Facebook representatives told Barack Obama’s 2012 campaign that they had been allowed to use the platform in ways that would have otherwise been prohibited, because Facebook was “on our side,” according to explosive claims from Obama’s former director for media analytics, Carol Davidsen.
They came to office in the days following election recruiting & were very candid that they allowed us to do things they wouldn’t have allowed someone else to do because they were on our side.
— Carol Davidsen (@cld276) March 19, 2018
In a series of tweets, Davidsen that Facebook was “surprised” that the Obama campaign was able to “suck out the entire social graph” (the “social graph” is an individual’s network of friends on Facebook), but did nothing to stop them once they found out.
https://twitter.com/cld276/status/975568130117459975\
Davidsen also linked to a talk from 2015 in which she explained how Facebook’s privacy policies in 2012 allowed them to harvest data on friend networks across America.
Davidsen says that this gave the Democrats a massive advantage, as the Republicans did not gain access to the same data before Facebook shut off the feature.
“The privacy policies on Facebook were … if they opted in, they could tell us who all their friends were. So they told us who all their friends were…We were actually able to ingest the entire social network of the U.S. that’s on Facebook, which is most people.”
“Where this gets complicated is that freaks Facebook out. So they shut off the feature.”
“The Republicans never built an app to do that. So the data’s out there — you can’t take it back. The Democrats have this information, so when they look at a voter file and someone comes to them, they can immediately be like ‘Oh, here are all the other people that they know, and here are people they can help us persuade, because they’re really good friends with that person.’”
“The Republicans do not have that information and will not get that information. I’m a Democrat, so maybe I could argue that’s a great thing, but really it’s not, in the overall process. That wasn’t thought all the way through and now there’s a disadvantage of information that to me seems unfair. But I’m not Facebook…”
According to Davidsen, the Obama campaign used that data to target voters through their friend networks, and motivate people to vote.
Ever notice how when the left accuses Republicans of something, it very shortly is revealed that the left is guilty of far, far worse?
Obama’s campaign utilized social media? What a shocker. Suggesting equivalency is a diversion, off course.
It doesn’t seem to have registered yet that the question regarding Cambridge Analytica is whether the information they collected on behalf of the Trump organization was made available to the Russians for their social media voter targeting operation.
@Greg:
Greg is batting 1.000 in missing the point.
It was the DNC that had their password set as “password” and got hacked. They did the same thing Cambridge did, only they had Facebook’s liberal blessings. The real question is, does Zuckerberg provide the information to the Russians? After all, he DID collude with them during the 2016 election, didn’t he?
No, they didn’t do the same thing. The Obama campaign’s gathering of social media data by way of allowing logons using one’s Facebook password was voluntary. If you don’t understand that you’re voluntarily sharing Facebook information with any 3rd party that allows you to log on using your Facebook password, you’d better read your Facebook user agreement and check your privacy and sharing settings. The Obama organization’s innovative use of social media data obtained in that fashion was public knowledge, reported in news articles as one of the ways his campaign was ahead of the curve. They openly discussed their utilization of social media networking and peer groups as an important new campaign tool.
Cambridge Analytica seems to have been up to something more devious and secretive than that. What all was involved isn’t yet entirely clear, but the company itself seems to be taking the matter very seriously.
Cambridge Analytica Suspends CEO Alexander Nix After Video’s Release
@Greg:
They went into EVERYONE’S page and collected all their data AND the data of their friends.
They were doing the exact same thing as Obama’s campaign was, on not with the blessings of Facebook. It is only your hypocritical rationalization that makes them different.
The only ones to be concerned about sharing with the Russians would be those with the history of colluding with the Russians… your Democrats.
The Obama campaign collected no data beyond what individual users allowed to be collected. They didn’t obtain and retain the data they collected by way of deception. Nor did they utilize it for a psychographically targeted false news and trolling program.
@Greg: He was fake news some campaign promises
Obama abandoned his commitment to “unprecedented” transparency.
Obama has failed on his promise to close GITMO.
Obama failed to end the war in Iraq and finish the job in Afghanistan.
Obama broke his promise to pursue a “tough, smart and principled national security strategy.”
Obama broke his promise not to raise taxes on the middle-class.
Obama failed to grow the middle-class and Americans’ incomes.
Obama broke his promise to allow Americans to keep their plans and lower costs under Obamacare.
Obama failed to make immigration a top priority and pass comprehensive reform in his first year.
Obama failed to “nail shut” the revolving door of lobbyists working in his administration.
Obama broke his promise to bring both parties together to enact a bipartisan agenda.
He was entirely fake, propped up by the fawning media.
@Greg:
Cambridge Analytica’s dirty tricks lead to the top
More dots to connect. There seems to be no end to them.
@Greg: You grow more and more pitiful every day, with every subsequent failure of the latest scandal de jour.
@Deplorable Me: I do not know how Greg can become more pitiful and still live. Maybe someone is changing his diapers for him.
This article from The Guardian is over a year old.
No wonder.
Robert Mercer: the big data billionaire waging war on mainstream media
Opinions vary about what’s pitiful.
One might legitimately wonder about the legal complaint against an accurate bit of reporting. The followning Guardian article dates a couple of months later, and might throw some light on the situation: ‘Downward spiral’: UK slips to 40th place in press freedom rankings
@Greg: The Trump campaign used Cambridge Analytica during the primaries, it didn’t use the information during the general election campaign, relying instead on voter data provided by the Republican National Committee, according to CBS News. It reports that “the Trump campaign had tested the RNC data, and it proved to be vastly more accurate than Cambridge Analytica’s.”
Go ahead and get worked up over nothing again.
Sure the governments are looking into stuff like this so they can regulate it. What a friggin crock. The US government collects everything including cell phone calls, divorce yourself of any technology especially social media if you like your privacy, Online polls , personality tests, smart refridgerators, siri, smart houses. Say you think Muslims are a problem in England and go to jail for hate speech.
They want a huge outcry over this I’m not falling for it, if you are on Facebook or twitter or google expect all your data to be sold. Expect to be censored, but do not let them to regulate it it will only give silicon valley gazillionillionaires the cover to permanently ban you for hate speech and wrong think.
@Mully:
What else do they have?
Liberals simply think everyone else is stupid enough not to see through the left’s scams. A liberal friend of mine had posted an article about the governor of Washington state signing into law a bill to automatically register to vote those who submit for drivers licenses or ID’s. She (who lives in Washington) says, “yay!” I shared the article on my page and noted that step ONE is to give out drivers licenses without any proof of birthplace. Step TWO is to register to vote anyone getting a drivers license. Thus, illegal immigrants get registered to vote. I commented if anyone wonders why Democrats have lost all hope of ever winning an election with citizens ever again? She came on my page (which I encourage) and chastised me for “not reading the entire law”. She simply didn’t understand the two-phase process the left is employing to fold illegal immigrants into the voting public.
Instead of defunding the Election Assistance Commission, Republicans should charge it with verifying that in federal elections, every registered voter who votes is a citizen of the United States. If they find discrepancies, the results in that state should be nulified. They simply don’t get a vote. Let’s see how fast and loose with encouraging illegal immigrants to vote they are then.
The left absolutely cannot be trusted with citizen’s rights.
@Deplorable Me: I found this one a interesting as well.
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-03-21/it-wasnt-russia-it-was-obama-based-social-media-mining-beat-hillary
The SCL Group is in the business of perverting the democratic process by way of disinformation campaigns. Cambridge Analytica is an offshoot of SCL Group, and has connections to the Trump organization. This isn’t some goofball theory. It’s a fact. One does not have to be overburdened with intelligence to understand the implications.
Cambridge Analytica’s parent company reportedly offered a $1.4 million bribe to win an election for a client
@Greg:
So unlike Fusion GPS, how much did Hilly and Barry slush into that group of shysters for an unverified dossier? Just dirty politics, Hillary and Barry are experts. Give it a rest fool the Combination of Obama bankrupting the DNC, and Hillarys take over and theft of all Bernies donations which included a phishing scheme couldnt pollute the process more.
The Fusion GPS opposition research document wasn’t used in an effort to influence the election, was it? The information it contained didn’t even become public until January of the following year. Mainstream media sources that were aware of the document’s existence refrained from mentioning it.
Even the fact that the allegations in it suggested the existence of a serious national security threat and were credible enough to warrant an investigation was kept completely quiet.
Indeed, this was completely and utterly unlike what the Trump campaign appears to have been up to. There’s really no basis at all for such a comparison.
@Greg: No Greg the evidence wasnt enough if you use unverified information for warrants its a crime, its lying, they said it was unverified under oath, wouldnt pay 50k for it because it couldnt be verified and guess what, hearsay isnt admissible evidence. Steel saying this one guy said this that or the other thing without being a first hand witness to those events, just filthy gossip, some from Sid vicious.
From the Guardian The investigative firm behind the Steele dossier – the controversial memo that alleged extensive collusion between Donald Trump’s campaign officials and Russia – has claimed that the FBI received “credible allegations” about a Kremlin conspiracy throughout the 2016 US election campaign. The other campaign had much more serious national security threats. DWS hiring of Pakistanis for IT support just 1 example.
Back to the subject I dont care if Obama or Trump got info if you dont want your data sold for any purposes stay off Twitter, facebook and google.
@Greg:
Saaaaay… isn’t that what Hillary, Wasserman-Schultz and the DNC did to the Democrats? Why, I think it is.
Wait… what? What the hell do you THINK it was used for? Hillary paid Steele to scrape up whatever he could find, make crap up to fill in the blanks, and then they shopped it to the media and the FBI. It was so salacious that even those who WANTED to believe didn’t feel confident in standing behind it. Besides, Hillary was going to win, so why look like an idiot unnecessarily and pretend to believe it? It was intended to create an investigation to counterbalance the “matter” that was hanging over Hillary’s head and was used to instigate illegal surveillance. Even the wire taps couldn’t find anything to use against Trump. This bears repeating:
Only after Hillary lost did the “dossier” serve a purpose; to justify a fishing expedition into Trump’s life to try and find SOMETHING…. ANYTHING to undo the horrible end of the liberal march towards socialism.
The secret of using information to alter an election is to use it before the election is over. This it entirely obvious to anyone living this side of the signpost marking the boundary of the Twilight Zone.
And if they were so damn sure Trump couldn’t possibly win, why would they have drawn the FBI and the intelligence community into a non-public anti-Trump conspiracy so far ahead of the election?
Neither explanation makes a bit of sense.
@Greg: Simple projection.
You can’t accuse the opposition of dabbling in what your side does, professionally.
Character assassination, data theft, and preying on the weak to get votes.
This is the Hallmark of the Democratic Party, and they have become obsessed with projecting their own conduct onto Trump in an attempt to admit they just don’t represent the majority of Americans.
The Dems altered their own primary, got caught….and got caught trying to rig the election with the help of the Russians…lost…and now can only devolve into the mob of children they are.
@Greg:
Indeed. That’s why Hillary shopped it to the FBI and the media. Like I said, it could not be verified and, since Hillary was going to win in a walk, there was no point in pursuing it. But, it was the intent and goal to use it for the campaign. Otherwise, why would Hillary and the DNC have bought it?
First, Hillary is a nasty, vindictive bitch. She likes slinging dirt and lying. Also, it was not widely known (before Bill and Loretta met on the tarmac) that the fix was in and there would be no charges against Hillary; only the appearance of some sort of “investigation”. It’s not like Hillary was spending her OWN money… so, sure, blow a million or so, concoct some salacious lies, feed them to the media and rock and roll!
The “dossier” was so thin, weak and clumsy no one wanted to stand behind it publicly. However, it WAS used as a pretense to illegally survielle Trump and his team. Only after Trump’s surprise victory was is the only weapon the left had and suddenly became critical. It makes perfect sense if you understand how leftists for whom “the ends justifies the means” operate and then become whiny, crybaby sore losers when they have the Hillary rug yanked out from under them.
@Deplorable Me: Greg just never thinks things through. Typical lefty.
What I think is that Trump can’t sweep back the incoming tide with a broom. He set himself up for the situation he’s now in over a very long period of time. He’ll never understand that.
@Greg:
Incoming tide of what? False accusations? Lies? Crybaby sky-screamers demanding a different reality because it is OWED them?
Trump will have no problem keeping these cowards at bay. They all expect someone else to do the heavy lifting.
There’s absolutely NO evidence that Clinton “shopped” it to anybody, or colluded with the Russians as Nunes alleged.
That’s a load of complete, unadulterated bullshit. The facts are as follows:
The Clinton campaign picked up the funding of an existing GPS opposition research project after its original conservative funding source lost interest once it was clear that Trump would be the GOP’s nominee.
GPS contracted Steele to gather the information.
Steele became so alarmed at what he was being told that he alerted the FBI and attempted to alert the press.
None of the material was used by either the Clinton campaign or reported by the press because nothing at that point could be verified. The FBI did quietly initiate an investigation, however. There was enough credible information from sources apart from Steele’s to convince a FISA judge to issue a surveillance warrant.
That resulted in even more troubling information coming to light. It was sufficient to convince the FISA judge that the warrant should be extended.
There’s now an appointed Special Counsel conducting a full investigation of the matter. What little is known of that certainly isn’t making the situation look any less worrisome.
The White House has been doing everything possible to discredit and derail that investigation. Nunes has perverted the House Intelligence Committe oversight function to run an obvious whitewash operation on behalf of the White House.
At some point in the not-to-distant future, the sh-t is going to hit the fan.
@Greg: I’m surprised the Dumbocraps were smart enough to figure out when someone puts their info out to the public on facebook, that it is available ””’shutter”” to the public. If you look at my profile, it says when I was born, where I was born, where I went to high school, where I went to college, what kind of work I did all my life, who I’m married to, how many children I have and what their names are. Am I supposed to be shocked that the Dumbo’s have that info? or the Elephants? I’d be a hell of a lot more surprised to find out that they ‘did not’ have that info.
@Greg:
Yes there is. AMPLE evidence.
No, Hillary didn’t “use” it, as in create a campaign add citing its “findings”. That’s not Hillary’s MO. Instead, she had it handed off to the liberal operatives in the FBI. Hillary paid GPS, who paid Steele, who employed the Russians. Steele knew who was signing the checks and Hillary knew who Steele was dealing with (the same people that wrote her a $145 million check to sign off on the Uranium One deal). As opposed to the ZERO evidence suggesting Trump colluded with the Russians, we have a paper trail and a “dossier” proving Hillary committed collusion.
What, that Carter Page went to Russia? Was he the only US citizen to ever have gone to Russia? More significantly, the FACT that all this was due to Hillary paying someone that hated Trump to collect this information was conveniently “forgotten” to get mentioned to the FISA court. A mere oversight, I am sure… liberals wouldn’t lie just to carry out a political plot, would they?
That resulted in NOTHING. That’s why they kept using the phony “dossier” to justify their spying on American citizens.
Based on false information LEAKED by Comey. Now, deny he leaked it… even though he admitted he leaked it for the sole purpose of damaging Trump.
Um… the liberal partisans that comprise the “investigation” have done all the discrediting. The DOJ IG is who discredited the “investigation”. The only thing that keeps it on the rails is that it is a totally partisan, liberal, anti-Trump witch hunt with the sole purpose of unseating the duly elected President of the United States.
It already has. It hit the fan when the bitterly partisan texts of Mueller’s team were exposed. It’s just since liberals wallow in sh-t all the time, they don’t notice the smell.
@Deplorable Me, #30:
Only in the echo box’s Trump-besotted, information-and-logic-deficient alternate reality. I haven’t yet seen any that stands up to close inspection. I see only transparent efforts to deflect attention, shift blame, and confuse the public.
She didn’t slander her opponent with constant unfounded accusations, has he did routinely. Trump ran a dirty campaign. He bullied, attacked, and belittled his opponents. He lied whenever it seemed useful and shifted positions as the occasion demanded. He exploited base emotion, anger, ignorance, racial and religious prejudices, and misinformation and conspiracy theories already long-cultivated by the right. He tool over their audience control panel like the practiced con man and reality television host that he is. He was more like a mob leader than a candidate. This is how he operated from the republican primary and onward. Andrew Jackson, the lying weasel who personally destroyed Davy Crockett’s political career, would have liked his style.
We don’t know, because it’s classified. We do know what was presented was credible to a FISA judge, and on multiple occasions. We do know there have been multiple indictments of Trump associates and a number of guilty pleas. We do know Mueller has sufficient evidence to convince a grand jury that cases involving serious criminal charges should go forward, and that he’s not done yet.
Russian election meddling is obvious. There’s a lot strongly suggesting cooperation with the Russians inside the Trump camp. There are many suggestions that the Russians could have leverage over the President of the United States.
The investigation that matters isn’t in the hands of an assembly of Trump lapdogs. Deal with it.
Not yet, it hasn’t. They’ll be no misunderstanding when it actually does.
@Greg: Even when the truth is revealed that this was nothing bit a globalist set up an attempt to frame the POTUS and punish anyone in their way to socialist hell, you wont believe it, you are perfectly brainwashed. Every slimey rock thats turned there is a Hillary slug slithering beneath it. It will be exposed when the FISA application is made public. Illegal spying on the opponent is the dirty politics here, weaponizing our intelligence is the crime and scandal. Obama is in this up to his ears.
@Deplorable Me: I think Greg just admitted that Hillary started financing Fusion GPS prior to the election. He can not keep his lies straight either.
@Nathan Blue: I used to grudgingly accept Repubs held the moral high ground—though I saw it to be pretty damn boring–no movies–no rock and roll -you know what I mean.
But now—hitching your wagon to a moral degenerate like DT —You’ve sunk to the bottom looking up–and you still don’t have much fun.
@Greg: I see it is, once again, question and answer time.
So, are you taking the position that Hillary did NOT pay GPS to go dig up dirt on Trump and then accepted and used the information provided by the Russians?
Are you taking the position that Hillary did NOT erase, obliterate, Bleach-bit 33,000 emails the State Department had requested? Did she NOT have classified information on her secret, private, unsecured email server? Did she NOT lie about having classified information on her server to the FBI and before Congress, under oath? Did she NOT lie about a video causing the sacking of the Benghazi consulate, which she left undefended? If you are going to hold that position about “slander” (a crime, by the way) then you will HAVE to answer those questions.
Aww… mean old Twump is buwwying people in national politics. Hell, people around Hillary turn up DEAD. Hillary RUINS people she disagrees with. Obama sics the IRS, EPA, DOJ and FBI on political enemies. Give me a break about your phony concern over “bullying”.
Comey and McCabe have admitted the “dossier” was their big ticket item justifying their surveillance.
Yeah… because the FBI didn’t mention that, oh, by the way, the only source on this information is Hillary Clinton. The judge can only make a decision based on the information he is presented and the FBI made sure the judge only got what they wanted him to have.
Of nothing… NOTHING to do with Trump, the campaign or the Russians. The crimes are SOOOO serious that Mueller has already accepted pleas to the LEAST serious of the charges in each case.
Obama allowed the meddling. There’s a lot of whiny, crybaby sore losers making that suggestion, but NO evidence of it.
The most damaging evidence of the biased, bigoted nature of the investigation comes from the investigators themselves, via the Inspector General…. not Trump. DEAL WITH IT.
This little liberal adventure into fantasy land is over. Done. There was no Republican collusion; all that has been found is DEMOCRAT collusion. Your boys can drag the investigation out as long as they like, but it will only continue to look more and more silly and vindictive.
@Randy:
There’s a lot to keep track of. He needs a flow chart.
The Clinton campaign picked up the tab for Fusion GPS to continue the opposition research they’d already initiated. That’s not the same thing as having done the bullshit Nunes claimed:
That’s a baldfaced lie, plain and simple. All he’d doing is wrapping up a bullshit propaganda meme in a phony House Intelligence Committee investigation. If he’s got evidence, he should produce it, but that won’t happen because there is none. Which, of course, he will attribute to being blocked from the finding of by the corrupt FBI, or the Deep State, or the evil machinations of Dr. Moriarty, or some such utter nonsense.
And what evidence would that be? All the IG concluded is that McCabe had divulged something to the press without authorization, and had been “less than candid.” No specifics were given. That’s not evidence that Clinton did squat, nor is it evidence that Mueller’s investigation is biased.
Every damn one of the people involved were in the Trump circle and have had something suspicious to do with the Russians. Mueller is leveraging cooperation by nailing them for crimes he can already prove at this point. Everybody understands this methodology. He’s gone after Trump’s business records. He knows something. It’s all going to tie together.
Uh huh. Sure it is.
On FOX News at the moment, Hannity is pedaling the Uranium One tricycle as fast as his pudgy little legs will turn the pedals. Meanwhile, Trump is a assembling a new “legal team” of FOX News conspiracy theory talking heads, apparently intending to mount a reality television public relations offensive to stave off the coming reality of courtroom logic and actual evidence; the DOW has dropped 700-some points in response to the declaration of a trade war, and the powers that be in the House are furiously working behind closed doors to create an budget guaranteeing a trillion dollar deficit. No one gets to see the details of this 2,232 page document until they’re only 24 hours from a vote on it. If it doesn’t pass, the government shuts down again. Read fast!
@Greg:
That’s what she did.
That’s what McCabe was fired for. We know that. What I am talking about is how the Mueller team has discredited itself. Trump didn’t do it; they did it with their own bias and hatred.
Really? And what evidence of THAT is there? The fact that a bunch of sore losers “suspect” a lot of things is not only predictable but totally meaningless.
You know what suspicious is? Suspicious is the husband of the Secretary of State going to Russia, visiting with Putin, giving a 30 minute speech and getting $500,000. Then, the Secretary of State approves the sale of American uranium to a company she KNOWS is controlled by the Russians. Then the Secretary of State’s “charity” receives $145 million from the Russians. THAT’S what suspicious is. And THAT is who was colluding with the Russians to gather phony dirt on Trump. Thank GOD that scabby, corrupt, stumbling bitch lost her election. Rather than the most capable candidate in history, as Obama lied, she would have been the worst disaster in United States history and her loss has uncovered a dire threat to the security of the nation.
@Deplorable Me, #38:
And yet the people who spin such bullshit tales never manage to prove any of them. Maybe you need to find smarter people. Nobody has locked down the Clinton tax returns, or their foundation’s annual reports. Nobody received undisclosed payments; you know about Clinton’s speaking fees because they were out in the open, properly reported, and not out of line with payments he has received for other speaking appearances in the past. Nobody used their power of office to fire any investigators or obstruct any investigations. There weren’t vindictive weekly purges of the disloyal. How many tries did you have with Benghazi? Seven? Eight? I forget.
Let’s see what Robert Mueller finally proves, with evidence.
@Greg:
You don’t think that is suspicious? Really? That’s surprising, because you have such a LOW threshold for suspicion. For instance, for a guy to be all but CONVICTED of colluding with Russians, all he has to do is win an election. That’s all you need. Yet, all those facts I laid out (and they are facts) raises no suspicion whatsoever. I guess that ‘s not so much what suspicion is but what SYCOPHANCY is.
Oh, by the way, you didn’t answer those questions on Hillary. What’s the matter… no guts? No balls? Can’t face the TRUTH? You accuse Trump of slander yet you won’t deny or prove me wrong about the accusations of Hillary. You could just admit they are all true; they ARE true and your refusal to admit it is Clintonesque.
No, those speaking fees were dug out and, no, that speaking fee was almost TWICE what he drew before.
Answer the questions, coward.
@Deplorable Me, #40:
“Dug out” out of voluntarily released tax returns and publicly released reports. See how that works? You don’t even get to see Trump’s returns, do you? And you don’t even care. What does that reveal?
The one you quoted? It was rhetorical. I already know the answer. I’m the one who asked it.
This discussion has become a waste of my time.
@Greg:
Do I have to repeat them? Don’t go all AJ/Rich on me, you are the last liberal left to have discussions with here. For your benefit, this once, I will repeat them, for I know such unrepentant cowards as AJ cannot be shamed into answering questions about their positions no matter how many times you repeat the questions.
@Rich Wheeler:
Imagine someone with their wagon hitched to Hillary Clinton making that statement.
@Redteam: As you know I have no use for DT or HRC.—-My conscience is clear.
You gotta admit all those “holier than thou” family values, God fearing Repubs backing Trump— a guy totally devoid of morals–pretty damn amusing..
@Redteam: Liberals always want a liberal. They have no moral guidance. They would prefer to have a dottering liar that put national security at risk, got 4 Americans needlessly killed in Benghazi (and lied about it) and participated in the transfer of 20% of our uranium to the Russians than someone who speaks crudely but accomplishes positive results. Liberals are so addicted to celebrity that if Hillary could dance, juggle or play an instrument she’d probably be President.