Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Secret Agenda of a Facebook Quiz

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 114 posts

Re: The Secret Agenda of a Facebook Quiz

#71

Post by bryanrasmussen »

forgetsusername wrote: post #64
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…

1. There are many degrees between "didn't work at all" and "worked so well he became predident". 2. Cruz was an establishment candidate. This electorate wanted an outsider.

well, some geographically significant proportion of the electorate wanted an outsider.

Re: The Secret Agenda of a Facebook Quiz

#72

Post by pavelrub »

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?

If it was your job to measure all the things that affect the roll of a die, and this is the result of your prediction, then I would indeed say that you failed to do your job properly. You could defend the result by claiming that it is impossible to get better measurements, and that the 16.6% chance is a reflection of our unavoidable ignorance of the system, but this doesn't really seem applicable to predicting election results.

What you are essentially saying is that every prediction that doesn't claim certainty is always correct. If I "predict", by looking at a crystal ball, that there is an 80% chance of an asteroid destroying Earth tomorrow, and no asteroid destroys earth, do you think that it makes sense to say that I was correct in my prediction, because I said there was a 20% chance of it not happening? Surely you must agree that there some sense in which my prediction was wrong, or at the very least more wrong than NASA's prediction. The election predictions were wrong in the same sense.

Re: The Secret Agenda of a Facebook Quiz

#73

Post by gareim »

pavelrub wrote: post #72
gareim wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

If it was your job to measure all the things that affect the roll of a die, and this is the result of your prediction, then I would indeed say that you failed to do your job properly. You could defend the result by claiming that it is impossible to get better measurements, and that the 16.6% chance is a reflection of our unavoidable ignorance of the system, but this doesn't really seem applicable to predicting electi…

A lot of words to say very little.

>What you are essentially saying is that every prediction that doesn't claim certainty is always correct.

This seems to be the crux of it. No, what I am saying is that when you want to laugh at the polls/pollsters, you should be arguing how their methodology was wrong and what they could have done to find the true proportion +/- some standard error with however much confidence level. Simply laughing at pollsters when the minority wins is not good enough. 20% chance of winning and then actually winning does not seem all too unlikely to any reasonable person.

Re: The Secret Agenda of a Facebook Quiz

#74

Post by caseysoftware »

ENTP wrote: post #3

I'd suspected for years about such quizzes. Initially, I assumed the posts to calculate your (porn/movie/etc) name was a low grade phishing exercise as it asked you to mix personal data that are often used in security questions (eg first pet name plus mothers maiden name). This is a whole new level, but entirely unsurprising. Facebook is a data mining platform. Remembering that is nothing but a good thing.

When #first7jobs started trending on Twitter last year, I assumed it was a phishing attack - I've been covering such for years - and it turns out that two major banks were using jobs.. one was first job, the other was second job.

Two for one is a good deal.

Re: The Secret Agenda of a Facebook Quiz

#75

Post by pavelrub »

gareim wrote: post #73
pavelrub wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it was your job to measure all the things that affect the roll of a die, and this is the result of your prediction, then I would indeed say that you failed to do your job properly. You could defend the result by claiming that it is impossible to get better measurements, and that the 16.6% chance is a reflection of our unavoidable ignorance of the system, but this doesn't really seem applicable to predicting electi…

A lot of words to say very little. >What you are essentially saying is that every prediction that doesn't claim certainty is always correct. This seems to be the crux of it. No, what I am saying is that when you want to laugh at the polls/pollsters, you should be arguing how their methodology was wrong and what they could have done to find the true proportion +/- some standard error with however much confidence level…

> you should be arguing how their methodology was wrong and what they could have done to find the true proportion +/- some standard error with however much confidence level

There are countless of arguments about how their methodology was wrong and what could be improved, all over the internet. Almost nobody disputes that the models were bad. I thought this part was obvious.

> 20% chance of winning and then actually winning does not seem all too unlikely to any reasonable person.

It seems about 80% unlikely. But the question isn't whether it seems unlikely or not, but whether it makes sense to call the prediction results "wrong". 20% chance of an asteroid not hitting Earth and then not hitting Earth might not seem extremely unlikely, but the prediction that it had an 80% chance of hitting Earth is still a bad prediction.

Re: The Secret Agenda of a Facebook Quiz

#77

Post by delinka »

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?

That's not a prediction of the outcome. That's a statistic. A prediction of the outcome would be "you won't roll a 6."

Re: The Secret Agenda of a Facebook Quiz

#78

Post by delinka »

endless1234 wrote: post #68
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...

How does Trump winning prove he had more than a 20% chance of winning?

I feel this is the rub with this particular comment thread. If all they gave were stats, then they didn't make a prediction.

Re: The Secret Agenda of a Facebook Quiz

#79

Post by delinka »

sean_patel wrote: post #11
techwizrd wrote: post #8

I've been warning friends and family about this for years. It's incredible how much information people will give about themselves to get totally inane information. This "psy-ops" stuff is shady and scary, and I guarantee you that most voters have no idea it's happening.

> I've been warning friends and family about this for years. How did it work out? I tried the same too, but it was falling into deaf years. Most common response. "Sean beta (means son in hindi). You are being excessively paranoid. Facebook is a closed community, and I only share info with friends and family, so don't worry."

Nit: "falling on deaf ears"

I will concede to typo/autocorrect, but wanted to make the comment in case someone reads your comment and assumes the phrase correct.

Re: The Secret Agenda of a Facebook Quiz

#80

Post by RichardHeart »

"Mr. Zuckerberg is young, still skeptical that his radiant transparency machine could be anything but a force for good" This is naive bordering on delusional. I think Zuckerberg knows the real deal. Considering quotes like these: Zuck: Yeah so if you ever need info about anyone at Harvard Zuck: Just ask. Zuck: I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS [Redacted Friend's Name]: What? How'd you manage that one? Zuck: People just submitted it. Zuck: I don't know why. Zuck: They "trust me" Zuck: Dumb fucks"
Post reply on HN