Facebook is America’s scapegoat du jour

Post by skocznymroczny » Fri, Mar 23, 2018, 3:04 PM UTC

knowThySelfx wrote: post #80

phronese wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I quick scan through the news search engine finds that almost exclusively right wing sources publish on this. Be critical about such news articles.

So what about left wing published news? Automatically becomes legit? By the way, I didn't know that site was right or left.

Post by maxerickson » Fri, Mar 23, 2018, 3:10 PM UTC

neuronexmachina wrote: post #72

maxerickson wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I understand it, the Trump campaign mostly used Facebook's in house ad targeting services. In contrast to the Clinton campaign that relied on their own data team for targeting. It's hard to get a read on it, but there are plenty of people slagging Cambridge Analytica as being pretty worthless.

Maybe he's just overtooting his own horn, but CA's CEO claimed differently: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/20/cambridge-analytica-claimed-... > In the video posted by Channel 4, Nix is heard saying that the company did much of the work behind Trump's campaign, which resulted in a shocking upset victory over Hillary Clinton in November 2016. > "We did all the research, all the data, all the analytics, all the targeting,…

Post by jessaustin » Fri, Mar 23, 2018, 3:11 PM UTC

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #64

humanrebar wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Start blathering about Hillary's emails, as if that were somehow important. Well, it was certainly an incident of corruption and/or incompetence. People do (and should) get fired for mishandling sensitive information. Maybe the HN community in general wants to give Clinton a pass on it, but investigating facts that illustrate the character and competence of presidential candidates is certainly newsworthy. There was…

I yearn for the Obama days when this and Beghasi were the biggest scandals that anyone could come up with. Now it’s collusion, financial opacity in business dealings, sex with playmates, etc... it really is too much.

Post by parthdesai » Fri, Mar 23, 2018, 3:17 PM UTC

g09980 wrote: post #34

Agustus wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. Look at the playbook from an agnostic position instead. The reason the media gave candidate Trump the press was because, just like candidate Obama, sold eyeballs; Trump more so because he got both sides mad. Recall the puff pieces and the discussion of Michelle Obama's fantastic arms, that is nothing but puff and she moved the papers, so they covered the candidate more; to Hilary's detriment. 2. You need to think…

So the use of Facebook data was lauded as genius and now isn't. [1] Now you got me curious if the media would be saying all the same things if Cambridge helped the other candidate get elected. [1] http://thehill.com/opinion/technology/379245-whats-genius-fo...

Post by cmac2992 » Fri, Mar 23, 2018, 3:25 PM UTC

jklinger410 wrote: post #95

WallWextra wrote: post #15

Here is, roughly, the media's playbook: 1. Never stop talking about Trump. Mention his name 300 times an hour on CNN. He's not a serious candidate, but he is entertaining so they give him free publicity until he is a serious candidate. 2. Start blathering about Hillary's emails, as if that were somehow important. 3. Now Trump is elected. In these tough times, it is more important than ever to support high-quality ind…

>2. Start blathering about Hillary's emails, as if that were somehow important. I am really tired of this twisted version of the relative privation fallacy. Trump is worse != Hillary was good Her email situation was, in fact, an issue. Worse than Trump? Absolutely not. But even in context it doesn't belong in "as if that were somehow important" territory. Under normal circumstances (had she been elected) we'd probabl…