Hacker News Reader

Comment by facepalm | Hacker News Reader

The article seems to be a good example of why people don't trust the press anymore. Little actual information, but a lot of fear mongering: "billionaire trying to control the world", "data analysts controlling our emotions", the ad ban on Breitbart as a proof that they are evil and antisemitic (rather than showing examples of them being evil and antisemitic), and so on.

Obama already used data science in his campaigns, and Hillary spent more money than Trump afaik. Advertising and user targeting are not new inventions.

View on HN

"data analysts controlling our emotions"

is really nothing new. Sensing the emotions expressed by someone and then nudging them through targeted advertisement is a multi-billion business. It is proven to be effective in that realm. Is it fear mongering when one wonders about the political impact of this technology when employed on a massive scale?

Little actual information?

"Cambridge Analytica worked for the Trump campaign ... it was reported that until recently he had a seat on the board."

"A few weeks later, the Observer received a letter."

"earlier this week, I ended up in a Pret a Manger near Westminster with Andy Wigmore, Leave.EU’s affable communications director"

Concrete facts about how people and organizations relate. Events and named sources. First hand interviews.

It's not news that Trump employed Cambridge Analytics. Their actual impact is overblown. I think that has been discussed several times before.

In any case, as you say, it is nothing new, and open to everyone with enough money (as Clinton had). If you want to suggest it was unfair play, then maybe you should rethink how the president is elected in general. Should TV advertisements be allowed? They also manipulate people, and favor the candidate with the most money. How could you ensure that people vote without having been manipulated? Maybe nobody should be allowed to consume any media for 2 years prior to the election?

There are also presumably entities with far more data available than Cambridge Analytics, as have been mentioned on HN frequently before. Advertisers have been collecting data on people for a long time.

If you want to suggest it was unfair play, then maybe you should rethink how the president is elected in general. Should TV advertisements be allowed? They also manipulate people, and favor the candidate with the most money.

There are definitely people who are looking to reform election campaign rules and the influence of money. There's been plenty of debate regarding cases such as Citizens United.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC

To imply that people aren't also concerned about factors beyond Cambridge Analytics is disingenuous.

The point is - everybody could have employed CA, or other firms with similar offerings. That is the game of the presidential election, which one candidate won. To suggest something sinister went on is far off.

That's a lot of extra text (eyeballing, looks like about 50%) to support something that wasn't your point.

What do you mean?

Edit, since HN doesn't let me reply: the point is the article suggest something sinister going on, whereas it is mostly just business as usual. Note that claims about the effectiveness of CA also come mostly from CA executives. It could almost be a PR article for CA...

Other aspects also reek of conspiracy theory, like the "you set up outlets like Breitbart to replae the established media" - really, just like that, you set up news sites that are more popular than the established ones? And with a shocking, enourmus investment of 2 million dollars, too? It really seems as if Billionaires control everything, don't they? In fact, reading the article, I get the impression that rich people are generally evil - leftist ideology much?

Half of your comment addresses questioning how presidents are elected, implying that the parent ignores other issues with election campaigns. It does not support your point that using services like CA were open to anyone with money.

"The article seems to be a good example of why people don't trust the press anymore."

I agree it's possible. It's a combo of facts either side might use, facts cherry-picked for one side, logical fallacies, and pure rhetoric. I think there's more to it, though. These techniques go way back to point that my first analysis of logical and rhetorical persuasion was the Declaration of Independence that used both. Old media articles are a laugh, too, given their bias was so obvious.

Maybe it is precisely because people have more information sources available now that they realize more often how lacking some articles are.

For example, I have witnessed first hand the campaign for banning ads on Breitbart (which was often pointing to Milo articles like "the pill is making women ugly", falsely claiming they were mysognist), and I have followed Milo for a long time. I was following him on Twitter when he was banned, so I know he didn't call for racist attacks on the Ghostbusters actress as many articles claim. I have asked people to prove to me that Breitbart is antisemitic (while employing Jews like Milo) and received no replies. Therefore the article simply seems laughable to me. In fact the way Milo is mentioned is often a quick way to judge an article - if they claim he called for harassment of the Ghostbusters actress, it is bunk.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com