The Facebook bubble just popped • Hacker News Board

Re: The Facebook bubble just popped

#41

Post by alva » Thu, Nov 10, 2016, 5:29 PM UTC

Jemaclus wrote: post #29

woodchuck64 wrote: post #15

Not just the left and right's echo-chambers, but those who attempt to actually listen to reality got it wrong, too: FiveThirtyEight for example has been using proven, reality-based statistics for a while and should have predicted this result. (As it was, Silver was lambasted for being too generous on Trump's chances.) At issue in this election is apparently a new idea: people who hold positions that are being publica…

Technically, they did predict it: 538 had 35% chance of Trump winning and emphasized the uncertainty factor, while other outlets had Clinton's chances as high as 99%.

Just like they predicted Trump's chance of winning the primary as 2%.

Hilarious defence of their work in recent tweet

"Clinton came within 2 points of 307 electoral votes, in which case polls would have been right in 49 of 50 states. "

ie. If the results had been different, our prediction would have been correct.

Re: The Facebook bubble just popped

#42

Post by harveywi » Thu, Nov 10, 2016, 5:29 PM UTC

woodchuck64 wrote: post #15

Not just the left and right's echo-chambers, but those who attempt to actually listen to reality got it wrong, too: FiveThirtyEight for example has been using proven, reality-based statistics for a while and should have predicted this result. (As it was, Silver was lambasted for being too generous on Trump's chances.) At issue in this election is apparently a new idea: people who hold positions that are being publica…

> proven, reality-based statistics

Ex falso quod libet. The statistical mechanics can be rock solid, but if the data is garbage or the model is garbage then the prediction will likely be garbage. Hiding behind mechanical minutiae is no excuse for the overtly bold and wrong predictions.

Re: The Facebook bubble just popped

#43

Post by paradite » Thu, Nov 10, 2016, 5:30 PM UTC

Not new at all. I wrote a piece in 2014 on Hong Kong's protest talking about the exact same issue of Facebook:

https://paradite.com/2014/11/11/internet-polarized-society/

Re: The Facebook bubble just popped

#44

Post by jbondeson » Thu, Nov 10, 2016, 5:30 PM UTC

sickbeard wrote: post #12

Not to mention realclearpolitics and projectthirtyfive all had poll after poll with all the number crunching data saying Clinton would win. In the end.. clinton: 59,938,290 votes trump: 59,704,886 votes 59million liked all new age sjw stuff 59million other people didn't

> 59million liked all new age sjw stuff

That is such an absurd and reductionist dismissal of this election that is no different than the equally wrong people saying "59 million people liked all the old sexist, homophobic, racist and xenophobic attitudes, and 59 million other people didn't"

What you are doing here is just perpetuating the problems that have plagued this election cycle and made it so people are completely unable to discuss real issues.

Re: The Facebook bubble just popped

#45

Post by Waterluvian » Thu, Nov 10, 2016, 5:30 PM UTC

JustSomeNobody wrote: post #6

> On Facebook, a Trump victory was likely, or a Clinton win was all but assured. And if you were watching the election coverage the night of you could very discernibly see the change in the commentators narrative from "yay! Clinton!" to the shock of "Wait, Trump?" to "Those dirty rednecks! (er ... uneducated white folk)" as their reality was changing before them. It wasn't JUST Facebook.

I watched CNN and it was so painful to watch them try to keep it exciting. They didn't want to call Florida for so long even after it became statically impossible for Clinton to make up the difference.

The sense I got is the sooner the conclusion is reached, the sooner people stop watching.

Re: The Facebook bubble just popped

#46

Post by thewhitetulip » Thu, Nov 10, 2016, 5:30 PM UTC

sickbeard wrote: post #12

Not to mention realclearpolitics and projectthirtyfive all had poll after poll with all the number crunching data saying Clinton would win. In the end.. clinton: 59,938,290 votes trump: 59,704,886 votes 59million liked all new age sjw stuff 59million other people didn't

I find the electoral system in US to be funny. When 47.7% people voted for Hillary and 47.5 voted from Donald, yet Donald won.

This is for the second time that Dems have lost this way, the last time was during Al Gore vs Bush

Re: The Facebook bubble just popped

#47

Post by Declanomous » Thu, Nov 10, 2016, 5:30 PM UTC

woodchuck64 wrote: post #15

Not just the left and right's echo-chambers, but those who attempt to actually listen to reality got it wrong, too: FiveThirtyEight for example has been using proven, reality-based statistics for a while and should have predicted this result. (As it was, Silver was lambasted for being too generous on Trump's chances.) At issue in this election is apparently a new idea: people who hold positions that are being publica…

I spent 5 years living in Wisconsin, and I've been telling everyone that Trump would definitely win there. The week before the election, I actually went so far as to say that I expected Hillary to win the popular vote, and Trump to win the electoral college.

I wasn't predicting a Trump win out of bias. I'm very liberal, and my friends are too. However, none of my friends believed me. I'm not going to say I was confident in my prediction, but I thought the race was much closer than it appeared. I talk to a lot of people in my job, and I could just tell that a lot of people would be far more okay with Trump as a president than they were willing to overtly say.

I'm not saying I'm some election analysis god, but I felt like people were galvanizing Trump support by refusing to acknowledge Trump as a legitimate candidate, which I think resonated with a lot of people who felt that their concerns were not being taken legitimately. The HRC campaign focused on the negative aspects of his campaign, but his support came from the fact that people felt that Trump cared about their concerns.

Re: The Facebook bubble just popped

#48

Post by downandout » Thu, Nov 10, 2016, 5:31 PM UTC

woodchuck64 wrote: post #15

Not just the left and right's echo-chambers, but those who attempt to actually listen to reality got it wrong, too: FiveThirtyEight for example has been using proven, reality-based statistics for a while and should have predicted this result. (As it was, Silver was lambasted for being too generous on Trump's chances.) At issue in this election is apparently a new idea: people who hold positions that are being publica…

Huffington Post was one of Nate Silver's largest critics because his math disagreed with their political desires. This graphic [1] - laughably claiming to be scientific - was on their home page on Tuesday afternoon. 538 had Trump at about 28% at the exact moment I took this screenshot, and HuffPo's "scientists" had him at 1.7%. If anyone wonders whether HuffPo and its ilk are "biased but reliable," wonder no more. They're just biased.

[1] http://imgur.com/CSzc5Rb

Re: The Facebook bubble just popped

#49

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Nov 10, 2016, 5:31 PM UTC

[deleted]

Re: The Facebook bubble just popped

#50

Post by pfortuny » Thu, Nov 10, 2016, 5:32 PM UTC

DubiousPusher wrote: post #30

woodchuck64 wrote: post #15

Not just the left and right's echo-chambers, but those who attempt to actually listen to reality got it wrong, too: FiveThirtyEight for example has been using proven, reality-based statistics for a while and should have predicted this result. (As it was, Silver was lambasted for being too generous on Trump's chances.) At issue in this election is apparently a new idea: people who hold positions that are being publica…

Donald Trump barely won. They regularly gave him a %25+ chance of winning and regularly pointed out that that was a good chance.

The thing is, these surprising results tend to happen the first (and only) time... which is rather unforgiving with the percentages.