Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
"...offline data, purchased from data brokers or gathered in other ways..." There is no more privacy. We are literally living Orwell's 1984. And not just the USA. BTW, ever try to FIND where FB hides and buries the "settings" you can change? Ah, but the changes are LIMITED. http://wwlp.com/2018/03/25/what-facebooks-privacy-policy-allows-may-surprise-you/
"Privacy is dead." Truth. From the link provided by Maurice: "Zuckerberg sells access to data and data output. Period." The best illustration of this very thing is the fact that I could not use nor navigate in FB if my ad-blocker was not disabled for FB. ...And now FB is just a part of my history. It's been sitting dormant now, for almost a year. I suppose someone thinks my data is still valuable there. But the death of privacy is not unique to FB. Let's start with GOVERNMENTS everywhere. And the author of the article Maurice has linked also states: "You get what you pay for when it comes to privacy." I disagree 8 million percent. Nobody, anywhere, has the right to turn my privacy into a commodity. Period.
@Maurice, Good find. That is troubling to have all your communication made available. What's next? It is bad enough to have Amazon tracks my shopping habit and send me recommended items based on my browsing history, and time spent on each item. Really don't like someone profiling and tracking my shopping.
Bork got Borked.... Hmmmm. If I understand the writer, she is communicating that Judge Bork was a strict-constitutionalist, a conservative who didn't want to add or remove by thought or interpretation to what is in there. I'd have to say that for the constitution to continue to be relevant and foundational for us as time goes by, it BEGS to be interpreted. Like the bible. Except that the constitution is the basis for our system of laws, and the bible is literature, and indeed, not all of it means anything anymore.
That Robert Bork was some kind of honorable conservative jurist truly attentive and morally and intellectually faithful to the late 18th century is among the more astounding hunks of bullshit slung about by wingnuts and even genuine conservatives.
Bork was a constitution radical who "believed only 'political' speech was protected by the First Amendment; he, like many other conservatives, didn’t believe that women have the right to make choices about whether to carry pregnancies to term; he was critical of the idea that illegally obtained evidence shouldn’t be used in court; and while nominally agreeing that the 14th Amendment prohibited racial discrimination — as opposed to discrimination based on gender, which he thought it didn’t — in practice he opposed every single piece of legislation ever passed in order to guarantee the civil rights of African-Americans." (ASerwer American Prospect)
He also was anti-evolution, although that is not on point here.
I recall attempting years ago on the old Yahoo Messenger to use the word, "gobbledygook." It would not let me. When you give control to computer programs, that's what can happen. Or maybe a particular human or team of humans loaded-up the program with what it/they figured to be objectionable, whether it made any sense or not. Certainly, the final syllable was the issue. But it's not racist, and it's a perfectly acceptable descriptive noun--- which those who have ever done any READING would be quick to recognize. Geniuses in charge.
But in Obama’s case, direct users knew they were handing over their data to a political campaign. In the Cambridge Analytica case, users only knew they were taking a personality quiz for academic purposes.
What I really hate about "he done it too" is that it misses the point that no one, no way should do it. So we argue about the who instead of the what. Sometimes something is wrong no matter who does it. And the bad "what" remains, perhaps gets worse, and eventually becomes "they all do it" which, somehow, makes it OK. I dream of a world that makes sense.
@Anna You just described "whataboutism," the soviet propaganda technique Fox News uses. If some conservative political figure has done something wrong, there is an immediate attempt to say well, liberals do it too when A. what liberals have done is not morally equivalent and B. even on the off chance it is, it still does not lessen the crime of the current conservative politician in power. It is a classic distraction technique, a "pivot" to something else.
@Maurice Didn't make any mention of you personally, say anything about "your friends," etc. But you choose to go ad hominem. Your statement about Obama again is classic whataboutism. Even if what your claiming about Obama is true, how does that have anything to do with the situation we're in now? Obama is NOT president, Donald Trump is. You are just trying to distract everyone from what is really happening right now. If you think both are equally criminal, let's jail both Obama and Donald Trump. Would that be OK with you? Because if after a thorough investigation, both are proven true, it's fine with me.
@Maurice And why pray tell should the Obama campaign be investigated but to create a massive distraction from the criminal behavior of the current administration? What happened? Did they run out of Hillary crimes and emails to investigate?
I have no sympathy for Facebook Users. It is laughable if any Facebook user thinks their information is not being used in unforeseen ways. Even if you check the COOs apology, she is apologizing for the "Scandal" not the actual fact.
I have said many times we don't have to be hypocrites. All banks crooked, we still need some bank. However people who keep accounts with Wells Fargo and keep using Facebook totally deserve what they get. If people can stop smoking cigarettes WTF they can't give up F***book?
Comments
Bork was a constitution radical who "believed only 'political' speech was protected by the First Amendment; he, like many other conservatives, didn’t believe that women have the right to make choices about whether to carry pregnancies to term; he was critical of the idea that illegally obtained evidence shouldn’t be used in court; and while nominally agreeing that the 14th Amendment prohibited racial discrimination — as opposed to discrimination based on gender, which he thought it didn’t — in practice he opposed every single piece of legislation ever passed in order to guarantee the civil rights of African-Americans." (ASerwer American Prospect)
He also was anti-evolution, although that is not on point here.
Thank the Lord he was denounced and rejected.
More, if anyone still cares:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1987/08/13/the-bork-nomination/
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1987/11/05/the-bork-nomination/
politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/mar/22/meghan-mccain/comparing-facebook-data-use-obama-cambridge-analyt/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
I have said many times we don't have to be hypocrites. All banks crooked, we still need some bank. However people who keep accounts with Wells Fargo and keep using Facebook totally deserve what they get. If people can stop smoking cigarettes WTF they can't give up F***book?
Happily Antisocial
- Vintage Freak