The Secret Agenda of a Facebook Quiz

Post by potatosoup » Sun, Jan 22, 2017, 12:56 PM UTC

GavinMcG wrote: post #60

imron wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I can imagine how this would be spun if "evil Hillary" was found to be targeting people with "dark posts". You do realise this article is exactly that kind of post right? Have a look at who wrote it, which foundation funds his fellowship, who created that foundation, and which candidate that billionaire donated funds to and supported. We are all but pawns in the games played by these billionaires. Edit: also, regar…

That you are repeating this all over the thread doesn't make it a fact. Sure, if you start with the lens that everything is controlled behind the scenes by shady billionaire puppet masters, then this fits in with that view. But that's just how all the other conspiracy theorists do it, too: hold fast to a predetermined conclusion, highlighting whatever situations you can grab ahold of that look like they fit.

Post by akjainaj » Sun, Jan 22, 2017, 1:06 PM UTC

gareim wrote: post #57

fovc wrote: post #56

And yet for all their magic, they were just as wrong about the outcome of the election: You might think from a casual reading of the Cambridge Analytica press release that they predicted the outcome of the election. They did not. A company spokesman called reporters before election day to say that Trump had only a 20 per cent chance of winning. Source: http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/12/the-british-data-cruncher...

I'm not sure I get this logic. If I told someone they had a 16.6% chance of rolling a die and getting a 6, and then they proceed to roll the die and get a 6, would you laugh and tell me that I was wrong?

Post by forgetsusername » Sun, Jan 22, 2017, 1:18 PM UTC

fovc wrote: post #56

And yet for all their magic, they were just as wrong about the outcome of the election: You might think from a casual reading of the Cambridge Analytica press release that they predicted the outcome of the election. They did not. A company spokesman called reporters before election day to say that Trump had only a 20 per cent chance of winning. Source: http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/12/the-british-data-cruncher...

Post by forgetsusername » Sun, Jan 22, 2017, 1:19 PM UTC

gareim wrote: post #57

fovc wrote: post #56

And yet for all their magic, they were just as wrong about the outcome of the election: You might think from a casual reading of the Cambridge Analytica press release that they predicted the outcome of the election. They did not. A company spokesman called reporters before election day to say that Trump had only a 20 per cent chance of winning. Source: http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/12/the-british-data-cruncher...

I'm not sure I get this logic. If I told someone they had a 16.6% chance of rolling a die and getting a 6, and then they proceed to roll the die and get a 6, would you laugh and tell me that I was wrong?

Post by rounce » Sun, Jan 22, 2017, 1:34 PM UTC

patcon wrote: post #18

mjfl wrote: post #10

I'm not impressed. Did anyone notice that Cambridge Analytics did not work for Ted Cruz? I mean he did win Texas and the great plains states, but those were his most-winnable locations from the beginning due to his consistent conservatism and other nominees dropping out. He even lost the south, which should have been his other target, presumably due to being off-wavelength with southern voters, something the analytic…

I imagine we'd be equally unimpressed with other early tech. imho, our concern should be of an extrapolative nature. we can guess where this will be in 5 or 10 years, nevermind Ted Cruz' future electoral successes. and we know how easy people are to psychologically "nudge". (sorry for assuming our agreement there)