Support NeoGAF

[Spaced Harrier]

Will read in work tomorrow. Looks juicy.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Their customer is not you. Or the public.
They get their business from political fixers talking. They have Zero interest in pumping what they do to the press and every interest in doing it quietly for as long as possible without any regulatory oversight.
They are operating in a nasty grey area, scraping or using data covered weakly by privacy policies cut and pasted from other tech companies and using this data to influence voters.

The only way to know how successful they are is to follow the money: how much do they get paid and who by. And the US system hides this very effectively now.

This is not remotely true. Cambridge Analytica spends all of their time talking to the press about how great they are. They only admit they were fired from the Cruz campaign when you ask and pry.

 

[OrangeGrayBlue]

The world is better today then it was in 99,99% of history actually by any objective measure. Still, could have been better of course and some places go backwards for a bit from time to time.

Agreed. This vague idea that "things" are "fucked" despite all evidence suggesting that, by and large, "things" are mostly fine is confusing to me. There are some obvious, egregious problems but poor people in developed countries generally live longer, healthier, more comfortable lives than royalty did just 100 years ago. Things aren't exactly falling apart no matter how stupid politics gets for a couple election cycles.

 

[shawnbuddy]

This is Peter Thiel's dystopian vision, the technocrats in control of information and thought. Whatever you think of Gawker he destroyed them because they challenged that.

 

[ZehDon]

Interesting article, but it paints CA as some shadowy SPECTRE like organisation, toppling Governments and re-shaping the world via its dark magics, yet has little in the way of concrete facts that demonstrate this. At best, CA appears to offer advice based on social media data. The effectiveness and accuracy of this service is painted as so accurate as to be unethical, as if it were a mind control device. Yet, Trump won by a slim margin, and lost the popular vote. Reads like snake oil being blamed for an utter collapse in faith in political systems decades in the making.

 

[Muppet of a Man]

Eric Schmidt's daughter, what the fuck were you thinking?

It could almost be the plot of a time travel movie to move us back onto the good timeline: intercept Sophie Schmidt before that introduction ever takes place so that it never does.

 

[Muppet of a Man]

Interesting article, but it paints CA as some shadowy SPECTRE like organisation, toppling Governments and re-shaping the world via its dark magics, yet has little in the way of concrete facts that demonstrate this. At best, CA appears to offer advice based on social media data. The effectiveness and accuracy of this service is painted as so accurate as to be unethical, as if it were a mind control device. Yet, Trump won by a slim margin, and lost the popular vote. Reads like snake oil being blamed for an utter collapse in faith in political systems decades in the making.

In a world where targeted fake news on Facebook from CA does not create the alt right (with help from Russia, as well, of course), then you can start talking about razor thin margins. In a world without interference, Trump would have never even made it out of the Primary.

 

[sturmdogg]

After reading the article, I have come to the conclusion that the LHC has somehow merged our reality with another one. The Illuminati of our reality is being wiped out by the Illuminati of the new one, hence Brexit, Trump and the Islamization of Europe.

 

[wildfire]

See the issue I have here is one of blame. And now the little people can blame someone else for their bad decisions.

I was coerced by the big bad billionaire with big data - it's not my fault the world and freedoms that my parents and grandparents fought for have gone to shit. No sir, not me. That my children will inherit a world teetering on the edge of ecological disaster. How could I have known?

What you're glossing over is access to information.

The article even opens up with how small time neo Nazi websites manipulate Google algorithms to increase traffic to their sites.



Google actively fights such manipulations but we don't know how long it takes for them to counter such manipulation and how long it takes new techniques to circumvent these controls are developed.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

Knew this was gonna be about the Mercers and Cambridge Analytica. These assholes give me the creeps.

This is why I avoid social media as much as possible. Even then I'm not completely immune, but at least I'm aware of it and can show some caution. People freely giving every minute detail of their life for politicians and corporations... SMH

Robert Mercer is the right's George Soros

Except a real threat.

Cambridge Analytica is a group of snake oil salesmen that liberals latched onto as a supervillain because they couldn't handle the idea of losing to the obvious stupid people that Trump surrounded himself with.

Cambridge Analytica's models were worse than the RNC's during the general, Cambridge was fired by Cruz during the primary, Cambridge has never used their psychological modeling Facebook stuff in Brexit or the US election.

This is not accurate. Do you know anything about big data by any chance? Did you even read the full article?

Btw, there is nothing mutually exclusive between the notions of idiots voting for idiots, and smarter people helping that happen.

 

[Freeza Under The Shower]

In a world where targeted fake news on Facebook from CA does not create the alt right (with help from Russia, as well, of course), then you can start talking about razor thin margins. In a world without interference, Trump would have never even made it out of the Primary.

precisely. People who reject this with some fallacy do not understand the scope, scale, or relative ease of these processes (or how effective superhuman intelligence in the form of machine learning has gotten, it's insane). Mercer's companies are just one example of someone doing that, but much bigger and more advanced campaigns took place during the election.
The astroturf operations also didn't go away or anything, and those are on an even higher level than Mercer's shit is (because it actually is a military operation).

We live in the age of many Little Brothers, not Big Brother, but the effects are -potentially- equally disastrous.

 

[ZehDon]

In a world where targeted fake news on Facebook from CA does not create the alt right (with help from Russia, as well, of course), then you can start talking about razor thin margins. In a world without interference, Trump would have never even made it out of the Primary.

Define interference. Like the article, your inferring something unethical was done. Clinton ran ads based on demographic modelling, where Trump ran ads, allegedly, based on psychometric modelling. I can outline a myriad of problems with Clinton's campaign without mentioning either. CA isn't the Devil with a magic wand; the "alt right" is a new name for an old problem. Unless you think CA "created" GamerGate, too?

I get that its nice to have some "shady" conspiracy to blame, but I'm not seeing anything that confirms this. At best, a company developed a more accurate public modelling method that may or may not work. At worst, lax data laws allow more effective propaganda. If Clinton had used this and won, would this thread exist?

 

[Screaming Meat]

Christ. Off the back of the OP I read up on the Mercers, The Medallion Hedge Fund (which is mental), Cambridge Analytica, SCL - the lot.

It's enough to turn me conspiracy theorist!

Define interference. Like the article, your inferring something unethical was done. Clinton ran ads based on demographic modelling, where Trump ran ads, allegedly, based on psychometric modelling.

Apparently not.

"I don’t want to break your heart; we actually didn’t do any psychographics with the Trump campaign,” Matt Oczkowski, Cambridge’s head of product, said at a postelection panel hosted by Google in December.

This is not accurate. Do you know anything about big data by any chance? Did you even read the full article?

Glad to have you back. According to the above NYT article, they may well be "Snake Oil Merchants". Besides nearly everyone but CA downplaying their role in the election, a number of people suggest 'psychographics' to be completely unproven.

 

[Red Liquorice]

Oh so you're saying somebody already hit reset?

Ha!

By which I mean *sob*

 

[Joni]

How do I apply? I have the necessary skills, both for Big Data and for General Evilness.

 

[jellies_two]

This is not remotely true. Cambridge Analytica spends all of their time talking to the press about how great they are. They only admit they were fired from the Cruz campaign when you ask and pry.

When you ask about how effective they are at micro targeting and psychometrics etc everyone gets real shy really fast. Understandably because it's a shitty way to use big data and they should be hiding it.

But it isn't any comfort at ALL that they are working hard at making this stuff work.

 

[ZehDon]

When you ask about how effective they are at micro targeting and psychometrics etc everyone gets real shy really fast. Understandably because it's a shitty way to use big data and they should be hiding it.

But it isn't any comfort at ALL that they are working hard at making this stuff work.

According to everyone who matters, that would be because they haven't really lived up to their own marketing material. Ask Microsoft how Windows Phone is doing these days, and you'd get the same response. All we have are allegations, web-connection pics, and poorly made inferals. If your response to this boils down to "That's just what they want you to think!", congratulations, you're seeing the world as a flat earther does.

As for a shitty way to use big data, it's not really. It's simply a use of it. Advertisers have been doing the same thing for so long, no one cares anymore. They're simply getting better at it, and using the tools of the age. The act in and of itself has no inherent alignment. If you want real discomfort, take a look at the response to the anti-materialism movements in the USA of the 60s and 70s for a better look of how inventive and downright scary advertising stuff gets. You're dealing with a profession who found a way to sell capitalism and self-definition through material possessions to anti-materalists before the internet. Brainwashing on a societal level.

Trump won because the Democrats shot themselves in the foot, and ran a campaign so poor, their base stayed home rather than vote. Not because CA has cracked a magical code to produce brainwashing advertisements that work on just enough people to topple the world back into the dark ages.

 

[The Greek Freak]

Thanks for posting this, I'll read it later.

Another great article on Cambridge Analytica's involvement in Brexit and Trump's campaign was posted a while ago here: https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/how-our-likes-helped-trump-win

They trained machine learning models using 'Likes' information scraped from Facebook and then tirelessly A/B tested different campaign messages that would be the most effective to get people in their target groups to rally to their cause.

This isn't very different than what many companies including mine do on a much smaller scale to sell products and no cause behind it beyond money.

 

[Ether_Snake]

According to everyone who matters, that would be because they haven't really lived up to their own marketing material. Ask Microsoft how Windows Phone is doing these days, and you'd get the same response. All we have are allegations, web-connection pics, and poorly made inferals. If your response to this boils down to "That's just what they want you to think!", congratulations, you're seeing the world as a flat earther does.

As for a shitty way to use big data, it's not really. It's simply a use of it. Advertisers have been doing the same thing for so long, no one cares anymore. They're simply getting better at it, and using the tools of the age. The act in and of itself has no inherent alignment. If you want real discomfort, take a look at the response to the anti-materialism movements in the USA of the 60s and 70s for a better look of how inventive and downright scary advertising stuff gets. You're dealing with a profession who found a way to sell capitalism and self-definition through m Thematerial possessions to anti-materalists before the internet. Brainwashing on a societal level.

Trump won because the Democrats shot themselves in the foot, and ran a campaign so poor, their base stayed home rather than vote. Not because CA has cracked a magical code to produce brainwashing advertisements that work on just enough people to topple the world back into the dark ages.

Century of the self, one of the best documentary series ever.

 

[ZehDon]

Century of the self, one of the best documentary series ever.

Honestly one of the scariest things I've ever seen. Reading about it all afterwards still stays with me.

 

[Screaming Meat]

As for a shitty way to use big data, it's not really. It's simply a use of it. Advertisers have been doing the same thing for so long, no one cares anymore.

Isn't that essentially an appeal to tradition?

From my point of view, the implication of people shaping discourse and (allegedly) political outcomes to suit their personal agendas is a pretty shitty use of personal data.

There's a strange cognitive dissonance at play with data. If you sat someone down and explained just how much of their data had been harvested and what it was used for, I've no doubt they'd be up in arms about it. The irony is, the first thing they would do is post about it on Facebook. The connection between one's data and their activity on the web is still abstract for a lot of people.

Century of the self, one of the best documentary series ever.

Yup. Genuinely chilling.

 

[ZehDon]

Isn't that essentially an appeal to tradition?...

Not really. Advertising works by understanding what your selling and who you're selling it to. Propaganda has negative connotations, but it boils down to basically advertising a political candidate/party/ideology. Advertising without either of the elements (what/who) fails. We're getting better at the latter, and simply expanding the applications for the understandings developed since time immemorial. The argument that using publicly available social media data to create better political campaigns is inherently bad isn't sound. I've mentioned it twice already: if Clinton had of used these techniques to prevent Trump from taking the White House, no one would complain. Well, Trumpets would, but you understand what I mean. Therefore, it's not this specific technique, but it's application, that's at the core of people's issue.

 

[Screaming Meat]

Not really.

I meant in the sense of "it's been going on forever, so it's fine." I don't think that's a good enough reason to give it a pass.

Advertising works by understanding what your selling and who you're selling it to. Propaganda has negative connotations, but it boils down to basically advertising a political candidate/party/ideology.

I'd argue advertising/marketing carries its fair share of negative connotations. People have expressed their disdain for it since its earliest days. I've worked in marketing for over a decade, and I can confirm (anecdotally, at least) that people still have issues with it and how advertisers scalp and use their data (earlier mention of cognitive dissonance notwithstanding).

The argument that using publicly available social media data to create better political campaigns is inherently bad isn't sound. I've mentioned it twice already: if Clinton had of used these techniques to prevent Trump from taking the White House, no one would complain.

I was complaining about the application of this information (awesome name for a rap collective) to 'shape discourse' and (allegedly) 'influence political outcomes'. It's most definitely the application I have an issue with.

 

[Hari Seldon]

I thought the UK actually had decent privacy laws. That is what we need in the US to stop this, actual real privacy laws that prevent corporations from selling our data.

 

[Kill Your Masters]

Lose an election and you're ready to kill everyone? Get a grip

It's a video games forum, some people don't grasp the concept and consequences of a real life reset anymore.

 

[mr jones]

According to everyone who matters, that would be because they haven't really lived up to their own marketing material. Ask Microsoft how Windows Phone is doing these days, and you'd get the same response. All we have are allegations, web-connection pics, and poorly made inferals. If your response to this boils down to "That's just what they want you to think!", congratulations, you're seeing the world as a flat earther does.

As for a shitty way to use big data, it's not really. It's simply a use of it. Advertisers have been doing the same thing for so long, no one cares anymore. They're simply getting better at it, and using the tools of the age. The act in and of itself has no inherent alignment. If you want real discomfort, take a look at the response to the anti-materialism movements in the USA of the 60s and 70s for a better look of how inventive and downright scary advertising stuff gets. You're dealing with a profession who found a way to sell capitalism and self-definition through material possessions to anti-materalists before the internet. Brainwashing on a societal level.

Trump won because the Democrats shot themselves in the foot, and ran a campaign so poor, their base stayed home rather than vote. Not because CA has cracked a magical code to produce brainwashing advertisements that work on just enough people to topple the world back into the dark ages.

Remember kids, the car companies got us so wrapped up into automobiles being part of your lifestyle, that we use a license to drive as a legitimate government authorized method of identification.

Your mind is not yours.

 

[SomTervo]

Just read this article the other day.

Terrifying and dystopian.

My only big rub with it is that it would be good to know to what extent Vote Remain and "the left" used the same tactics.

Like, there's no question they would have. It would have just had less money pumped into it.

Democracy is still fucked.

Trump won because the Democrats shot themselves in the foot, and ran a campaign so poor, their base stayed home rather than vote. Not because CA has cracked a magical code to produce brainwashing advertisements that work on just enough people to topple the world back into the dark ages.

Um. I think the article makes a pretty good point that big data had a huge impact on things. Military psy ops techniques deployed successfully in third world countries taken and deployed in the West using Facebook as its driving engine. And again, that's military psi ops, not "advertising techniques" (although obviously they're related and probably historically intertwined).

Did you read the whole piece?

 

[jellies_two]

Anyone who buys this "oh we/they were so useless" follow-up stories should read this breaking news from the Guardian

how Mercer managed to
- flout UK election laws that forbid the two different Brexit campaigns from working together
- flout UK laws that restrict the involvement of foreign money or services
- drive spectacular social media engagement and massive polling to refine messages that resonate, across social media (Facebook, of course).
- obscure his role, and how it links back to Bannon, Flynn, Sessions, and the so-called "political rejects" pre-brexit.
- make it be a beta test for a big-data trump campaign "in a petri dish"

https://www.theguardian.com/technol...-referendum-brexit-campaigns?CMP=share_btn_tw

In particular note how before the people involved realised what dangerous ground they were on, they crowed about its success.

PS: Mercer is in the process of suing or threatening to sue over this article and one in the Observer.

 

[How About No]

Thread by jelly

Bump by jellies_two

 

[jellies_two]

Thread by jelly

Bump by jellies_two

I'm nothing to do with the OP and doh if I wanted to a sock puppet would I use similar names!

anyway back to topic as you've given me an excuse. I think election message engineering using money and facebook is going to (eventually) be understood to be a big factor and the cavalier Mercer used Brexit as his proving ground should be disturbing to UK citizens.

 

[MegaManTrigger]

Person of Interest got so much fucking right jesus christ.

What the OP just described is Samaritan minus the Artificial Intelligence.

 

[Fluffhead14]

Saving this for later

 

[Muppet of a Man]

Define interference. Like the article, your inferring something unethical was done. Clinton ran ads based on demographic modelling, where Trump ran ads, allegedly, based on psychometric modelling. I can outline a myriad of problems with Clinton's campaign without mentioning either. CA isn't the Devil with a magic wand; the "alt right" is a new name for an old problem. Unless you think CA "created" GamerGate, too?

I get that its nice to have some "shady" conspiracy to blame, but I'm not seeing anything that confirms this. At best, a company developed a more accurate public modelling method that may or may not work. At worst, lax data laws allow more effective propaganda. If Clinton had used this and won, would this thread exist?

The "problem" was fragmented and in disarray before. These fake news stories coalesced a fake narrative that they came together behind. It absolutely was insidiously done, especially since Trump is compromised by Russia oligarchs, the Russian mafia, and Putin himself. They are basically using Russian political theater tactics (i.e., reflexive control) to manipulate a desired outcome from low-information and bigoted right-wingers.

Also, intent matters. If Clinton did this, it would be unethical. But since her masters are just banks and multinational corporations, most of which are incorporated in the US, at least she wouldn't effectively be committing treason. And Russia is a fucking authoritarian state shithole, a true dystopia. Not the sort of place you want your leaders to sell out to.

 

[jellies_two]

USA has lost its investigative journalists

Look at this from the BBC

https://twitter.com/castantine/status/897252711212748805

Facebook was sitting in the trump campaign itself helping Cambridge analytica connect their massive data set (including as yet unknown "secret sauce") down to A/B ads to win votes. As this freakish employee says, without FB helping they would not have won.

 

[Malvolio]

USA has lost its investigative journalists

Look at this from the BBC

https://twitter.com/castantine/status/897252711212748805

Facebook was sitting in the trump campaign itself helping Cambridge analytica connect their massive data set (including as yet unknown "secret sauce") down to A/B ads to win votes. As this freakish employee says, without FB helping they would not have won.

No wonder Zuckerberg has been laying the foundation for a political career. If his data can get Trump elected, it can certainly do the same for him.

 

[Sesuadra]

USA has lost its investigative journalists

Look at this from the BBC

https://twitter.com/castantine/status/897252711212748805

Facebook was sitting in the trump campaign itself helping Cambridge analytica connect their massive data set (including as yet unknown "secret sauce") down to A/B ads to win votes. As this freakish employee says, without FB helping they would not have won.

would that not deserver it's own, new thread?

 

[Unit 33]

I have seen the fnords.

 

[Nikodemos]

No wonder data analysis companies run low-key lobbying against the Union's "right to be forgotten" law. It causes massive damage to their data retention, which is the basis of all their quantitative modeling.

As for the effect of CA and their ilk, it's simple. One the one hand, it nudges people teetering on the edge of two political convictions towards one of them. On the other, it energises people who otherwise wouldn't have come out to vote go and do so. The effect is weak, but electoral races are often won on slim margins and half a percent can make a difference. Think shallow and wide versus deep and narrow.

Regarding to why CA did not produce results in Cruz's campaign? Because companies like them work, as they say, with the client's material. Ted Cruz is an unlikeable limp noodle dumbass. To contrast, Trump is a popular culture icon, has an aura of success, and he can at the very least fake conviction when he spouts some of the disgusting garbage he does. A lot more ground material to run with.

 

[enzo_gt]

It's absurd to me this thread isn't like 5 times the size it currently is. This is perhaps one of the most important articles to read about understanding the election results, how data rules the world today, and how malleable people's beliefs are.