Cambridge Analytica

[BR14]

WGAF???

[meridian]

I'm starting to wonder whether you read any of the links you post. It is absolutely central to her conspiracy theory about the coordination between AIQ and CA, as noted by many other impartial commentators (Jim Pickard, Andrew Neil to mention a couple). Again, re-read the two stories slowly and comprehend them as they relate to the retraction posted, notably:

Any link between AIQ and CA are only one thread of the story and allegations. Surely even you can read that the retraction relates to AIQ and not the allegations against CA?

My main point, though, was that despite your apparent contention that this "retraction" was a death knell for any allegations, there were further publications after that, thus providing evidence that the "retraction" is nothing much.

I'm not suggesting here that the allegations will amount to anything, but your evidence of a "retraction" is a weak defence.

Seems to me that you and Carol Codswallop both, so very badly, want this to be true. I'm sure there's very little in between the verisimilitude of her story and your being wholesale "cheated" over the referendum result - one small step for remain...

You must have missed my last sentence:

I don't particularly think that anything will come of it, our government's too spineless, but it is an interesting exercise in seeing how dedicated Brexiters are to the idea of democracy....

[jamesbrown]

Any link between AIQ and CA are only one thread of the story and allegations. Surely even you can read that the retraction relates to AIQ and not the allegations against CA?

My main point, though, was that despite your apparent contention that this "retraction" was a death knell for any allegations, there were further publications after that, thus providing evidence that the "retraction" is nothing much.

I'm not suggesting here that the allegations will amount to anything, but your evidence of a "retraction" is a weak defence.




You must have missed my last sentence:

You can continue to repeat yourself in an increasingly agitated way, but it doesn't change the retraction as completely undermining her first two articles. Her credibility is shot. Other articles have been published since, and I've no doubt they will be undermined in due course too. She's too invested in a particular outcome, rather than where the story actually led. Surely even you can understand that.

[meridian]

You can continue to repeat yourself in an increasingly agitated way, but it doesn't change the retraction as completely undermining her first two articles. Her credibility is shot. Other articles have been published since, and I've no doubt they will be undermined in due course too. She's too invested in a particular outcome, rather than where the story actually led. Surely even you can understand that.

Is that all you’ve got, a puff piece retraction (not, I need to repeat to the hard of comprehension, retracting any of the allegations made of CA)?

More published in the New Yorker. Presumably their lawyers will be quaking in their boots when they learn about the “retraction” also....

https://www.newyorker.com/news/lette...t-company/amp?

https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-c...exit-vote/amp?

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-...ographics/amp?

Don’t worry, I don’t expect any of this to change your mind. I know you’re invested in a particular outcome, rather than where the facts actually led.

[meridian]

Looks like Facebook is trying to limit any damage and fallout

https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/...-leave-brexit?

[jamesbrown]

Don’t worry, I don’t expect any of this to change your mind. I know you’re invested in a particular outcome, rather than where the facts actually led.

Must've missed this, which is terribly remiss of me, given how fascinating this thread has been.

Would now be a good time to quote NAT's sig?

[meridian]

Must've missed this, which is terribly remiss of me, given how fascinating this thread has been.

Would now be a good time to quote NAT's sig?

Like I said, you’re so invested in your outcome that you can’t even debate the facts.

Conspiracy theory? Can’t remember the last time I saw the head of one of the largest corporations in the world in front of a congressional committee in Capitol Hill apologising that they got it wrong. Zuckerberg is throwing CA under the bus.

Regardless of what the final facts will turn out to be, and regardless of the actual result / outcome, the story is going mainstream now. Channel 4 has picked it up, and even the Brexit Broadcasting Corporation now has to report on it.

Repost that “retraction” again, that was a good one :-)

[jamesbrown]

"Brexit Broadcasting Corporation".

Did you borrow that from Lord Fruitcake?

Are these the "facts" that you'd like to debate?