|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 6, 2018 12:13:33 GMT
Barbie is the admin this week  |
|
|
|
Post by Barbie Cessar on Apr 8, 2018 1:22:17 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Brooke Gentile on Apr 8, 2018 2:15:16 GMT
Cambridge Analytica, best known for assisting the 2016 presidential campaign of U.S. President Donald Trump is a company which is known for aiding campaigns."The company boasted it could develop psychological profiles of consumers and voters which was a “secret sauce” it used to sway them more effectively than traditional advertising could"(Reuters). This is an awful tactic which is using fake people to say good things about Trump, while bashing the opposing candidate. Cambridge Analytica also harvested data from 50 million Facebook users without their consent, which clearly is an illegal action taken by this company. They are using the data from millions of Facebook users to determine what political party they are, and to in my opinion change the mind set of our people. Some may say that doing so isn't a crime, but invading someone's personal information and intentionally showing them things such as false ads or fake news to change their own beliefs to me the absolute worst thing you could do. These innocent people have no idea that their information was looked into, and they definitely have no clue that what they are being shown is wrong in every way shape and form. This company is also said to have altered with the election of Kenya's president Kenyatta, which caused great controversy and grief for the people of Kenya. Immediately after the results of the election controversy broke out stating that the ballots were “rigged” and that there was a need for a re-election. This company should have no right to hold personal information and "rig" the voting as they do. I personally feel that a company monitoring what you like and who you follow in order to sway an election one way or another is extremely invasive, and Cambridge Analytica should face serious charges for doing so. This company is altering the minds of people all around the world to favor candidates that are clearly unfit for the job by showing them false ads that show otherwise, and ads that bash the opposing candidate.
|
|
|
|
Post by Olivia Girdwood on Apr 10, 2018 0:19:37 GMT
Cambridge Analytica is the modern day version of colonialism, only on a personal scale. Rather than colonialism be considered a country taking over an area, in this case colonialism is a company exploiting individuals without their knowledge of it and without consent. C.A. has gone behind many peoples backs, collecting information about how they think. While it may seem like it was completely un-consented, let this be in the back of the mind; how many people want to know what their spirit animal is? Or who their significant other is? Or what they would look like as the opposite gender? How many people have clicked on those questions/links on facebook and then clicked the “allow access to my profile” button when they got there? A lot more than one may think. This may be how most of people’s information is getting out, by hitting that button you give consent, to what exactly you may not know. There should be new laws put in place, specifically one's that regulate those buttons mentioned and have a link to an online explanation of what exactly they will have access to on your profile. One question that is running through my head though is in relation to this quote from the CA Commercial, “Please can [chief data officer of Cambridge Analytica] be absolutely clear: we did not use any GSR data in the work we did in the 2016 US presidential election”. Now why would they need the data, if they did not even use it? Are they using it for other purposes or just trying to defend themselves from more backlash until they cannot hide anything anymore? When one signs up for a social media account, they should be aware they are putting a lot of personal info out there, and, let’s face it, no one reads the terms and conditions; it is way too long. Social media is a choice, not everyone needs an account, people just need to be more aware of what they put their info into online. This is not the only company accessing information on social media sites, it is just one of the largest.
|
|
|
|
Post by Matt on Apr 11, 2018 13:58:42 GMT
First off I want to state that I do believe that this is and example of modern day colonialism. When we looked at colonialism in class, we saw well developed countries go into other countries that were not as advanced. Cambridge Analytica (CA) is doing the same thing just taking this idea to companies instead of major governments. "CA is going into countries that are not strongly developed in their government and undermining it." (via video from CNBC). This is allowing them to control what goes on in countries that are not developed and even in ones that are. For example, CA was tampering in the US election and other major elections up to this day. Another major example is the Facebook leak where peoples data was used to curb their beliefs mainly in politics. There should be new laws put in ALL countries where the internet is used. Data protection is a necessary because CA swayed about 30 MILLION people in there votes in the 2016 presidential election. (https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/04/facebook-cambridge-analytica-victims/557648/)
Now here is a question from me:
Do you think that companies like this should be outlawed or more heavily watched?
|
|
|
|
Post by Barbie Cessar on Apr 12, 2018 0:06:50 GMT
The CEO of Cambridge Analytica states, “As anyone who is familiar with our staff and work can testify, we in no way resemble the politically-motivated and unethical company that some have sought to portray.” (ca-commercial.com) I do not agree that this an example of modern day colonialism. CNBC.com also states,“You have a wealthy company from a developed nation going into an economy or democracy that is still struggling to get, you know, its feet on the ground and taking advantage of that to profit from that." However this is not the case with all thirty- two countries that Cambridge Analytica is involved in. Take the most recent U.S. presidential election for example where Trump hired Cambridge Analytica (CA) to campaign advertisements on facebook. I think this is a pretty big deal because of how many lives that this company has affected. This company has allegedly swayed Kenyan election. There should be some sort of punishment for adding more controversy to an election in which many people were killed. I also related this topic to an inference I made with ads that I see all over the internet. Something that I noticed is that after I browse amazon for a purchase that same purchase and items related to it will be in advertisements on a different website that I am looking at. I find it pretty concerning that amazon is able to track my browsing history and share it with other platforms. The CEO of Cambridge Analytica, Alexander Tayler, says it better himself, “I believe that we should all have more control over our data, and there should be more transparency over how and when it is used.”
|
|
|
|
Post by Meghan Miller on Apr 12, 2018 1:35:48 GMT
Cambridge Analytica is a information processing and distribution plant that is aimed at collecting information to use and manipulate for their clients. In this company’s involvement in Kenya, it seems as though it is “a bad example of modern day colonialism” as said by Christopher Wylie. Modern colonialism is the exploitation of developing countries by parts or the whole of developed countries in the world. Manipulation of elections, stripping of resources, and laundering are a few examples of exploitation of smaller countries. They reported in meddling in over thirty-four elections, which are a unstable time for many countries that have great divides. Companies will do as much as they can to get ahead and make a profit. Countries need to set regulations for these new mega-information companies, similar to how they created regulation on industry, to protect their citizens. Social media platforms should protect the information of its users, however, without proper legislation there is no guarantee of protection. Also social media does not always perform the best with protection of information, “Mark Zuckerberg said a quiz app built by a Cambridge University researcher leaked Facebook data of millions of people four years ago”(Times). Even if social media platforms want to protect user data, it is not always foolproof. For all we know, there is a clause in the user term agreements that says we forfeit our rights to give away this information to the social media companies. The New York Times’ statement that “the social media platform doesn’t deserve to hold personal information if it can’t protect it”. This is hard to say, because social media platforms are very open about the data they collect about its users and if a user does not want that data collected then they can stop using the site. Deserving is such a perspective based word that it is hard to qualify who deserves information.
My question: In the Quartz link, how many of the countries did you know and how many could you pin-point on a map?
|
|
|
|
Post by Laura Gutauskas on Apr 12, 2018 1:52:02 GMT
Cambridge Analytica is definitely a form of colonialism by being just another type of manipulation of privacy that is out of the consumer’s control. Colonized people became aware of their diminishing power when it was too late and as did we when it comes to this modern day exploitation of our unwilling data service to big companies. The company is meant to benefit developed and developing countries yet has only hurt both by bringing about distrust in the U.S. and U.K due to skewed election results, stock price drops which hurt investors, as well as causing violence in countries that are already vulnerable like Kenya. As stated by a former CA employee, “This is a company that goes around the world and undermines civic institutions of, you know, countries that are struggling to develop those institutions” (CNBC). Another issue is that Facebook only deactivates an account, meanwhile storing the information in case you change your mind, but it doesn’t actually delete the account and instead only becomes hidden. Most people could assume that it is the responsibility of the head of a social media app to prioritize privacy, although after the knowledge of this scandal came out, as well as instances in the past with other apps, it’s obvious that there needs to be at least some form of limitation when it comes to what these companies do with the data that they have in the palm of their hands since they apparently are incapable of managing it. There is an intense need for transparency when it comes to people’s information and data being recorded and sold without consent and it’s sad to say that it began in 2014 and the public has only found out recently. It was also noted that the parent company associated with CA, SCL, was to blame for “discouraging a client from touting his own honesty and trustworthiness” (Quartz). Both qualities should be of paramount importance to any company providing a public service or good and if this balance of trust cannot be respected, then a social media provider does not deserve to hold personal information at all.
|
|
jonah
New Member
Posts: 16 
|
Post by jonah on Apr 12, 2018 1:52:28 GMT
The Cambridge Analytica scandal has been a big news headline in the previous weeks and has caused nothing but fire upon Facebook among many different government officials that have used it. This scandal has caused a big uproar among people in all nations. This company has been around for many years and helped influence many elections. On the other hand what is so different from what this company has done compared to the marketing campaigns of major companies such as Coca-Cola or Pepsi. These countries have access to creating ads according to their customer audience. When creating a marketing campaign you market to a small targeted audience and put out ads specifically to those target customers or consumers. This sounds familiar, Cambridge Analytica is only doing this with government official campaigns. Yes, they were able to access information not granted by the users, which is wrong but if they want to put ads out to people about candidates for an election why can’t they? Are they not just another campaign paid to help out client? Don’t get me wrong they shouldn’t have taken information not granted by people on Facebook but they were also just trying to do their jobs. Also do games or ads on instagram and sometimes even Snapchat ask you if you want ads? These companies pay to put their ads on these carriers and if Cambridge Analytic pays to make your Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and Snapchat going people wouldn’t be crying about it. I am not saying what they have done is “right” but think about what other companies do to make money and to get customers. Now I do think to stop this type of information stealing from happening again social media platforms should have stricter privacy policy agreements and should try harder to make people read them. Come on who has really read the terms and conditions for anything especially when they are super long. If companies made their consumers read those there wouldn’t be so many private policy concerns.
|
|
|
|
Post by Maya French on Apr 12, 2018 4:48:53 GMT
I agree with the claims made by CNBC. The way that Cambridge Analytica is treating these lesser countries is easily comparable to the way the imperialistic West treated their colonies. David Ingram wrote for Reuters that “Cambridge Analytica was created around 2013 initially with a focus on U.S. elections, with $15 million in backing from billionaire Republican donor Robert Mercer.” A company that has a main objective involving politics and is backed by a billionaire Republican is likely going to take advantage of whatever it can to gain ground. Justina Crabtree wrote for CNBC ”Two of Cambridge Analytica's top executives, during undercover reporting by U.K. broadcaster Channel 4, spoke of operating in such developing countries as Mexico, Malaysia, Brazil and Kenya.” All of these countries mentioned could easily be influenced by an imperialistic super company. Clearly shown in the questionable ways they have been active in both the campaigns of politicians who were not expected to be elected. In paraphrasing Mark Turnbull, a Cambridge Analytica executive, Jina Moore wrote for The New York Times that ”the company twice rebranded Mr. Kenyatta’s political party, wrote his campaign speeches and his political platform, and twice conducted surveys of 50,000 people to ascertain Kenyan voters’ hope and fears.” Here Cambridge Analytica is clearly taking advantage of a weaker, distraught county in order to gain a reputation and popular name. Ingram quoted the company as to calling their tactics “secret sauce” that would “sway them more effectively than traditional advertising could.” Apparently this sauce was highly derived from Kogan. This app was found to be the source of Cambridge Analytica’s data and was what officially broke Facebook’s privacy policy. All of the blame seems to be falling on Cambridge Analytica and not Kogan. The media seems to be hardly covering its role in the breach.
My question is: Why do you think Kogan not being thrown into the media spotlight with Cambridge Analytica?
|
|
|
|
Post by Maddy Crighton on Apr 12, 2018 14:42:32 GMT
Cambridge Analytica, a political analysis firm, is under fire from multiple sources due to its Facebook data scandal. The company has been accused of using a third party app and stealing Facebook users’ private information in order to benefit political campaigns. The company has been involved in “more than 100 election campaigns in over 30 countries spanning five continents” (Quartz). The company is under new scrutiny for taking part in the Kenyan presidential election last year in 2017 as well as in 2013. According to The New York Times, the company has “wrote [Mr. Kenyatta’s] campaign speeches and his political platform, and twice conducted surveys of 50,000 people to ascertain Kenyan voters’ hope and fears.” Mr. Kenyatta had won the re-election just after two presidential results. The CEO of Cambridge Analytica gave a message on 23 March 2018, in which he stated that Cambridge Analytica had deleted all of the raw data from the Facebook users whose profiles were compromised. He then continues to argue that they have done further assurances to make sure that all the data had been deleted. Facebook’s CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, has also reached out and apologized for the scandal (Time). He states that the whole cause of this ongoing scandal was the fault of an app designed by a Cambridge University researcher that leaked the profile information of millions of people four years ago. Zuckerberg apologizes again and expresses his sorrow for not dealing with the issue more at the time. This has caused Facebook and their privacy policies to be also put under fire. Since then, their ‘stock value has dropped nearly $50 billion” (Time). This whole scandal is an example of modern day colonialism due to it has used personal data of others to win elections and other campaigns. Both Facebook and Cambridge Analytica are to blame for the leaking of data. Social media is responsible for protecting your personal information and Cambridge Analytica should not have used it to benefit others.
|
|
|
|
Post by Makayla Rieder on Apr 12, 2018 17:02:43 GMT
Millions of people’s personal information has been taken through facebook and allegedly shared with a political firm. This same firm was hired by President Trump during the election time, and it’s being investigated now whether it tampered with the election or not, and it isn’t only an issue in the United States, it may have also played a role in many other elections such as the 2017 Kenya election and many more around the world. The entirety of Facebook and Cambridge Analytica are under high scrutiny. This scandal is a modern day approach to Colonialism. It’s using the internet to control elections and ultimately get what they want. The use of the internet makes it modern and makes it seem very discreet, up until this point at least. Now that it’s out in the open it’s obvious to some people, but many still don’t understand the impact it’s made on elections. I think that countries should follow Europe’s lead and start making a few stricter laws on data protection, but the social media should ultimately be responsible for keeping people’s information safe. People should be able to trust that their personal information is safe even without the government stepping in. The social media outlets should feel an obligation to make sure that nothing sketchy is going on with people’s info, no matter if the government has laws or not. Social media outlets should hold some personal info because it can help people connect to others like them and some people like having their info out in the open, but no one wants their information used in things like elections or even just being seen by people that they don’t know, that’s why companies such as Facebook have security measures to keep that from happening. If they really can not protect it and the info is inevitably going to be spread about and seen by people who shouldn’t necessarily see it, than no, social media outlets and companies should not be able to have our personal information.
|
|
|
|
Post by maya borland on Apr 12, 2018 17:26:35 GMT
When Cambridge Analytica started their business it was said to be “providing consumer research, targeted advertising and other data-related services to both political and corporate clients” (Reuters). This company has expanded its profession to include helping politicians that are running for any office win over the peoples vote. They do this by going on the internet and looking at ordinary peoples facebook, instagram, or any social media accounts in order to find out what they like to look at. By having this data they give it to the politicians party so they can us the data to their advantage. Cambridge has found a way to do this without going into someone's personal information. That does not mean that Cambridge can not get to people's personal information they can, and at some points they have.I do not think this is an example of colonialism at all. Cambridge Analytica is not trying to help struggling countries they are trying to help big businesses and politicians that are running for office get ahead. As in the definition on CNBC, “ modern day colonialism is when wealthy companies goes into a struggling country and takes the profit that comes out of helping that country,” Cambridge is not doing that at all. They are however taking advantage of great politicians and businessmen that will do anything to win. Most importantly Cambridge is taking advantage in people’s trust in the internet and social media, they no longer feel that their personal information is safe. By following Europe in their march to enforce new internet protection laws in order to protect people's personal information. With more internet laws enacted Cambridge Analytica would by under very heavy restrictions, or possibly be shut down. I believe if Cambridge would be shut down that a lot more people would be at ease with the nolleg that the company is no longer searching for their private information. Nevertheless just because Cambridge would be out of business does not mean that there are still people out there that can hack into private accounts and take personal information and make a fake identity using your name. With the help of new internet laws, stronger fire walls, and better internet software these security breaches will become less likely to happen. It is however the website/ social media’s responsibility to upgrade their software and firewalls in order to keep personal information save. If the company can’t or won't do that than I say that they should not be able to keep my personal information.
Question: If your personal information was stolen off Facebook by random person and not a major company like Cambridge Analytica would you be more or less upset?
|
|
|
|
Post by Olivia Girdwood on Apr 12, 2018 20:21:25 GMT
brooke You made the point that basically every single thing they do is fake or false or wrong; I would like to read the source you are getting that from because I do not remember reading anywhere that is was all false information. These companies take what users like or follow on Facebook and make an inference as to what kind of person you are, i.e. liberal or conservative or neither type deal. They are not force feeding anything, it is a choice to read the sponsored posts or not as well as it is a choice to click on the articles that are posted to read them. While yes, taking that information without consent is wrong, take a look at my post. I do not believe they took EVERY person on there's info without their consent, it was just unknown what they were giving consent to when they hit the button. Not everything is false either, it just plays onto what they believe you, as defined by the information taken, would click on, read, share, etc. It is not false, but that does not mean they are not opinionated.
|
|
|
|
Post by Olivia Girdwood on Apr 12, 2018 20:24:14 GMT
@matt
In regards to your question, I believe these companies should be outlawed completely. There is no point for them other than to take information and do the dirty work for other people. By outlawing these companies, potential future office holders actually have to do their own research into what will affect their supporters more. They will have to know their audience themselves, prepare their own advertisements, etc. Make them work for the position they want rather than have everyone do the work for them. A president would not be a good president if they hired other people to do everything for them, that defeats the purpose of holding office.
|
|
