Having data doesn't mean you can use it.
Thread: People love to rag on Nate Silver for his arrogance & they should, but he's merely an example of a larger issue that the web has made it easy to draw inferences from data without knowing the context in which it lives. 1/x
Having data doesn't mean you can use it.
Men are the main culprit. We have been socialized to think we know more than we do. There are many studies showing this. Here's one: https://t.co/aVCbNTc0n6
Nate Silver finds Donald Trump appalling, but his shtick isn't all that different.
Instead of seeking to educate or to understand, media outlets seek conflict and debate. This influences our politics.
And also in 2016: https://t.co/2rzc7m66QK
And someone, please hire Nate's former colleague, the very talented @ClareMalone.
Thanks for reading. If you'd like to follow or retweet this, that would be just great.
More from Matthew Sheffield
This Parler user explains it quite well here. Because of yet more security flaws at Parler, it's now possible for all that "free speech" to be shared and archived with the world, even if the posters tried to erase their not-at-all innocent videos and GPS data.
In slightly more technical terms, it seems as though Parler never closed some of their developer-friendly security holes (sort of the programming equivalent of game cheat codes made by devs) and as a result, their anyone with the right knowledge could have admin access.
Parler never actually deleted anything its users posted. And, stupidly, they also kept it accessible to admin users.
This meant that anyone with admin access could still download it.
Once Parler's two factor authentication feature was disabled, because it was designed for developer convenience rather than security, anyone with the knowledge could become an administrator. And that's how Parler just got owned.
People have been downloading the raw videos, photos, and text posts by the gigabyte and archiving it for later public distribution.
All that perfect, totally harmless free speech will still be searchable, even now that Amazon locked out Parler from its servers.
great job, everyone pic.twitter.com/22gooTH4sl
— crash override (@donk_enby) January 11, 2021
In slightly more technical terms, it seems as though Parler never closed some of their developer-friendly security holes (sort of the programming equivalent of game cheat codes made by devs) and as a result, their anyone with the right knowledge could have admin access.
Parler never actually deleted anything its users posted. And, stupidly, they also kept it accessible to admin users.
This meant that anyone with admin access could still download it.
Once Parler's two factor authentication feature was disabled, because it was designed for developer convenience rather than security, anyone with the knowledge could become an administrator. And that's how Parler just got owned.
People have been downloading the raw videos, photos, and text posts by the gigabyte and archiving it for later public distribution.
All that perfect, totally harmless free speech will still be searchable, even now that Amazon locked out Parler from its servers.
More from Life
You May Also Like
The entire discussion around Facebook’s disclosures of what happened in 2016 is very frustrating. No exec stopped any investigations, but there were a lot of heated discussions about what to publish and when.
In the spring and summer of 2016, as reported by the Times, activity we traced to GRU was reported to the FBI. This was the standard model of interaction companies used for nation-state attacks against likely US targeted.
In the Spring of 2017, after a deep dive into the Fake News phenomena, the security team wanted to publish an update that covered what we had learned. At this point, we didn’t have any advertising content or the big IRA cluster, but we did know about the GRU model.
This report when through dozens of edits as different equities were represented. I did not have any meetings with Sheryl on the paper, but I can’t speak to whether she was in the loop with my higher-ups.
In the end, the difficult question of attribution was settled by us pointing to the DNI report instead of saying Russia or GRU directly. In my pre-briefs with members of Congress, I made it clear that we believed this action was GRU.
The story doesn\u2019t say you were told not to... it says you did so without approval and they tried to obfuscate what you found. Is that true?
— Sarah Frier (@sarahfrier) November 15, 2018
In the spring and summer of 2016, as reported by the Times, activity we traced to GRU was reported to the FBI. This was the standard model of interaction companies used for nation-state attacks against likely US targeted.
In the Spring of 2017, after a deep dive into the Fake News phenomena, the security team wanted to publish an update that covered what we had learned. At this point, we didn’t have any advertising content or the big IRA cluster, but we did know about the GRU model.
This report when through dozens of edits as different equities were represented. I did not have any meetings with Sheryl on the paper, but I can’t speak to whether she was in the loop with my higher-ups.
In the end, the difficult question of attribution was settled by us pointing to the DNI report instead of saying Russia or GRU directly. In my pre-briefs with members of Congress, I made it clear that we believed this action was GRU.