Isn't classic neoliberal a contradiction in terms? What do you understand by the expression?
Presumably you accept that Facebook isn't a charity? If you accept that, I assume you also accept that their aim is to make money to pay for the infrastructure to support 87m users and to make a bit for their shareholders? If you accept that, how can you not accept that is was naive for people who use it not to realise that a 'free' service was being paid for in some way?
I'm surprised that you want to talk about the subject though. I have no doubt that the media is working on how the data mining was done to support Labour's slick digital operation.
(But did you threaten to overrule him ?)
I ask again Mr Avon, did all your chickens survive their period of shameful neglect whilst you were on holiday ?
Which came first Chicken or the Egg?
Answer given by a local University suggests it was the Egg ! After scrambling their brains , research suggests that a poacher came across the first ever egg and incubated it next thing a young chick , The Poacher E Curry ONFA played a key role in the Eggseptional find a MAJOR breakthrough some say ,
And if ya beleerve that yul beleerve owt
Yours in Health
Colonal Saunders !! KFC Hons
Am gunna spray C N in big letters on Kerr's dooar. Chicken Neglector. Shameful carry on.
@ kerr
There you go ............
https://www.tremr.com/phil-orr/neoli...sm-for-dummies
I know facebook isn't free but my 17 years old step daughter didn't , why would she ? , she's naive because she's 17 , how would that be a human flaw ?
Generally speaking most younger people sign up to Facebook at a very early age to simply connect with friends and remain onboard into adulthood , do you think they should have suddenly woken up when they reached voting age and beyond ?
Did facebook tell everyone personally what they were doing ?
If not why not ?
Surely if there wasn't anything untoward going on then it wouldn't be a problem would it ?
Why was the CEO of Facebook summoned to the US congress to answer questions regarding the use of people's data ?
Why does a Parliamentary Committee want to speak to him also ?
Why not invite 87m million people to Congress instead and have them explain their collective naivety ?
I think you will Labour's use of technology is rather more transparent and you get the choice to acknowledge it or ignore it , you make that choice yourself .
Nice balanced link there, animal. Do you use that site a lot? What has 'putting money in charge of social policy' got to do with the allegations against Cambridge Analytica?
I should imagine that your step daughter was, like every other user, not asked to pay to use Facebook. Of course the young lack the sophistication, or perhaps it should be the cynicism, that comes with the passage of time, but isn't it insulting for you to suggest that they couldn't ask themselves how their 'free lunch' was being paid for?
Facebook users give the company two things - time and data. Why shouldn't they at least wonder how the company is turning that into money?
The controversy arises out of the opacity of the use of the data. I suspect that many users worked out that their data was being used to target them with advertising, but not many realised that it was used to target them with political messages.
For all the fuss, I question whether either type of targeting achieved very much. There is certainly evidence to suggest that advertising on FB achieves very little.
I'm fascinated by your knowledge of Labour's digital operation. It's about time someone lifted the lid. Are you categorically stating that they do not use mined data to target social media users? How can you do that?
"For all the fuss, I question whether either type of targeting achieved very much. There is certainly evidence to suggest that advertising on FB achieves very little."
Where's the evidence, show us?
(Did you threaten to overrule him Mr Howard ?)
Mr Avon, did all your chickens survive their period of shameful neglect whilst you were on holiday?