Absolutely amazing
Blow your mind amazing.
It was pretty good, but most of it has been covered other places.
Of course more information about CA has come out that did not even make it into the movie from the SSCI report released last week, like not all of their data came from the Facebook quizes, they actually bought lots of their data from facebook. And that the CA server was being consistently accessed by someone in Russia.
There is more that is going to come out.
It was a good summary
Though it fucking blows my mind that people are shocked at FB behaviour. You’d have thought people might figure out that if they were not paying for it, they were the product
I also thought it was interesting just how specific they were able to be.
As someone who doesn’t use it, or much social media outside of here, the ability to play on those most susceptible to it needs to be looked at.
Absolutely amazing
Blow your mind amazing.
A bit more info on what the hell your talking about might be usefull for those who have not seen this TV show / movie / documentary / something else.
Watch it. Its about FB, Cambridge analytica and trump and brexit
I’m personally more offended by the credit agencies. They collect your data without your consent. Made you pay through your teeth for years to even see your data. And the only way they made it somewhat ‘free’ is because they were forced to. They are opaque as possible and make money solely off of selling your data. And to top it off they can’t even secure your data properly.
I’m personally more offended by the credit agencies. They collect your data without your consent. Made you pay through your teeth for years to even see your data. And the only way they made it somewhat ‘free’ is because they were forced to. They are opaque as possible and make money solely off of selling your data. And to top it off they can’t even secure your data properly.
yeah, I love how Equifax exposed both my and my wife’s data and in return we are going to get 6 months of free credit monitoring. What a deal!
I would like to hear some opposing views on The Great Hack as political docs tend to be heavily biased.
What the opposing view to a electoral consultant such as CA or Lynton Crosby buying data, generating custom ads to persuade the borderline voters to vote for their guy.
I appreciate in a fact free world the opposing view might be it didn’t happen, but Facebook monetised data and facilitate custom ads directed at subsets of users, ads which were untraceable and these apparently swayed voters.
It rarely got in to the politics of trump / Brexit. It was largely focused on CA and how they worked
I’m personally more offended by the credit agencies. They collect your data without your consent. Made you pay through your teeth for years to even see your data. And the only way they made it somewhat ‘free’ is because they were forced to. They are opaque as possible and make money solely off of selling your data. And to top it off they can’t even secure your data properly.
This is similar to credit cards and identity theft. If a crook uses your card # to buy something, the credit card is liable and your credit isn’t affected. A single phone call fixes it. If someone steals your identity and is issued a credit card under your name, it’s up to you to fix both the credit card and credit rating and it takes much longer than a single phone call to fix it. Why should there be a difference? It wasn’t you who issued the credit card. I’m guessing it’s how the cc/credit regulations are written.
What the opposing view to a electoral consultant such as CA or Lynton Crosby buying data, generating custom ads to persuade the borderline voters to vote for their guy.
I appreciate in a fact free world the opposing view might be it didn’t happen, but Facebook monetised data and facilitate custom ads directed at subsets of users, ads which were untraceable and these apparently swayed voters.
It rarely got in to the politics of trump / Brexit. It was largely focused on CA and how they worked
Haven’t seen it but will give it a look. I can’t comment on opposing views but this is hardly new and had been done in previous elections.
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
I’m personally more offended by the credit agencies. They collect your data without your consent. Made you pay through your teeth for years to even see your data. And the only way they made it somewhat ‘free’ is because they were forced to. They are opaque as possible and make money solely off of selling your data. And to top it off they can’t even secure your data properly.
You forgot and freely give your info away and make you pay to freeze it… (thank god MI. put a stop to that)
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.
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?
Watch it, dismiss it, but if you’re not remotely interested in what FB and CA did, that’s also fine, but then this is probably not a productive place to have a discussion if you don’t know what they did or how they did it or why those specific numbers were important.
If you think we’re still in the age of TV ads winning elections, the whole CA / FB work will be lost on you
.
Wow, if politcal ads don’t work, why do campaigns spend so much money on them?
Clearly, you and Andy don’t work in the advertising business. So far your promos for the show are not enticing me.
Pro-Clinton PAC, Priorities USA, spent $132 million for the election. All super PACs combined spent $1.4 billion.
I generally change the channel if a political ad comes on as I find nearly all of them to be obnoxious and offensive (one exception was the ads for Senator Doug Jones (D, Alabama), and I commented on that here at the time and predicted his victory).
So in terms of election influencing, I’m seeing this CA thing as a drop in the bucket. Even if super effective (was it?) and/or super nefarious, just not very exciting or interesting to me.
Politics is slimy.
Wow, if politcal ads don’t work, why do campaigns spend so much money on them?
Clearly, you and Andy don’t work in the advertising business. So far your promos for the show are not enticing me.
Pro-Clinton PAC, Priorities USA, spent $132 million for the election. All super PACs combined spent $1.4 billion.
I generally change the channel if a political ad comes on as I find nearly all of them to be obnoxious and offensive (one exception was the ads for Senator Doug Jones (D, Alabama), and I commented on that here at the time and predicted his victory).
So in terms of election influencing, I’m seeing this CA thing as a drop in the bucket. Even if super effective (was it?) and/or super nefarious, just not very exciting or interesting to me.
Politics is slimy.
So you believe advertising doesn’t work. Ok buddy.
You do understand that those 6 million ads were not just randomly distributed, they were specicially targeted to very specific demographics in very specific geographical areas. An election that was decided by 70,000 votes in three states, those 6 million targeted ads could make a huge difference. Especially when they are made using data they shouldn’t have.
Perhaps you are not a good reader. Ok buddy.
So you believe advertising doesn’t work. Ok buddy.
No. Only your advertising.
You do understand that those 6 million ads were not just randomly distributed, they were specicially targeted to very specific demographics in very specific geographical areas. An election that was decided by 70,000 votes in three states, those 6 million targeted ads could make a huge difference. Especially when they are made using data they shouldn’t have.
Now I’m getting interested. I’ll nibble a bit, but not quite ready to bite. Two things might make me bite:
Tell me a bit about the target demographics and how the ads were designed for that demographic (because most all advertising and much political advertising over the years targets specific demographics – e.g., that ED ad is not targeting me), or
Tell me the 6 million targeted ads went to those three states, because that fact alone would be very significant to me and make me very interested in watching.
I watched it last night. It’s 'effed up for sure.
I mean, we all knew this kind of shit was happening with our data, somehow, and fake news and social media barrages, etc… but for most of us it was in theory, an idea, something that could happen. Something we let slide because who really cares about targeted adds for vacation spots or penis-pills.
It’s a lot more troubling to see it in action on the global geo-political stage and all laid out as an in-practice reality in a documentary like this.
.