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

Google, Facebook may have to reveal deepest secrets

politico.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 55 posts

Re: Google, Facebook may have to reveal deepest secrets

#41

Post by mc32 »

dmach wrote: post #38
blatherard wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the questions being investigated is how such targeting might have been achieved. There just happened to be a data operation run by Jared Kushner, who is at the center of Mueller's investigation.

I also like to direct people to the following https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/may/07/the-great... Also "no way a rag-tag team beats.." is straight from the plot of the movie Moneyball which is what we're talking about here. Also no-one is talking about GDPR which could stop this (please see below).

We're talking several orders of magnitude here. It's not comparable to the moneyball sitch.

The thing is, if that team has a secret sauce to convince people to change their minds, they are in the wrong game and would rake in billions serving corporate America and unseating Google and Facebook at their game.

It's a tempest in a teapot.

Re: Google, Facebook may have to reveal deepest secrets

#42

Post by djikastra »

mc32 wrote: post #2

$1.5 billion was spent in the federal election season. 100k was bought by Russian interests and were questioning those 100k when we spend much more destabilizing other governments we oppose. Still, we should look into why a campaign season wastes 1.5 billion on one contest and no one bats an eye, or some do a little but the media couldn't care less. It's one of their cash cows.

Your point is moot.

Inject 100k on a fake news items like "The pope is a paedofile" for instance and see the whole world talking and reposting it the next day.

Spend a billion promoting something real but boring and you might see almost non-existent tracktion.

By definition disinformation and destabilization campaigns are 1000x more effective, especially if organized by entities specializing on those for decades.

Re: Google, Facebook may have to reveal deepest secrets

#43

Post by dmach »

mc32 wrote: post #41
dmach wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I also like to direct people to the following https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/may/07/the-great... Also "no way a rag-tag team beats.." is straight from the plot of the movie Moneyball which is what we're talking about here. Also no-one is talking about GDPR which could stop this (please see below).

We're talking several orders of magnitude here. It's not comparable to the moneyball sitch. The thing is, if that team has a secret sauce to convince people to change their minds, they are in the wrong game and would rake in billions serving corporate America and unseating Google and Facebook at their game. It's a tempest in a teapot.

I think you're right just wanted to highlight that some seriously impressive tech was applied. Any suggestion that it was a exclusively Russia/Ukrainian team that did everything could be a distraction so that the whole issue can be lumped into the popular dialogue. I'm sure there was a Russian or two on the real team.

Re: Google, Facebook may have to reveal deepest secrets

#44

Post by Houshalter »

mc32 wrote: post #36
seventytwo wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

$100k is only what's been proven so far. I highly doubt that's the entirety of the Russian influence campaign...

Then why are the likes of P&G rethinking their digital ads? You know, even if the amount were $10 million, in the face of over $1 Billion, it's still peanuts. If it were that easy, we'd be toppling regimes all over the world for pennies on the dollar but we're not because that's dreamland stuff.

Because an ad that makes people angry over a lie is 10 thousand times more effective than "buy our brand next time you shop". Why are we here commenting over a political story instead of about what toothpaste brand is best?

Re: Google, Facebook may have to reveal deepest secrets

#45

Post by mc32 »

Houshalter wrote: post #44
mc32 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then why are the likes of P&G rethinking their digital ads? You know, even if the amount were $10 million, in the face of over $1 Billion, it's still peanuts. If it were that easy, we'd be toppling regimes all over the world for pennies on the dollar but we're not because that's dreamland stuff.

Because an ad that makes people angry over a lie is 10 thousand times more effective than "buy our brand next time you shop". Why are we here commenting over a political story instead of about what toothpaste brand is best?

I don't think that captures it.

You're basically arguing the angriest electorate will win. Obama won on Hope.

I think what won the election this time was that people were a bit sick and tired of pols who promised all kinds of things but never delivered. Hillary promised all kinds of things and I would venture she never intended on delivering on many. Personally, I voted third party.

I mean, if we look at her political history, it's always been opportunistic -by that I mean changing political position if it favored her. From the Super predator stuff to opposition to gay marriage to many things in between. I think people were tired of that and thought Trump offered an alternative which even if it didn't match up in all counts, they could at least believe he had the US interest in mind (as opposed to globalists who might have other priorities.)

I think it's interesting that at one time the left campaigned against the mainstream left's globalist interventionist agenda but now they are proponents of globalism and interventionism and open borders. It's an interesting dynamic to witness.

Re: Google, Facebook may have to reveal deepest secrets

#46

Post by mehrdada »

snarf21 wrote: post #23
sabalaba wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many of the valuable projects that we get from FB (AI Research), Amazon (Echo, Kindle, etc.), Google (Brain, Waymo, GMail, Android, etc.), are due to their strong market position and a product that throws off cash. They have this market position because they are the best at what they do. These companies don't have monopolies because of government mandate, they have them because they make the best products. It's frigh…

I generally agree with you that they are doing good things but the bigger question is what harm are they doing? We need to stop having these huge mergers. Think what a different landscape we'd have if Facebook didn't own Instagram and WhatsApp. Those companies had a choice, fight FB with limited money or cash out. (I'm not judging them...) Look at Snap. They've said no and so FB threw all their money at duplicating a…

You lost me at "Musk is the only one who really seems to be "walking the walk"", which is inconsistent with the rest of your theory, but luckily for you that was the last sentence. :)

It's clear Musk is also interested in consolidation and expansion of his empire, probably one day under X.com brand, but I guess since he is good at working on his fan base and talking about imaginary ideas, he should be treated differently than Larry Page or Jeff Bezos.

When you think about it from another perspective (playing devil's advocate here for the sake of illustration), SpaceX is not about going to Mars, it's just another satellite launching business working its underpaid employees 80-hour-weeks with that line; SolarCity was just another put solar panel on your roof business you see a ton of in Costco without any clear differentiation (how about "unmerging" that too, by the way?) Heck, look at Tesla "Autopilot", nothing but a joke.

If what Musk does is Good, I like to point out Larry Page's company had a self-driving car project since ages ago; they tried doing breakthrough work on life sciences, and a lot of other things. Perhaps Larry Page should have dated Hollywood actresses all-year-long to get more positive press coverage.

The point is, yes, there are pros and cons. And you basically agreed to the parent post's when you brought up Musk's example.

Re: Google, Facebook may have to reveal deepest secrets

#47

Post by mc32 »

djikastra wrote: post #42
mc32 wrote: post #2

$1.5 billion was spent in the federal election season. 100k was bought by Russian interests and were questioning those 100k when we spend much more destabilizing other governments we oppose. Still, we should look into why a campaign season wastes 1.5 billion on one contest and no one bats an eye, or some do a little but the media couldn't care less. It's one of their cash cows.

Your point is moot. Inject 100k on a fake news items like "The pope is a paedofile" for instance and see the whole world talking and reposting it the next day. Spend a billion promoting something real but boring and you might see almost non-existent tracktion. By definition disinformation and destabilization campaigns are 1000x more effective, especially if organized by entities specializing on those for decades.

You're mistaken if you think there were not opposition ads against the opposition. Even just looking at the mainstream traditional ads by Hillary, they were very dark ads. Just the other day she was still chiding women for not voting for her, as if she was owed their vote. Who has that much entitlement?

In your example Satan is accused of owning the pope and all other miscreants.

Re: Google, Facebook may have to reveal deepest secrets

#48

Post by askvictor »

mc32 wrote: post #24
askvictor wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't dismiss a (even much) smaller amount; if properly targeted it can be a lot more effective than the crop dusting approach that traditional advertising takes.

That's ridiculous. There is no way that a crack Russian/Ukranian team understand or have better info on the American public than American "pundits" and campaign professionals. Why couldn't Bernie buy 200k of highly targeted ads and beat Hillary or why couldn't a very well connected Hillary (who has good connections to Russia as well) not buy highly targeted and effective ads? I don't buy that narrative. There is no w…

This argument seems to fly in the face of the startup ethos (which I guessed had some currency at HN). It is precisely a rag-tag team with $100k and _a different way of thinking_ that brings down a $1bn machine. I'm not saying that this is what happened in this case, but it could happen (or have happened), so don't dismiss it just because of the resourcing asymmetry.

Re: Google, Facebook may have to reveal deepest secrets

#49

Post by askvictor »

corporateslave2 wrote: post #20
askvictor wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't dismiss a (even much) smaller amount; if properly targeted it can be a lot more effective than the crop dusting approach that traditional advertising takes.

Do you really believe this? You really think 100k stands up to 1Billion?

Sure it can. If it can't then startups shouldn't bother, and revolutionaries, insurgents and freedom fighters should just surrender.

I don't know enough about what happened in this case, but you can't dismiss the entire argument purely on the spend amount.

Re: Google, Facebook may have to reveal deepest secrets

#50

Post by dmach »

askvictor wrote: post #48
mc32 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's ridiculous. There is no way that a crack Russian/Ukranian team understand or have better info on the American public than American "pundits" and campaign professionals. Why couldn't Bernie buy 200k of highly targeted ads and beat Hillary or why couldn't a very well connected Hillary (who has good connections to Russia as well) not buy highly targeted and effective ads? I don't buy that narrative. There is no w…

This argument seems to fly in the face of the startup ethos (which I guessed had some currency at HN). It is precisely a rag-tag team with $100k and _a different way of thinking_ that brings down a $1bn machine. I'm not saying that this is what happened in this case, but it could happen (or have happened), so don't dismiss it just because of the resourcing asymmetry.

But it's likely true that it wasn't all their doing if they do exist. They could handy fall guys for whomever did the real work.
Post reply on HN