That's not facebook data, that's DNC/Obama data, accumulated over time by other canvassers including your friend. They've done that since before Facebook even existed.
Facebook's product is not selling that data, it's selling ads using the data. You can only sell the data once, you can sell the ads forever.
Well, yes & no: Facebook doesn't sell the data itself, but they do give it away when a user agrees when using an app or service mediated by Facebook. That seems to be what happened here: Users took a personality survey, and their data along with the data of their friends made its way to CA.
The "data" that you could get was just like what people listed in their profile page under "Interests" and things like that though. Which maybe tells you something, but not quite like home address and a list of political preferences
Yes. By not having them there makes them easier to read and understand. Seriously.
It is often the case that very simple stream operations end with ludicrously complex type signatures. By being able to var them it makes them far simpler to read.
There are a tiny minority of liberals who, rather than embracing breaking down barriers and a hunky-dory co-existence like the rest of us, erect barriers of purity and constantly call people out.
They're annoying.
On the other hand, that's the dominant mode for the entire right half of the spectrum so take their complaints with a grain of salt. And who gives the above-mentioned annoying liberals their biggest platform? Right wing media. Gotta feed the wurlitzer.
It's not a "differing and diverse political opinion" to think people of color and women are inherently less worthy, it's just racist/sexist.
> It's not a "differing and diverse political opinion" to think people of color and women are inherently less worthy, it's just racist/sexist.
It actually is both, which neatly answers the "why are you against diverse political opinions": Saying something is 'just' an 'opinion' doesn't absolve it from being racist/sexist.
Self described liberals. What happened to "live and let live"? At some point using too much violence turns even this into a thinly veiled religion with witch hunts.
The cure is measuring impact and the results of interventions accurately.
Still no one is willing to name the beliefs that 'you just can't say.' In McCarthyism it was communist/socialist beliefs. What political beliefs can't you espouse in public without being shunned? For Thiel it's probably the pro-authoritarian/pseudo-monarchist beliefs of the neo-reaction guys he runs around with. Gotta be honest, I don't mind those being shunned.
You just named some of the beliefs that you can't say. Basically you agree with Thiel.
One more thing to note: you've called the guy "pro-authoritarian/pseudo-monarchist". Is this how he describes himself ( I guess no )?
I grew up in a country with strong far-right culture. Nazis are calling themselves nazis.
Peter Thiel himself doesn't describe himself that way but the people he pays attention to explicitly do. Here:
Yarvin told Yiannopoulos that he had been “coaching Thiel.”
“Peter needs guidance on politics for sure,” Yiannopoulos responded.
“Less than you might think!” Yarvin wrote back. “I watched the election at his house, I think my hangover lasted into Tuesday. He’s fully enlightened, just plays it very carefully.”
and then combine that with the fact that Yarvin calls himself a Jacobite and you've got the monarchy/authoritarian connection.
The Thiel thing goes a whole lot deeper than Damore or some of the other common examples of "SJW" pushback.
They apply "MBA 101" to the system, best summarized as "extracting more money with better care as a distant second".
Was chatting with the doc during our second birth, the admins had just pulled a bait and switch on the practitioners. Instead of better equipment and surgery rooms, they were getting a few hundred more beds. Beds are easy to bill for. Surgery and actual care are way less profitable.
"You can't mug me, I have a right not to be mugged!"
It's not a law of nature. The laws of nature are things like "the strongest take what they want" and "cannibalism not only feeds you, it removes competitors from the food chain!". Inalienable rights must be enforced in order to exist.
> globalism has not worked out for substantial parts of the population in most developed countries
Pardon my language, but that's crap. Every developed country has seen yuuuuge profits from globalism.
What, not all of it trickled down you say? That's a distribution problem. It's not a problem with globalization.
Shrinking the pie in order to pursue a more fair distribution is some ass-backwards, rube-goldberg-machine nonsense. Take the profits, fix the distribution. Invest in infrastructure while you're at it.
What gives you the impression the 'distribution problem' isn't inherently linked with the deregulation that enabled these massively increased profits that only find their way to a select few?
'Inherently linked' is a misnomer. We're in the driver's seat here, we're not at the mercy of the weather. If we can set our trade policy, then we can set our tax policy and budget.
Raise taxes on the rich (short of making globalization a net loss to them), fund infra projects that put lots of blue-collar people to work, and in a generation we've got a bunch of cool shit on top of increased mobility and a better consumer economy. Everyone wins.
I'm all for having leaner operations as far as that goes, but let's say there's a new law restricting people from bribing elected officials, complete with a funded enforcement arm.. is that 'less' or 'more' government? 'less' or 'more' liberty?
You will never, ever, ever have a government that's too small to be worth bribing.
> You will never, ever, ever have a government that's too small to be worth bribing.
Sure, orchestrating a state that has 0 returns to bribery is likely not possible without complete anarchism. That being said, not every state is going to have ridiculous returns to bribery (or more generally, "bureaucracy hacking") that we see today.
Before he became public enemy #1 and his sketchy financial dealings were uncovered, what returns did Martin Shkreli get because of weird FDA rules about generics and clinical trials? There may be some aspects of the FDA that are beneficial such that the benefits outweigh the costs (although off the top of my head I can't think of any), but clearly a smaller FDA with less (arbitrary) rule-making and enforcement authority would not have allowed Shkreli to explode the price of Daraprim.
Shkreli is a single example, but this happens all the time. Environmental protection departments are reluctant to punish land developers because they depend on the various land developers' fees for their budget, but will go after individuals with exorbitant fines for relatively mundane infractions. And we could talk all day about the ridiculousness of zoning regulations and the various zoning commissars/bureaucrats who effectively make small-scale, grass-roots, spontaneous land development impossible, and essentially only allow large developers or corporations who can afford to navigate the legal minefield of zoning rules.
Ideally, I'd like to have the returns to bribery be zero, but if that's not possible, then somewhere less than one would be nice. I have seen no real estimates of the returns to bribery in the West today - I'm not even sure such research exists yet - but I would guess that the returns are significantly greater than 1.
If you want to talk about continuous, evidence-based, detailed and unsexy reform of various laws and regulations in search of efficiency, I'm all on board. We all do that at our day jobs.
But none of that shit fits on a bumper sticker saying 'taxation is theft' or whatever, and it'll never be a byline on Fox News. I couldn't even give a short, vaguely accurate description of the FDA trials process, let alone an expert description. I think there are 4 stages? That's where I cap out. It sounds like you couldn't, either. But the current system, whatever its flaws, doesn't allow people to ship poisonous babyfood like happened in China a few years ago. Successful reform preserves the whole "don't kill people" thing while increasing efficiency.
Platitudes about 'small government' and 'liberty' don't enable reform, they hamper it by banishing thought. Look at the tea party's legislative record.
Not even in feudal society. That "deed on file" was originally a relationship with the sovereign lord (usually the king) who actually "owned" the land. In fact, ownership in Anglophone countries is still referred to as "fee simple", derived from "fief"; you hold the land from your Lord the state, under a form of tenure that happens not to include any feudal obligations ("simple").
Facebook's product is not selling that data, it's selling ads using the data. You can only sell the data once, you can sell the ads forever.