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

The Cambridge Analytica scandal isn’t a scandal: this is how Facebook works

independent.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 163 posts

Re: The Cambridge Analytica scandal isn’t a scandal: this is how Facebook works

#151

Post by mhneu »

ejstronge wrote: post #121
skookumchuck wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There's just a ton more money on the right - the Koch network and GOP billionaire donors dwarf the spending by progressives. Clinton heavily outspent Trump in the last election. "Clinton's unsuccessful campaign ($768 million in spending) outspent Trump's successful one ($398 million) by nearly 2 to 1. The Democratic National Committee and left-leaning outside groups also outspent their Republican counterparts by co…

Comparing the campaign spending does not capture the (vast) amounts of money spent by PACs. Indeed, one would expect Democrats to have more small-money, campaign donors, as opposed to large-dollar PAC donors. I'm not satisfied with the off-hand dismissal of outside spending from the linked article. Since 2010, this has (arguably) been the more interesting area to scrutinize, and deserves more than a sentence.

And not just PACs - there is 'deep spending', on propaganda media: Breitbart, IJR, NY Post, WSJ, and on foundations: Jud Watch (has spent $500M in last decade to attack Bill and Hillary), ALEC, SPN, Cit U (that Supreme Court decision was planned by billionaires).

There is a huge incentive for billionaires to spend money on propaganda, because they need votes for their pro-wealthy policies, which almost no voter would support without propaganda.

Re: The Cambridge Analytica scandal isn’t a scandal: this is how Facebook works

#152

Post by triplesec »

zzzcpan wrote: post #100
ikeyany wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That explains the actions of (some of) Facebook's "rockstar" developers. That does not explain the actions of Facebook's data scientists, psychologists, product managers, and execs. Occam's razor - They knew, and perhaps they cared, but they cared far more about their salary and climbing the industry ladder to say no or blow the whistle.

You cannot really expect people who have to work for a living and do work for a vertically structured corporation to be ethical and to go against their bosses. The problem is inherent to capitalism and it can make people do far worse things than this, like killing people or promoting and making wars.

This response is the 'I was only following orders' response

Re: The Cambridge Analytica scandal isn’t a scandal: this is how Facebook works

#154

Post by colordrops »

timgilbert wrote: post #120
colordrops wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The more interesting question to me is why is CA being called out for it? I mentioned this in another thread and got immediately downvoted, which I predicted would happen. I will add more context here to perhaps avoid that. What I said was: "What changed is that an attack vector has been found to take out Cambridge Analytica. The Democrats are in full political warfare with the Trump regime, and this is just anothe…

I believe that many organizations are actively working in opposition to Trump using these kinds of psychographic tools, but I'm not really convinced that the upswellings of public sentiment are mostly, or even largely, the result of their efforts. Just reporting factual information about what his administration is doing works fairly well to alienate large parts of the nation which aren't part of his political base, a…

The hysteria and misinformation in the Russia campaign is a counter example to your claim.

Re: The Cambridge Analytica scandal isn’t a scandal: this is how Facebook works

#155

Post by vvggff »

ninkendo wrote: post #71
ahoka wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about simply banning targeted advertisement? It's clearly toxic to society.

Facebook would cease to exist. I love it! Where do I sign the petition?

Start by deleting your account.

Re: The Cambridge Analytica scandal isn’t a scandal: this is how Facebook works

#156

Post by skookumchuck »

Ataraxy wrote: post #125
ejstronge wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Comparing the campaign spending does not capture the (vast) amounts of money spent by PACs. Indeed, one would expect Democrats to have more small-money, campaign donors, as opposed to large-dollar PAC donors. I'm not satisfied with the off-hand dismissal of outside spending from the linked article. Since 2010, this has (arguably) been the more interesting area to scrutinize, and deserves more than a sentence.

Or the billions in freely given media coverage.

Ironically, that was CNN, etc., giving Trump airtime in the mistaken belief that he'd hang himself on his own words. It wasn't due to media billionaires trying to get Trump elected.

Re: The Cambridge Analytica scandal isn’t a scandal: this is how Facebook works

#157

Post by setr »

b1daly wrote: post #135
partiallypro wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They aren't just scumbags they are snake oil salesmen. No one in the political world thinks of them as anything but snake oil salesmen. Their company is about tricking people into buying their service and never delivering any results. Look at their track record. A lot of people will point to them and say "see, this is how Trump won the election" but that's just not even remotely close to the truth, and honestly just…

How would you know this? Given that Trump won on the slimmest of margins, if CA’s work resulted in a net increase in Trump’s margin, the “ROI” is huge.

Trump may have won on a slim margin, but he was supposed to lose on a huge one, by most predictions. If CA merely granted a net positive, then it likely paled in comparison to whatever else substantially affected results.

Re: The Cambridge Analytica scandal isn’t a scandal: this is how Facebook works

#158

Post by partiallypro »

b1daly wrote: post #135
partiallypro wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They aren't just scumbags they are snake oil salesmen. No one in the political world thinks of them as anything but snake oil salesmen. Their company is about tricking people into buying their service and never delivering any results. Look at their track record. A lot of people will point to them and say "see, this is how Trump won the election" but that's just not even remotely close to the truth, and honestly just…

How would you know this? Given that Trump won on the slimmest of margins, if CA’s work resulted in a net increase in Trump’s margin, the “ROI” is huge.

Trump didn't win by a slim margin at all, he lost the popular vote, but only largely because of California. He had early calls in several states that Hillary was supposed to win. Hillary lost states she never stepped foot in, she was just not a strong candidate, she didn't campaign, she had little ground game and conceded states simply because they were a "firewall." Trump should have never been within spitting distance of any Democratic candidate, especially after Obama who was fairly popular among moderates.

Re: The Cambridge Analytica scandal isn’t a scandal: this is how Facebook works

#159

Post by lobf »

skookumchuck wrote: post #122
ejstronge wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Comparing the campaign spending does not capture the (vast) amounts of money spent by PACs. Indeed, one would expect Democrats to have more small-money, campaign donors, as opposed to large-dollar PAC donors. I'm not satisfied with the off-hand dismissal of outside spending from the linked article. Since 2010, this has (arguably) been the more interesting area to scrutinize, and deserves more than a sentence.

I also recall the heavy domination of social media like Reddit by Clinton supporters. CNN was solidly in the Clinton advocacy camp, too. Despite all that, she still had to manipulate the DNC party rules to get the nomination. Trump was nominated despite the rather intense opposition from the GOP establishment. The polls all predicted an easy coast to victory for Clinton. Even Trump on election night appeared shocked…

>Despite all that, she still had to manipulate the DNC party rules to get the nomination.

Are you being serious? She was the overwhelming choice in the primaries... Bernie lost by like 4 million votes. What are you talking about???

Re: The Cambridge Analytica scandal isn’t a scandal: this is how Facebook works

#160

Post by skookumchuck »

lobf wrote: post #159
skookumchuck wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I also recall the heavy domination of social media like Reddit by Clinton supporters. CNN was solidly in the Clinton advocacy camp, too. Despite all that, she still had to manipulate the DNC party rules to get the nomination. Trump was nominated despite the rather intense opposition from the GOP establishment. The polls all predicted an easy coast to victory for Clinton. Even Trump on election night appeared shocked…

>Despite all that, she still had to manipulate the DNC party rules to get the nomination. Are you being serious? She was the overwhelming choice in the primaries... Bernie lost by like 4 million votes. What are you talking about???

> Are you being serious?

Yes. Check out the DNC chairman's book on it.

Post reply on HN