On 6/20/2018 at 3:00 PM, YaDinghus said:

We could steep to the fake news trolls' level and employ their tactics. If hardly anyone cares about the sources, just don't bother about sources. Why not take money from private parties who share our views, and put that money to good use? Why hold standards that just slow down our output of stories and tie our hands?

Companies target individuals with fake news. Cambridge Analytica for example collected data on at least 87 million people in the U.S. during the 2016 election and target them with fake news. It isn't even clear if such marketing is illegal. 

Quote

 

Cambridge Analytica, which was hired by Donald Trump in 2016, has denied its work on the U.S. president’s successful election campaign made use of data allegedly improperly harvested from around 87 million Facebook users.

Former chief Alexander Nix, in earlier testimony to parliament’s media committee, also denied the political consultancy had ever been given data by Aleksandr Kogan, the researcher linked to the scandal.

On Wednesday he said it had received data from Kogan.

“Of course, the answer to this question should have been ‘yes,’” Nix said, adding that he thought he was being asked if Cambridge Analytica still held data from the researcher.

He denied deliberately misleading British lawmakers and said the company had deleted the data, which had been of no use.

The committee is investigating fake news, and focusing on the role of Cambridge Analytica and Facebook in the 2016 Brexit vote as well as the Trump election.

In lengthy, and often testy, questioning by lawmakers, Nix apologized for an undercover film in which he said Cambridge Analytica’s online campaign played a decisive role in Trump’s election win.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-facebook-privacy-britain/ex-cambridge-analytica-boss-admits-getting-facebook-data-from-researcher-idUSKCN1J222M

 

 

On 6/24/2018 at 1:22 PM, Ten oz said:

Companies target individuals with fake news. Cambridge Analytica for example collected data on at least 87 million people in the U.S. during the 2016 election and target them with fake news. It isn't even clear if such marketing is illegal. 

 

It should be illegal

25 minutes ago, YaDinghus said:

It should be illegal

I agree but how would that law work? For example if I started PM'ing Fake news to every member of this board it wouldn't be a crime. The mods would eventually kick me off the site but no crime would have been committed. 

3 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

I agree but how would that law work? For example if I started PM'ing Fake news to every member of this board it wouldn't be a crime. The mods would eventually kick me off the site but no crime would have been committed. 

Tbh I don't know. There arealready plenty of laws that can't be enforced practically, and I am not all too keen on addinganything to this list. My statement was primarily emotional

Just now, YaDinghus said:

Tbh I don't know. There arealready plenty of laws that can't be enforced practically, and I am not all too keen on addinganything to this list. My statement was primarily emotional

I think some sort of law requiring bots (to include information shared, liked, or tagged by bots) be identifiable. Social media companies could more easily just delete accounts or remove post from those in violation. I also think the propaganda would be far less effective if the person receiving it understand it was generic info routed to them by a marketing algorithm. Just as product labels in stores must contain information about their origins and contents so too should products online.  

10 hours ago, Ten oz said:

I think some sort of law requiring bots (to include information shared, liked, or tagged by bots) be identifiable. Social media companies could more easily just delete accounts or remove post from those in violation. I also think the propaganda would be far less effective if the person receiving it understand it was generic info routed to them by a marketing algorithm. Just as product labels in stores must contain information about their origins and contents so too should products online.  

That might rein it in somewhat. And future politicians are bound to be less inept at technology, which is a big problem with todays lawmakers

41 minutes ago, YaDinghus said:

That might rein it in somewhat. And future politicians are bound to be less inept at technology, which is a big problem with todays lawmakers

inept at technology?

That's a pretty puny short list.

how about

inept at:-

technology

lawmaking

politics

economics

public speaking/tweeting

spelling

...

 

On 6/27/2018 at 11:59 PM, studiot said:

inept at technology?

That's a pretty puny short list.

how about

inept at:-

technology

lawmaking

politics

economics

public speaking/tweeting

spelling

...

 

Even if future politicians remain inept at all other things above, they'll at least be technological natives :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D 

Your point is however well taken