If we replace ‘white’ with ‘black’ , ‘muslim’ or ‘gay’ here I think most people would consider the author of the tweets some kind of obsessed, vile, far right nutter. Yet it seems he is worthy of sympathetic consideration, and his words are able to be read in a way that makes the thought that he might hate white people to be absurd.
If we replace ‘white’ with ‘black’ , ‘muslim’ or ‘gay’ here I think most people would consider the author of the tweets some kind of vile, far right nutter. Yet it seems he is worthy of sympathetic consideration, and his words are able to be read in a way that makes the thought that he might hate white people to be absurd.
Its because he didn't cover his racism via quotes from great works of art...
I've backed both Lawless and O'Rourke (Tipped up to me by GreenMachine) to retain their seats for Fianna Fáil in Kildare North after reviewing the polling and past results in the constituency at between 1-5 and 4-9. Boylesports, Ladbrokes and Paddy Power have lots of markets up.
If we replace ‘white’ with ‘black’ , ‘muslim’ or ‘gay’ here I think most people would consider the author of the tweets some kind of vile, far right nutter. Yet it seems he is worthy of sympathetic consideration, and his words are able to be read in a way that makes the thought that he might hate white people to be absurd.
Its because he didn't cover his racism via quotes from great works of art...
If we replace ‘white’ with ‘black’ , ‘muslim’ or ‘gay’ here I think most people would consider the author of the tweets some kind of obsessed, vile, far right nutter. Yet it seems he is worthy of sympathetic consideration, and his words are able to be read in a way that makes the thought that he might hate white people to be absurd.
If we replace ‘white’ with ‘black’ , ‘muslim’ or ‘gay’ here I think most people would consider the author of the tweets some kind of obsessed, vile, far right nutter. Yet it seems he is worthy of sympathetic consideration, and his words are able to be read in a way that makes the thought that he might hate white people to be absurd.
He’s not presenting the news, though...
Hardly the comparison to make, the newsreader didn’t say anything about race!
Geofencing as a campaign tool (I'm guessing this would not be legal in the UK ?) :
https://washingtonmonthly.com/2020/01/29/trumps-geofencing-could-be-a-potent-political-issue/ If you attend an evangelical or a Catholic Church, a women’s rights march or a political rally of any kind, especially in a seriously contested state, the odds are that your cellphone ID number, home address, partisan affiliation and the identifying information of the people around you will be provided by geofencing marketers to campaigns, lobbyists and other interest groups…
…The data generally provides information about individual users’ day-to-day activities and preferences: Where they shop; What they do for fun; What other apps they use, for how long, and what they do in those apps; Where they live; Where they work; With whom they associate.
You might think that Donald Trump holds political rallies simply because he enjoys the adulation, but that’s not the real purpose. His campaign manager Brad Pascale recently boasted about the information he harvests from MAGA rallies:
Out of more than 20,000 identified voters who came to a recent Trump rally in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, 57.9 percent did not have a history of voting for Republicans. Remarkably, 4,413 attendees didn’t even vote in the last election — a clear indication that President Trump is energizing Americans who were previously not engaged in politics…
The other campaign employing this technique on an extensive basis - Bernie Sanders.
Every politician is doing this now - every engagement is all about the data.
As I've said on here ad nauseam, the 2020 US election is going to be an absolute sh!t-show of fake news, fake adverts, fake photos, fake videos and total untruths on all sides - with Facebook and Google in the middle of it all, profiting massively from all the fakery and polarisation.
Whoever wins, there's going to be a huge call to regulate or break up those two companies in particular.
Irrelevant as Boris has made clear he will block indyref2 for his full 5 year term.
(Of course a Yougov poll had Yes ahead in 2014 too anyway)
Yah boo sucks, you're not getting a referendum so who cares - check Cast half arsed aspersions on the pollster - check No one wants more disruptive uncertainty from the SNP, that's the Tories' job - ? Once in a generation promise - ? Send in the troops - ?
Just setting up some more options for the HYUFD rapid rebuttal team.
Geofencing as a campaign tool (I'm guessing this would not be legal in the UK ?) :
https://washingtonmonthly.com/2020/01/29/trumps-geofencing-could-be-a-potent-political-issue/ If you attend an evangelical or a Catholic Church, a women’s rights march or a political rally of any kind, especially in a seriously contested state, the odds are that your cellphone ID number, home address, partisan affiliation and the identifying information of the people around you will be provided by geofencing marketers to campaigns, lobbyists and other interest groups…
…The data generally provides information about individual users’ day-to-day activities and preferences: Where they shop; What they do for fun; What other apps they use, for how long, and what they do in those apps; Where they live; Where they work; With whom they associate.
You might think that Donald Trump holds political rallies simply because he enjoys the adulation, but that’s not the real purpose. His campaign manager Brad Pascale recently boasted about the information he harvests from MAGA rallies:
Out of more than 20,000 identified voters who came to a recent Trump rally in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, 57.9 percent did not have a history of voting for Republicans. Remarkably, 4,413 attendees didn’t even vote in the last election — a clear indication that President Trump is energizing Americans who were previously not engaged in politics…
The other campaign employing this technique on an extensive basis - Bernie Sanders.
Every politician is doing this now - every engagement is all about the data.
As I've said on here ad nauseam, the 2020 US election is going to be an absolute sh!t-show of fake news, fake adverts, fake photos, fake videos and total untruths on all sides - with Facebook and Google in the middle of it all, profiting massively from all the fakery and polarisation.
Whoever wins, there's going to be a huge call to regulate or break up those two companies in particular.
Two things... reportedly the Trump campaign and that of Sanders have made a mulch more extensive use of the technique than others - which is perhaps of significance for the outcome of close races, and therefore of interest to us. Secondly, to what extent is this particular use of data legal in the UK ?
If we replace ‘white’ with ‘black’ , ‘muslim’ or ‘gay’ here I think most people would consider the author of the tweets some kind of obsessed, vile, far right nutter. Yet it seems he is worthy of sympathetic consideration, and his words are able to be read in a way that makes the thought that he might hate white people to be absurd.
He’s not presenting the news, though...
Hardly the comparison to make, the newsreader didn’t say anything about race!
The other campaign employing this technique on an extensive basis - Bernie Sanders.
Every politician is doing this now - every engagement is all about the data.
As I've said on here ad nauseam, the 2020 US election is going to be an absolute sh!t-show of fake news, fake adverts, fake photos, fake videos and total untruths on all sides - with Facebook and Google in the middle of it all, profiting massively from all the fakery and polarisation.
Whoever wins, there's going to be a huge call to regulate or break up those two companies in particular.
Two things... reportedly the Trump campaign and that of Sanders have made a mulch more extensive use of the technique than others - which is perhaps of significance for the outcome of close races, and therefore of interest to us. Secondly, to what extent is this particular use of data legal in the UK ?
I assume that the collection of data comes from the user proactively saying they're attending the rally on Facebook, have 'liked' the politician on social media, are sharing their location publicly, or are connecting via WiFi or Bluetooth to a network set up at the event specifically for this purpose. A large number of people do this all the time, without realising the implications of it.
I'm not an expert in this aspect of UK electoral law, but would have thought that targeting of people who have specifically opted in was fair game.
(Also see comment on previous thread about Boris speech being on Facebook only. There's a reason for this, and again it's all about the data collection.)
If we replace ‘white’ with ‘black’ , ‘muslim’ or ‘gay’ here I think most people would consider the author of the tweets some kind of obsessed, vile, far right nutter. Yet it seems he is worthy of sympathetic consideration, and his words are able to be read in a way that makes the thought that he might hate white people to be absurd.
He’s not presenting the news, though...
Hardly the comparison to make, the newsreader didn’t say anything about race!
He's "punching up" not "punching down" and hence in today's world that is deemed less unacceptable.
I don't think Alastair Stewart was being racist in the slightest btw.
Mine got suspended, seemingly for life, in September 2019 for retweeting a Footballs Coming Home meme in June 2018
No. That was because anyone who invoked anything about Football's Coming Home and England winning the World Cup is evidently suffering from a severe delusional disconnect from reality and needs to be kept away from the wider public.
The other campaign employing this technique on an extensive basis - Bernie Sanders.
Every politician is doing this now - every engagement is all about the data.
As I've said on here ad nauseam, the 2020 US election is going to be an absolute sh!t-show of fake news, fake adverts, fake photos, fake videos and total untruths on all sides - with Facebook and Google in the middle of it all, profiting massively from all the fakery and polarisation.
Whoever wins, there's going to be a huge call to regulate or break up those two companies in particular.
Two things... reportedly the Trump campaign and that of Sanders have made a mulch more extensive use of the technique than others - which is perhaps of significance for the outcome of close races, and therefore of interest to us. Secondly, to what extent is this particular use of data legal in the UK ?
I assume that the collection of data comes from the user proactively saying they're attending the rally on Facebook, have 'liked' the politician on social media, are sharing their location publicly, or are connecting via WiFi or Bluetooth to a network set up at the event specifically for this purpose. A large number of people do this all the time, without realising the implications of it.
I'm not an expert in this aspect of UK electoral law, but would have thought that targeting of people who have specifically opted in was fair game.
(Also see comment on previous thread about Boris speech being on Facebook only. There's a reason for this, and again it's all about the data collection.)
I'd have thought it would be more likely to infringe GDPR than electoral law, tbh. Clearly, not a US concern.
Yes typically gets poll leads when something bad happens to the left of centre in Britain (Ed loses, leave wins the EU referendum, Boris becomes PM etc...), before the soft No's eventually switch back. I think we'll need to wait a few months before we can judge whether Brexit has created a more permanent shift.
The critical numbers there of course being: Boris Johnson -71, Jeremy Corbyn -73.
Let's see what the new Lab leader scores.
The critical numbers for Indyref might have been those for Ruth Davidson and Gordon Brown who were the two making a positive case for the union rather than the too wee, too poor, too stupid negativity of Bitter Together.
The other campaign employing this technique on an extensive basis - Bernie Sanders.
Every politician is doing this now - every engagement is all about the data.
As I've said on here ad nauseam, the 2020 US election is going to be an absolute sh!t-show of fake news, fake adverts, fake photos, fake videos and total untruths on all sides - with Facebook and Google in the middle of it all, profiting massively from all the fakery and polarisation.
Whoever wins, there's going to be a huge call to regulate or break up those two companies in particular.
Two things... reportedly the Trump campaign and that of Sanders have made a mulch more extensive use of the technique than others - which is perhaps of significance for the outcome of close races, and therefore of interest to us. Secondly, to what extent is this particular use of data legal in the UK ?
I assume that the collection of data comes from the user proactively saying they're attending the rally on Facebook, have 'liked' the politician on social media, are sharing their location publicly, or are connecting via WiFi or Bluetooth to a network set up at the event specifically for this purpose. A large number of people do this all the time, without realising the implications of it.
I'm not an expert in this aspect of UK electoral law, but would have thought that targeting of people who have specifically opted in was fair game.
(Also see comment on previous thread about Boris speech being on Facebook only. There's a reason for this, and again it's all about the data collection.)
I'd have thought it would be more likely to infringe GDPR than electoral law, tbh. Clearly, not a US concern.
The issue with the GDPR angle is that people still don’t read stuff that they’re agreeing to when there’s free WiFi to be had, or if they’re signing up to a politician’s mailing list. There’s never an option to take the free WiFi but opt out of the data collection.
The other campaign employing this technique on an extensive basis - Bernie Sanders.
Every politician is doing this now - every engagement is all about the data.
As I've said on here ad nauseam, the 2020 US election is going to be an absolute sh!t-show of fake news, fake adverts, fake photos, fake videos and total untruths on all sides - with Facebook and Google in the middle of it all, profiting massively from all the fakery and polarisation.
Whoever wins, there's going to be a huge call to regulate or break up those two companies in particular.
Two things... reportedly the Trump campaign and that of Sanders have made a mulch more extensive use of the technique than others - which is perhaps of significance for the outcome of close races, and therefore of interest to us. Secondly, to what extent is this particular use of data legal in the UK ?
I assume that the collection of data comes from the user proactively saying they're attending the rally on Facebook, have 'liked' the politician on social media, are sharing their location publicly, or are connecting via WiFi or Bluetooth to a network set up at the event specifically for this purpose. A large number of people do this all the time, without realising the implications of it.
I'm not an expert in this aspect of UK electoral law, but would have thought that targeting of people who have specifically opted in was fair game.
(Also see comment on previous thread about Boris speech being on Facebook only. There's a reason for this, and again it's all about the data collection.)
I'd have thought it would be more likely to infringe GDPR than electoral law, tbh. Clearly, not a US concern.
The issue with the GDPR angle is that people still don’t read stuff that they’re agreeing to when there’s free WiFi to be had, or if they’re signing up to a politician’s mailing list. There’s never an option to take the free WiFi but opt out of the data collection.
Even free stuff has a price. That people don’t realise that by now...
The other campaign employing this technique on an extensive basis - Bernie Sanders.
Every politician is doing this now - every engagement is all about the data.
As I've said on here ad nauseam, the 2020 US election is going to be an absolute sh!t-show of fake news, fake adverts, fake photos, fake videos and total untruths on all sides - with Facebook and Google in the middle of it all, profiting massively from all the fakery and polarisation.
Whoever wins, there's going to be a huge call to regulate or break up those two companies in particular.
Two things... reportedly the Trump campaign and that of Sanders have made a mulch more extensive use of the technique than others - which is perhaps of significance for the outcome of close races, and therefore of interest to us. Secondly, to what extent is this particular use of data legal in the UK ?
I assume that the collection of data comes from the user proactively saying they're attending the rally on Facebook, have 'liked' the politician on social media, are sharing their location publicly, or are connecting via WiFi or Bluetooth to a network set up at the event specifically for this purpose. A large number of people do this all the time, without realising the implications of it.
I'm not an expert in this aspect of UK electoral law, but would have thought that targeting of people who have specifically opted in was fair game.
(Also see comment on previous thread about Boris speech being on Facebook only. There's a reason for this, and again it's all about the data collection.)
I'd have thought it would be more likely to infringe GDPR than electoral law, tbh. Clearly, not a US concern.
The issue with the GDPR angle is that people still don’t read stuff that they’re agreeing to when there’s free WiFi to be had, or if they’re signing up to a politician’s mailing list. There’s never an option to take the free WiFi but opt out of the data collection.
There are entire areas where you can do things in the USA that you can't do in the rest of the world.
Linking devices together to get a complete view of a customer is one of those, in the USA you can use third party data to do that, in europe you can't.
The other campaign employing this technique on an extensive basis - Bernie Sanders.
Every politician is doing this now - every engagement is all about the data.
As I've said on here ad nauseam, the 2020 US election is going to be an absolute sh!t-show of fake news, fake adverts, fake photos, fake videos and total untruths on all sides - with Facebook and Google in the middle of it all, profiting massively from all the fakery and polarisation.
Whoever wins, there's going to be a huge call to regulate or break up those two companies in particular.
Two things... reportedly the Trump campaign and that of Sanders have made a mulch more extensive use of the technique than others - which is perhaps of significance for the outcome of close races, and therefore of interest to us. Secondly, to what extent is this particular use of data legal in the UK ?
I assume that the collection of data comes from the user proactively saying they're attending the rally on Facebook, have 'liked' the politician on social media, are sharing their location publicly, or are connecting via WiFi or Bluetooth to a network set up at the event specifically for this purpose. A large number of people do this all the time, without realising the implications of it.
I'm not an expert in this aspect of UK electoral law, but would have thought that targeting of people who have specifically opted in was fair game.
(Also see comment on previous thread about Boris speech being on Facebook only. There's a reason for this, and again it's all about the data collection.)
I'd have thought it would be more likely to infringe GDPR than electoral law, tbh. Clearly, not a US concern.
The issue with the GDPR angle is that people still don’t read stuff that they’re agreeing to when there’s free WiFi to be had, or if they’re signing up to a politician’s mailing list. There’s never an option to take the free WiFi but opt out of the data collection.
Even free stuff has a price. That people don’t realise that by now...
'if you're not paying for the product, you are the product'
The other campaign employing this technique on an extensive basis - Bernie Sanders.
Every politician is doing this now - every engagement is all about the data.
As I've said on here ad nauseam, the 2020 US election is going to be an absolute sh!t-show of fake news, fake adverts, fake photos, fake videos and total untruths on all sides - with Facebook and Google in the middle of it all, profiting massively from all the fakery and polarisation.
Whoever wins, there's going to be a huge call to regulate or break up those two companies in particular.
Two things... reportedly the Trump campaign and that of Sanders have made a mulch more extensive use of the technique than others - which is perhaps of significance for the outcome of close races, and therefore of interest to us. Secondly, to what extent is this particular use of data legal in the UK ?
I assume that the collection of data comes from the user proactively saying they're attending the rally on Facebook, have 'liked' the politician on social media, are sharing their location publicly, or are connecting via WiFi or Bluetooth to a network set up at the event specifically for this purpose. A large number of people do this all the time, without realising the implications of it.
I'm not an expert in this aspect of UK electoral law, but would have thought that targeting of people who have specifically opted in was fair game.
(Also see comment on previous thread about Boris speech being on Facebook only. There's a reason for this, and again it's all about the data collection.)
I'd have thought it would be more likely to infringe GDPR than electoral law, tbh. Clearly, not a US concern.
The issue with the GDPR angle is that people still don’t read stuff that they’re agreeing to when there’s free WiFi to be had, or if they’re signing up to a politician’s mailing list. There’s never an option to take the free WiFi but opt out of the data collection.
No arguments, but depending on what the data's going to be used for the collector could potentially be sailing very close to the wind.
FWIW, I tend to think GDPR is a sledgehammer-to-crack-a-nut kind of approach; I'm not convinced that the marginal protection it affords justifies the enormous compliance cost and infrastructure.
The other campaign employing this technique on an extensive basis - Bernie Sanders.
Every politician is doing this now - every engagement is all about the data.
As I've said on here ad nauseam, the 2020 US election is going to be an absolute sh!t-show of fake news, fake adverts, fake photos, fake videos and total untruths on all sides - with Facebook and Google in the middle of it all, profiting massively from all the fakery and polarisation.
Whoever wins, there's going to be a huge call to regulate or break up those two companies in particular.
Two things... reportedly the Trump campaign and that of Sanders have made a mulch more extensive use of the technique than others - which is perhaps of significance for the outcome of close races, and therefore of interest to us. Secondly, to what extent is this particular use of data legal in the UK ?
I assume that the collection of data comes from the user proactively saying they're attending the rally on Facebook, have 'liked' the politician on social media, are sharing their location publicly, or are connecting via WiFi or Bluetooth to a network set up at the event specifically for this purpose. A large number of people do this all the time, without realising the implications of it.
I'm not an expert in this aspect of UK electoral law, but would have thought that targeting of people who have specifically opted in was fair game.
(Also see comment on previous thread about Boris speech being on Facebook only. There's a reason for this, and again it's all about the data collection.)
I'd have thought it would be more likely to infringe GDPR than electoral law, tbh. Clearly, not a US concern.
The issue with the GDPR angle is that people still don’t read stuff that they’re agreeing to when there’s free WiFi to be had, or if they’re signing up to a politician’s mailing list. There’s never an option to take the free WiFi but opt out of the data collection.
The other campaign employing this technique on an extensive basis - Bernie Sanders.
Every politician is doing this now - every engagement is all about the data.
As I've said on here ad nauseam, the 2020 US election is going to be an absolute sh!t-show of fake news, fake adverts, fake photos, fake videos and total untruths on all sides - with Facebook and Google in the middle of it all, profiting massively from all the fakery and polarisation.
Whoever wins, there's going to be a huge call to regulate or break up those two companies in particular.
Two things... reportedly the Trump campaign and that of Sanders have made a mulch more extensive use of the technique than others - which is perhaps of significance for the outcome of close races, and therefore of interest to us. Secondly, to what extent is this particular use of data legal in the UK ?
I assume that the collection of data comes from the user proactively saying they're attending the rally on Facebook, have 'liked' the politician on social media, are sharing their location publicly, or are connecting via WiFi or Bluetooth to a network set up at the event specifically for this purpose. A large number of people do this all the time, without realising the implications of it.
I'm not an expert in this aspect of UK electoral law, but would have thought that targeting of people who have specifically opted in was fair game.
(Also see comment on previous thread about Boris speech being on Facebook only. There's a reason for this, and again it's all about the data collection.)
I'd have thought it would be more likely to infringe GDPR than electoral law, tbh. Clearly, not a US concern.
The issue with the GDPR angle is that people still don’t read stuff that they’re agreeing to when there’s free WiFi to be had, or if they’re signing up to a politician’s mailing list. There’s never an option to take the free WiFi but opt out of the data collection.
Even free stuff has a price. That people don’t realise that by now...
Sadly, it appears that my one-man mission to preach the evils of social media for the past few years has mostly fallen on deaf ears (although hopefully educated many parents and teenagers along the way).
A third of the world’s population now have a Facebook account used in the past month, although their stock did drop 7% yesterday on the back of their lowest ever growth figures - maybe a small glimpse of light at the end of the long tunnel, but I doubt it.
The other campaign employing this technique on an extensive basis - Bernie Sanders.
Every politician is doing this now - every engagement is all about the data.
As I've said on here ad nauseam, the 2020 US election is going to be an absolute sh!t-show of fake news, fake adverts, fake photos, fake videos and total untruths on all sides - with Facebook and Google in the middle of it all, profiting massively from all the fakery and polarisation.
Whoever wins, there's going to be a huge call to regulate or break up those two companies in particular.
Two things... reportedly the Trump campaign and that of Sanders have made a mulch more extensive use of the technique than others - which is perhaps of significance for the outcome of close races, and therefore of interest to us. Secondly, to what extent is this particular use of data legal in the UK ?
I assume that the collection of data comes from the user proactively saying they're attending the rally on Facebook, have 'liked' the politician on social media, are sharing their location publicly, or are connecting via WiFi or Bluetooth to a network set up at the event specifically for this purpose. A large number of people do this all the time, without realising the implications of it.
I'm not an expert in this aspect of UK electoral law, but would have thought that targeting of people who have specifically opted in was fair game.
(Also see comment on previous thread about Boris speech being on Facebook only. There's a reason for this, and again it's all about the data collection.)
I'd have thought it would be more likely to infringe GDPR than electoral law, tbh. Clearly, not a US concern.
The issue with the GDPR angle is that people still don’t read stuff that they’re agreeing to when there’s free WiFi to be had, or if they’re signing up to a politician’s mailing list. There’s never an option to take the free WiFi but opt out of the data collection.
No arguments, but depending on what the data's going to be used for the collector could potentially be sailing very close to the wind.
FWIW, I tend to think GDPR is a sledgehammer-to-crack-a-nut kind of approach; I'm not convinced that the marginal protection it affords justifies the enormous compliance cost and infrastructure.
Agreed, but I’m happy to benefit from the consultancy fees in the meantime!
Geofencing as a campaign tool (I'm guessing this would not be legal in the UK ?) :
https://washingtonmonthly.com/2020/01/29/trumps-geofencing-could-be-a-potent-political-issue/ If you attend an evangelical or a Catholic Church, a women’s rights march or a political rally of any kind, especially in a seriously contested state, the odds are that your cellphone ID number, home address, partisan affiliation and the identifying information of the people around you will be provided by geofencing marketers to campaigns, lobbyists and other interest groups…
…The data generally provides information about individual users’ day-to-day activities and preferences: Where they shop; What they do for fun; What other apps they use, for how long, and what they do in those apps; Where they live; Where they work; With whom they associate.
You might think that Donald Trump holds political rallies simply because he enjoys the adulation, but that’s not the real purpose. His campaign manager Brad Pascale recently boasted about the information he harvests from MAGA rallies:
Out of more than 20,000 identified voters who came to a recent Trump rally in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, 57.9 percent did not have a history of voting for Republicans. Remarkably, 4,413 attendees didn’t even vote in the last election — a clear indication that President Trump is energizing Americans who were previously not engaged in politics…
The other campaign employing this technique on an extensive basis - Bernie Sanders.
Every politician is doing this now - every engagement is all about the data.
As I've said on here ad nauseam, the 2020 US election is going to be an absolute sh!t-show of fake news, fake adverts, fake photos, fake videos and total untruths on all sides - with Facebook and Google in the middle of it all, profiting massively from all the fakery and polarisation.
Whoever wins, there's going to be a huge call to regulate or break up those two companies in particular.
Two things... reportedly the Trump campaign and that of Sanders have made a mulch more extensive use of the technique than others - which is perhaps of significance for the outcome of close races, and therefore of interest to us. Secondly, to what extent is this particular use of data legal in the UK ?
IANAL but at first glance, none of it is illegal (and we all click through GDPR popups). Some and perhaps all these are in use here, and I'm not sure Boris will be rushing to ban techniques that helped him win, and other parties will not want to ban techniques they use. There is probably also a reason the Russian interference report is locked in the Number 10 safe when it should normally have been published last autumn.
So including Don't Knows only 43% back Yes, even less than the 45% who voted Yes in 2014
Why you persist with this auld bollox is a mystery.
So including Don't Knows only 42% back No, 17% points less than the 55% who voted No in 2014, etc.
Edit: sorry, FEWER
As Quebec 1995 showed Don't Knows go No, Yes to independence from Canada led most final polls but No won 51% to 49%
On that basis the reason we are living on Friday is because the question was "Do you wish to remain in the EU" rather than "Do you wish to leave the EU"
If they had any sense they would be calling the likes of Trump's best mate Jeff Bezos and tell them to stop wasting their time making those crap Amazon exclusive shows and get on making network gear.
The other campaign employing this technique on an extensive basis - Bernie Sanders.
Every politician is doing this now - every engagement is all about the data.
As I've said on here ad nauseam, the 2020 US election is going to be an absolute sh!t-show of fake news, fake adverts, fake photos, fake videos and total untruths on all sides - with Facebook and Google in the middle of it all, profiting massively from all the fakery and polarisation.
Whoever wins, there's going to be a huge call to regulate or break up those two companies in particular.
Two things... reportedly the Trump campaign and that of Sanders have made a mulch more extensive use of the technique than others - which is perhaps of significance for the outcome of close races, and therefore of interest to us. Secondly, to what extent is this particular use of data legal in the UK ?
I assume that the collection of data comes from the user proactively saying they're attending the rally on Facebook, have 'liked' the politician on social media, are sharing their location publicly, or are connecting via WiFi or Bluetooth to a network set up at the event specifically for this purpose. A large number of people do this all the time, without realising the implications of it.
I'm not an expert in this aspect of UK electoral law, but would have thought that targeting of people who have specifically opted in was fair game.
(Also see comment on previous thread about Boris speech being on Facebook only. There's a reason for this, and again it's all about the data collection.)
I'd have thought it would be more likely to infringe GDPR than electoral law, tbh. Clearly, not a US concern.
The issue with the GDPR angle is that people still don’t read stuff that they’re agreeing to when there’s free WiFi to be had, or if they’re signing up to a politician’s mailing list. There’s never an option to take the free WiFi but opt out of the data collection.
Never mind free wifi, how many PBers do anything other than click through GDPR popups simply to read some article linked from a pb comment?
How many pbers have adjusted apps' access to location data on their phones?
And religiously log out of Twitter, FB and the rest before surfing the web?
And do their shopping in 93 different trips to stop supermarkets aggregating data on what they buy (and never mind credit cards and loyalty cards)?
And refused to vote for Boris after CCHQ was caught faking videos?
The job role is likely to be more of a food and beverage director, in charge of all the coffee shops at the galleries. In which case the salary’s about right.
It’s an art gallery, of course they use fancy-pants titles - and they just got better publicity and reach for their vacancy than a load of paid adverts would have done. Marketing 101.
The job role is likely to be more of a food and beverage director, in charge of all the coffee shops at the galleries. In which case the salary’s about right.
It’s an art gallery, of course they use fancy-pants titles - and they just got better publicity and reach for their vacancy than a load of paid adverts would have done. Marketing 101.
Well they couldn't call it head of tea...
PG Tips could be sold by Unilever as cuppa goes out of fashion
Every politician is doing this now - every engagement is all about the data.
As I've said on here ad nauseam, the 2020 US election is going to be an absolute sh!t-show of fake news, fake adverts, fake photos, fake videos and total untruths on all sides - with Facebook and Google in the middle of it all, profiting massively from all the fakery and polarisation.
Whoever wins, there's going to be a huge call to regulate or break up those two companies in particular.
Two things... reportedly the Trump campaign and that of Sanders have made a mulch more extensive use of the technique than others - which is perhaps of significance for the outcome of close races, and therefore of interest to us. Secondly, to what extent is this particular use of data legal in the UK ?
I assume that the collection of data comes from the user proactively saying they're attending the rally on Facebook, have 'liked' the politician on social media, are sharing their location publicly, or are connecting via WiFi or Bluetooth to a network set up at the event specifically for this purpose. A large number of people do this all the time, without realising the implications of it.
I'm not an expert in this aspect of UK electoral law, but would have thought that targeting of people who have specifically opted in was fair game.
(Also see comment on previous thread about Boris speech being on Facebook only. There's a reason for this, and again it's all about the data collection.)
I'd have thought it would be more likely to infringe GDPR than electoral law, tbh. Clearly, not a US concern.
The issue with the GDPR angle is that people still don’t read stuff that they’re agreeing to when there’s free WiFi to be had, or if they’re signing up to a politician’s mailing list. There’s never an option to take the free WiFi but opt out of the data collection.
Never mind free wifi, how many PBers do anything other than click through GDPR popups simply to read some article linked from a pb comment?
How many pbers have adjusted apps' access to location data on their phones?
And religiously log out of Twitter, FB and the rest before surfing the web?
And do their shopping in 93 different trips to stop supermarkets aggregating data on what they buy (and never mind credit cards and loyalty cards)?
And refused to vote for Boris after CCHQ was caught faking videos?
So including Don't Knows only 43% back Yes, even less than the 45% who voted Yes in 2014
Why you persist with this auld bollox is a mystery.
So including Don't Knows only 42% back No, 17% points less than the 55% who voted No in 2014, etc.
Edit: sorry, FEWER
As Quebec 1995 showed Don't Knows go No, Yes to independence from Canada led most final polls but No won 51% to 49%
On that basis the reason we are living on Friday is because the question was "Do you wish to remain in the EU" rather than "Do you wish to leave the EU"
That wasn't the question.
In fact, the reason that wasn't the question was precisely because it's well known that Yes/No type questions skew the results. Hence the Leave/Remain dichotomy.
ISTR a discussion back in 2014 about SNP supposedly trying to gerrymander the result by framing the Scottish Independence referendum question in the most beneficial way (to them, obviously). My memory claims that having "Yes" as a vote for independence was supposed to help their campaign feel more positive, although it may be playing tricks on me.
So including Don't Knows only 43% back Yes, even less than the 45% who voted Yes in 2014
Why you persist with this auld bollox is a mystery.
So including Don't Knows only 42% back No, 17% points less than the 55% who voted No in 2014, etc.
Edit: sorry, FEWER
As Quebec 1995 showed Don't Knows go No, Yes to independence from Canada led most final polls but No won 51% to 49%
On that basis the reason we are living on Friday is because the question was "Do you wish to remain in the EU" rather than "Do you wish to leave the EU"
That wasn't the question.
In fact, the reason that wasn't the question was precisely because it's well known that Yes/No type questions skew the results. Hence the Leave/Remain dichotomy.
ISTR a discussion back in 2014 about SNP supposedly trying to gerrymander the result by framing the Scottish Independence referendum question in the most beneficial way (to them, obviously). My memory claims that having "Yes" as a vote for independence was supposed to help their campaign feel more positive, although it may be playing tricks on me.
So including Don't Knows only 43% back Yes, even less than the 45% who voted Yes in 2014
Why you persist with this auld bollox is a mystery.
So including Don't Knows only 42% back No, 17% points less than the 55% who voted No in 2014, etc.
Edit: sorry, FEWER
As Quebec 1995 showed Don't Knows go No, Yes to independence from Canada led most final polls but No won 51% to 49%
On that basis the reason we are living on Friday is because the question was "Do you wish to remain in the EU" rather than "Do you wish to leave the EU"
That wasn't the question.
In fact, the reason that wasn't the question was precisely because it's well known that Yes/No type questions skew the results. Hence the Leave/Remain dichotomy.
ISTR a discussion back in 2014 about SNP supposedly trying to gerrymander the result by framing the Scottish Independence referendum question in the most beneficial way (to them, obviously). My memory claims that having "Yes" as a vote for independence was supposed to help their campaign feel more positive, although it may be playing tricks on me.
Next time perhaps it'll be "remain" and "leave".
Perhaps "Leave the United Kingdom" and "Remain in the European Union"?
So including Don't Knows only 43% back Yes, even less than the 45% who voted Yes in 2014
Why you persist with this auld bollox is a mystery.
So including Don't Knows only 42% back No, 17% points less than the 55% who voted No in 2014, etc.
Edit: sorry, FEWER
As Quebec 1995 showed Don't Knows go No, Yes to independence from Canada led most final polls but No won 51% to 49%
On that basis the reason we are living on Friday is because the question was "Do you wish to remain in the EU" rather than "Do you wish to leave the EU"
That wasn't the question.
In fact, the reason that wasn't the question was precisely because it's well known that Yes/No type questions skew the results. Hence the Leave/Remain dichotomy.
ISTR a discussion back in 2014 about SNP supposedly trying to gerrymander the result by framing the Scottish Independence referendum question in the most beneficial way (to them, obviously). My memory claims that having "Yes" as a vote for independence was supposed to help their campaign feel more positive, although it may be playing tricks on me.
Next time perhaps it'll be "remain" and "leave".
Perhaps "Leave the United Kingdom" and "Remain in the European Union"?
Unless the referendum is in the next 24 hours, I don't think so.
So including Don't Knows only 43% back Yes, even less than the 45% who voted Yes in 2014
Why you persist with this auld bollox is a mystery.
So including Don't Knows only 42% back No, 17% points less than the 55% who voted No in 2014, etc.
Edit: sorry, FEWER
As Quebec 1995 showed Don't Knows go No, Yes to independence from Canada led most final polls but No won 51% to 49%
On that basis the reason we are living on Friday is because the question was "Do you wish to remain in the EU" rather than "Do you wish to leave the EU"
That wasn't the question.
In fact, the reason that wasn't the question was precisely because it's well known that Yes/No type questions skew the results. Hence the Leave/Remain dichotomy.
ISTR a discussion back in 2014 about SNP supposedly trying to gerrymander the result by framing the Scottish Independence referendum question in the most beneficial way (to them, obviously). My memory claims that having "Yes" as a vote for independence was supposed to help their campaign feel more positive, although it may be playing tricks on me.
The U.K. government accepted the SNP Scottish Government’s form of the referendum question in 2014, whereas the Electoral Commission wrote the question for the 2016 EU referendum to be as impartial as possible.
There’s a substantial body of evidence that suggests there’s an inbuilt bias towards the option seen as positive.
So including Don't Knows only 43% back Yes, even less than the 45% who voted Yes in 2014
Why you persist with this auld bollox is a mystery.
So including Don't Knows only 42% back No, 17% points less than the 55% who voted No in 2014, etc.
Edit: sorry, FEWER
As Quebec 1995 showed Don't Knows go No, Yes to independence from Canada led most final polls but No won 51% to 49%
On that basis the reason we are living on Friday is because the question was "Do you wish to remain in the EU" rather than "Do you wish to leave the EU"
That wasn't the question.
In fact, the reason that wasn't the question was precisely because it's well known that Yes/No type questions skew the results. Hence the Leave/Remain dichotomy.
ISTR a discussion back in 2014 about SNP supposedly trying to gerrymander the result by framing the Scottish Independence referendum question in the most beneficial way (to them, obviously). My memory claims that having "Yes" as a vote for independence was supposed to help their campaign feel more positive, although it may be playing tricks on me.
Next time perhaps it'll be "remain" and "leave".
Perhaps "Leave the United Kingdom" and "Remain in the European Union"?
Unless the referendum is in the next 24 hours, I don't think so.
"Leave the United Kingdom" or "Join the European Union". For Scotland that probably adds a very % to the Leave vote.
This morning I went into an independent coffee shop and was confronted with a menu with a string of items that I hadn't heard of. Am I pig ignorant for not knowing what a "half and half" or a "Lawson" is?
So including Don't Knows only 43% back Yes, even less than the 45% who voted Yes in 2014
Why you persist with this auld bollox is a mystery.
So including Don't Knows only 42% back No, 17% points less than the 55% who voted No in 2014, etc.
Edit: sorry, FEWER
As Quebec 1995 showed Don't Knows go No, Yes to independence from Canada led most final polls but No won 51% to 49%
On that basis the reason we are living on Friday is because the question was "Do you wish to remain in the EU" rather than "Do you wish to leave the EU"
That wasn't the question.
In fact, the reason that wasn't the question was precisely because it's well known that Yes/No type questions skew the results. Hence the Leave/Remain dichotomy.
ISTR a discussion back in 2014 about SNP supposedly trying to gerrymander the result by framing the Scottish Independence referendum question in the most beneficial way (to them, obviously). My memory claims that having "Yes" as a vote for independence was supposed to help their campaign feel more positive, although it may be playing tricks on me.
Next time perhaps it'll be "remain" and "leave".
Perhaps "Leave the United Kingdom" and "Remain in the European Union"?
Unless the referendum is in the next 24 hours, I don't think so.
How about, "How many Unions do you think Scotland should be part of?"
Needs rephrasing to avoid ending on a preposition.
Sturgeon and Johnson can co-lead the One campaign.
So including Don't Knows only 43% back Yes, even less than the 45% who voted Yes in 2014
Why you persist with this auld bollox is a mystery.
So including Don't Knows only 42% back No, 17% points less than the 55% who voted No in 2014, etc.
Edit: sorry, FEWER
As Quebec 1995 showed Don't Knows go No, Yes to independence from Canada led most final polls but No won 51% to 49%
On that basis the reason we are living on Friday is because the question was "Do you wish to remain in the EU" rather than "Do you wish to leave the EU"
That wasn't the question.
In fact, the reason that wasn't the question was precisely because it's well known that Yes/No type questions skew the results. Hence the Leave/Remain dichotomy.
ISTR a discussion back in 2014 about SNP supposedly trying to gerrymander the result by framing the Scottish Independence referendum question in the most beneficial way (to them, obviously). My memory claims that having "Yes" as a vote for independence was supposed to help their campaign feel more positive, although it may be playing tricks on me.
Next time perhaps it'll be "remain" and "leave".
Perhaps "Leave the United Kingdom" and "Remain in the European Union"?
Unless the referendum is in the next 24 hours, I don't think so.
How about, "How many Unions do you think Scotland should be part of?"
Needs rephrasing to avoid ending on a preposition.
This morning I went into an independent coffee shop and was confronted with a menu with a string of items that I hadn't heard of. Am I pig ignorant for not knowing what a "half and half" or a "Lawson" is?
AFAIK, Half and half is half cream / half milk, a Lawson no idea, a line of coke to go with your coffee i.e Nigella style?
"UPS announced Wednesday investments in electric trucks, the testing of self-driving vans and the construction of a new “super hub” as part of its efforts to capitalize on the growth of e-commerce.
UPS, which sees electric vehicles as a key part of its sustainability efforts, will purchase 10,000 electric vehicles from U.K.-based startup Arrival and take a minority stake in the company. The financial details were not disclosed."
This morning I went into an independent coffee shop and was confronted with a menu with a string of items that I hadn't heard of. Am I pig ignorant for not knowing what a "half and half" or a "Lawson" is?
I'm afraid you're out of step with the cool kids, now you're living out in deepest Brexitshire. FPT re the Essex-Suffolk border, I once went out with a girl from Nayland.
This morning I went into an independent coffee shop and was confronted with a menu with a string of items that I hadn't heard of. Am I pig ignorant for not knowing what a "half and half" or a "Lawson" is?
I'm afraid you're out of step with the cool kids, now you're living out in deepest Brexitshire. FPT re the Essex-Suffolk border, I once went out with a girl from Nayland.
That sounds like the start of a limerick. Nayland is very nice, but since it is in Suffolk, it is clearly not in the Suffolk-Essex borders, which is only found in north Essex. Everything north of the border is south Suffolk.
This morning I went into an independent coffee shop and was confronted with a menu with a string of items that I hadn't heard of. Am I pig ignorant for not knowing what a "half and half" or a "Lawson" is?
Comments
https://extra.ie/2020/01/26/news/politics/fianna-fail-lead-election-poll
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1222871376111054848?s=20
Boylesports, Ladbrokes and Paddy Power have lots of markets up.
(Of course a Yougov poll had Yes ahead in 2014 too anyway)
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/jan/30/huawei-ruling-will-cost-us-500m-says-bt
As I've said on here ad nauseam, the 2020 US election is going to be an absolute sh!t-show of fake news, fake adverts, fake photos, fake videos and total untruths on all sides - with Facebook and Google in the middle of it all, profiting massively from all the fakery and polarisation.
Whoever wins, there's going to be a huge call to regulate or break up those two companies in particular.
https://twitter.com/lizziedearden/status/1222850856346845189
Cast half arsed aspersions on the pollster - check
No one wants more disruptive uncertainty from the SNP, that's the Tories' job - ?
Once in a generation promise - ?
Send in the troops - ?
Just setting up some more options for the HYUFD rapid rebuttal team.
Secondly, to what extent is this particular use of data legal in the UK ?
And, FWIW...
https://twitter.com/MShapland/status/1222851578132148224
I'm not an expert in this aspect of UK electoral law, but would have thought that targeting of people who have specifically opted in was fair game.
(Also see comment on previous thread about Boris speech being on Facebook only. There's a reason for this, and again it's all about the data collection.)
I don't think Alastair Stewart was being racist in the slightest btw.
https://twitter.com/jamiedmaxwell/status/1222876159358197760?s=20
Let's see what the new Lab leader scores.
Edit: apols to Green Machine for hijacking, it's a rough old game on PB.
https://twitter.com/BallotBoxScot/status/1222876741246603264?s=20
https://twitter.com/arthistorynews/status/1222880096270409733?s=20
Linking devices together to get a complete view of a customer is one of those, in the USA you can use third party data to do that, in europe you can't.
So including Don't Knows only 42% back No, 17% points less than the 55% who voted No in 2014, etc.
Edit: sorry, FEWER
FWIW, I tend to think GDPR is a sledgehammer-to-crack-a-nut kind of approach; I'm not convinced that the marginal protection it affords justifies the enormous compliance cost and infrastructure.
http://blogs.harvard.edu/doc/2020/01/29/the-deeper-issue/
Which links to an embryonic, but excellent idea:
http://customercommons.org/home/tools/terms/
That’s comparing apples with oranges.
In 2014 about 38% of the total Scottish electorate voted for Independence, so it is a 5% increase since 2014.
PS: Who knew that that nice gentle Alistair Stewart was such an active and edgy Twitter warrior? Not me.
Wondering about Mary Nightingale now.
https://twitter.com/jimllpaintit/status/1217155678554533889?s=21
A third of the world’s population now have a Facebook account used in the past month, although their stock did drop 7% yesterday on the back of their lowest ever growth figures - maybe a small glimpse of light at the end of the long tunnel, but I doubt it.
He said officials would work together to "get this right" after the UK's decision to give the Chinese firm a limited role in building its system.
Mr Pompeo added that intelligence-sharing arrangements between the two countries would continue.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-51313481
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-51310516
Seems rather low paid for London to me....
The average London salary is £700 a month ie £36 400
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/economy-business/work-incomes/constituency-data-wages/
How many pbers have adjusted apps' access to location data on their phones?
And religiously log out of Twitter, FB and the rest before surfing the web?
And do their shopping in 93 different trips to stop supermarkets aggregating data on what they buy (and never mind credit cards and loyalty cards)?
And refused to vote for Boris after CCHQ was caught faking videos?
Quebec's 2nd referendum was 15 years after the first
It’s an art gallery, of course they use fancy-pants titles - and they just got better publicity and reach for their vacancy than a load of paid adverts would have done. Marketing 101.
PG Tips could be sold by Unilever as cuppa goes out of fashion
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51309566
A possible solution which I already posted below:
http://customercommons.org/home/tools/terms/
A liberty minded government would fund, and/or legislate to produce, something along these lines.
My coat...
(It’s always happy hour somewhere, and right now it’s where I am!)
In fact, the reason that wasn't the question was precisely because it's well known that Yes/No type questions skew the results. Hence the Leave/Remain dichotomy.
ISTR a discussion back in 2014 about SNP supposedly trying to gerrymander the result by framing the Scottish Independence referendum question in the most beneficial way (to them, obviously). My memory claims that having "Yes" as a vote for independence was supposed to help their campaign feel more positive, although it may be playing tricks on me.
There’s a substantial body of evidence that suggests there’s an inbuilt bias towards the option seen as positive.
So who are the non-voters?
Needs rephrasing to avoid ending on a preposition.
Sturgeon and Johnson can co-lead the One campaign.
https://www.motorsportweek.com/news/id/25976
Glad you like it.
It's always good to cover stuff that is very useful to the website.
"UPS announced Wednesday investments in electric trucks, the testing of self-driving vans and the construction of a new “super hub” as part of its efforts to capitalize on the growth of e-commerce.
UPS, which sees electric vehicles as a key part of its sustainability efforts, will purchase 10,000 electric vehicles from U.K.-based startup Arrival and take a minority stake in the company. The financial details were not disclosed."
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/29/ups-is-eyeing-a-driverless-and-electric-future-for-its-fleet.html?__source=twitter|main
FPT re the Essex-Suffolk border, I once went out with a girl from Nayland.
Ignoring the snark, this doesn't sound like a group ready to play nice just yet.
https://twitter.com/Feorlean/status/1222806123935346692?s=20