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

101–110 of 204 posts

Re: New Cambridge Analytica Leaks

#101

Post by NeutralCrane »

dfxm12 wrote: post #88
malvosenior wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably not. In fact Obama did more or less exactly what Cambridge Analytica did: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/feb/17/obama-digital-... > "Consciously or otherwise, the individual volunteer will be injecting all the information they store publicly on their Facebook page – home location, date of birth, interests and, crucially, network of friends – directly into the central Obama database. The only differen…

I'm not sure if you're arguing in bad faith or you misunderstand how either the Obama app or how Cambridge Analytical got their data. Obama's app was advertised as an app for the Obama campaign. People who used the app consented that the Obama campaign would get access to data about them and their friends. For better or worse (better for marketers, worse for the friends of these app users), this was all within how Fa…

You are misunderstanding, in that the person you are commenting on isn't referring to their data collection techniques. The point is that, once the data was obtained, both of the campaigns used it for microtargeting. The only difference, as you pointed out, is that CA obtained their data in a way that broke the TOS. But whenever the "scandal" is discussed, it almost entirely focuses on the fact that CA/the Trump campaign was targeting voters with propoganda and manipulating their opinions. Yet, in that aspect, the Obama campaign was no different, but it receives a pass.

Re: New Cambridge Analytica Leaks

#102

Post by pbhjpbhj »

makomk wrote: post #64
qmmmur wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't even need as good as on average in the right circumstances. Take Britain, which only has a sample size of its 650 constituents and whose votes within those are not represented if not the majority. In fact, the seat of power rests in those seats which can flip flop by very small margins.

Britain is probably not a good example of this in 2020, since a whole bunch of constituencies which had previously always voted for the same party and which in theory shouldn't matter suddenly flipped in the last election.

And all it took was good old-fashioned lies, brainwashing, and corruption.

Re: New Cambridge Analytica Leaks

#103

Post by 3JPLW »

shadowgovt wrote: post #12
rossdavidh wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I agree with "how malleable opinions are...", the actual answer is, "not very malleable". Every well-designed study of political advertising I've ever seen has shown that it's impact is very small, in some cases unmeasurably small. Thus, for example, the 2016 Clinton campaign raised a lot more $$ than the Trump campaign, whereas the Sanders primary campaign out-fundraised the Clinton one. Now, the impact on the…

Correct. A study I've heard described (apologies for missing a link directly to it right now) attempted to micro-target advertising to nudge numbers, and found the strategy that worked wasn't to tell "dyed-in-the-wool" supporters of a candidate to vote for the other candidate; it was to tell them their vote didn't matter and they should stay home. It appeared to have effect.

This is exactly why campaigns push so much harder on GOTV than persuasion for the general election.

Re: New Cambridge Analytica Leaks

#104

Post by hdrujvw-4579 »

wayoutthere wrote: post #72
cm2012 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sure people claim you can find the best voters using their special astrology method also. The FB algorithm already takes in 1000s of black box factors that are going to work better than some unproven personality score hogwash.

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.

> This has been known in the advertising world since the 50s

Any reference from the 50s?

Also, anyone care to recommend modern references that go into these topics? (David Ogilvy comes to mind but that's from the 60s).

Re: New Cambridge Analytica Leaks

#105

Post by n4r9 »

linusnext wrote: post #94
Jakawao wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fine, I will bite. https://www.wired.com/story/what-did-cambridge-analytica-rea... Cambridge worked both for the Trump campaign and a Trump-aligned Super PAC. Cambridge Analytica was paid $5.9 million by the Trump campaign, according to Federal Election Commission filings If you have a source that shows otherwise, please share.

5 Million was for ad buys on TV. The rest was just for support staff that actually were not employees of CA.

The Wired article says the rest went to "Oczkowski and his team". Oczkowski is CA's former head of product and worked there until April 2017.

Either way, I'm not sure the distinction you're making is very significant?

Re: New Cambridge Analytica Leaks

#106

Post by takeda »

larnmar wrote: post #91
takeda wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You work in advertising in >20 years, you really think you would have job if it didn't work? Everyone who you will ask will absolutely say they aren't influenced by advertising, yet the branded products are still successful despite being more expensive. For example medication, people still are buying Tylenol, Mortin, Aleve despite there being cheaper alternatives that are essentially the same thing: Acetaminophen, Ib…

Personally, I buy the big brand name drugs over generics for the somewhat-rational reason that I trust the quality control and deep pockets of a Johnson and Johnson or GlaxoSmithKline more than I trust whatever random company makes those generics. It’s probably a minuscule extra risk but my medication budget is a few bucks a year and I am happy to have the extra peace of mind of knowing that a $300 billion company’s…

I guess it's your choice, but it's not like those companies didn't have scandals in that area.

Re: New Cambridge Analytica Leaks

#107

Post by shadowgovt »

luxuryballs wrote: post #26
tekmate wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the guy was always a laughingstock

He was “presidential” and anti-corruption before it was cool: https://www.c-span.org/video/?187762-1/united-nations-headqu...

Whatever claims of anti-corruption he may have made in the past kinda fell out the window when he appointed his family to key political positions, one would think.

Re: New Cambridge Analytica Leaks

#108

Post by [deleted] »

buboard wrote: post #65
SpaceManNabs wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Conspiracies tend to have the connotation as stories believed by a small segment of the population hoping to have access to secret knowledge that tends to be wrong and based in narrative rather than facts. Is this how you are using the word? Where are the lack of facts in how CA melded elections?

> are the lack of facts in how CA melded elections CA's job was to meddle in elections, the question is if it's effective. there is very little evidence that it worked.

[deleted]

Re: New Cambridge Analytica Leaks

#109

Post by shadowgovt »

Moodles wrote: post #40
luxuryballs wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reality TV star? Or are you just cherry picking something that can be made to sound unfit for office? How about American business magnate and billionaire playboy who even in his 70s was loved enough by the public to become a TV star? Yeah I just played the opposite card but for the sake of balance and honesty, here: https://www.c-span.org/video/?187762-1/united-nations-headqu... https://youtu.be/CXmXd1xrBUQ

You're going to be down-voted to oblivion on hacker news, but I do agree with the general point that, the post you're replying to saying "'reality TV star' vs 'politician subject to decades of effort and millions spent to make said history checkered'" is needlessly political and doesn't belong on hacker news (same as your post).

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

Re: New Cambridge Analytica Leaks

#110

Post by pier25 »

JackFr wrote: post #81
pier25 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The biggest issue in democracy is that the majority of people vote irrationally. For example a lot of people will vote the same party no matter what or will vote for a candidate because they like him/her regardless of the program.

> The biggest issue in democracy is that the majority of people vote irrationally. That is to say, they don't vote in a manner consistent with how you perceive their interests.

What you're saying is that people voting for the same party for 30 years, regardless of the political program, are satisfying their interests?
Post reply on HN