Books will be written about the 2016 election for many years. That is, if AG Sessions doesn’t impose a reign of censorship.
This article describes a part of the puzzle. It connects Bannon, Flynn, Mercer, Cambridge Analytics, and others.
https://narativ.org/2017/09/05/psychological-warfare-cambridge-analytica/amp/
Diane Ravitch's blog 
I love a good conspiracy!
And you really think that the DNC did NOT collect such data, right? Ask bernie Sanders why he was so upset that the DNC had “forgotten” to close the door to HIS data bank, and Clinton staff was able to look, copy and use the data.
Apart from that, if people are “naive” (euphemism for gullible, dumb) to share all that information with some quiz on line, they deserve to have their data used in the way it SEEMS, POSSIBLY, COULD HAVE BEEN used by a political campaign.
I receive a number of surveys throughout the year in the U.S. mail. I do not fill out any one of those. No matter how promising or alluring the title is. My privacy is my privacy!
If I give out information about purchasing, voting habits, I deserve to be “abused.”
Time and again you see the warnings: Don’t share personal information. Even places like FaceBook will tell you that – don’t share personal information with people you do not know!
LikeLike
That’s one of many reasons I shun Facebook.
LikeLike
I am with YOU, Diane re: FB.
I shun FB, too. Zuckerberg is evil.
LikeLike
L. Kinyon,
If you have a Facebook account, you are willingly sharing all your personal information with people you do not know.
If you post on the web and hackers sell your private likes and dislikes (based on what you read) to Cambridge Analytics so they can target special articles to you that appeal to your own belief system (“people should be responsible and not gullible”) to tell you exactly how the candidate they want to lose represents all that you despise. That may be “unwillingly” sharing all your personal information but it is shared nonetheless, as it was during the election.
LikeLike
No facebook account. No snapchat, No instagram. Seldom buy online.
I READ the user agreement with those programs. No DropBox. None of the social media.
And if people would actually read what it is they sign, it would safeguard them. But when the agreement spells out what it is they are going to do with the information they glean from your use, one should not be surprised that yes, they will know a heck of a lot about you after a few weeks of using these!
LikeLike
L. Kinyon Your note (and surrounding dialogue) should remind us of just how total privatization works. That is, a kind of “tipping point” occurs when the good effects and general nature of competition become moot for huge companies (like Google or Facebook or Microsoft–remember Ma Bell) who then become so big and integrated into how the entire culture/country/world works, that to NOT use their service puts individual persons and other companies “out of business” or at least at a terrible disadvantage.
The political choice and question at that juncture, and especially when the company ethos transforms to become “too big for its shorts,” and abandons its sense of place in the world, is (a) to bend to the will of the company, or (b) to nationalize so that the “for the people” ideal kicks in. It can hardly claim to be anyone’s idea of “freedom.” (But they never wanted competition in the first place–that’s what zero-sum-game means.)
LikeLike
L. Kinyon,
You post on here. No doubt you post on other sites. Every post you make reveals your preferences.
It’s shocking to see you thinking you are somehow safe when you keep posting so that people know everything about what your political leanings are and what sways you.
You’ve left a whole trail of evidence with every post and you havr no one to blame but yourself when the Russians or some other party hacks it. But you won’t even know it happened when you spout the propaganda you’ve been fed.
LikeLike
Gasp! Are you saying that the good doctor’s blog is mined by Russians, too??
LikeLike
L Kinyon So let’s all blame the victim–it’s their fault for being naive. Of course, there’s some truth to that–we all need to be more, . . uh, . . discerning especially in any public sphere
The more pervasive and scary point, though, is the march towards a “culture” of fear, mistrust, skepticism, pessimism and even nihilism, and the increments of closing the circle of civil culture, making fewer and fewer the places and numbers of those whom we can trust. I’m reminded of some of the narratives about “The Gulag” and in Russia where families set up talking perimeters in their homes and apartments where, at least there, it was safe to say what you want.
LikeLike
I taught my children to assume responsibility for their mistakes, not to try and blame someone else. I’ve always felt considered that to be a good way to go through life.
It seems, however, that more and more, our society is caught in the blame game. I freely handed someone ALL my information by answering every survey that comes my way – and now it is THEIR fault they are using it???
In my work environment I receive regular warnings NOT to respond to those things. In Digital Citizenship classes, students are warned time and again not to respond to personal questions.
And yet, the have the example of MILLIONS of adults doing exactly that.
I’m sorry, but IF you are one of those (generically) who shared your information with complete strangers, you deserve what happens.
LikeLike
L. Kinyon writes: “I freely handed someone ALL my information by answering every survey that comes my way – and now it is THEIR fault they are using it???”
To be wary of other people’s moral degeneracy (using false pretenses, or luring trusting people so you can use and abuse them without asking, or even if you ask but press them with equally unacceptable results) is not the same as accepting THEIR moral degeneracy as your own. (You might want to refer to Kant’s moral imperative, but my advice is to stay away from his cognitional theory.)
It’s not a faultfinding exercise as much as it is an expression of moral-ethical constitution–you and/or them? Are they slimy degenerate users and abusers or not? And how early are we willing to “cure” our children of their oh-so-awful sense of trust? I think the field of psychology might have something to say about that having studied young children who initially need to be trusting before they can grow into living well as adults. But my broader point you seem to miss–the circle is narrowing.
LikeLike
What I do not miss is the fact that you seem to find it “okay” for people to willingly hand out all sorts of personal information to strangers. Listening to people on their cell phones in public is an interesting exercise. They have no shame to talk about their extremely personal circumstances – lovers, lies, cheating – in full hearing of anyone in the store.
We seem to treat out online information the same way – without shame, concern.
There is trust, and then there is just plain irresponsibility…
LikeLike
L. Kinyon If you are making a distinction between their and our (or our students’) responsibility, and distinguishing it from a young naivete’, then I have no argument with you. If you are a teacher, especially in K-12, then, and along with parents, you are the mediator of those distinctions and the purveyor of students’ own social and moral development towards becoming an adult, or: being forewarned is to be forearmed. But really folks, how much wisdom can we cram into them before they are 18? That mediation, however, is between (a) blind and (b) reasonable trust and skepticism, and not between (a) blind trust and optimism, and (b) principled skepticism and pessimism. Even at 18, teachers are threading a needle and hoping that luck and general civility will take up the slack where their own background of experience and development is still lacking. Enter–the terrible need for parents and teachers to be intelligent and excellent leaders and mentors–especially when these internet idiots have so much access to their still-developing mind and comportment of character.
In other language, however, you are speaking writ-small (individual students), and I am speaking writ-large–in the context of the whole movement of our culture towards, again, narrowing the circle so that there is no such thing any more as a place for reasonable trust and optimism. And THAT’s on THEM.
In your note, I also think you are talking about a general malaise of psychological immaturity. But alas, again, we are speaking about not only what occurs and can occur in the institution of education, but also what occurs in our families and the influences that flow into that institution. The community and what that means to a culture.
LikeLike
L. Kinyon,
From the hack of your posts that was directed from Moscow, Cambridge Analytics knows exactly what kinds of things push your buttons and make you mad.
Every post you make here reveals what makes you tick. And every post you make elsewhere under a different name also provides that information. Plus your personal accounts. After all, when all your posts are hacked, it’s your fault for not being more careful.
They know exactly who you are. If you have Facebook, your feed already has special news story that feed into every opinion you have about blaming people for being fools and your smug knowledge that you “take responsibility” for every mistake and certainty that other people do not.
Just from your posts, you are an open book to me. But Cambridge Analytics knows more about you than I could eve dream. They know what you buy, what articles you read, what you like and don’t like. They have every one of your personality foibles down pat.
But don’t worry — when you are fooled by propaganda, you’ll have the smug certainty that it isn’t the propaganda at all, but your own strong belief system where you can easily discern those who must be blamed for their own failings and those who must be excused for them.
LikeLike
You tell him! Good work!
LikeLike
Diane Talk about totalitarian ambitions. Thanks for this article–I have great hopes in Mueller, but am also frightened for him and those working for him. But the article fits in with what Chris Hedges said in his recent talk.
LikeLike
https://ca-political.com/ca-advantage
I suggest everyone visit the website above to see how Cambridge Analytics works. This is the link to the “political operations.” Another category for analysis is commercial–capturing markets.
Also recognize that the “targets” for data analytics now include our students pre-K to post graduaate school whose every action on a computer is available for tracking, with privacy “terms of service” if you can see these worthless–written only to manage the risk of service providers like Cambridge Analytics, certainly not the students.
LikeLike
ross posted at https://www.opednews.com/Quicklink/The-Cyber-Plan-That-Tilted-in-Best_Web_OpEds-2016-Presidential-Election_Donald-Trump-Lies_Election-Cyber-Fraud_Election-Fraud-170926-373.html#comment674885
LikeLike