Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Re: The great hack - Netflix [H-] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
The film won't provide you data proof that the specific people that were targeted were swung to vote one way or the other.

You seem to be putting up this barrier of conditions for you to watch it. It's just a film, not a major undertaking or commitment.
Quote Reply
Re: The great hack - Netflix [Endo] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I just found an interesting article that cites to actual studies that tested the effectiveness of CA's algorithms. Based on this article (and underlying study by Swedish professor, notions of CA's effectiveness are based largely their own marketing puffery and in testing their algorithms not very effective. From the conclusion:

Quote:
The impact of Facebook advertisements run by Cambridge Analytica on the 2016 US Presidential election has been overstated by CEO Alexander Nix, the media, and Christopher Wylie. Regression models are not yet too accurate, and the micro-targeted Facebook advertisement strategy was probably not used for the Trump campaign. While the Facebook advertisements run by Cambridge Analytica may not have had that much of an impact on the 2016 US election, this is just the beginning in the field of micro-targeted advertising through social media. With 2.3 billion monthly active users on Facebook, and 1.5 billion daily active users, Facebook is a tool unlike no other. The fact that your friends taking a quiz could extract your data on Facebook may have caught many people by surprise. Thus, as the number of users on Facebook continues to grow around the world, Facebook has the critical responsibility of clearly communicating privacy options to users. This is just the beginning of the use of micro-targeted Facebook advertisements, don’t be surprised in the future if you see political ads on Facebook that strongly resonate with you, before an election.

Are there contrary scientific studies of the effectiveness of CA algorithms? Does the show present any scientific evidence of the effectiveness?

Quote:
You seem to be putting up this barrier of conditions for you to watch it. It's just a film, not a major undertaking or commitment.

I beg to differ. I've got about five episodes of the Expanse left, which I'm really enjoying and there is a new season of Money Heist out. Right now I'm thinking they are better entertainment for me.

________
It doesn't really matter what Phil is saying, the music of his voice is the appropriate soundtrack for a bicycle race. HTupolev
Quote Reply
Re: The great hack - Netflix [H-] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I watched it last night
Didnt tell me anything I didnt already basically know - but it was still pretty good

I liked the line that the worlds most valuable resource is no longer oil, but personal data
Wow thats sad
Quote Reply
Re: The great hack - Netflix [chaparral] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
chaparral wrote:
H- wrote:
Andrewmc wrote:
Nothing remotely has been done like this on a similar scale.

Cambridge analytica sent 6m directed ads out on FB compared to 66k from the Clinton campaign

It's not that work like this has not been done, it's the scale, speed, accuracy and use of personal data that's different


6 million, is that right?

So to about 2.5 percent of voting eligible people in the US. Interestingly, while 6 million is less than 5% of the number of people who voted for Hillary or Donald, six million is about 100% of the number of people who voted for Gary Johnson, Jill Stein, and Evan McMullin.

I'm sure those facebook ads were so mind-controlling that they over-rode the hours and hours of ads that people had to view on TV leading up the the election. Must be something similar to the mind-control technique that Starbucks used to make people buy and drink their coffee.


Wow, if politcal ads don't work, why do campaigns spend so much money on them?

Because its the only game in town, at least until they figure a way to actually control people's minds.
Quote Reply
Re: The great hack - Netflix [vecchia capra] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
vecchia capra wrote:
chaparral wrote:
H- wrote:
Andrewmc wrote:
Nothing remotely has been done like this on a similar scale.

Cambridge analytica sent 6m directed ads out on FB compared to 66k from the Clinton campaign

It's not that work like this has not been done, it's the scale, speed, accuracy and use of personal data that's different


6 million, is that right?

So to about 2.5 percent of voting eligible people in the US. Interestingly, while 6 million is less than 5% of the number of people who voted for Hillary or Donald, six million is about 100% of the number of people who voted for Gary Johnson, Jill Stein, and Evan McMullin.

I'm sure those facebook ads were so mind-controlling that they over-rode the hours and hours of ads that people had to view on TV leading up the the election. Must be something similar to the mind-control technique that Starbucks used to make people buy and drink their coffee.


Wow, if politcal ads don't work, why do campaigns spend so much money on them?


Because its the only game in town, at least until they figure a way to actually control people's minds.

While I had some issues with this doc, controlling minds is precisely what CA was targeting. Find out which people are truly on the fence, feed them positive ads for one party, negative ads for the other, and voila. It's happening on nearly every website you visit already. Not necessarily the pro/con, but definitely tailored to your previous browsing history. Click on a bunch of articles with scantilly clad women on the FoxNews homepage and guess what, you will be seeing a lot more of them on future page loads. The outdoor store REI was one of the original pioneers of data analysis. If you are a regular customer, they know you better than you know yourself.
Quote Reply

Prev Next