In chess, you must learn that sometimes positions cannot be evaluated on material alone.

Cambridge Analytica.

FYI - referring to Cambridge Analytica like it has any meaningful relationship to privacy, ad tech or election results is the silliest thing you can say to someone who has any understanding of the subject. Cambridge Analytica is a like a canary in a coal mine that says, "this person has no actual understanding of the issues".

Why? They harvested personal info from 87 million users under false pretenses. They're also an explicitly political company. We can debate their effectiveness, but their stated intent was to influence elections. These seem like meaningful and relevant additions to a conversation about data collection and privacy.

Your comment is rather light on information that might support your points.

I have two thoughts on Cambridge Analytica: a) Influencing elections is not a harm, even if you disagree with the political ends. b) They were notoriously ineffective, which further solidifies this into the non-story bucket

> Influencing elections is not a harm, even if you disagree with the political ends.

It feels icky, but still I mostly agree. I do think there's a limit as I would consider directly influencing elections (via force or deceit) to be harmful, but I'm largely ok with trying to sway public opinion.

> They were notoriously ineffective, which further solidifies this into the non-story bucket.

Unfortunately, they were surprisingly effective at the thing I care about which is collecting millions of people's personal information without their knowledge or consent. The fact they turned out to be incompetent does not inspire confidence.

> Unfortunately, they were surprisingly effective at the thing I care about which is collecting millions of people's personal information without their knowledge or consent.

I think this is the core disagreement, I do not see this in itself as an actual harm, just icky feelings.

Go on, follow that train of thought.