#underlined part is a p link if it isn’t clear !

[rafesweetie]

sometimes prissy!reader has a bit of an attitude … it’s safe to say season 1 rafe doesn’t tolerate it.

your wispy eyelashes almost touch your eyebrows as you roll your eyes at your boyfriend, who was telling you that there was still another two whole hours of the golf game left.

it wasn’t your fault, the weather was beating down on you and making your soft skin sweat, your thighs were so hot that they were sticking to the seat in the golf cart, and you ran out of water and beer an hour ago, and the cart girl was no where to be seen. you were promised a comfortable and relaxing day, and instead you’re hot and bored.

rafe’s lip curls up in annoyance at your eyeroll, and he scoffs and walks away, leaving you pouting in the cart. he’s trying to enjoy the day, there’s no way that he’s letting his prissy girlfriend spoil the fun by needing his constant attention.

fanning at yourself when the sun blares down on you, you’re truly putting on a show for rafe, exaggerating so he can take you home. even with his baseball cap that he stuck on your head at your third complaint, and the last sip of his beer that he gave you half an hour ago, you’re still not satisfied. he’s starting to think you’re never satisfied.

“rafe, do you have any sunscreen? i think i’m getting burnt,” you call out after he swings the golf club.

“you think i pack fuckin’ sunscreen? not my fault you’re wearing a tube top, little shoulders bound to get burnt,” he steps back to let topper take his shot. “top, you got any for my girl?”

“nah, man, never pack that shit,” topper answers. rafe can hear you groan from your seat, and usually you’re at least saying ‘thank you’ for checking, but you’re so bored that you’re beyond sweetness.

“do you guys have, like, anything? this is so boring,” you complain from the cart.

topper asks, “did you bring your phone?” and you tell him it died.

rafe’s frankly done with your subtle tantrum, stomping over to you, swinging the club in circles as he walks. if your brain wasn’t so foggy from the heat then you’d admire how his arms look in that polo top, but you can barely even think.

“how about you keep score? hm, kid, how does that sound?” he offers, handing you the scorecard.

“that’s boring, i don’t even know how golf works, don’t know how to do this,” you complain. “rafe, i just wanna walk home, i’m done with this, so boring,”

“all i’m asking is for you to keep score.”

“i don’t have a pen.”

“use your lipliner,”

your lip curls in distaste, a habit picked up from your boyfriend. “that’s stupid, its like, $40,”

“hey,” he scolds. “don’t know where this little attitude came from but it stops now, okay? shit, babe, just trying to enjoy the game. you wanna, uh, you wanna walk home? that what this is? is that what you’ve come to?”

“are you dumb? i’m in heels—“ he cuts you off instantly, not liking your insinuation one bit.

“hey! hey—“ you expect him to grab your jaw or wrist but he grabs your nipple through your shirt, tugging at it so you’re dragged closer to him.

“don’t speak to me like that, a’ight? not fair to me. tried to bring you out here for a fun day, don’t need the fucking insults. say something nice to me or don’t say shit at all. or i can bring you home right now and give you some shit, and i promise you you won’t like it. sit in the cart, keep score, be nice. can you do that?” he continues. you nod, and he pinches your nipple harshly, making you squeak, then lets go.

you watch rafe’s vieny hand adjust your top after that, then watch as it moves up to your cheek. he pats it, gives you a nod with some pretty harsh eye contact, then leaves.

he always knows how to shut you up.

[nigenaide]

So @ao3commentoftheday has recently starting doing a thing called Ask A Tag Wrangler, which I'd recommend checking out if you're interested in knowing more about how tagging or tag wrangling works on AO3!

However. I am also a tag wrangler. And the thing about tag wranglers is we actually disagree with each other pretty regularly. So this post about Tumblr-style tagging on AO3 has some great information, but there are several parts I disagree with.

(General disclaimer that I am speaking only for myself, not for AO3 or for tag wranglers as a whole. I'm sure someone else will disagree with me too :P)

Specifically, I really want to pull out this brief aside from the post and underline it a few times and draw rainbows on it:

Of course, if you don't care if your works are filterable, then carry right on, you poetic and noble land-mermaids.

The main thing to note about chatty Tumblr-style tags on AO3 is that they often don't play nice with the filtering system. As Pepper says, they frequently contain multiple concepts or aren't clear exactly what they're referring to, which can make it difficult for wranglers to attach them to existing canonical tags. So if your goal is for your tags to be easily attached to canonicals so people can use them in the filters, then yes, chatty tags are often not good for that.

On the other hand? There's no reason your tags have to be filterable. It is completely fine to post a fanfic with tags that are useless for filtering. Wranglers get sad about it because we enjoy attaching tags to each other, but the tags are for fanfic readers and writers, not to make wranglers happy! So you should tag in whatever way is comfortable and fun for you.

It's important to remember that people use AO3 in different ways. Not everyone cares if other people can find their fic -- maybe they just want to post it so they have a nicely-formatted backup copy in case their computer dies. Maybe they just want to show their fic to their friends on Discord, and they like how AO3 looks better than Google Docs. Maybe they prefer a different fanfic site, but that one doesn't allow smut, so they post the smut sections on AO3 and link to them from the other site. Maybe they actually would like people to find their fic, but "proper" tagging stresses them out, so they only tag for fandom/character/relationship and then just babble in the additional tags. All of these are perfectly valid uses of the site!

Also, plenty of people browsing fic don't even use the fandom-specific canonicals like "Gay Ron Weasley" to find what they want. I don't, myself -- I usually just go to the fandom or relationship tag I want and look through everything manually. So for me, the way your tags read on your fic is actually more important than how filterable they are. Fics that have neat filterable canonical tags are nice because they're easy to skim over to see what the fic is about, but chatty tags can provide the same information while also giving me more of a peek into the author's head. I've absolutely clicked on fics just because the tags were funny.

So, with all of that in mind, some specific things with Pepper's post that I disagree with:

Chatty tags don't necessarily bother readers; plenty of readers enjoy them, in the same way people enjoy reading Tumblr tags. I think what bothers people is more often the number of tags, not how they're formatted. I'd much rather see 10 chatty tags than 50 canonical ones, honestly. Lots of tags take up a lot of space on the screen (especially if I'm on my phone) and are harder to skim.

I strongly disagree with the idea that wranglers don't enjoy wrangling chatty tags. They're usually the most entertaining to read through, first of all, and a lot of us enjoy sharing the funny or weird tags with each other when we come across them. They're also usually pretty easy to wrangle because they tend to have multiple concepts that can't be attached to anything. So it's easy to go through a bunch of them quickly while listening to music or watching videos, which can be a relaxing way to spend an hour or two. Personally I enjoy wrangling them, certainly a lot more than other kinds of tags.

Your tags don't need to be filterable or informative. It is perfectly valid to use AO3 tags as a "whisperspace" a la Tumblr if you'd prefer. So if you want to write tags about what song inspired you while you were writing, or how you were bit by a plot bunny at 3am and had to write the whole fic immediately, go for it. Maybe some people would prefer to put that kind of the thing in the author's notes, but you don't have to. Go wild.

Honestly? As a wrangler, my advice to AO3 users is that you shouldn't worry about what wranglers find annoying to deal with :P Plenty of tags can be annoying to deal with on our end, just because of how the wrangling system is set up or because we like dealing with certain kinds of tags more than others. But that doesn't mean there's anything wrong with someone using those tags. The whole point of the tag wrangling system is that users can tag however they want, and wranglers will deal with it. It's what we signed up for!

What you should worry about is what you're trying to accomplish with your tags. If you ask wranglers for advice, we tend to focus on how to make your tags easily filterable within the technical constraints of the tagging system, because we know a lot about that. And if that's what you want, Pepper's post has some great advice! (And if you want more advice of that sort, you should go over there and ask questions!) But a lot of posts with wrangler advice act like your ultimate goal should be to make your tags nice and filterable, and that doesn’t have to be true. If that stresses you out or goes against your tag aesthetic or just isn't helpful for you, you don’t have to do it. You also don't need to treat every tag the same way -- you can have some that are useful for filtering and some that are just babbling. Or you can have tags that look like babbling but are actually useful for filtering, like Pepper's "Harry Potter remains a total disaster" example.

BASICALLY what I'm saying is: There is a reason AO3 is set up so you can write whatever you want in the tag fields, instead of just picking options from a list. It's because we want you to write whatever you want. So please don't stress out too much about tagging things Properly™ or making things difficult for tag wranglers.

[thesydneyfeminists]

“Queer Eye” Breaks Down Toxic Masculinity Culture

Since its release in February 2018, the Netflix reboot of “Queer Eye for the Straight Guy” has been all over the media. Like any pop culture fad, the show has received both raving reviews and ruthless criticisms. On its surface, “Queer Eye” is a fun, feel-good show with just the perfect amount of “edge” for its target audience. There’s a heavy focus on personal transformation, teachable moments, community building and self-love/ care. The cast is comprised of five gay men who each handle one aspect of these transformations: fashion, food, home, culture, and personal grooming. Personally, the show strikes an emotional cord for me. I’m a sucker for the exact kind of sappy, optimistic messages the show portrays. Plus, I’ve enjoyed watching the show and its main cast grow and adapt over three, short seasons. “Queer Eye” is easily bingeable, takes my mind off the doom and gloom of the world and fans a small flicker of hope that whispers, “we can change the world by helping one another.” Still, in researching this article, I found plenty of articles illuminating flaws in the show I never would have seen otherwise. These faults range broadly but include the capitalistic and materialistic basis of the show, the mistreatment of cast members, and the general “unqueerness” of a show with the word “queer” in its very name. All these points are valid, and I will link some sources at the end of my piece that flesh out these criticisms in more depth and nuance. Today, though, I want to apply a feminist lens to one particular aspect of “Queer Eye,” and that’s toxic masculinity.  

Image Description: Photo of the Fab Five against a plain, white backdrop. Tan is on the far left, wearing a black, long sleeve, collared shirt with large white polka dots and dark blue jeans. His arms are crossed in front of his chest and he is looking into the camera with a very slight smile. Bobby is standing to the right of Tan, wearing a black tshirt, black pants, and a light grey blazer. His body is angled towards Tan and his right hand is in his pocket. He is also looking directly at the camera with a neutral expression. Jonathan is in the center, wearing a white tshirt, dark blue pants and a blue jean jacket. His back is to Bobby and his hands are wrapped around Antoni’s arm. He is looking into the camera with a neutral expression. Antoni is to the right of Jonathan, wearing a grey tshirt, white jeans and a dark brown leather jacket. His left arm is wrapped around Karamo’s shoulder. He is looking at the camera with a neutral expression. Karamo is on the far right. He is wearing a dark blue tshirt and dark blue, velvet blazer with dark wash jeans. His right hand is in his pocket and he is also looking at the camera with a neutral expression. Image Source:  https://variety.com/2018/tv/features/queer-eye-emmys-reality-conversation-contenders-1202843269/

“Queer Eye” takes place in the deep south of the United States, a place with a reputation for racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia and ableism. The show and its cast attempt to grapple with many of these topics. Sometimes they succeed and sometimes they fail. Some of the failures are teachable moments. Others aren’t. One of the structural issues “Queer Eye” confronts fairly well and directly is toxic masculinity. Unlike the original show, not every episode the reboot features a cishet man. I very much appreciate how the Fab Five branch out to include more diverse people in the second and third seasons. For example, “Black Girl Magic” is probably one of the most memorable and well done of the episodes on the show. Another personal favorite is when the Fab Five help a young man “come out of the closet” for the first time. However, in many of the episodes, “Queer Eye uses gay men to unleash traditionally feminine qualities in masculine blokes to redefine what all of those things even mean” (https://www.redonline.co.uk/red-women/blogs/a531752/laura-jane-williams-queer-eye-feminist/). In doing so, the Fab Five actively deconstruct toxic masculinity and embody feminist activism. They show up, communicate with their fellow men and make them question what it means to “be a man.” And, for the most part, the men listen. Partially because it’s a TV show, of course, and they have to listen. But also, partially because the Fab Five have access to and constructively use their male privilege. They show how all prospective allies should use their various privileges: to call out toxic behaviors and help people who are willing to unlearn them.

Image Description: Photo of someone holding a sign up in front of some city buildings and trees. The sign reads “You can be masculine without being Toxic bro. #truthtopower.” It is written in mostly black letters on a white background. The words “you can” are outlined in bright pink. The word “masculine” is underlined in red. The word toxic is written in green, outlined in bright orange and underlined in red. “#truthtopower” is written in red. You can’t see much of the person holding the sign, except the top of their head and their hand/ forearm. They are wearing a grey baseball cap and a camouflage shirt. Image Source: https://theconversation.com/the-real-problem-with-toxic-masculinity-is-that-it-assumes-there-is-only-one-way-of-being-a-man-110305

Over the course of a week, the Fab Five teach the cishet men on their show fairly basic life lessons – how to properly groom themselves, cook a meal, decorate their house, etc. They very clearly don’t believe in the “one size fits all” model and thoughtfully tailor their lessons to the individual. The underlying moral of these interactions is the value of vulnerability. For example, in one episode, Antoni teaches a widower how to prepare a proper meal for his two young sons. Since the death of his wife, Rob Elrod struggled to prepare healthy meals for himself and his family. So, Antoni’s cooking lesson is a learning moment about food, but also about how to be the best possible parental figure to young boys. Throughout this episode, viewers see a tender, loving, yet flawed father. By the end of the episode, we are left hoping his continued relationship with his sons will be better because of the Fab Five. As another blogger suggests, “That’s the thing about toxic masculinity — it’s not just the unconscious belief that having your own style and enjoying refined pleasures of the senses makes you less masculine, it’s the belief that vulnerability in any form makes you less masculine and, therefore, less of a valuable human being” (https://medium.com/s/pop-feminism/queer-eye-for-the-male-victims-of-toxic-masculinity-cdcdad02730d). And if I had to choose one word to describe the very heart of “Queer Eye,” it would be “vulnerability.” Not only do the Fab Five cultivate this vulnerability with the men they makeover, but they show it themselves as well. And, in doing so, they invite the audience to share in these moments of opening up.

Image Description: Screenshot of a tweet by user andi zeisler (@andizeisler). Tweet  reads “general periodic reminder: the term ‘toxic masculinity’ does not mean ‘all men are toxic.’ It refers to cultural norms that equate masculinity with control, aggression, and violence and that label emotion, compassion, and empathy ‘unmanly.’” The tweet has been liked 20,166 times and retweeted 7,792 times. It was published on the 15th of February, 2018. Image Source: https://knowyourmeme.com/photos/1348005-toxic-masculinity via @andizeisler’s twitter account. 

I wish “Queer Eye” could be mandated viewing for all cishet men. But that’s one of the main problems with the show. The audience it attracts is not the audience that truly needs to watch it. There isn’t much hard data to support my hypothesis. But, if you tune into internet conversations about “Queer Eye”, it’s clear the majority of viewers are not cishet men. The show seems to attract a large LGBTQIA+ fandom, probably because wholesome representation of any kind is so difficult to come by for us. Otherwise, the target audience appears to be young(ish), upper middle class, white people. It definitely does not include the very demographic of men that so desperately needs to hear the lessons “Queer Eye” teaches. The result is a warm and fuzzy TV show catered very specifically to people who already know the dangers of toxic masculinity. For the length of an episode, we get to sit back and be proud of ourselves for simply understanding that deconstructing toxic masculinity is critical work. Furthermore, “Queer Eye” so often puts the burden of transformation on those with marginalized identities. As one writer quotes, “Queer Eye suggests we can all get along, if only half of us would just be super-duper nice and patient with the other half” (https://slate.com/culture/2018/02/netflixs-queer-eye-reviewed.html). The Fab Five are thus both a beacon of hope and a reminder that the darkness is still ever so present. Still, if nothing else, “Queer Eye” reinforces the importance of representation and suggests the possibility of a world without toxic masculinity. The Fab Five very clearly care about people, and their palpable labors of love alone make the show worth watching.  

By: Brittany L.

Sources

https://slate.com/human-interest/2018/02/why-queer-eyes-common-ground-message-fails-in-2018.html

https://slate.com/culture/2018/02/netflixs-queer-eye-reviewed.html

https://theestablishment.co/the-not-so-secret-materialism-of-queer-eye/

https://www.indiewire.com/2018/03/queer-eye-netflix-not-queer-1201932107/

https://www.them.us/story/skyler-jay-reveals-his-true-feelings-on-queer-eyes-trans-makeover-episode

https://www.bitchmedia.org/article/queer-eye-cutting-room-floor

https://www.bustle.com/p/queer-eye-season-2-exposes-the-fab-fives-flaws-but-thats-the-point-9394381

https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2018/06/queer-eye-season-2-review/562883/

https://www.redonline.co.uk/red-women/blogs/a531752/laura-jane-williams-queer-eye-feminist/

https://medium.com/s/pop-feminism/queer-eye-for-the-male-victims-of-toxic-masculinity-cdcdad02730d

[technicalsolutions88]

Facebook employees tried to alert the company about the activity of Cambridge Analytica as early as September 2015, per the SEC’s complaint against the company which was published yesterday.

This chimes with a court filing that emerged earlier this year — which also suggested Facebook knew of concerns about the controversial data company earlier than it had publicly said, including in repeat testimony to a UK parliamentary committee last year.

Facebook only finally kicked the controversial data firm off its ad platform in March 2018 when investigative journalists had blown the lid off the story.

In a section of the SEC complaint on “red flags” raised about the scandal-hit company Cambridge Analytica’s potential misuse of Facebook user data, the SEC complaint reveals that it already knew of concerns raised by staffers in its political advertising unit — who described CA as a “sketchy (to say the least) data modeling company that has penetrated our market deeply”.

Amid a flurry of major headlines for the company yesterday, including a $5BN FTC fine — all of which was selectively dumped on the same day media attention was focused on Mueller’s testimony before Congress — Facebook quietly disclosed it had also agreed to pay $100M to the SEC to settle a complaint over failures to properly disclose data abuse risks to its investors.

This tidbit was slipped out towards the end of a lengthy blog post by Facebook general counsel Colin Stretch which focused on responding to the FTC order with promises to turn over a new leaf on privacy.

CEO Mark Zuckerberg also made no mention of the SEC settlement in his own Facebook note about what he dubbed a “historic fine”.

As my TC colleague Devin Coldewey wrote yesterday, the FTC settlement amounts to a ‘get out of jail’ card for the company’s senior execs by granting them blanket immunity from known and unknown past data crimes.

‘Historic fine’ is therefore quite the spin to put on being rich enough and powerful enough to own the rule of law.

And by nesting its disclosure of the SEC settlement inside effusive privacy-washing discussion of the FTC’s “historic” action, Facebook looks to be hoping to detract attention from some really awkward details in its narrative about the Cambridge Analytica scandal which highlight ongoing inconsistencies and contradictions to put it politely.

The SEC complaint underlines that Facebook staff were aware of the dubious activity of Cambridge Analytica on its platform prior to the December 2015 Guardian story — which CEO Mark Zuckerberg has repeatedly claimed was when he personally became aware of the problem.

Asked about the details in the SEC document, a Facebook spokesman pointed us to comments it made earlier this year when court filings emerged that also suggested staff knew in September 2015. In this statement, from March, it says “employees heard speculation that Cambridge Analytica was scraping data, something that is unfortunately common for any internet service”, and further claims it was “not aware of the transfer of data from Kogan/GSR to Cambridge Analytica until December 2015”, adding: “When Facebook learned about Kogan’s breach of Facebook’s data use policies, we took action.”

Facebook staffers were also aware of concerns about Cambridge Analytica’s “sketchy” business when, around November 2015, Facebook employed psychology researcher Joseph Chancellor — aka the co-founder of app developer GSR — which, as Facebook has sought to pain it, is the ‘rogue’ developer that breached its platform policies by selling Facebook user data to Cambridge Analytica.

This means Facebook employed a man who had breached its own platform policies by selling user data to a data company which Facebook’s own staff had urged, months prior, be investigated for policy-violating scraping of Facebook data, per the SEC complaint.

Fast forward to March 2018 and press reports revealing the scale and intent of the Cambridge Analytica data heist blew up into a global data scandal for Facebook, wiping billions off its share price.

The really awkward question that Facebook has continued not to answer — and which every lawmaker, journalist and investor should therefore be putting to the company at every available opportunity — is why it employed GSR co-founder Chancellor in the first place?

Chancellor has never been made available by Facebook to the media for questions. He also quietly left Facebook last fall — we must assume with a generous exit package in exchange for his continued silence. (Assume because neither Facebook nor Chancellor have explained how he came to be hired.)

At the time of his departure, Facebook also made no comment on the reasons for Chancellor leaving — beyond confirming he had left.

Facebook has never given a straight answer on why it hired Chancellor. See, for example, its written response to a Senate Commerce Committee’s question — which is pure, textbook misdirection, responding with irrelevant details that do not explain how Facebook came to identify him for a role at the company in the first place (“Mr. Chancellor is a quantitative researcher on the User Experience Research team at Facebook, whose work focuses on aspects of virtual reality. We are investigating Mr. Chancellor’s prior work with Kogan through counsel”).

What was the outcome of Facebook’s internal investigation of Chancellor’s prior work? We don’t know because again Facebook isn’t saying anything.

More importantly, the company has continued to stonewall on why it hired someone intimately linked to a massive political data scandal that’s now just landed it an “historic fine”.

We asked Facebook to explain why it hired Chancellor — given what the SEC complaint shows it knew of Cambridge Analytica’s “sketchy” dealings — and got the same non-answer in response: “Mr Chancellor was a quantitative researcher on the User Experience Research team at Facebook, whose work focused on aspects of virtual reality. He is no longer employed by Facebook.”

We’ve asked Facebook to clarify why Chancellor was hired despite internal staff concerns linked to the company his company was set up to sell Facebook data to; and how of all possible professionals it could hire Facebook identified Chancellor in the first place — and will update this post with any response. (A search for ‘quantitative researcher’ on LinkedIn’s platform returns more than 177,000 results of professional who are using the descriptor in their profiles.)

Earlier this month a UK parliamentary committee accused the company of contradicting itself in separate testimonies on both sides of the Atlantic over knowledge of improper data access by third-party apps.

The committee grilled multiple Facebook and Cambridge Analytica employees (and/or former employees) last year as part of a wide-ranging enquiry into online disinformation and the use of social media data for political campaigning — calling in its final report for Facebook to face privacy and antitrust probes.

A spokeswoman for the DCMS committee told us it will be writing to Facebook next week to ask for further clarification of testimonies given last year in light of the timeline contained in the SEC complaint.

Under questioning in Congress last year, Facebook founder Zuckerberg also personally told congressman Mike Doyle that Facebook had first learned about Cambridge Analytica using Facebook data as a result of the December 2015 Guardian article.

Yet, as the SEC complaint underlines, Facebook staff had raised concerns months earlier. So, er, awkward.

There are more awkward details in the SEC complaint that Facebook seems keen to bury too — including that as part of a signed settlement agreement, GSR’s other co-founder Aleksandr Kogan told it in June 2016 that he had, in addition to transferring modelled personality profile data on 30M Facebook users to Cambridge Analytica, sold the latter “a substantial quantity of the underlying Facebook data” on the same set of individuals he’d profiled.

This US Facebook user data included personal information such as names, location, birthdays, gender and a sub-set of page likes.

Raw Facebook data being grabbed and sold does add some rather colorful shading around the standard Facebook line — i.e. that its business is nothing to do with selling user data. Colorful because while Facebook itself might not sell user data — it just rents access to your data and thereby sells your attention — the company has built a platform that others have repurposed as a marketplace for exactly that, and done so right under its nose…

The SEC complaint also reveals that more than 30 Facebook employees across different corporate groups learned of Kogan’s platform policy violations — including senior managers in its comms, legal, ops, policy and privacy divisions.

The UK’s data watchdog previously identified three senior managers at Facebook who it said were involved in email exchanges prior to December 2015 regarding the GSR/Cambridge Analytica breach of Facebook users data, though it has not made public the names of the staff in question.

The SEC complaint suggests a far larger number of Facebook staffers knew of concerns about Cambridge Analytica earlier than the company narrative has implied up to now. Although the exact timeline of when all the staffers knew is not clear from the document — with the discussed period being September 2015 to April 2017.

Despite 30+ Facebook employees being aware of GSR’s policy violation and misuse of Facebook data — by April 2017 at the latest — the company leaders had put no reporting structures in place for them to be able to pass the information to regulators.

“Facebook had no specific policies or procedures in place to assess or analyze this information for the purposes of making accurate disclosures in Facebook’s periodic filings,” the SEC notes.

The complaint goes on to document various additional “red flags” it says were raised to Facebook throughout 2016 suggesting Cambridge Analytica was misusing user data — including various press reports on the company’s use of personality profiles to target ads; and staff in Facebook’s own political ads unit being aware that the company was naming Facebook and Instagram ad audiences by personality trait to certain clients, including advocacy groups, a commercial enterprise and a political action committee.

“Despite Facebook’s suspicions about Cambridge and the red flags raised after the Guardian article, Facebook did not consider how this information should have informed the risk disclosures in its periodic filings about the possible misuse of user data,” the SEC adds.

from Social – TechCrunch https://ift.tt/2MeugHd Original Content From: https://techcrunch.com