The future of Facebook

193 posts / 0 new
Last post
progressive17 progressive17's picture

Although 34 was not stratospheric as a P:E for Facebook, 30 is still no bargain. Facebook's price to book is however a stratospheric 6.455:1. From an accounting standpoint, then, Facebook's shares are now worth $25.74. If Facebook's annual earnings were $6 per share, and they declared a quarterly dividend of $0.26 a share at a price of $25.74, I would consider them worthy. As it is now, their earnings per share are less than the dividends per share I expect to receive when I invest my money. This is weak and uninvestable.

Facebook is a speculative bubble, and it is not very good at productively using the capital allocated to it by the market. Its price is also very sensitive to non-financial factors.

They would not have a clue as to how to put money in your brokerage account every quarter. They have no desire to. They think you will keep bidding the price up based on the fact that you think you are smarter than everyone else. Yet you never sell when you are up. You bask in the glow when you should be selling and brag about how up you are. You sell when you are down in a panic, when what your instincts are really telling you is to buy more. 

If you are in it for the dividends, as I am for my pension, I like it when shares go down. It means my dividend yield goes up per dollar invested.

By the way, another safer way to short an issue is to go long on what you think will defeat it. Again, your potential for loss would only be limited to your investment. I do have one idea though. The Canadian Imperialist Bank of Corruption will not replace Facebook.

NorthReport
NDPP

The Jimmy Dore Show

https://youtu.be/fDMLtkqDEeI

https://youtu.be/oBCGmHDluoY

Facebook suspends data research firm with Trump ties. 

 

NDPP

Facebook, Cambridge Analytica and Surveillance Capitalism

https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/03/22/facebook-cambridge-analytica-and...

"Facebook, in particular, is the most appalling spy machine that has ever been invented." - Julian Assange

Mobo2000

It's such a weird spy machine though -  you need to opt-in to be spied on.   There was a joke running around my workplace a few years ago about how the US should give up on waterboarding and just give everyone in Guantanamo a facebook account.

Progressive17, will you be my broker?   I am absolutely fascinated by your post 52.   Its almost like you are speaking a different language.

 

NDPP

Behind The Facebook Data Scandal: The Drive To Censor the Internet

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/03/23/pers-m23.html

"Given the diminutive scale of the role played by Cambridge Analytica in the election campaign, what accounts for the massive campaign in the press for users to 'Delete Facebook'? The real issues underlying the campaign can be seen in another report published on the front page of the New York Times Wednesday...The growth of working class opposition is the real target of the media firestorm over Facebook's alleged data lapse. The aim of the press campaign is to create the climate for the introduction of even more explicit censorship measures..."

NorthReport
NorthReport

$159.39 Down 5.50 today

NorthReport
Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
It's such a weird spy machine though -  you need to opt-in to be spied on.

Amazon's "Alexa":  Hold my beer and watch THIS!

NorthReport

Why We Finally Feel Betrayed by Facebook

As they realized where their data went, people on Facebook felt betrayed.

We should. Now, more than ever before, it’s clear that any of us with a Facebook profile has surrendered an unknowable quantity of information about our lives, our interests, our locations, our aspirations—and about ourfriends, our friends’ interests, our friends’ locations, and our friends’ aspirations. That second layer of enigmatic data sharing is part of what makes this Cambridge Analytica scandal especially scary. For years, granting Facebook app developers access to your info also gave them access to your friends, who never intentionally gave anyone permission. It’s absolutely frightening to comprehend what else you’ve given up.

This latest Facebook privacy scandal feels familiar and outrageous at the same time. It feels normal, because Facebook has been violating its users’ privacy for years. You might even say that people willingly gave up their privacy rights in exchange for this free service that made it easier to keep in touch with friends and family, privacy be damned. That’s probably what Zuckerberg would like you to believe. Most people don’t pay much attention to the terms and conditions that explain the actual arrangement when you connect your Facebook profile to another app or website. They just click “allow” because that gets you to the part of the internet they want to use. Then, the targeted ads start flowing in, and before long, you forget you’re being tracked.

A group of Android users were recently reminded of this shifty exchange. They had, at some point, granted the Facebook app the right to collect all of their phone calls and messages. (According to Facebook, reading texts would make it easier to find confirmation codes.) But some were surprised this week, when developer Dylan McKay downloaded his Facebook data to find out exactly how much was being collected only to discover that Facebook had logged all of his text messages and phone call history. Ars Technica journalist Sean Gallagher reported the same startling discovery. I’m an iPhone user and checked my own Facebook data but found nothing had been logged. This is likely because the permissions affected the Android app and not the iOS app. But when developers and tech journalists are getting surprised by how much of their data is on Facebook’s servers, we know that Facebook’s everlasting privacy problem isn’t getting any better. It actually seems to be getting worse.

The real issue seems to be less about what Facebook is collecting now or will collect in the future. It’s the realization that you’ve handed over an accumulation of years and years of data—data you gave Facebook back when it first introduced that big blue login button on sites around the web, data you gave to app developers who turned around and scooped up your friends’ data, too. Facebook has changed its data collection and retention polices so much over the years, it’s practically impossible to know what you’ve shared and to whom.

I’m not here to tell you to delete you Facebook profile. There are plenty of guides to using Facebook without giving away too much of your data, if that’s what you want to do. What I hope to do is add some clarity about why this week’s news has been so maddening. It feels that way, I think, because it feels like data collection is not just out of control but has always been out of control. And that chaos is finally having real world consequences—perhaps the Trump presidency, but even more frightening is what could come. Steve Bannon and his goon squad got this guy elected, and you and all your friends helped, even if you didn’t know it. Even still, it’s not clear that the date from 50 million Facebook profiles acquired by Cambridge Analytica enabled that. We still don’t know how much or what kind of data is still out there in the wild, though.

This in mind, I played a fun game a couple days ago called Revoke the App. What you do is, go into your Facebook settings, click the Apps icon on the left rail, and then feast your eyes on up to a decade’s worth of giving your data to Facebook apps for free. To win the game, you have to revoke every app from accessing your Facebook data. It’s a wild ride, too. I found an app called “NorthKorea” that didn’t have an icon, and I have no memory of signing up for NorthKorea. Yet there I was, wondering what it had been collecting.

 

 

https://gizmodo.com/why-we-finally-feel-betrayed-by-facebook-1824032214

NorthReport

‘A grand illusion’: seven days that shattered Facebook’s facade

 

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/mar/24/cambridge-analytica-w...

NorthReport
NDPP

Facebook Data Downloads Highlight What the Social Network Knows About You

https://on.rt.com/91to

"...New Zealand software developer Dylan McKay highlighted the issue after he downloaded his data from Facebook and found that the company had recorded his text and call data. The furor led Julian Assange to post instructions Saturday about how to access the data online. In a follow-up post, the Wikileaks founder called the company's CEO Mark Zuckerberg a 'megalomaniac'...

"What to see what Facebook has on you (at a minimum)?

1. Go to facebook.com/settings

2. Click 'Download a copy of your Facebook data'

3. Wait for automatic email from Facebook

4. Download the ZIP file link in the email

5. Extract it and open 'html/index.htm'

https://twitter.com/JulianAssange/status/977447495239319553

NorthReport

Victoria tech firm AggregateIQ denies link to data-miner at heart of Facebook controversy

http://www.timescolonist.com/news/local/victoria-tech-firm-aggregateiq-d...

NorthReport
NorthReport
NDPP

The Truth About Cambridge Analytica-SLC: Psy-Ops by UK-US Deep State Actors

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/03/26/camb-m26.html

"Cambridge Analytica and SLC were not acting as proxies for the Russian state but rather for significant sectors of the US/UK military and intelligence apparatus. A link to the heavily redacted report in Project Duco is here. Note that intellectual copyright is held by the government's science and technology laboratory at Porton Down, just eight miles from Salisbury..."

 

Canadian Firm Aggregate IQ Used To Sidestep Brexit Campaign Spending Limits, Whistleblower Alleges

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/aggregateiq-aiq-brexit-vote-leave-beleave...

"Documents obtained by CBC News show Wylie sent a fateful email to AIQ co-founder Silvester in August 2013. He described Silvester as a longtime colleague and mentor; The two had both worked for Canada's federal Liberal Party. In the email, Wylie told him about his new job as director of research for a British political consulting firm called SCL, the parent company of what would become Cambridge Analytica.

'We mostly do psychological warfare work for NATO', Wylie wrote in the email. And he attached a brochure. Might Silvester want to join the cause? 'You need a Canadian office,' Silvester wrote back later that night. In November, Silvester and co-founder Zack Massingham signed their first contract with SCL. 

They named their company Aggregate IQ - and although Wylie says it was technically separate from SCL, he says  it was internally referred to as the British company's Canadian arm..."

Rev Pesky

Another question is how much information Facebook (or any of the other 'social' media) have about people who have interacted with Facebook subscribers, but have never been on Facebook themselves?

If Facebook has kept track of cellphone conversations, how do we know that it only kept track of conversations between Facebook users? 

In other words, Facebook may have a server farm full of data from people who have never been on Facebook, and never given permission for their information to be harvested.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
If Facebook has kept track of cellphone conversations, how do we know that it only kept track of conversations between Facebook users?

I have to assume that if FB has some record of who you called, using the telephone system, it's because you use FB on your phone, and gave FB permission to access the "phone" component of that phone.  Otherwise I'm at a loss as to how FB would know who you called.

But if I call you (using old POTS land lines, let's say) and I share the fact that Rev. Pesky and I talked on the phone, there's not much you can do about that, other than (presumably) never talk to me on the phone again (since I'll share it with whomever I want).

We can pretend this is some kind of "deep surveillance technology" issue, but what it comes down to is people volunteering information.  You don't need 512 bit encryption to keep your affairs private if you can bring yourself to just not share them.  People putting everything out there voluntarily is so different from an illegal wiretap.

FWIW, I do have a FB account.  About a decade ago, a student sent me an invite to "friend" on FB, and so I created an account.  I've since used it a few times to "sign in" to some online games my wife plays, and to keep track of a few ongoing stories I'm interested in.  If someone asks to "friend" me and I know them, I accept, but I don't post pictures of my cereal, or update everyone on my ennui, or repost "breaking" stories about cures for cancer or whatever.  So I elected, the other day, to download my FB data to see just what they know about me, and every single solitary bit of it is stuff I allowed them to know about me.

No cell phone calls.  No address books.  But they seem to know when I joined a FB group (duh!) or when I made a post (duh!) or the limited personal info I volunteered when I created my account (duh!).

We've lost our ability to not share everything, 24/7 in the hope of "likes".  That's the problem.

 

Aristotleded24

This is terrible! I mean, to think that information that people gave up of their own free will was turned around and used to manipulate them? It had to be the fault of the social media network! And the fact that the Trump campaign used the data they collected to try and manipulate public opinoin and emotion for politicla gain? This is EVIL and an ABOMINATION!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Saint Barack of Obama never resorted to manpulation of public sentiment for political gain.

Oh wait...

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
This is terrible! I mean, to think that information that people gave up of their own free will was turned around and used to manipulate them?

We should surely unpack this all.  What information was given to whom and why?  Who had access to what?  Those are legit questions.

But FB isn't "spying" on us, is all.  If they gave information that we gave them to someone else, after we said that's not OK, that's a problem.  But if we checked off a box giving them permission to do that, because we needed so much to see what our old high school friends look like now, it might still be a problem, but it's OUR problem if we volunteered that information. 

Facebook might be fifth on the list of necessities, after air, water, food and shelter, but really, FB is absolutely nothing like those other four.  And if we let them have what we type into their web page boxes, because it was so important that we tell everyone all about what we had for breakfast, that's not on them, it's on us.

NDPP

Snowden's Message on Facebook's Data Leak Scandal With Cambridge Analytica

https://youtu.be/RR3UIN94r70

 

Zuckerberg, Assange & Leaks

https://youtu.be/UHPlxa5j7HM

"What's the difference and what do they have in common?"

NorthReport

Should You Quit Facebook?

As scandal brings new urgency to the question, here are some resources to help you decide.

https://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2018/03/26/Quit-Facebook/

Aristotleded24

Mr. Magoo wrote:
Quote:
This is terrible! I mean, to think that information that people gave up of their own free will was turned around and used to manipulate them?

We should surely unpack this all.  What information was given to whom and why?  Who had access to what?  Those are legit questions.

But FB isn't "spying" on us, is all.  If they gave information that we gave them to someone else, after we said that's not OK, that's a problem.  But if we checked off a box giving them permission to do that, because we needed so much to see what our old high school friends look like now, it might still be a problem, but it's OUR problem if we volunteered that information. 

Facebook might be fifth on the list of necessities, after air, water, food and shelter, but really, FB is absolutely nothing like those other four.  And if we let them have what we type into their web page boxes, because it was so important that we tell everyone all about what we had for breakfast, that's not on them, it's on us.

Could you not tell that my post was sarcastic, and that everyone is mad at Facebook when the real issue is that people who signed up for Facebook were the ones who put their data out there to be manipulated in the first place?

NorthReport

Users Built Facebook's Empire, and They Can Crumble It

When 2.1 billion people are the product, they can turn stock fortunes in a hurry.

https://www.bloomberg.com/gadfly/articles/2018-03-26/users-built-faceboo...

NorthReport

FTC Confirms Probe of Facebook Privacy Practices

http://variety.com/2018/digital/news/facebook-ftc-probe-privacy-practice...

NorthReport

Excellent question!

How can Facebook change when it exists to exploit personal data?

 

That’s why the bigger story behind the current controversy is the fact that what Cambridge Analytica claimed to have accomplished would not have been possible without Facebook. Which means that, in the end, Facebook poses the problem that democracies will have to solve.

In that context, the firm’s response to the crisis has been instructive. The first stage was denial: there was no “data breach”; then there were legal threats and the heavy artillery of expensive law firms; after that we were treated to ludicrous attempts to portray a giant global corporation as an innocent victim of wicked people who did terrible things behind its back.

And then, finally – after an extended bout of corporate panic at its Californian HQ as the share price tanked – there was a return to euphemistic form as the boy wonder CEO came out from under the duvet wearing his signature grey T-shirt. He was in his sorrowful-but-resolute mode: “This was a breach of trust between Kogan, Cambridge Analytica and Facebook,” he wrote. “But it was also a breach of trust between Facebook and the people who share their data with us and expect us to protect it. We need to fix that. In this case, we already took the most important steps a few years ago in 2014 to prevent bad actors from accessing people’s information in this way. But there’s more we need to do … ”

If that sounds familiar, then that’s because it is. TechCrunch listed 11 separate controversies that resulted from Facebook being caught taking liberties with users’ data or trust. In most of these cases, the Zuckerberg response has been the same: sorrowful contrition followed by requests for forgiveness, topped off with resolutions to do better in future. The lad is beginning to sound like an alcoholic who, after his latest bout of drink-related excess, says sorry and expresses his determination to reform.

The trouble is that, as the veteran tech investor Om Malik pointed out this week, Facebook can’t reform without changing its very nature. “Facebook’s DNA,” he writes, “is that of a social platform addicted to growth and engagement. At its very core, every policy, every decision, every strategy is based on growth (at any cost) and engagement (at any cost). More growth and more engagement means more data – which means the company can make more advertising dollars, which gives it a nosebleed valuation on the stock market, which in turn allows it to remain competitive and stay ahead of its rivals.”

No amount of corporate spin can disguise that central truth. Facebook’s core business is exploiting the personal data of its users. That is its essence. So expecting it to wean itself off that exploitation is like trying to persuade ExxonMobil that it should get out of the oil and gas business.

That’s why the central question about the Cambridge Analytica controversy is whether it’s a scandal or a crisis. Scandals create a lot of noise and heat, but nothing much changes as a result. Crises are what lead to fundamental change. Facebook’s response – and its corporate DNA – suggest that it’s just a scandal. So stay tuned for the next data breach.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar/25/forget-bit-players...

NorthReport

How a B.C. company allegedly helped Brexiters skirt U.K. laws and made millions doing it

https://globalnews.ca/news/4107060/aggregate-iq-victoria-brexit/

NDPP

NorthReport wrote:

How a B.C. company allegedly helped Brexiters skirt U.K. laws and made millions doing it

https://globalnews.ca/news/4107060/aggregate-iq-victoria-brexit/

NDPP wrote:

More on Aggregate IQ, "internally referred to as the British company's [SCL] Canadian arm" @ #69 above.

NorthReport
NDPP

Whistleblower Says 'Cheating' Changed Brexit Vote Outcome

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/chris-wylie-testify-uk-facebook-cambri...

"Chris Wylie implicates Canadian company AIQ to UK parliamentary committee. The Canadian whistleblower at the heart of the Facebook privacy scandal says he believes it is 'reasonable' to conclude that the outcome of the Brexit vote was altered by 'cheating' through manipulation of data to influence voters..."

Cambridge Analytica Whistleblower Says His Predecessor Was Allegedly Poisoned and Police Bribed

http://uk.businessinsider.com/cambridge-analytica-whistleblower-christop...

"He said that Aggregate IQ, which he labelled a 'shell company' of Cambridge Analytica, had been involved in sending violent and intimidating videos to voters in Nigeria in an attempt to swing an election..."

'We mostly do psychological work for NATO,' Wylie wrote in an email to Aggregate IQ

Canada is not what you think it is Canucklheads...

Unionist

Lard Tunderin Jeezus, on Nov. 23, 2008 wrote:
I might, perhaps, consider Facebook as a subscription service -  if the fee was reasonable, AND they offered my complete privacy in the stead of their ability to profile me and sell the data. 

LTJ was way ahead of his time. Does his idea have merit?

NorthReport

Facebook criticized for blocking Punjabi website offering secular view of India

https://www.straight.com/news/1049726/facebook-comes-under-criticism-blo...

NorthReport
NorthReport
Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Could you not tell that my post was sarcastic, and that everyone is mad at Facebook when the real issue is that people who signed up for Facebook were the ones who put their data out there to be manipulated in the first place?

I got it.  I wasn't rebutting you, I was just carrying the torch for the next leg.  I get that I was probably pretty unclear though.

Quote:
LTJ was way ahead of his time. Does his idea have merit?

Maybe.  Just doing some napkin math, it seems like FB's revenues in 2017 were about $40B, and they have about a billion users, so they could presumably have the same revenues if they charged $40/year.

But that's with a yuuuge assumption:  that every user stays and pays.

Facebook didn't grow to the size it has by being "better" so much as by being free.  The "free with ads" model predates gaming and the internet and even computers.  It's why we had radio and television, and still get a free copy of Metro when we ride transit.

I do understand that harvesting and selling demographic info is different from an ad for Wilson's Pharmacy, of course.  I'm just thinking FB might not want to abandon that model.

 

NorthReport

The only reason Facebook is not already dead and buried is that it has helped certain politicos gain power and they certainly don’t want to give up the goose that laid the golden egg

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
The only reason Facebook is not already dead and buried is that it has helped certain politicos gain power and they certainly don’t want to give up the goose that laid the golden egg

And the other reason is that users are so dependent on FB for their emotional transactions that they'll steer with their knees so they can check FB while driving.

Facebook isn't some "website" like IMDB, or The Onion.

And don't forget, FB is a bit like Google in the sense that its "value" to a new user is proportional to its reach.  When we choose a search engine, we want one that searches more of the web than any other.  When we choose a social media platform, we want one that the majority of our friends are on.  Facebook can suck in a million ways, from selling info to tweaking their UI in an unpopular way.  But as long as the majority use it, they're probably not in any danger of bankruptcy.

NDPP

Facebook Censors Palestinian News Outlet

https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/facebook-censors-pales...

"Facebook has shut down the page of a major Palestinian news outlet in what appears to be a blatant instance of pro-Israel censorship. This appears to be an escalation of Facebook's persistent blocking of the accounts of Palestinian journalists and publications. While Facebook colludes with governments to crack down on Palestinians, violent and racist incitement by Israelis continues unabated..."

Zuckerberg...Surely not?

Free Palestine!

#DeleteFacebook !

Caissa

When FB stock dips below $100 it will be time to buy.

NDPP

Chunky Mark: This Morning's 2 min Newspaper Review

https://youtu.be/vdzSyNzdSKE

"This is an international scandal..."

progressive17 progressive17's picture

Caissa wrote:

When FB stock dips below $100 it will be time to buy.

Sorry, but there is never a time to buy a dog like that. It pays no dividends!

NDPP

Facebook: "This is their information. They own it.'

BBC: 'And you won't sell it?'

FB: 'No, of course not.'

Edward Snowden

https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/978714961450061826

Zuckerberg, 2009 interview.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:

And don't forget, FB is a bit like Google in the sense that its "value" to a new user is proportional to its reach.  When we choose a search engine, we want one that searches more of the web than any other.  When we choose a social media platform, we want one that the majority of our friends are on.  Facebook can suck in a million ways, from selling info to tweaking their UI in an unpopular way.  But as long as the majority use it, they're probably not in any danger of bankruptcy.

This is indeed the crucial point. It's generally called user lock-in, and it has existed since before computers were invented, but really got going in the 1950s and 60s at IBM. You weren't allowed to use a competing memory or storage product with an IBM computer,  so you had to stick with their overpriced parts. Microsoft became a master of the form with MS-DOS, then Windows. If you want the applications you use, you have to pay the Microsoft tax. So it is with Facebook. If you want to be able to share information with all your friends who are on fb, you have to be on fb.

There is a solution which is technically very feasible, even easy, but which will never happen because of money and politics, and the relationship betweeen them. So, just in the spirit of speculative fiction, here is what could theoretically be done.

First, define a data format and communications protocol which is compatible with the most popular subset of the current features of fb. Make this system definition public domain, and provide a model implementation under a permissive license, such as MIT. This would be quite easy, and could be done in less than a year with a budget of less then $10M.

This specification would also include the ability to link to friends on any implementation of this protocol. That is, there could be many different servers running this protocol, and the users of every such server would be available as friends to the users of all other servers. It would also include a dead simple method for a user to switch from one server to another.

Something like this is already implemented in the open source social network Diaspora, but I don't think that one could be adopted directly, because it isn't intended to be compatible with fb.

Second, pass a law forcing fb to implement an interface according to the specification, so that fb users could include any user of a compatible server amongst their friends, and could also easily move their data to any compatible server. This is of course totally impossible and will not happen, but if it did immediately there would be plenty of social network servers out there with every imaginable business model.

There probably would be a niche for paid services with guaranteed privacy. After all, cloud services are so cheap these days that you could probably charge only $10 per year and still have a very good margin. It wouldn't be any fb, but with 1M users, such a business would generate $10M. If you couldn't run this service for half that or less (perhaps much less) you couldn't run a hot dog stand.

There would also be plenty of free alternatives. I personally would invest in a $10 per month server, set up the social network software, and invite all my friends and family to use it for free. I suspect a lot of techies would do likewise. Organizations like public libraries might also set up servers for their users.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
There is a solution which is technically very feasible, even easy, but which will never happen because of money and politics, and the relationship betweeen them. So, just in the spirit of speculative fiction, here is what could theoretically be done.

Well, it kind of reminds me of when telcos were deregulated.  Except that they really did have a monopoly, not just on services but on the infrastructure.  Expecting a prospective "competitor" to AT&T/Bell to string a million miles of phone lines in order to sell long distance for less wasn't really reasonable.

But I don't know if FB really has a "monopoly" on anything similar, so I can't really see on what grounds any country would order them to make it possible for others to "compete" simply by imitating them cheaper.  I don't really think it's because of "money and politics" so much as because we don't generally interfere in the affairs of a private business without a good reason, and if the reason is solely that "Facebook can't be trusted with the data we share with the world" then it's really up to FB users to decide whether they want to keep being FB users, just like if your once favourite pizza place suddenly sells really crummy pizza -- you can keep buying it or you can stop buying it.

NorthReport
NDPP

Facebook Refuses To Remove Corbyn Death Threat As It 'Doesn't Go Against Standards'

https://on.rt.com/925g

"The post from the page 'Conservative memes for Tory Teens', reads: 'I think we should order hits on Russia's spies, before going on to saying, 'let's start with Jeremy Corbyn."

Seems 'Tory teens' and some Canadian 'progressives' are afflicted with the same stupifying Russophobia.

NorthReport
NDPP

87 Million Facebook Users Shared With Cambridge Analytica

https://boingboing.net/2018/04/04/87-millions-facebook-users-dat.html

"Facebook admitted Wednesday that 87 million users' data was harvested by Cambridge Analytica - about 74% more than was previously disclosed. Another day, another numbingly obvious example of 'dumb fucks'.

Pages