Cambridge Analytica

[Gulo Blue]

OMFG... Stop the presses. Spartanmack may have been right about something, Link:

“According to Carol Davidsen, a member of Obama’s data team, “Facebook was surprised we were able to suck out the whole social graph, but they didn’t stop us once they realized that was what we were doing.” The social graph is Facebook’s map of relationships between users and brands on its platform. And after the election, she recently acknowledged, Facebook was ‘very candid that they allowed us to do things they wouldn’t have allowed someone else to do because they were on our side.'”​

Did facebook stop somebody from doing what they wanted at some point? And how can they claim Obama's team got 5x as much data? I don't see it in the link they gave. I see that facebook now has 6x the reach in comparison to 2008.

 

[Michchamp]

Did facebook stop somebody from doing what they wanted at some point? And how can they claim Obama's team got 5x as much data? I don't see it in the link they gave. I see that facebook now has 6x the reach in comparison to 2008.

No, I know his comment wasn't germane to the conversation.

just noting that someone actually corroborrated his claim that facebook favored Obama.

 

[Spartanmack]

But what about ......
But what about ......
But what about ......

It's an effective technique. Those CA guys aren't wrong. Trying to win arguments the way traditional debates are won is a mistake. Appealing to emotions is what works.

...at least that's how I feel about it.

how is pointing out facts appealing to emotions? I don't care if either campaign did it - it's not illegal, I didn't support either one and I don't really use Facebook for anything other than keeping in touch with family. You said something like "you could argue Obama got the ball rolling with this...but I haven't seen that idea on FB or reddit yet", so I posted an article that indicates that idea is definitely being talked about and also points out the hypocrisy around the topic. that's not "whataboutism" nor is it appealing to emotions.

Neither campaign broke the law - but all of a sudden it's a problem for FB because they don't like the opposition. I think it's worth pointing it out considering FB, youtube and other sites are targeting conservatives because of their political beliefs. They're private companies and free to do that but it's also fair game to call out their hypocrisy.

 

[Spartanmack]

OMFG... Stop the presses. Spartanmack may have been right about something, Link:

?According to Carol Davidsen, a member of Obama?s data team, ?Facebook was surprised we were able to suck out the whole social graph, but they didn?t stop us once they realized that was what we were doing.? The social graph is Facebook?s map of relationships between users and brands on its platform. And after the election, she recently acknowledged, Facebook was ?very candid that they allowed us to do things they wouldn?t have allowed someone else to do because they were on our side.'?​

good scoop turd - that was in the article I posted yesterday. And I wasn't triggered - merely pointing out facts. Clearly those facts triggered gulo and vic though.

 

[Spartanmack]

Did facebook stop somebody from doing what they wanted at some point? And how can they claim Obama's team got 5x as much data? I don't see it in the link they gave. I see that facebook now has 6x the reach in comparison to 2008.

They're talking about 2012 Obama campaign, not 2008. But what difference does that make? Do you think that factored into the decision to treat one campaign differently?

 

[Spartanmack]

As far as I know, Obama's team didn't mislead anyone about the purpose of signing up.

Did you read the article? It clearly says "According to The Guardian, Obama’s new database would be gathered by asking individual volunteers to log into Obama’s re-election site using their Facebook credentials. 'Consciously or otherwise,' The Guardian states, 'the individual volunteer will be injecting all the information they store publicly on their Facebook page — home location, date of birth, interests and, crucially, network of friends — directly into the central Obama database.'"

Did facebook stop somebody from doing what they wanted at some point? And how can they claim Obama's team got 5x as much data? I don't see it in the link they gave. I see that facebook now has 6x the reach in comparison to 2008.

yes, the article says they suspended CA's account once they found out what they were doing. It's not clear when that was, but they knew the Obama campaign did it and were cool with it. It also quotes the Obama campaign official saying about FB, "They came to [the] office in the days following election recruiting & were very candid that they allowed us to do things they wouldn’t have allowed someone else to do because they were on our side.” Hard to believe that these things need to be pointed out, maybe you just didn't read the articles.

 

[Spartanmack]

No, I know his comment wasn't germane to the conversation.

just noting that someone actually corroborrated his claim that facebook favored Obama.

really? it's not germane to the conversation when gulo openly posits that Obama's campaign started the practice? One of the biggest reasons Obama was credited for running such a brilliant campaign was the use of innovative technology and meta-data to target voters. Now the narrative is about yet another scandalous tactic of the Trump campaign for doing EXACTLY the same thing.

nobody has an answer or cares to explain why they suddenly care about it so it's:
but what about...
but what about...
but what about...

 

[Gulo Blue]

Did you read the article? It clearly says "According to The Guardian, Obama?s new database would be gathered by asking individual volunteers to log into Obama?s re-election site using their Facebook credentials. 'Consciously or otherwise,' The Guardian states, 'the individual volunteer will be injecting all the information they store publicly on their Facebook page ? home location, date of birth, interests and, crucially, network of friends ? directly into the central Obama database.'"

Yeah, I read the article and I get that people had no idea how much they were giving up, but they were signing up for stuff with Obama's name all over it as opposed to just taking a personality survey.

Dyes, the article says they suspended CA's account once they found out what they were doing. It's not clear when that was, but they knew the Obama campaign did it and were cool with it. It also quotes the Obama campaign official saying about FB, "They came to [the] office in the days following election recruiting & were very candid that they allowed us to do things they wouldn?t have allowed someone else to do because they were on our side.? Hard to believe that these things need to be pointed out, maybe you just didn't read the articles.

This part you highlighted is why I asked the question. I saw that, and asked what they stopped anyone from doing.

 

[Gulo Blue]

really? it's not germane to the conversation when gulo openly posits that Obama's campaign started the practice? One of the biggest reasons Obama was credited for running such a brilliant campaign was the use of innovative technology and meta-data to target voters. Now the narrative is about yet another scandalous tactic of the Trump campaign for doing EXACTLY the same thing.

nobody has an answer or cares to explain why they suddenly care about it so it's:
but what about...
but what about...
but what about...

When he was credited for it, it was because it generated participation from a record number of people. Record numbers of small donations. But I remember people talking about it with regard to him beating Hillary. I don't remember it being much of a story in 2012.

There wasn't as much talk about CA until these recent videos came out with talk sending call girls, bribing people, and talk about what a mistake it is to focus on facts and winning arguments.

 

[Spartanmack]

Yeah, I read the article and I get that people had no idea how much they were giving up, but they were signing up for stuff with Obama's name all over it as opposed to just taking a personality survey.




This part you highlighted is why I asked the question. I saw that, and asked what they stopped anyone from doing.

they did stop CA from doing it by suspending their account but they were more than happy to let the Obama campaign have at it.

 

[Spartanmack]

When he was credited for it, it was because it generated participation from a record number of people. Record numbers of small donations. But I remember people talking about it with regard to him beating Hillary. I don't remember it being much of a story in 2012.

There wasn't as much talk about CA until these recent videos came out with talk sending call girls, bribing people, and talk about what a mistake it is to focus on facts and winning arguments.

I'm pretty sure it went a lot deeper than generating small donations. This article mentions how they "microtargeted" voters based on sentiments within text messages.

 

[Michchamp]

on Democracy Now today they interviewed the guy who broke this scandal open; he was a professor researching election results.

I didn't catch the whole interview, but he said the most shocking thing to him that nobody is reporting is that when he submitted a request to Cambridge Analytica for his data, it came back on Cambridge Analytica letterhead, signed by the COO for a big UK defense contractor.

CA was basically a front for the defense contractor, and they set up a fake office at Cambridge and acted like they were associated with the university because they knew that would impress Steve Bannon and he'd hire them (it worked).

he said they had a whole database on his political beliefs, associations, etc. and the implication is this is all being collected by the defense industry as a routine practice; Cambridge Analytica didn't do anything unique; they were just an office propped up to scam the Trump campaign out of some cash.

I'm sure - given their data collection practices - it was easy for them to build a profile on Bannon and sell him on his own cultural and political views.

 

[Gulo Blue]

they did stop CA from doing it by suspending their account but they were more than happy to let the Obama campaign have at it.

They just suspended CA as a result of this recent backlash. They didn't stop anything.

 

[Gulo Blue]

I'm pretty sure it went a lot deeper than generating small donations. This article mentions how they "microtargeted" voters based on sentiments within text messages.

This current article says that. But when this was a new thing and people were giving him credit for using to beat Hillary, the stories were all about small contributions and individuals going door to door and that kind of thing.

 

[Gulo Blue]

The people at Politico must love this:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...rint-for-trump-victory?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

One of the most effective ads, according to Kaiser, was a piece of native advertising on the political news website Politico, which was also profiled in the presentation. The interactive graphic, which looked like a piece of journalism and purported to list “10 inconvenient truths about the Clinton Foundation”, appeared for several weeks to people from a list of key swing states when they visited the site. It was produced by the in-house Politico team that creates sponsored content.
The Cambridge Analytica presentation dedicates an entire slide to the ad, which is described as having achieved “an average engagement time of four minutes”. Kaiser described the ad as “the most successful thing we pushed out”.

 

[Spartanmack]

This current article says that. But when this was a new thing and people were giving him credit for using to beat Hillary, the stories were all about small contributions and individuals going door to door and that kind of thing.

so does this one from 2012...

https://arstechnica.com/information...uilt-to-win-deep-inside-obamas-campaign-tech/

Again, the difference is nobody cared until Trump's campaign did it - and again, that's not whataboutism.

 

[Michchamp]

The people at Politico must love this:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...rint-for-trump-victory?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

I understand that advertising pays for the reporting, but... wow.

one arm of the business is objectively (in theory) reporting on politics, the other is actively engaged in them.

 

[Michchamp]

so does this one from 2012...

https://arstechnica.com/information...uilt-to-win-deep-inside-obamas-campaign-tech/

Again, the difference is nobody cared until Trump's campaign did it - and again, that's not whataboutism.

I still don't think data analytics explains why candidates win or lose elections. I'm not saying they don't have any effect at all, but they're not a substitute for message, organization, canvassing door-to-door and phone banking, registering voters, and campaigning in general (giving speeches, kissing babies, shaking hands, etc.)

Hillary won because she was bad at campaigning and her staff relied on digital strategy almost to the complete exclusion of all the other things I mentioned.

sounds like Trump's campaign also over relied on data and analytics, and was also shitty at campaigning, but he at least had a message that resonated with some voters... Hillary had nothing.

 

[Gulo Blue]

so does this one from 2012...

https://arstechnica.com/information...uilt-to-win-deep-inside-obamas-campaign-tech/

Again, the difference is nobody cared until Trump's campaign did it - and again, that's not whataboutism.

That's right in line with what I remember. They used these tools to help push the ground game.

 

[Spartanmack]

I still don't think data analytics explains why candidates win or lose elections. I'm not saying they don't have any effect at all, but they're not a substitute for message, organization, canvassing door-to-door and phone banking, registering voters, and campaigning in general (giving speeches, kissing babies, shaking hands, etc.)

Hillary won because she was bad at campaigning and her staff relied on digital strategy almost to the complete exclusion of all the other things I mentioned.

sounds like Trump's campaign also over relied on data and analytics, and was also shitty at campaigning, but he at least had a message that resonated with some voters... Hillary had nothing.

I agree the substantive stuff is most important. The advantage you get from data analytics makes targeting the message and deploying the resources you've listed here more efficient. It's sort of like the difference between guided missile strikes and carpet bombing.