After the reports that a data analyst group, Cambridge Analystica, had stolen millions of Facebook user profiles to then use as data for poltical campaign strategy, two journalists talk about the effects and how Facebook and the media are describing the aftermath of the discovery. It’s no shocker that the liberal media blames Facebook and says Trump voters were to stupid to notice, reports Breitbart.
“It’s an exceptionally complicated story because there are three versions of the events at the moment. There’s Facebook’s version of events, Cambridge Analytica’s version of events, then there’s the media’s version of events,” declared Allum Bokhari the Senior Technology Correspondent for Breitbart News.
Bokhari spoke with Breitbart’s Deputy Poltical Editor Amanda House to talk about this alarming revelation about the 2016 election and Facebook’s role in possibly deciding who the winner was.
First Bokhari explains the situation in a simple way:
“Facebook says that in 2014 a researcher at the University of Cambridge, Alexander Kogan, was allowed to access data on Facebook’s users as part of an academic project, which is totally above board and in line with Facebook’s terms of service. Facebook said that he then gave that data on around 200,000 Facebook users to Cambridge Analytica, which wasn’t authorized, and that they then told Cambridge Analytica to delete that data.”
Cambridge Analytica obviously did not do and now Facebook has suspended the app on the platform and is further investigating the situation.
Christopher Wiley is the whistleblower who first brought this issue to the forefront and said that Cambridge Analytica for data on 16 million Facebook users and now people are accusing Facebook of having a data breach or a data leak which is something they deny.
The two journalists then dive into how the liberal media has made this issue into a mass frenzy that is also demonizing conservatives in the poltical world.
“The media is kicking up this huge frenzy over the alleged use of Facebook data, the alleged mass-targeting of users with political ads. One of the headlines on the Guardian right now is ‘The Dark Art of Political Advertising Online,’ now there was no such frenzy when Obama used Facebook to harvest masses of data from users to the point where they actually changed their platform, changed their policies to make sure it couldn’t happen again, but they still let him keep the data.”
They also talk about the double standard from the liberal media and take an example from 2012 and how the Guardian chose to report about Obama’s use of Facebook information for voter data:
“There was no kind of panic about that and actually, here’s another headline from the Guardian in 2012, ‘Obama, Facebook, and the Power of Friendship: The 2012 Data Election,’ so that’s how they were covering it in 2012 when Obama was harvesting masses of data, whereas when there’s an allegation that Cambridge Analytica might have done so and used it to help Trump, they’re picking up this huge firestorm. So there’s definitely some double standards going on.”
The two then talk about that perhaps the liberal media is giving this situation such attention is because they are jealous at how much better a digital campaigner Donald Trump was compared to the liberals. He obviously made such a big impact that it led to his win in the election.
Then they move on to their knock out point about the left, and how they are continually insulting and demeaning anyone who voted for Trump:
“And the other thing is they think the average American voters are idiots because they’re saying that there’s been all this misinformation, this micro-targeting, this manipulation on social media essentially duped people into voting for Donald Trump. They can’t countenance the idea that maybe the elites were just out of ideas, out of legitimacy, and the voters just simply rejected them, and they made that decision on their own. They weren’t manipulated into doing so.”