things said here by Kitty Jones.

whitewave

"But you don’t have to click on it I’m not that bothered tbh"

I'm sure you are not bothered but I thought a perfectly reasonable question would be answered 'tbh'.

As this thread is concerning matters such as 'Data Mining' etc. I don't think it was an unreasonable question but I guess you either do not wish to tell posters who/what is behind your links or you don't know yourself possibly.

Does any poster know who/what is behind the links put up to pbs.twimg.com?

I think "twimg" is Twitter's Image Host, whatever that means. From a position of complete ignorance on the subject, I gather it's a way of finding images that have been posted on Twitter.

Whitewave has only just learned how to do that.

Baggs
"I think "twimg" is Twitter's Image Host, whatever that means"

Thanks , I could not find even that out.

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

Why don't you just look at one, POGS.

They're just links to images that are attached to tweets, POGS. There's nothing sinister about them.

Sometimes they are pictures or diagrams and sometimes they are passages of text.

They are good, as well, particularly the diagrams.

The police now have some proof of illegality.

www.theweek.co.uk/brexit/65461/brexit-news

Anyone else find this funny? US or UK honeytraps must be okay, just not Russian ones.

www.theweek.co.uk/92514/russian-honeytrap-warning-for%20british-business

www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/mar/26/pressure-grows-on-pm-over-brexit-cambridge-analytica-scandal-theresa-may

Number 10 involved.

This is interesting.

inews.co.uk/opinion/facebook-data-privacy-opinion/

Has anyone on facebook actually checked their data stored by facebook?

So many lies

pbs.twimg.com/media/DZFL3wCXkAEfBvT?format=jpg

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

A simple diagram to show how they cheated.

"Now is the time to support investigative reporting. The Guardian and Observer have spent a year analysing documents, working with whistleblowers and gathering eyewitness reports to untangle a complex story around data in the digital age. This took months of painstaking research by a small team of reporters and editors – and has led to investigations on both sides of the Atlantic. We have received legal threats, including from Facebook, but we are determined to continue publishing stories that raise important questions about the use of people’s data in political campaigns – from the US election to Brexit."

Worrying.

I hope the genie is out of the bottle and all too late, although there are plenty who want to put a lid on it.

Emergency debate on it tomorrow, whitewave.

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....

Hello, Tegan. Did you get to Newcastle?

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.

primrose
A bit like all those fake news sites then

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