I don't quite get why people are mad at Schmidt and not the Guardian for shady reporting.<p>So a woman interned at SLC Elections (which later became Cambridge Analytica) and now works at Uber.<p>After reading the story I fail to see her significance to the story of the Cambridge Analytica scandal.<p>The author of that piece is trying to make a fact that she's the daughter of Eric Schmidt into some sinister "Silicon Valley elite" impugning that she's the mastermind behind Cambridge Analytica becoming the shady organization.<p>It's really shady, grasping at rhetorical straws journalism.<p>"A firm that belonged to someone she knew about through her father" is so much juicier and scandalous than "Palantir".<p>Strangely, I don't know Eric Schmidt and I do know about Palantir.<p>Yes, Schmidt can buy more justice than most of us, but in this case, the primary issue is the high cost of justice, not that some people are rich and can afford it.<p>The idea that rich can bully anyone with lawyers is seductive, but this is The Guardian, a newspaper with its own army of lawyers. Newspaper that published Snowden files and many other controversial things.<p>If there was no merit to the complaint, the Guardian would tell Schmidt to sod off.<p>After reading the article it seems to me that the "journalist" threw a completely innocent person under the bus, tried to implicate her into an international scandal only because she happened to be a daughter of a famous person.<p>It's appalling what Guardian did implicating her in this scandal. And sad because it was otherwise well researched.
You can view the diff of the scrubbing via NewSniffer: <a href="https://www.newssniffer.co.uk/articles/1375881/diff/7/8" rel="nofollow">https://www.newssniffer.co.uk/articles/1375881/diff/7/8</a>
The same Eric Schmidt once famously stated "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place" [0]. Apparently, it depends.<p>[0] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_to_hide_argument#In_favor_of_the_argument" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_to_hide_argument#In_fa...</a>
The Guardian haven't been trustworthy for a while now.<p>It seems as though only recently did they start turning a profit [1] and I suspect some of this is achieved by giving up some of their original journalistic integrity.<p>[1] <a href="https://www.opednews.com/articles/Guardian-turns-a-profit-fo-by-Stephen-Fox-Advocacy-Journalism_Citizen-Journalism_First-Amendment_First-Amendment-Press-190502-282.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.opednews.com/articles/Guardian-turns-a-profit-fo...</a>
> It's extraordinary that the daughter of Eric Schmidt—the man who says that privacy is dead—would be using U.K. privacy laws to get herself taken out of the piece<p><a href="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sippenhaft" rel="nofollow">https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sippenhaft</a>
That "whistleblower" has no credibility left:<p>>> In 2014, Wylie co-founded Eunoia Technologies[9][23] along with former SCL/Cambridge Analytica senior staff Brent Clickard, Mark Gettleson and Tadas Jucikas.[23] In describing his ambitions for developing Eunoia, Wylie stated, "I want to build the NSA’s wet dream".[23] Eunoia Technologies has been criticized for the similar psychographic profiling tactics used by Cambridge Analytica,[9][23] using the same dataset shared by Alexander Kogan.[9][23][24][25]<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Wylie#Eunoia_Technologies,_2014-17" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Wylie#Eunoia_Techn...</a><p>So he basically accused Cambridge Analytica of doing what he then went on to do with his own firm. It's great that we learned all that shady business going on, but it's clear that Wylie's motives were not altruistic.
The Guardian was pushing the narrative that Dix and the rest of the Cambridge Analytica management were evil geniuses.<p>The alternative is that the management didn't really understand technology and were often overselling what was possible to potential clients. A story that Sophie Schmidt had helped them understand stuff reinforces this alternative line.
I am surprised by the many comments here so critical of the Guardian. I live in the USA, and I find it frustrating trying to find news sources that don’t seem biased with strong agendas.<p>I pay a monthly donation to the Guardian because I find them better than most other news sources. I also like NPR Nightly News (they give fair time to both sides in contentious issues) and sometimes the BBC.
This article is kind of all over the place, at first blaming the Guardian but then backing down a bit to say that they had limited resources to fight what would be an expensive legal battle, which is understandable.<p>> He said he was put in touch with Gavin Millar, a well-known London lawyer who had worked on the Edward Snowden case. Wylie said the lawyer suggested he give the story to a U.S. newspaper because the First Amendment provided a stronger defense against accusations of libel..."it was actually The Guardian's Katharine Viner who reached out to Dean Baquet at the New York Times to help set up the partnership." Wylie’s revelations were published jointly by The Guardian and The New York Times<p>This should be the main takeaway from all of this. They were making a calculated choice based on the resources they had available. The Guardian should still be seen as a trustworthy publication
Surprised people are still listening to Christopher Wylie, the "whistleblower" who founded a company as shady as Cambridge Analytica and only blew the cover after being sued by them for soliciting their clients and offering the same services.<p><a href="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Wylie" rel="nofollow">https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Wylie</a>
> When one of the world’s most respected newspapers went up against former Google CEO Eric Schmidt and his daughter and backed down, Wylie decided to go to The New York Times.<p>Let's keep in mind the NYT was a Pulitzer finalist for its coverage of the scandal and other privacy-related projects that stemmed from it.
Oh who would have thought it. 2 years after this story was published he comes out this this story. Could it be at all related to the fact he has a book coming out 8th Oct based on the subject. I dont know why we fall for this media stories that just pump out because some guy the world has moved on from 2 years ago is trying to peddle a new book.<p>The guy works for H&M fashion in their retail division doing pretty much the same work he did for Cambridge Analytica. He was at the bylinefestival recently at which Wylie insisted on a chauffeur back and forth to his flat in London.<p>Demands no doubt agreed with his hollywood agent William Morris.<p>If you give people enough money they turn into the people that once hated and called out as a whistleblower.