Wait. This is a BFD. It entirely disputes the narrative from the ICO letter just last week. See #24 and 25.
And THIS sure seems to indicate microtargeting black voters (AA) in Georgia with suppression campaign (“Predators video”) consistent with @Channel4News report. If so, Parscale should be indicted for lying to Congress.
First email I’ve seen from internal Cambridge Analytica after original Dec 2015 Guardian report. Hendrix@Facebook. Hey @OwnYourDataNow, what is “Portland?” It sounds like a project code name. What was it?
Snap, this appears to be a proposal and contract between Cambridge Analytica and Trump Campaign in September 2015? Uh oh. That’s a big one.
And that contract appears to be from a meeting in June 2015 followed up with an agreement from the top that Cambridge Analytica would work simultaneously on two Presidential campaigns. Wow.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Jason Kint

Jason Kint Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @jason_kint

16 Oct
How it started: How it’s going:
GDPR clearly requires strong protections for consumer data in line with consumer expectations. The industry needs to give up trying to protect incumbent adtech/intermediary interests ⬆️, especially those that dominate today’s ad marketplace at the expense of consumer trust.
Here is the full report. This is a big deal and looks to have a brief appeal process. Findings to be digested. techcrunch.com/2020/10/16/iab…
Read 8 tweets
15 Oct
This is a lie. Neither Facebook or Twitter "took down the story" - it remains on the publisher's site. The social networks removed their amplification tools that provide velocity and reach.
ps they also have permission to reduce the spread of the President's false tweet below. Image
hat tip to @andymstone @bborrman and respective orgs. Although I can nitpick on execution, I do believe Facebook and Twitter rightly focused on limiting velocity and reach which is very different than removing speech. Proper communications and labels are critical at same time.
Here is a good overall report from @verge theverge.com/2020/10/14/215…
Read 4 tweets
14 Oct
Amazing read. Don’t touch my 1A but recognize microtargeting has minimized the collisions... “it is wrong to censor ideas, because knowledge arises from the ‘the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.’” nytimes.com/2020/10/13/mag…
Wow. @emilybazelon’s long read ⬆️ absolutely hits on everything, so well covered. A few amplifications by me: here she hits on importance of labels as counter-speech (reducing velocity and reach of disinfo), all allowed by the same 1A protections provided to a private platform. Image
also hits on dysfunction of Facebook leadership citing previous reporting on Kaplan’s outsized influence. Note: it’s been reported Twitter doesn’t allow Kaplan’s comparable role (govt relations) in on content integrity decisions due to clear conflicts of interest in mixing this. ImageImage
Read 6 tweets
11 Oct
Once again Twitter provides case study on how to handle toxic garbage tweets from the President. Entire tweet is not visible until user clicks through “curtain” label stating it’s harmful. in no case can the tweet be amplified through liking or shared without context of label.
Left unsaid here ⬆️, Facebook is a terrible company unwilling to take on political risk or approach a slippery slope that could hurt its core biz model of amplifying content through microtargeting based on data surveillance.
Read 4 tweets
11 Oct
👏🏽 to @ObserverUK editors. This is a must-read, particularly if you saw any tweets this week attempting to minimize Cambridge Analytica as a “scam or nothing-burger” invented by the media. Observer sets the record straight. theguardian.com/commentisfree/…
Once you read it, and only then, I recommend this thread where you can see a NYT Pulitzer reporter (a day before his team broke another massive report on Trump taxes btw) also making similar observations.
None of these journalists name the culprits who used their influence to mislead the public while likely not having even read the full UK, Canada reports last yr: @benedictevans @mtaibbi @ggreenwald @afneil stand out as causing misinfo, minimizing the case as a “hoax.”
Read 13 tweets
10 Oct
Oh good grief. I picked up a local paper to get vibe where I’m staying in rural NC town and I have to read syndicated garbage from @ByronYork whining about lack of media attn to his antifa riot claims on the other side of the country. Another reminder we need local journalism.
While I’m at it, this is a bit too much projection in the Opinion section. Every American should wish for good health for our leadership and all people but I just don’t see many of these people praying over him in his suit.
Ok last one. Interesting editorial technique to me - an op-ed that appears to be a 1984 op-ed used as a template updated into the year 2020? (put aside the hyperbolic use of “holocaustic” and the mythical fear of “antifa” and “Super Bowl halftime debauchery”)...
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!