Barack Obama

Media Attacks Trump’s Use of Facebook, Didn’t Care when Obama Did Same Thing

Youtube Screengrab

The latest outrage of the day is this claim that a data company named Cambridge Analytica somehow illicitly or illegally used Facebook data to aid Donald Trump’s election. But while the left brays about this purported crime, they have completely ignored this same actions when Obama did it during his last election campaign.

Hypocrisy much?

Here is how The New York Times described what they are putting on Trump this time:

Trending: USA Today Blasts President Trump’s Critics in Wake of Putin Pow-Wow

Cambridge Analytica, the shadowy data firm that helped elect Donald Trump, specializes in “psychographic” profiling, which it sells as a sophisticated way to digitally manipulate huge numbers of people on behalf of its clients. But apparently, when you’re trying to win a campaign, prostitutes, bribes and spies work pretty well too.

This is the very first paragraph of its March 19 expose. Note all the emotional wording. Cambridge Analytica (CA) is “shadowy,” it “manipulated” data and used “prostitutes, bribes and spies” to do it.

That is a awful lot of scary wording in one opening paragraph.

The paper continued detailing its ridiculous charges against CA:

On Monday, Britain’s Channel 4 News ran an explosive exposé of the embattled company. Going undercover as a potential client, its reporter filmed Cambridge Analytica’s chief executive, Alexander Nix, talking about entrapping his clients’ opponents by sending “very beautiful” Ukranian sex workers to their homes. He spoke of offering bribes to candidates while secretly filming them and putting the footage online, of employing fake IDs and bogus websites. Mark Turnbull, the managing director of Cambridge Analytica Political Global, described how the company “put information into the bloodstream of the internet” and then watched it spread.

This story came two days after a joint investigation by The New York Times and The Observer of London reported that Cambridge Analytica harvested private information from over 50 million Facebook users without their permission. That, The Times wrote, “allowed the company to exploit the private social media activity of a huge swath of the American electorate, developing techniques that underpinned its work on President Trump’s campaign in 2016.”

After days of revelations, there’s still a lot we don’t know about Cambridge Analytica. But we’ve learned that an operation at the heart of Trump’s campaign was ethically nihilistic and quite possibly criminal in ways that even its harshest critics hadn’t suspected. That’s useful information. In weighing the credibility of various accusations made against the president, it’s good to know the depths to which the people around him are willing to sink.

Gosh. Sounds ominous, doesn’t it?

So, what happened? Is Facebook a victim here? Was it somehow infiltrated or ripped off by Trump’s evil spy network?

Not really. In fact, the media shouldn’t be so shocked by any of this because it is essentially the same stuff Obama did in 2012. Only then the media called it innovative, forward thinking, new, and brilliant.

While the Times cries about what they claim Trump did, the Daily Caller reports that a former Obama staffer is reminding the world that Obama did exactly the same stuff.

However, a former Obama campaign staffer has come forward to claim that Facebook turned a blind eye to the same issue in 2012.

Carol Davidsen, former director of Obama for America’s Integration and Media Analytics, reveals the manner the Democratic presidential campaign was freely given access. Furthermore, she openly claims that Facebook gave the Obama campaigners a pass because of their political affiliation.

“Facebook was surprised we were able to suck out the whole social graph, but they didn’t stop us once they realized that was what we were doing,” Davidsen wrote on Twitter.

So, why no alarm bells in 2012? As Davidsen noted, Facebook wasn’t concerned about this purported “misuse” of its data then because Obama was “on their side.”

“They came to office in the days following election recruiting & were very candid that they allowed us to do things they wouldn’t have allowed someone else to do because they were on our side,” Davidsen told DC.

DC continued to point out just how differently Facebook is reacting to the purported Trump news that the Times is all hot under the collar about this week.

“In 2015, we learned that a psychology professor at the University of Cambridge named Dr. Aleksandr Kogan lied to us and violated our Platform Policies by passing data from an app that was using Facebook Login to SCL/Cambridge Analytica, a firm that does political, government and military work around the globe,” Facebook stated in a Friday blog post. “He also passed that data to Christopher Wylie of Eunoia Technologies, Inc.”

“Several days ago, we received reports that, contrary to the certifications we were given, not all data was deleted,” the statement continued. “We are moving aggressively to determine the accuracy of these claims. If true, this is another unacceptable violation of trust and the commitments they made. We are suspending SCL/Cambridge Analytica, Wylie and Kogan from Facebook, pending further information.”

That is a far different attitude than the mere shrug of the shoulders that Facebook gave to Obama’s use of their system and data.

But, as Davidsen said, Obama was “on their side,” so no harm no foul. But it is just another perfect example of the lies and hypocrisy that daily streams out of the American left-wing. There are no principles or facts on the left. Only what is convenient for use today to win and gain power.

Maybe the fact that Facebook shares fell sharply after the release of the CA story might make an impact… but don’t get your hopes up. Liberals generally don’t mind losing money or hurting their business interests if a little pain helps them push their agenda.

Please leave your comments below

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.