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

New Cambridge Analytica Leaks

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 204 posts

Re: New Cambridge Analytica Leaks

#191

Post by shadowgovt »

Moodles wrote: post #190
shadowgovt wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm happy to accept criticism of my characterization if it was factually inaccurate.

It’s not so much the factual inaccuracy as the loaded language. One can factually describe Trump in a positive light and Clinton in a negative light. It’s needlessly emotive and doesn’t belong on HN in my opinion.

I'm not sure I'd classify it as "needlessly" emotive; the topic is very serious and deserves engagement from people, and emotions are one of many ways to engage people.

In the spirit of the founder of Y Combinator, I'd suggest that perhaps the emotive response signals that there is a sacred cow worth exploring here.

http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html

Re: New Cambridge Analytica Leaks

#192

Post by pier25 »

jfengel wrote: post #144
pier25 wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a party can be a rational long-term decision Only assuming that there is something like a constant ideology that party members adhere to over the decades.

Decades is too much to ask, but one decade isn't. It isn't a single ideology, but a set of overlapping ideologies. Those do shift, as circumstances and priorities change, but generally not radically within the scale of a single Presidential term. I'd say it's not unreasonable to commit to a party and re-evaluate that commitment every decade (or perhaps 8 years is a better figure in the US). That's not to say that you…

> I'd say it's not unreasonable to commit to a party and re-evaluate that commitment every decade

But that's a rational attitude and not what I was describing initially.

A lot of people commit to a party for all their voting life which generally is quite a few decades. Sometimes this even goes for generations.

Re: New Cambridge Analytica Leaks

#193

Post by n4r9 »

linusnext wrote: post #182
rsynnott wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the immortal words of Mandy Rice-Davies, well, he would say that, wouldn’t he?

That's the evidence? Just because you want to believe it does not make it true.

I think the evidence is circumstantial but sufficient to warrant further investigation. CA harvested illegal data, used it in the Cruz campaign, lied about removing it and were then very involved in the presidential election, all within the span of a couple of years.

Parscape's denial is not in itself evidence, but I do agree with rsynnott that it's neither here nor there.

Re: New Cambridge Analytica Leaks

#194

Post by rhizome »

Bartweiss wrote: post #136
wayoutthere wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It takes surprisingly few data points to draw small and detailed psychographic categories of people. This has been known in the advertising world since the 50s, we just didn't have the tools to make microtargeting practical at scale until recently.

We can and do draw detailed psychographic categories with a few data points, but it's far from clear whether the results (and especially the details) are actually correct . I think "since the 50s" should be taken as evidence against these models. Myers-Briggs first came into vogue in the late 1950s, and has been used for career counseling and hiring since despite being utterly unfit for purpose. Priming work dates to…

[flagged]

Re: New Cambridge Analytica Leaks

#195

Post by burfog »

nkassis wrote: post #85
Mikeb85 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> most votes of any candidate in the race still technically lost the election > For people who pride ourselves so much on understanding how systems work, we’re consistently really bad at understanding this one. Well, CA seems to have understood that what matters is opinions across enough states to win the Electoral College vote. As you said, it's a system. They optimised for the system that exists. Even if a majority…

Looking a just the total of electoral votes ignores the razor thin margins a lot of those states were won by. I wouldn't call that decisive.

Well the same goes for the irrelevant popular vote. She won it by less than a New York City.

Re: New Cambridge Analytica Leaks

#196

Post by burfog »

shadowgovt wrote: post #169
luxuryballs wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...for example?

I don't understand your question. If he is ostensibly anti-corruption, the rampant and obvious nepotism is counter to that goal. Unless he is simply anti-corruption that doesn't benefit him directly, in case rampant and obvious nepotism is not incompatible with his goal (but, I assume, not what voters were actually hoping for when they elected him).

Federal jobs, even near the top, pay so little that the nepotism claim is silly. This is a billionaire family, and we're supposed to be concerned with salary that is well below what a software developer can make?

Re: New Cambridge Analytica Leaks

#197

Post by shadowgovt »

burfog wrote: post #196
shadowgovt wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand your question. If he is ostensibly anti-corruption, the rampant and obvious nepotism is counter to that goal. Unless he is simply anti-corruption that doesn't benefit him directly, in case rampant and obvious nepotism is not incompatible with his goal (but, I assume, not what voters were actually hoping for when they elected him).

Federal jobs, even near the top, pay so little that the nepotism claim is silly. This is a billionaire family, and we're supposed to be concerned with salary that is well below what a software developer can make?

Nepotism isn't about only salary, it's also about power and prestige. Because for a billionaire family(1), that's what matters past the dollars and cents. Ivanka Trump can afford to forego her salary, but no amount of money can buy the résumé entry "Former Senior Advisor to the President" and that past will open doors for her the rest of her life.

(1) It's also possible that the Trump family isn't actually as wealthy as they claim to be on paper, in which case being in a position to actually directly influence executive regulatory policy can have significant direct financial impact on their enterprises that they have no opportunity to exploit otherwise. For example, they could have a hand in implementing tax programs while owning significant financial interest in companies regulated by those tax programs (https://www.citizensforethics.org/press-release/crew-files-c...).

Re: New Cambridge Analytica Leaks

#198

Post by burfog »

shadowgovt wrote: post #197
burfog wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Federal jobs, even near the top, pay so little that the nepotism claim is silly. This is a billionaire family, and we're supposed to be concerned with salary that is well below what a software developer can make?

Nepotism isn't about only salary, it's also about power and prestige. Because for a billionaire family(1), that's what matters past the dollars and cents. Ivanka Trump can afford to forego her salary, but no amount of money can buy the résumé entry "Former Senior Advisor to the President" and that past will open doors for her the rest of her life. (1) It's also possible that the Trump family isn't actually as wealthy…

That won't open doors. Neither party will trust her. Republicans think she is a democrat, and democrats would blacklist anybody who worked for Trump. She had plenty of doors open already, not that she needed them. She had her fashion brand, and she married into the finance industry. She doesn't need any nepotism.

The president needs people he can trust. If that means hiring family, I'm fine with that. Other politicians seem to have their kids work for Ukrainian gas companies, which is a lot more disturbing.

Wealth involving real estate is difficult to estimate, but typical estimates are several billion. For example, a drop from 4 billion before the presidency to about 3 billion now is one estimate. This is notably the opposite direction from a typical politician. Increases in wealth are far more suggestive of corruption.

Re: New Cambridge Analytica Leaks

#199

Post by shadowgovt »

burfog wrote: post #198
shadowgovt wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nepotism isn't about only salary, it's also about power and prestige. Because for a billionaire family(1), that's what matters past the dollars and cents. Ivanka Trump can afford to forego her salary, but no amount of money can buy the résumé entry "Former Senior Advisor to the President" and that past will open doors for her the rest of her life. (1) It's also possible that the Trump family isn't actually as wealthy…

That won't open doors. Neither party will trust her. Republicans think she is a democrat, and democrats would blacklist anybody who worked for Trump. She had plenty of doors open already, not that she needed them. She had her fashion brand, and she married into the finance industry. She doesn't need any nepotism. The president needs people he can trust. If that means hiring family, I'm fine with that. Other politicia…

> The president needs people he can trust. If that means hiring family, I'm fine with that.

We'll have to agree to disagree, because that is more or less the justification for every system that devolves from meritocracy into capture by a few trusted by connections and back scratching, be it the aerospace partnerships between the military and trusted contractors that exclude less expensive alternatives, the NSA and CIA becoming composed of family members that the agency already believes it has vetted, the Hapsburg dynasty, or the Trump administration.

Re: New Cambridge Analytica Leaks

#200

Post by rhizome »

taurath wrote: post #177
cm2012 wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) That kind of targeting is even less useful outside of FB. You can upload gmail addresses to Google to target, or use something like LiveRamp to target on display networks, but both options suck compared to FB. 2) Nothing beyond whats publically available. 3) It's not unusual to test different audiences, I've definitely tested all sorts. I'm sure thats how it started for Cambridge. Of course now, tin pot dictatorsh…

> 1) That kind of targeting is even less useful outside of FB. You can upload gmail addresses to Google to target, or use something like LiveRamp to target on display networks, but both options suck compared to FB. Both google and FB are financially incentivized to provide as much granularity in targeting as possible so they can charge more money to advertisers, who'll get a better return and get promoted. All up unt…

>who'll get a better return

Or so the story goes. Is it actually true that tighter audience restrictions (targeting) produce better returns?

Post reply on HN