←back to thread

187 points anigbrowl | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
paxys ◴[] No.45754300[source]
Remember that Cambridge Analytica was "research" as well. Laws like these sound good on paper, but it's the company that has to deal with the fallout when the data is used improperly. Unless the government can also come up with a fool proof framework for data sharing and enforce adequate protections, it's always going to be better for the companies to just say no and eat the fines.
replies(5): >>45754398 #>>45754429 #>>45754448 #>>45755093 #>>45755396 #
pms ◴[] No.45755093[source]
Republicans and Elon Musk have become very skilled at exerting political influence in the US [1] and Europe [2] through social media in ways the public isn't really aware of. Is this really that far from the goal of Cambridge Analytica of influencing elections without people's knowledge? Is it fine for large online platforms to influence election outcomes? Why wouldn't an online platform be used to this end if that's beneficial for it and there is no regulation discouraging it?

[1] https://www.techpolicy.press/x-polls-skew-political-realitie...

[2] https://zenodo.org/records/14880275

replies(2): >>45755545 #>>45755584 #
1. santadays ◴[] No.45755545[source]
I can’t imagine this is not happening. There exists the will, the means and the motivation, with not a small dose of what pg might call naughtiness.