Facebook on PBS Frontline

[Zen Traveler]

7 minutes ago, Jeff Matthews said:

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.

Sure. That was his opinion but the difference was that the Obama campaign got that material legally whereas Cambridge Analytica did not. {EDIT: He also said he had access to that information but didn't use it.}

[Jeff Matthews]

1 minute ago, Zen Traveler said:

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.

I think it's a monumental waste of time because in the end the lesson is that people need to take some responsibility to fact check what they read if they are concerned about the truth.

[Jeff Matthews]

2 minutes ago, Zen Traveler said:

Sure. That was his opinion but the difference was that the Obama campaign got that material legally whereas Cambridge Analytica did not. 

From what he said, FB closed the hole that was accessed by the Obama campaign after finding out people were doing this.  

[Zen Traveler]

32 minutes ago, Jeff Matthews said:

Here's a spot where he trounces on the notion that targeted ads are evil:

Of course not, but then again we are talking about letting people know: 1) Where political ads come from just like on actual media sources. 2) They are only getting certain material and not anything from other sources--they are choosing to be in propaganda streams. okay, but...

[Jeff Matthews]

1 minute ago, Zen Traveler said:

Of course not but then again we are talking about letting people know: 1) Where political ads come from, just like on actual media sources. 2) They are only getting certain material and not anything from other sources. 

And so?  Are you going to pass a law to make them seek other sources?

[Jeff Matthews]

Another trouncing here:

 

 

[Zen Traveler]

38 minutes ago, Jeff Matthews said:

Here, he claims the veracity of the content the campaign published was much higher than the MSM's publications:

So what? That's his opinion and he didn't back it up with facts.

 

33 minutes ago, Jeff Matthews said:

Here's where he supports my previous argument that there's not much alarm you can take over publishing conspiracy theories. 

People buy into false conspiracy theories because they don't look at factual evidence--Kinda ironic you mention this given who is in the actual news for spreading conspiracy theories, including the one that brought the current POTUSA to political attention. 😳 Google the name Jerome Corsi. Heck, there is a one-word conspiracy theory I could use that was investigated during the last administration but it actually did prove to be a "witch hunt." 

[Zen Traveler]

34 minutes ago, Jeff Matthews said:

And here is the crux of the argument:

Well at least @TubeHiFiNut disagrees with you on that.  

Edit: Now that I go back and re-read what he wrote see that I misinterpreted his comment to be a stab at non-partisanship: 

 

Zen - You seem to want to take this in a partsan direction. Parscale did assert that he gamed the system that the liberals created.

 

Did they create the system and not use it? I think not.

 

For the record, I thought he was saying that Facebook wasn't started by liberals....It doesn't appear that way and once again the Frontline episode didn't express that the Obama Administration did the same thing that the current administration did.

[Zen Traveler]

24 minutes ago, Jeff Matthews said:

I think it's a monumental waste of time because in the end the lesson is that people need to take some responsibility to fact check what they read if they are concerned about the truth.

So, you aren't concerned about the truth? 

 

16 minutes ago, Jeff Matthews said:

Another trouncing here:

I've seen the entire episode but don't feel like clicking on it once again because there was no "trouncing," and I have addressed your other videos--It would be nice to have the transcript given I am having to answer in writing.  

[Jeff Matthews]

2 hours ago, Zen Traveler said:

3 hours ago, Jeff Matthews said:

Here, he claims the veracity of the content the campaign published was much higher than the MSM's publications:

So what? That's his opinion and he didn't back it up with facts.

Ha ha!  That's funny!  "Everything I said is true."  "Prove it."

[Jeff Matthews]

2 hours ago, Zen Traveler said:

Google the name Jerome Corsi. Heck, there is a one-word conspiracy theory I could use that was investigated during the last administration but it actually did prove to be a "witch hunt." 

Did he run any of the campaign's FB ads?  I'm not sure what point this has to do with what the documentary covers.

[Jeff Matthews]

3 hours ago, Zen Traveler said:

For the record, I thought he was saying that Facebook wasn't started by liberals....It doesn't appear that way and once again the Frontline episode didn't express that the Obama Administration did the same thing that the current administration did.

You have both points backwards.  Parscale mocks the liberals for being upset that an advertising medium created by liberals was used effectively, as designed and intended, to win an election of a man they vilify.

 

As regards the second point, the reason the Trump campaign did not do the same thing as the Obama campaign is because the Obama campaign snagged data out of the FB system in a way, and for a purpose, that FB was unaware of and did not condone.  FB changed their policy after that.

 

 

2 hours ago, Zen Traveler said:

So, you aren't concerned about the truth? 

Not in the sense you seem to be.  I know many people who love conspiracy theories of all kinds - not just politics.  They like stories about UFO's and extra-terrestrial beings.  They like stories about how Big Pharma is suppressing known cures of cancer so they can line their pockets.  These people have always been around.  They like what they read, whether it's true or not.  They do not want to fact-check this using the material you think they should.  It's their business.  Leave them alone.  Feel free to debate them as much as they want to engage, but censorship laws and regulations aren't appropriate here.  We agree on that.

 

2 hours ago, Zen Traveler said:

I've seen the entire episode but don't feel like clicking on it once again because there was no "trouncing,"

So here's what I mean about "trouncing."  The whole time, the interviewer is jabbing at every angle he can dream up.  "What about this?"  "What about that?"  On and on...  Parscale answers all his questions, quite convincingly.  What is evident is that the interviewer is bent out of shape with the election result.  He is looking to scapegoat FB for it.  You can't honestly scapegoat FB for corrupting democracy.  That's laughable.  FB is the essence of democracy - giving people what they want with minimal censorship and leaving them free to choose what to consume and with whom they want to share it.  If FB changes that, it will die.  Mark my words.

 

That is why the new policy will be to have some kind of descriptive disclaimers about the reliability of various sources of articles.  It's private enterprise realizing that it needs to do something prophylactic before Congress and bureaucrats do something incredibly dumb and destructive.  So, let's see how the disclaimers go...

 

I predict that if Trump loses in 2020, your camp will think FB fixed the problem.  If not, it will demand stricter regulation.  Parscale said he is going to use FB again, so enjoy the ride and watch it play out.  

 

What do you want to bet the Dems exploit FB more effectively as well?

      

 

[Jeff Matthews]

Bottom line.  The only aspect of FB that was covered in this documentary was how efficiently it targets advertising.  Guy does a great job using it.  You don't like the result.  "There's got to be a crime here!"

[Jeff Matthews]

If you want to see collusion and a smoking gun, look no further than this.  In my opinion, this is a far greater threat to democracy than FB ads.

 

 

[T2K]

28 minutes ago, Jeff Matthews said:

look no further than this

 

You've got to be smarter than that Jeff.

 

Keith

[Jeff Matthews]

9 hours ago, T2K said:

 

You've got to be smarter than that Jeff.

 

Keith

You're kidding me, Keith.  Really?  You think that's some kind of scam by Gowdy and the Inspector General?  WJW!

 

The video below is Strzok's self-defense against Gowdy.  Listen to Strzok's final summation, where he suggests Gowdy is eroding the public's confidence in the FBI through all that innuendo.  What Strzok has missed is that the FBI did this to itself.  It started to become evident when Comey took over Lynch's job as Attorney General and said there would be no prosecution because they could not establish intent.  This move by the FBI was unprecedented, and it usurped its authority.  That was the biggest mistake ever by the FBI.  It opened the public's eyes that "something's not right."  It put the FBI under public scrutiny.  The rest has been unfolding since.  

 

I appreciate how your camp can still maintain that Strzok's personal views somehow had no effect on the way he conducted himself, professionally.  However, certainly, you are smart enough to know that this period of time in the FBI's history was replete with mismanagement, blunders and improper conduct.  Strzok, for example, admits Mueller released him from his duties due to the appearance of bias.   Listen for yourself.  Strzok was released by your man, Mueller.  Mueller needed to protect the integrity of his own investigation from Strzok and Page.  

 

Can you honestly maintain that Mueller should not have released Strzok?  I know you're not an attorney, so maybe this will help:  Let's say you are being prosecuted for some crime.  Let's say further the judge on your case has been texting his buddy saying, "That Keith is scum!  He deserves 1,000 life sentences!"  When those text messages are revealed, what do you expect to happen?

 

 

 

[oldtimer]

"Threat to democracy?"  I think Keith is pointing out something called context, and the lack thereof.  Being released because of mere appearance points more to the integrity of the system than the other way around.

[Jeff Matthews]

23 minutes ago, oldtimer said:

"Threat to democracy?"  I think Keith is pointing out something called context, and the lack thereof.  Being released because of mere appearance points more to the integrity of the system than the other way around.

I realize that, but also note that the corruption (whether with ill-will or whether by good faith usurpation) came all the way from the top.  It, in fact, eroded the public's confidence in the institution.  Erosion of confidence is what threatens democracy.  Democracy is not under threat when people have faith in the system.

[oldtimer]

Well, there certainly is a lot of erosion in all the wrong places.

[Jeff Matthews]

Just now, oldtimer said:

Well, there certainly is a lot of erosion in all the wrong places.

Some is manufactured and highly speculative.