For sure. They are obligated to contextualize it though – hard to report the new fact on its own. I don’t think it warrants ~800 words tho…
1 Like
Can’t help it, I’m in the middle of my comfort rewatch. Also this is my new 2017 look.
3 Likes
I guess people are blissfully unaware of how much data Facebook actually collects about you. It is next level scary. Facebook knows who you are before you create an account. It learns everything about you after you’ve created one.
3 Likes
Oh, I know!! I posted about it before - I stumbled upon once the “ad categories” that were assigned to me personally and it was creepy.
1 Like
At this point, I figure facebook and Google have all my info anyway. But just because they do doesn’t mean my ex does, so I still tend to keep things locked up.
2 Likes
I would say so!!
I feel like the fact that the DNC helped fund the research behind the “Steele Dossier” is another example of the “OMG shocking revelations” which aren’t new pattern. Agree/disagree?
I can’t point to any concrete sources, but back when the Steele Dossier was new news I remember hearing multiple times that it had started out as opposition research funded by other republican candidates before the primary, and after Trump got the nomination the same research found new funding from democratic support.
While I haven’t read extensively about these latest “revelations”, it wouldn’t surprise me if direct linkages to the Clinton campaign and the DNC are new information, that doesn’t strike me as shocking/earth-shattering stuff.
Also, on a separate note, how many Facebook “ad categories” are typical? Is 5 categories actually few by comparison, or was it just that the categories are off-base that earned me hypothetical creds? I thought about doing a write-up about the countermeasures I employ.
1 Like
For example, from my Telegram chat history, dated 2017-01-12:
Friend: anything noteworthy after reading the dossier?
me: nope
Friend: it started as gop op-research then became dem op-research and the author seems reputable.
Yes, @adfaklsdjf this is perfect example of the “new/not new” news trend lately - that drives me insane.
That would B.WTFJHT. vs A.WTFJHT. 
1 Like
(but good catch! it’s a good point to make that this story “advanced” based on a nuanced lack of disclosure)
1 Like
On the Kushner thing, does that mean that the public knew about his donations and he lied about it on his security forms anyway?
Today was a goddamn disaster for this. These people deserve… I don’t even know what.
2 Likes
I certainly use that information to target ads on the pages I manage.
Hey thanks for the pro-tip about the Facebook ad categories. I just checked mine; there are only 5 (that’s not a lot, right?), two are basically wrong and the other three are pretty generic:
Birthday in September (super generic), US politics (very liberal) (er… I think of myself as center-left, thx), Management (wrong), Console Gamers (wrong), and Gmail users (super generic)
Does this mean I’m doing a good job at fighting the man?
P.S. Yeah the not-new as “NEW!” irritates the crap outta me, too, and no you’re not alone–I notice it all the time.
Which, I get I guess…but some of them all they would literally need to do is republish it (with as ‘breaking news’, if it warrants it) with “XXX details have been confirmed by XXX. The below has been updated to reflect this.”, instead of hyping it up as a “OMG!” or even if they need to provide more details that applies to multiple stories a quick paragraph and the links of the stories it pertains to would be MUCH better.
It also fuels the narrative of the “out of touch” media, because they write almost everything under the assumption that the reader has zero backstory. But, it makes things like WTFJHT a source of sanity (now if only I could turn off the breaking news notifications… 
).
1 Like
OMG! I just started a rewatch too! Kell has never seen it – so were watching together. Not to get off-topic but – I’m a huge STARBUCK fan. 
2 Likes