OT: Facebook: are its days numbered?

[AltyPie]

So Facebook’s own investigation into whether dodgy ads on Facebook influenced the referendum is good enough for you to decide that they didn’t influence the referendum? An investigation reported on in December, before the vast majority of people had even heard of Cambridge Analytica or data harvesting.

Tell you what, get back to pant sniffing or your blow up woman or whatever else it is you do when you’re not pretending to be a Notts fan.

You can't even tell the difference between a Russian bot and a real person - you've admitted it.

Also why do you keep going on about pant sniffing?

[Elite_Pie]

In 2008, MP’s voted 346 For, 206 Against, to ratify the Lisbon Treaty. That’s 63% For. That’s less than your 2/3 (66.6%). As a man of principle, will you therefore now be taking the position that the Labour led 2008 Govt should never have ratified the Lisbon Treaty and that we should go for a hard Brexit immediately?

A very silly comparison of two very different things. You are usually better than this alty. The two big differences are that the Lisbon Treaty vote was for MPs and not Joe Public, and the terms of the Lisbon Treaty were far better defined than this vague idea called Brexit.

The folly of allowing the public to make this decision has become more and more obvious since crosses were placed on the ballot paper on 23rd June 2016. It has become apparent that both the leave and remain campaigns fed the voters a pack of lies, and even this far on there is still very little idea of what 'Brexit' will actually mean. I suspect it won't be what the majority of leave voters hoped it would be. It must be one of the most absurd decisions in political history to allow an ill-informed electorate to vote on a mythical subject.

[AltyPie]

A very silly comparison of two very different things. You are usually better than this alty. The two big differences are that the Lisbon Treaty vote was for MPs and not Joe Public, and the terms of the Lisbon Treaty were far better defined than this vague idea called Brexit.

The folly of allowing the public to make this decision has become more and more obvious since crosses were placed on the ballot paper on 23rd June 2016. It has become apparent that both the leave and remain campaigns fed the voters a pack of lies, and even this far on there is still very little idea of what 'Brexit' will actually mean. I suspect it won't be what the majority of leave voters hoped it would be. It must be one of the most absurd decisions in political history to allow an ill-informed electorate to vote on a mythical subject.

Not silly at all. You have now drawn the distinction between MP’s and voters which is something Sid did not in his original post days back which was this:
“My position was and remains that a major constitutional change should require a 2/3 majority.”
I have asked him twice whether he thinks because of this statement he thinks the Labour Govt should not have ratified Lisbon. I am yet to get a reply from him.

Your 2nd paragraph does strike me a bit like “I don’t like the result, so I’ll rubbish it”. I don’t see how you can claim to know how well or poorly informed any portion of the electorate is at any election (Referendum or General). It seems like you’re a short step away from questioning the whole idea of Universal Suffrage. Are you?

Lastly, because BFP’s pseudo-intellectual cerebral cortex will be fried if he’s got this far, concerning Brexit, people hardly ever mention that during the 2005 election campaign (which Labour won) the Labour Party said there was no need to debate the Lisbon Treaty because there would be a Referendum later. Labour won, they went back on their promise to hold a Referendum and ratified Lisbon and handed over sovereignty by doing so. They did this without asking me and IMHO this is the referendum we should all be talking about – the one we never had. All Brexit does is right a wrong. This is my opinion, part of the large reason for my Leave vote and people can disagree with me and call me uninformed if they want. As for the other millions that voted both ways, I don’t claim to know all their reasons or how well informed they were.

[Elite_Pie]

Your 2nd paragraph does strike me a bit like “I don’t like the result, so I’ll rubbish it”. I don’t see how you can claim to know how well or poorly informed any portion of the electorate is at any election (Referendum or General). It seems like you’re a short step away from questioning the whole idea of Universal Suffrage. Are you?

No. I like the idea of a democratic vote. I accept we should have a Conservative government even though I didn't vote for them. They won more seats than any of the other parties managed to win and that's how our system works. However, I think you are taking the easy way out by saying "I don’t claim to know how well informed they were". Hindsight has proven beyond any doubt that both sides based their campaigns on lies and scare stories, but my main point is that not a single person had any real idea on what the word 'Brexit' would end up meaning. They still don't, so the vote should never have taken place. It did, so now we have to abide by the result and suffer the consequences. While we're on the subject of democracy, the fairest way to democratically represent the 52/48 vote split would be a very soft Brexit. It would have needed nearer 80/20 to justify the hard Brexit you mentioned.

[AltyPie]

No. I like the idea of a democratic vote. I accept we should have a Conservative government even though I didn't vote for them. They won more seats than any of the other parties managed to win and that's how our system works. However, I think you are taking the easy way out by saying "I don’t claim to know how well informed they were". Hindsight has proven beyond any doubt that both sides based their campaigns on lies and scare stories, but my main point is that not a single person had any real idea on what the word 'Brexit' would end up meaning. They still don't, so the vote should never have taken place. It did, so now we have to abide by the result and suffer the consequences. While we're on the subject of democracy, the fairest way to democratically represent the 52/48 vote split would be a very soft Brexit. It would have needed nearer 80/20 to justify the hard Brexit you mentioned.

Ok, interesting points. Not sure though, how you reconcile "liking the idea of a democratic vote" with your discontent at the result because you think the electorate was ill informed and lied to. I'm interested to know if you think the result is any more "valid", in your opinion, when we have a General Election. In your opinion, are the electorate any better informed and less "lied to" in a General Election?

On a different note, and this is genuine, I thought your one about contacting the emergency services by 2nd class post was a cracker. I only saw it a few days after you posted it and it made me chuckle.

[sidders]

Not silly at all. You have now drawn the distinction between MP’s and voters which is something Sid did not in his original post days back which was this:
“My position was and remains that a major constitutional change should require a 2/3 majority.”
I have asked him twice whether he thinks because of this statement he thinks the Labour Govt should not have ratified Lisbon. I am yet to get a reply from him.

Your 2nd paragraph does strike me a bit like “I don’t like the result, so I’ll rubbish it”. I don’t see how you can claim to know how well or poorly informed any portion of the electorate is at any election (Referendum or General). It seems like you’re a short step away from questioning the whole idea of Universal Suffrage. Are you?

Lastly, because BFP’s pseudo-intellectual cerebral cortex will be fried if he’s got this far, concerning Brexit, people hardly ever mention that during the 2005 election campaign (which Labour won) the Labour Party said there was no need to debate the Lisbon Treaty because there would be a Referendum later. Labour won, they went back on their promise to hold a Referendum and ratified Lisbon and handed over sovereignty by doing so. They did this without asking me and IMHO this is the referendum we should all be talking about – the one we never had. All Brexit does is right a wrong. This is my opinion, part of the large reason for my Leave vote and people can disagree with me and call me uninformed if they want. As for the other millions that voted both ways, I don’t claim to know all their reasons or how well informed they were.

Was there a referendum on Lisbon? No, there was not. As Elite says, 2/3 of the people is a different matter from 2/3 of MP's. One has to hope that MP's are better placed to judge EU issues than the average football supporter. So a simple majority in both houses was sufficient in my opinion.
You asked why 2/3. Two reasons. Because that was the majority that took us in in 1975. Because historically many countries which have opted for a plebiscite about constitutional change have gone with a 2/3 majority to avoid precisely the kind of split we are now faced with in the UK. Why should I shut up and put up when I remain convinced that this is a disastrous error. We could have used that referendum as a means of further negotiation to obtain the change needed in the EU. WE had them over a barrel but let the likes of Farrago lead us down his garden path. What a twonk that man is.

[Elite_Pie]

Ok, interesting points. Not sure though, how you reconcile "liking the idea of a democratic vote" with your discontent at the result because you think the electorate was ill informed and lied to.

That's only half the problem. As I said before, the main thing that makes the decision to hold the vote a farce is that no-one knew what they were voting for. I've mentioned this before, I was on holiday at the time of the vote but the night after I overheard a bloke in a Portuguese bar say "Great result, I just hope they've sent all the Poles back by the time I get home". I somehow think the Brexit deal we end up with won't be quite the one he thought he was voting for!

I'm interested to know if you think the result is any more "valid", in your opinion, when we have a General Election. In your opinion, are the electorate any better informed and less "lied to" in a General Election?

I think the GE result is more valid simply because it's much clearer what you are marking your 'X' for. As for the electorate being better informed and less lied to, maybe slightly. I've never known any party carry out all it's manifesto promises.

[MAD_MAGPIE]

I don't disagree with democracy just referenda when you're asking people with insufficient knowledge to make a judgement about one of the most important decisions since the war. At the very least it should have required a two-thirds majority. Then I wouldn't have quibbled.
As for your sarky follow-up post, let's just wait and see what Mueller comes up with, shall we? All of this sh*t is deeper than you or I have the capacity to explore.

I understand what you are saying, but isn't the fundamental part of democracy that the majority is the majority whether that's a majority of 1 or 1 million?

[upthemaggies]

I understand what you are saying, but isn't the fundamental part of democracy that the majority is the majority whether that's a majority of 1 or 1 million?

As the saying goes, "Democracy is the counting of heads, not what’s in them"

[exilecanada]

Even though a very light user of Facebook I have downloaded all the data they say they hold about me and even then there is more than I'm comfortable with. Now, if I delete it will it really be deleted?

To quote a line from The Eagles 'Hotel California'......"You can check out but never leave"