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

The Secret Agenda of a Facebook Quiz

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 114 posts

Re: The Secret Agenda of a Facebook Quiz

#51

Post by potatosoup »

IshKebab wrote: post #49
potatosoup wrote: post #46

> In the immediate wake of Mr. Trump’s surprise election How was it a surprise? With huge crowd sizes at his rallies (that NYT didn't show, but RSBN for example did), strong populist message that worked, and the awful candidate the other side put up (while sadly destroying Bernie), I was not surprised.

Because most poll models gave him a small chance of success. How bad is your memory?

Interestingly enough, the same pollsters are now saying that Trump has a 37% or something approval rating. And Obama went out with a 60%+ approval rating.

Until they find a way to poll a significant slice of the population truly representative of the electorate, I'm surprised people can take them seriously. Since we're on HN, there is a startup idea here somewhere.

(Edited to remove an electoral hypothesis, so that we can discuss polls and not politics.)

Re: The Secret Agenda of a Facebook Quiz

#52

Post by mixmax »

IshKebab wrote: post #49
potatosoup wrote: post #46

> In the immediate wake of Mr. Trump’s surprise election How was it a surprise? With huge crowd sizes at his rallies (that NYT didn't show, but RSBN for example did), strong populist message that worked, and the awful candidate the other side put up (while sadly destroying Bernie), I was not surprised.

Because most poll models gave him a small chance of success. How bad is your memory?

If I remember correctly 538 put him at around 25-30% chance of winning the election.

Certainly an underdog, but with a reasonable chance of success.

Re: The Secret Agenda of a Facebook Quiz

#53

Post by flavor8 »

potatosoup wrote: post #51
IshKebab wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because most poll models gave him a small chance of success. How bad is your memory?

Interestingly enough, the same pollsters are now saying that Trump has a 37% or something approval rating. And Obama went out with a 60%+ approval rating. Until they find a way to poll a significant slice of the population truly representative of the electorate, I'm surprised people can take them seriously. Since we're on HN, there is a startup idea here somewhere. (Edited to remove an electoral hypothesis, so that w…

Hillary ran a sub-par campaign as one of the least popular candidates in recent history, and that hurt down-ticket races. The democrats made a strategic mistake by allowing Clintonistas to take over the DNC and party establishment to the point that she was essentially "the anointed", and faced no real competition. Had e.g. Biden or even Franken run, the results might be quite different. Heck, if Obama had run against Trump (for a third term, were such a thing possible) it would likely be a different story. This is not the whole situation, of course; e.g. districts are more gerrymandered than ever, reducing competitiveness and allowing party establishments to push their favored candidates (out of touch establishment = unpopular candidate); e.g. the last congress was the most dysfunctional in decades, meaning that the bills that made it were compromises, and not a full test of democrat ideas; media echo chambers have polarized voters; etc.

As easy as it is to critique Obama's policies on privacy & foreign policy, he was assured and rational, which people like in a leader. It's entirely reasonable that there's such a wide gap in approval polls. There's really no reason to significantly doubt them.

Regardless of whether you agree on the above, we're about to see the GOP have its way and push a slew of policies that they favor. Many will actually be favorable for entrepreneurs and startups, but my guess is that overall they will turn out to be quite unpopular. I predict the house to flip back in 2018 and for Trump to be crushed in 2020 (if he makes it that far without being impeached.) We'll see.

Re: The Secret Agenda of a Facebook Quiz

#54

Post by tomascot »

angry-hacker wrote: post #38
ChuckMcM wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Especially quizzes like "where was your first job?" or "what's your favorite movie?" all sounded like phishing for security question answers.

Just got an evil idea.. You can target on fb and Google by email lists. You create some stupid web app with questions and promise something in return, a prize, or make it worthwhile to play and target them with all the security questions email accounts or whatever might ask. Could be that this is being done for phising already if the victims are being targeted specifically and don't have 2fa.

You are late to the party. I remember receiving this kind of questions in 2006 when hotmail and msn messenger were still popular. I think it was part of a game to measure how worldly you were.

Re: The Secret Agenda of a Facebook Quiz

#55

Post by ubernostrum »

imron wrote: post #45
aw3c2 wrote: post #40

Is this another rogue Cambridge Analytica ad that will get debunked later when the impact was done?

No, it was written by an Open Society Fellow, e.g funded by George Soros, a major Hillary Clinton backer. So basically, it's counter propaganda.

e.g funded by George Soros

Careful -- you've mentioned his name twice in this thread. Do it a third time and he'll appear in your bathroom mirror.

Also, nothing in the article was particularly surprising, nor is any of it outside the realm of what we already know is technically possible at Facebook. Give it four years and see if Zuckerberg makes his rumored run for President, after beta-testing the tools in 2016...

Re: The Secret Agenda of a Facebook Quiz

#56

Post by fovc »

And yet for all their magic, they were just as wrong about the outcome of the election:

You might think from a casual reading of the Cambridge Analytica press release that they predicted the outcome of the election. They did not. A company spokesman called reporters before election day to say that Trump had only a 20 per cent chance of winning.

Source: http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/12/the-british-data-cruncher...

Re: The Secret Agenda of a Facebook Quiz

#57

Post by gareim »

fovc wrote: post #56

And yet for all their magic, they were just as wrong about the outcome of the election: You might think from a casual reading of the Cambridge Analytica press release that they predicted the outcome of the election. They did not. A company spokesman called reporters before election day to say that Trump had only a 20 per cent chance of winning. Source: http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/12/the-british-data-cruncher...

I'm not sure I get this logic. If I told someone they had a 16.6% chance of rolling a die and getting a 6, and then they proceed to roll the die and get a 6, would you laugh and tell me that I was wrong?

Re: The Secret Agenda of a Facebook Quiz

#59

Post by GavinMcG »

potatosoup wrote: post #51
IshKebab wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because most poll models gave him a small chance of success. How bad is your memory?

Interestingly enough, the same pollsters are now saying that Trump has a 37% or something approval rating. And Obama went out with a 60%+ approval rating. Until they find a way to poll a significant slice of the population truly representative of the electorate, I'm surprised people can take them seriously. Since we're on HN, there is a startup idea here somewhere. (Edited to remove an electoral hypothesis, so that w…

"Common sense" maybe shouldn't be trusted if it's leading you to silly conclusions. The Dems lost the Presidency, as well, even though nearly 3 million more people voted for the Democratic Party candidate than the winning one.

Plenty of things that are "common sense" don't pan out once you throw in gerrymandering and voter turnout.

Re: The Secret Agenda of a Facebook Quiz

#60

Post by GavinMcG »

imron wrote: post #48
Rapzid wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure how the Dem's will compete with this going forward. Maybe it will become taboo and they won't have to. Maybe they already are.. I hope they don't go too deep into the mud on this. It's almost impressive though how well the Republicans, and Trump specifically, are employing these, IMHO shady, tactics. Is it scandalous how little scandal is made of all this(the FUD, populist rhetoric, phycological manipula…

> I can imagine how this would be spun if "evil Hillary" was found to be targeting people with "dark posts". You do realise this article is exactly that kind of post right? Have a look at who wrote it, which foundation funds his fellowship, who created that foundation, and which candidate that billionaire donated funds to and supported. We are all but pawns in the games played by these billionaires. Edit: also, regar…

That you are repeating this all over the thread doesn't make it a fact.

Sure, if you start with the lens that everything is controlled behind the scenes by shady billionaire puppet masters, then this fits in with that view. But that's just how all the other conspiracy theorists do it, too: hold fast to a predetermined conclusion, highlighting whatever situations you can grab ahold of that look like they fit.

Post reply on HN