Research entry · Not admitted

Cambridge Analytica Facebook

This is a research-stage projection. It is not admitted. Source attribution does not establish independent corroboration. Inspect

Research dossier, timeline and source context. The original research material remains available for inspection.

The collection through Aleksandr Kogan's Facebook application commonly known as `thisisyourdigitallife` / GSRApp of data from direct app users and, through Facebook's then-existing Graph API, data associated with many of those users' Facebook friends; transfer and use of data/work product by Cambridge Analytica/SCL for voter profiling and targeting; Facebook's platform/data-governance role; U.S. Federal Trade Commission findings and settlements; UK Information Commissioner's Office investigation and enforcement; UK parliamentary investigations; Cambridge Analytica's claimed and disputed psychographic capabilities; and the crucial distinction between:

Scope

The initial governed demo scope is primarily:

The dossier does not assume Cambridge Analytica caused Donald Trump's victory, caused Brexit, or possessed a uniquely effective "mind-control" technology.

data acquisition / deception / platform-policy conduct, and

whether Cambridge Analytica's work measurably changed an election outcome.

U.S. Facebook data / U.S. voter profiling,

2016 U.S. presidential-election claims,

UK regulatory/parliamentary evidence where it illuminates data lineage, organizational claims, or evidentiary limits.

Temporal bounds

Data collection/model development: 2013–2015 2016 U.S. election activity: 2015–2016 Public scandal/investigations: 2018–2020 Regulatory/academic lessons: 2019–2026

Questions in the research record

C-1 — 270,000 vs 50–65 million vs 87 million · question / dispute
C-2 — Legitimate API access vs improper transfer/use · question / dispute
C-3 — Raw data vs derivative model · question / dispute
C-4 — "Facebook data was used in Trump campaign" vs "models derived from Facebook data were used" · question / dispute
C-5 — Capability ≠ deployment · question / dispute
C-6 — Deployment ≠ efficacy · question / dispute
C-7 — Efficacy ≠ election outcome causation · question / dispute
C-8 — FTC final CA finding vs Kogan/Nix settlements · question / dispute
C-9 — Facebook platform policy vs data-protection law · question / dispute
C-10 — Facebook £500k vs FTC $5B · question / dispute
C-11 — Cambridge Analytica / Brexit claims · question / dispute
C-12 — FEC case closure vs historical factual conclusion · question / dispute
C-13 — Whistleblower claim vs company denial · question / dispute
C-14 — Psychographic targeting research is not one settled efficacy number · question / dispute
C-15 — Privacy harm does not depend on election-effect proof · question / dispute

Not established on this record

Boundary

"87 million users had their data stolen" is too compressed.

semantic trap / refusal

Boundary

Direct app users ≠ app users' friends.

semantic trap / refusal

Boundary

"No consent" is too broad unless the data field and person class are specified.

semantic trap / refusal

Boundary

Platform-policy violation ≠ computer intrusion.

semantic trap / refusal

Boundary

Facebook's claim that access was "legitimate" under its then-current API channels is a first-party platform characterization, not a complete privacy-law conclusion.

semantic trap / refusal

Boundary

Kogan's collection ≠ Cambridge Analytica's later use.

semantic trap / refusal

Boundary

Facebook data ≠ personality score.

semantic trap / refusal

Boundary

Personality score ≠ voter file.

semantic trap / refusal

Boundary

Voter profile ≠ delivered political ad.

semantic trap / refusal

Boundary

Delivered ad ≠ persuasion.

semantic trap / refusal

Boundary

Persuasion ≠ vote change.

semantic trap / refusal

Boundary

Vote change ≠ election outcome change.

semantic trap / refusal

Boundary

Psychographic targeting can be effective in some experimental/commercial contexts without proving Cambridge Analytica's claimed election effect.

semantic trap / refusal

Boundary

Cambridge Analytica's marketing claims are first-party promotional claims, not independent evidence of efficacy.

semantic trap / refusal

Boundary

Whistleblower testimony is attributed testimony.

semantic trap / refusal

Boundary

Alexander Nix's testimony/letters are first-party defense/position.

semantic trap / refusal

Boundary

FTC complaint allegations ≠ FTC final findings.

semantic trap / refusal

Boundary

Kogan/Nix consent orders ≠ admissions of every Cambridge Analytica allegation.

semantic trap / refusal

Boundary

Cambridge Analytica bankruptcy/administration ≠ a merits finding about election influence.

semantic trap / refusal

Boundary

Facebook's 2019 $5B FTC settlement covers broader privacy-order allegations, not a finding that every dollar of the penalty is attributable to Cambridge Analytica.

semantic trap / refusal

Boundary

Facebook "up to 87 million" ≠ FTC's 50–65 million U.S. friends estimate.

semantic trap / refusal

Boundary

A House of Commons committee report is a parliamentary investigative finding, not a criminal or civil judgment.

semantic trap / refusal

Boundary

The ICO's data-protection findings do not establish U.S. election causation.

semantic trap / refusal

Boundary

The ICO's statement that it had no evidence CA/SCL performed data-analytics work for EU Referendum campaigns must not be rewritten as proof CA/SCL had no relationship, pitch, contact, or other non-analytics role.

semantic trap / refusal

Boundary

AIQ ≠ Cambridge Analytica.

semantic trap / refusal

Boundary

"Cambridge Analytica worked for Trump" ≠ "the Facebook-derived psychographic model was used to determine the election."

semantic trap / refusal

Boundary

"Psychographics was not used" claims are actor/source-specific and contested.

semantic trap / refusal

Boundary

FEC matter closure/dismissal ≠ a factual finding that Cambridge Analytica had no effect on the election.

semantic trap / refusal

Boundary

Privacy harm ≠ electoral-outcome harm.

semantic trap / refusal

Boundary

Democratic-risk concerns do not require proof that one historical election outcome was changed.

semantic trap / refusal

Record provenance

research_artifact: {"pack_id":"demo-corpus-twelve","artifact_slug":"cambridge-analytica-facebook-demo-corpus-dossier-v0-1","artifact_sha256":"fe48d08174b103b56e22866f930b733f89b221f939619e9340bd919e7c943109","source_href":"/research/demo-corpus-twelve/cambridge-analytica-facebook-demo-corpus-dossier-v0-1","source_kind":"dossier"}

Projection axes

Postureresearch

Source kindresearch_template

Source surfacenot supplied

This renderer preserves upstream distinctions; it does not mint identity, support, authenticity, admission, or truth.

INSPECTCounterpedia Check · this read modelInspect only the signals this renderer actually received

Record identifier: research:demo-corpus-twelve:cambridge-analytica-facebook-demo-corpus-dossier-v0-1
Posture: research
Source kind: research_template
Lifecycle: not recorded
Source footprint: not supplied to this presentation
Capture associations: not evaluated here
Unresolved capture identity: not evaluated here
Truth: not a finding of this renderer
Authenticity: not inferred from source or capture presence
Research profile: Demo Corpus
Artifact kind: dossier
Source candidates: 25

CHECK is inspection, not a truth badge. Source presence ≠ support; capture association ≠ authenticity; rendering ≠ admission.

Cambridge Analytica Facebook

Scope

Temporal bounds

Questions in the research record

Not established on this record

Read with sources

Selected sources (25)