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

121–130 of 163 posts

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

#121

Post by ejstronge »

skookumchuck wrote: post #119
mhneu wrote: post #113

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. So it's a lot easier for right-wing purchased media and social media and purchased think tanks (Cato/Koch) and foundations (Bradley, DeVos) and right-wing news outlets to spread propaganda. Because they have more money to spend. So I think rightfully, people feel that the bigger threat is from…

> 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.

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

#122

Post by skookumchuck »

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.

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 that he won, and seemed to have made no plans in case he won.

How do you reconcile that with the claim that the Trump supporters vastly outspent the Clinton supporters? Do you have any figures?

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

#123

Post by danmaz74 »

skookumchuck wrote: post #119
mhneu wrote: post #113

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. So it's a lot easier for right-wing purchased media and social media and purchased think tanks (Cato/Koch) and foundations (Bradley, DeVos) and right-wing news outlets to spread propaganda. Because they have more money to spend. So I think rightfully, people feel that the bigger threat is from…

> 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…

That is the money spent in normal campaigning. If Trump spent money on CA, or if he received help from Putin's troll farms, do you really think those contributions would be accounted for in the official contributions/spending reports?

By the way, the same thing would be valid if H. Clinton used them. But for now we only have proof he did.

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

#124

Post by nezzle »

mhneu wrote: post #113
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…

There's just a ton more money on the right - the Koch network and GOP billionaire donors dwarf the spending by progressives. So it's a lot easier for right-wing purchased media and social media and purchased think tanks (Cato/Koch) and foundations (Bradley, DeVos) and right-wing news outlets to spread propaganda. Because they have more money to spend. So I think rightfully, people feel that the bigger threat is from…

It's not just about money, but the appropriate application of money. Sure the Dems may have bought some likes and upvotes, while CA applied information warfare technique normally reserved for military activity.

From the Guardian:

>He had recently been exposed to a new discipline: “information operations”, which ranks alongside land, sea, air and space in the US military’s doctrine of the “five-dimensional battle space”.

This is a fatal vulnerability to the ideal of democracy. The only way to beat this game is to play it, and whoever can play it faster, smarter, and harder wins.

The only limitation is when these actions cross the line and cost you support by alienating your base, but I don't think that line exists for Trump.

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

#125

Post by Ataraxy »

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.

Or the billions in freely given media coverage.

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

#126

Post by Ataraxy »

AndyMcConachie wrote: post #60
fny wrote: post #36

This is a scandal, and we should not blur lines here. Facebook engages in surveillance capitalism. Cambridge Analytica engages in Orwellian practices of deliberate and targeted mass manipulation, actively deceiving users from the outset about it's intentions, and using lies as a means to an end. From the Facebook report on the reason CA was suspended: > Like all app developers, Kogan requested and gained access to in…

CA sound like a bunch of scumbags and I'm glad people are shining light on these kinds of activities. However, I'm not convinced what they did was really all that new or interesting. This is our modern world and it's terrifying. Call it marketing, propaganda, fake news or disinformation, we're being manipulated constantly by numerous unattributable actors. The more interesting question to me is why is CA being called…

Not only was it not new or interesting, it was previously reported on last year and no one cared then. That, is what I find interesting.

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

#127

Post by garmaine »

HenryBemis wrote: post #55
fny wrote: post #36

This is a scandal, and we should not blur lines here. Facebook engages in surveillance capitalism. Cambridge Analytica engages in Orwellian practices of deliberate and targeted mass manipulation, actively deceiving users from the outset about it's intentions, and using lies as a means to an end. From the Facebook report on the reason CA was suspended: > Like all app developers, Kogan requested and gained access to in…

It will be really interesting (and pleasant) to see all these companies go out of business when GDPR kicks in.

Maybe these businesses will leave markets with GDPR. But they're not going out of business and they're influence is not going to significantly wane.

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

#128

Post by [deleted] »

partiallypro wrote: post #106
AndyMcConachie wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

CA sound like a bunch of scumbags and I'm glad people are shining light on these kinds of activities. However, I'm not convinced what they did was really all that new or interesting. This is our modern world and it's terrifying. Call it marketing, propaganda, fake news or disinformation, we're being manipulated constantly by numerous unattributable actors. The more interesting question to me is why is CA being called…

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…

[deleted]

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

#129

Post by ejstronge »

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…

I tried not to discuss my political views in my comment - I'm sorry if you feel that I lent support to one candidate or the other.

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

I don't think this is true. Irrespective of whether there was impropriety at any particular election, there was no way Clinton would have lost the nomination by the time that Sanders was in his stride. The superdelegates all but assured this.

Incidentally, the Sanders campaign went from decrying the presence of superdelegates to courting them - they may be an unreasonable mechanism for elections, but both groups tried to use them to their advantage.

> claim that the Trump supporters vastly outspent the Clinton supporters

I made no such claim. I suspect that it's true, but my point is that looking at campaign donations (and Reddit activity) highlights the activity of low-dollar donors.

Finally, to put into perspective the numbers from the article you cited, it seems that PACs spent 4 billion USD (across all races) in 2016[1] - around four times the spending of the two presidential campaigns.

It seems complicated to total super-PAC spending. Many websites state that there was more money supporting Clinton/Democrats, but this may ignore Republican PACs that do not declare a party preference[2].

[1] https://www.fec.gov/updates/statistical-summary-24-month-cam...

[2] https://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/summ.php?cycle=2...

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

#130

Post by b1daly »

StanislavPetrov wrote: post #44
fny wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is political weaponization of data and information for the purpose of putting an individual in power. It's not me trying to sell you a pug plushie or get you to use my accounting software. It's deliberately lying to seed fear, distrust, division, and hate between citizens. It's deliberate manipulation to create distrust of government institutions. It's the destruction of civil society and civil discourse for the…

The problem here, as is the root of almost all the problems we face in society isn't Cambridge Analytica. The problem is people lack basic critical thinking skills and the capacity to make good decisions. > It's deliberate manipulation to create distrust of government institutions. Nobody with any knowledge of history or good sense trusts any government institution. >It's the destruction of civil society and civil di…

You’ve thumbnailed elements of the problem, and left out the heart of the matter: The cabalistic forces of uber-rich conservatives (reactionaries) marshaled these propaganda tools to convince justifiably agreived voters to vote for a candidate who is letting them “run wild in the candy store.”

The interests and ideology of the Mercers and the Koch are diametrically opposed to any practical solution to the problem of growing inequality in the US.

They, most of the Republicans, practice a “take no prisoners” form of politics, in which they care little how either the ends or the means of their campaign affect lower class people.

The deceptive elements, and the use of sleazy propaganda, by these neo-reactionary King makers, is of a piece, whether they use modern data mining techniques or not.

If it wasn’t so sad, it would be hilarious. The joke is on all of us.

Post reply on HN