YHK - yet another hacker news clone

Faster captcha: https://nitter.privacyredirect.com/TechEmails/status/2099214...

> Might be a challenge to some, but one can find out things if they pay enough attention to dat

Your first sentence is purely descriptive.

In your second sentence, I'm either "challenged" or blatantly too stupid to understand what you are trying to say.

Are you letting yourself being riled up by random X comments or is there some unknown part of the discussion I've never heard about?

counterpoint : animal rescues and shelters benefit greatly in getting adoptable animals before people scrolling, for super low cost to them, but of course because the scrolling people are seeing ads.

Agree with this. Regardless of the politics involved, this exchange seems pretty mundane in the grand scheme of corporate emails. Taking Bosworth at face value here, it sounds like both camps got the same advice, one acted on it in full, the other didn't, the party that did saw better results, and on top of that had a better ads/targeting strategy that maximized platform ROI. If we removed the political parties from this and made them two companies, I'm not sure HN would have much of an issue with its content.

FA and CA lied to users, and sent data from all the friends of users who filled out a form to CA

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook%E2%80%93Cambridge_Ana...

If that was the advice, it seems pretty terrible.

I think it would be an inmensely naive and unnuanced take to look at this email and think that the truth is finally being revealed about CA.

What's going on is that this is a very early email, and it's being brought up during discovery on a current legal proceeding (and it's not necessarily the first time it's made public).

It's also clear to anyone that knows about the case that this isn't an accurate explanation of what Cambridge Analytica was doing and why it was causing concern. There's no mention of Facebook Apps unrelated to politics being used to collect user data, and there's no mention of the data being collected not only of the users that install these apps, but also their friends (which would lead to the revision of the Graph API and the implementation of minimum demographic controls).

So to me it reads like a document that Meta puts forward to prove that Zuckerberg:

- Had no idea at the time of what was going on

- Was making efforts to understand what was going on

I haven't checked which party used this document as an exhibit in an argument, although this might be available information, but I'd wager a guess that it will or has been used by Meta.

So if you are looking at this document as "the truth uncovered", I'd suggest to look for more nuance instead of easy answers.

Hopefully it’s apparent to you now at least, that providing names and political affiliations to the current administration is dangerous.

I'm not sure what the claim or charge would be. While I wouldn't feel comfortable participating in political campaigns for democracies of other countries, and I would feel defensive about attempts to influence elections in my country, in the end these 'attacks' rely on actual citizens to vote, so the citizen still holds the power and makes the final decision, so I don't think it's an issue of critical severity, and I don't think it's illegitimate to try to persuade citizens of another country to vote in such matter at a constitutional level (excluding specific laws), even if I personally would feel icky about it.

Now there may be other potential issues that would elevate the matter, if disinformation is used, or if personal information about citizens is obtained illegitimately, then they could constitute crimes in their own right. Whether the crime is aggravated by its intent to subvert the democratic institution would be a legitimate question, but without the accessory crimes, I don't think political campaigns from non citizen actors are themselves illegal, just icky.