Zen Traveler Posted December 1, 2018 Author Share Posted December 1, 2018 1 hour ago, Jeff Matthews said: 1 hour ago, Zen Traveler said: At least I voted my convictions and hope others do as well Can you name anyone who doesn't? That's what they say about you. It did bug me you and I were the only ones who seemed to support a candidate in the discussions leading up to the 2016 election and you didn't vote. That said, I'm not sure what that second sentence means in this regard but I DO engage in important topics and try to keep personality out of it and that is what our written record will show....Otoh, if you are saying that other people are also voting their convictions then that is a good sign for where I want to see us go from here. We'll see, but Facebook didn't appear to go through that mass propaganda campaign in the 2018 election and it appears they are trying to do the right thing and everyone seems to agree that government curbing free speech isn't the answer. That's my take. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zen Traveler Posted December 1, 2018 Author Share Posted December 1, 2018 27 minutes ago, T2K said: It appears that many people did not foresee the convictions that we know of now and the forthcoming convictions before they voted. Hey, a word just popped into my mind... shortsighted. Honestly, I think it was a vetting issue... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zen Traveler Posted December 1, 2018 Author Share Posted December 1, 2018 Ha! I haven't watched it yet but see that the Frontline interview with Brad Parscale dropped yesterday--Should be interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T2K Posted December 1, 2018 Share Posted December 1, 2018 37 minutes ago, Zen Traveler said: Honestly, I think it was a vetting issue... I was just stating my opinion with a twist on the word convictions (a firmly held belief or opinion) and convictions (declaration of guilt). I added that those that voted based on the former were apparently unaware or uninformed that in all likelihood the latter use of the word would later come into play. Which prompted the word shortsighted (lacking foresight). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TubeHiFiNut Posted December 1, 2018 Share Posted December 1, 2018 @Zen Traveler - Appreciate your passion for your viewpoint and very much appreciate the respectful and civil conversation but there is nothing else I wish to contribute to this conversation at this time. We view this subject from different perspectives and, from how these discussions usually go, things will eventually get to the "Less Filling, Tastes Great" stage. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zen Traveler Posted December 1, 2018 Author Share Posted December 1, 2018 1 hour ago, TubeHiFiNut said: We view this subject from different perspectives and, from how these discussions usually go, things will eventually get to the "Less Filling, Tastes Great" stage. I gotcha and appreciate you engaging. Regardless of political party I hope Americans can agree that Government does serve a vital purpose and not to confuse actual NEWS with Opinion. The reason I brought up the topic of Facebook is I didn't understand it's phenomena and potential until I joined. We all agree that we don't want our government curtailing free speech and when the Mueller Investigation starts issuing reports there will be various interesting things to talk about....Fww, I have been interested in the WikiLeaks and Russian influence since prior to the election and wish we resurrect that old thread because it DID confirm it should've been investigated given the (Internet related) indictments already handed out with more to come. Anyway, I am half way through the interview and the dude IS a calculated genius! He talks more in depth about how he gamed the system and he agrees that Facebook needed to make the changes that they did. What he seems unapologetic for is that he lead people to believe what they were seeing on their feed wasn't actual news or newsworthy. Imo, he makes false analogies with other media...Then he says something brilliant to the reporters dogged questions--"you open up a new York times and can't tell the difference between a News piece or an Opinion piece...60% of online content is opinion. 30 years ago it wasn't like that. We have developed into a media system that runs on opinion and commentary instead of news." The conversation starting at about 42 min into the program was enlightening....Gotta get back to it while doing some chores. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zen Traveler Posted December 1, 2018 Author Share Posted December 1, 2018 ...At about 1hr 4 min it gets interesting and contentious. After labeling the media "the enemy of the people," he couldn't name one media outlet he trusts. That was after he said that not all media was the enemy. For the record, I've mentioned somewhere on here that I've asked the same question of my conservative friends with no reply--I took for granted FoxNews was one but now I'm not so sure. I think at this stage the interview really took an unfortunate turn by mentioning a unsubstantiated conspiracy theory. That can be for further discussion if it comes to light--My guess is it won't. Otoh, Parscale ends the interview by showing how proficient of a manipulator he is--He re-frames the discussion as to why Facebook is such a good medium for those seeking comfort in like-minded individuals who don't care to research facts unless they want to.... He ended by coming full circle by contenting too many people buy into opinion and propaganda while claiming the press was too blame and STILL won't give a straight up answer on who he (or anyone should trust). I call BS on this one and feel there are verifiable news stories that are being labeled "Fake News," (more so than not) and that doesn't seem to be acknowledged, imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted December 1, 2018 Share Posted December 1, 2018 I am at 30 minutes and going to watch the rest after lunch. So far, it seems to me all he is saying is that FB provided a much faster mechanism to do the same kind of targeting and advertising that's been done for 100 years. He explained how "sharing" provided them with lots of bang for the buck. He has not been asked, nor has he stated, that anything the campaign provided was fake. At 29 minutes, he is explaining that these Russian actors' activity was miniscule in comparison to the $100 million the campaign spent. He says, for example, that it strains credulity, in his mind, to contend that players spending $6,000 on a FB blitz with fake news had any measurable effect compared to the $100 million the campaign spent. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zen Traveler Posted December 1, 2018 Author Share Posted December 1, 2018 1 minute ago, Jeff Matthews said: I am at 30 minutes and going to watch the rest after lunch. So far, it seems to me all he is saying is that FB provided a much faster mechanism to do the same kind of targeting and advertising that's been done for 100 years. He explained how "sharing" provided them with lots of bang for the buck. Yes but we live in a communication age where the dynamics are changing--Facebook is under the microscope on this one but there are other social media outlets that are prominent and then there is the whole concept of "the internet" as a whole....The thing that the Facebook Security guy said at the end of his interview was that the danger they and other social media companies needed to consider was the potential single targeting of individuals without their knowledge, which happened in the 2016 election--IOW, it's one thing to sign up for a marketing campaign it's another to be surreptitiously included. {Note: I mentioned my friend in Ireland mistakenly thinks Twitter is a news service.} 1 minute ago, Jeff Matthews said: He has not been asked, nor has he stated, that anything the campaign provided was fake. Agreed. He is only talking about their activity and he's not considering anything over-exaggerated about the other candidate in what looked like News stories as fitting that bill--That is where I agree there is some difference of opinion. 1 minute ago, Jeff Matthews said: At 29 minutes, he is explaining that these Russian actors' activity was miniscule in comparison to the $100 million the campaign spent. He is correct but that is only the tip of the iceberg insofar as how misinformation and targeted political ads disguised as news is concerned. 1 minute ago, Jeff Matthews said: He says, for example, that it strains credulity, in his mind, to contend that players spending $6,000 on a FB blitz with fake news had any measurable effect compared to the $100 million the campaign spent. He also refers to that Wired article about him and others which gives more information about how Facebook was manipulated. There also was a congressional hearing back in January 2016 which brought out how much of this information was being shared and that is coming out in the Mueller indictments and will be more prevalent when more is learned about those--I gotta admit some of this is new to me as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Travis In Austin Posted December 1, 2018 Moderators Share Posted December 1, 2018 On 11/3/2018 at 10:56 AM, Zen Traveler said: EDITED Wow! I mistakenly thought Facebook owned YouTube Google owns everything, even outerspace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted December 1, 2018 Share Posted December 1, 2018 1 hour ago, Zen Traveler said: He also refers to that Wired article about him and others which gives more information about how Facebook was manipulated. "Manipulated?" Your word choice displays partisanship. It sounds like "deceptive," "tricky," "conniving," and the like. In reality, if you pay attention to the actual questions and actual answers, with no spin and no filter - just word-for-word - it's like saying, "Experienced airline pilots manipulate the controls." He is just explaining, over and over, that FB has a set of tools, which if you know how to use them, are very effective at getting your message to your desired target as quickly and cheaply as possible. Whoopee! The whole interview so far is an advertisement for FB. Anyway, I am starting back up... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted December 1, 2018 Share Posted December 1, 2018 Listen to the Q & A beginning at 29:09 - 30:20. This 1 minute and 10 seconds is the crux of the testimony. I've spooled it for you: 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted December 1, 2018 Share Posted December 1, 2018 Here's a spot where he trounces on the notion that targeted ads are evil: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted December 1, 2018 Share Posted December 1, 2018 Here, he claims the veracity of the content the campaign published was much higher than the MSM's publications: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted December 1, 2018 Share Posted December 1, 2018 Here's where he supports my previous argument that there's not much alarm you can take over publishing conspiracy theories. This stuff has been around forever, long before FB and long before the internet. How on earth do you hope to control the proliferation of these materials. Listen through 47:00. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted December 1, 2018 Share Posted December 1, 2018 And here is the crux of the argument: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zen Traveler Posted December 1, 2018 Author Share Posted December 1, 2018 20 minutes ago, Jeff Matthews said: "Manipulated?" Your word choice displays partisanship. It sounds like "deceptive," "tricky," "conniving," and the like. I am expressing how the wired article framed it. https://www.wired.com/story/trump-russia-data-parscale-facebook/ After reading the story frame it how you like but I expressed the gist of it and why the dude didn't seem to appreciate it. 20 minutes ago, Jeff Matthews said: In reality, if you pay attention to the actual questions and actual answers, with no spin and no filter - just word-for-word - it's like saying, "Experienced airline pilots manipulate the controls." He is just explaining, over and over, that FB has a set of tools, which if you know how to use them, are very effective at getting your message to your desired target as quickly and cheaply as possible. Whoopee! No "Whoopee," Jeff. Facebook IS changing their rules after they found out how they could be used, manipulated, understood better than FB themselves, etc., That is what's newsworthy going forward and we are learning of the dangers of how social media operates--Especially one that is so widely used all over the world. 20 minutes ago, Jeff Matthews said: The whole interview so far is an advertisement for FB. Really? Interesting. I can agree that there is a lot of benefit there but I think this Frontline episode is one of MANY fact-based news (Media) organizations that are shedding light on something that people only thought they knew how it worked and how they were affected...Garbage in-Garbage out, and most people were getting garbage over their Facebook newsfeed in 2016 that didn't happen in 2018 with the new rules in place and better scrutiny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted December 1, 2018 Share Posted December 1, 2018 1 minute ago, Zen Traveler said: No "Whoopee," Jeff. Facebook IS changing their rules after they found out how they could be used, manipulated, understood better than FB themselves, etc., Correct. And the ones who made improper access to people's social data were the Obama campaign and Cambridge Analytica. This guy says so, and he is also very clear that he did not breach the FB terms of service, like Obama's campaign and Cambridge did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted December 1, 2018 Share Posted December 1, 2018 The problem is described here. Who's to blame for this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zen Traveler Posted December 1, 2018 Author Share Posted December 1, 2018 33 minutes ago, Jeff Matthews said: Listen to the Q & A beginning at 29:09 - 30:20. This 1 minute and 10 seconds is the crux of the testimony. I've spooled it for you: I understand. You and he are talking about paid advertising and/or what the actual Trump Campaign did--The talk about "Dark Money" is interesting and something that should be explored. What's not being shared and I think will come out in the Mueller Investigation is how all of these interests that came together multiplied the effectiveness and in turn could be verified once we learned the type of information shared--There were a lot of entities going after the status quo and I wish we could dissect them here without getting political but don't think we can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts