Leaked: Cambridge Analytica's blueprint for Trump victory
"None of the techniques described in the document are illegal. However, the scandal over Cambridge Analytica’s acquisition of data from more than 50 million Facebook users is lifting the lid on an industry that has learned how to closely track the online footprint and daily lives of US voters."
The emphasis is mine. You may or may not like this, but it was legal and it was brilliant marketing. There is, of course, plenty of blame to pass around: (1) Facebook thought they were allowing it for scholarly purposes, so any commercial application violated their TOS; (2) Facebook should never have allowed this level of access for any purpose, scholarly or not, trusted or not. I don't care if was Neil defuckingGrasse Tyson, or even his equally scholarly Uncle Mike. I can sorta understand why they would allow access to any of my info that I am dumb enough to provide, but there's no good reason to allow access to any info about my Facebook friends. It's difficult to believe that Facebook's techies knew that was possible and allowed it, but it's equally difficult to believe that they wouldn't know it was possible. Oh, Lucy, somebody's got a lot o' 'splainin' to do.
I will no longer be able to listen to Startalk Radio without laughing.
ReplyDeleteThe only thing that surprises me is that people are surprised. How anyone in today’s world can tthink they’re NOT being data mined up the ass and targeted for specific messages is beyond me.
ReplyDeleteSomebody ran the first campaign ad on radio. Somebody ran the first campsign ad on television, These guys ran the first campaign internet/social media blitz.
I’d like to see Trump fall on his ass as much as the next guy, but franky, the whole concept that somehow “x,” “y,” or “z” activity “stole” the election is bogus. Only outright voter fraud or ballot-counting hijinks can steal an election. “Duping people into believing your bullshit so they’ll vote for you” is kinda standard operating campaign procedure. The only difference here is the level of sophistication employed in distributing said bullshit.
Yup
DeleteStill blame Hillary for being such crap that Trump didn't look so bad.
Yup. Tricking people into believing your bullshit is what every politician does. Cambridge just figured out how to do it.
DeleteThis is Facebook's business model. Period. Full Stop.
ReplyDeleteThe collection, coallation and sale, of data gathered from/on their user base is *literally* how they make money. If you've not been paying attention to that, well ... I'm no sorry for you, because there are quite a few folks that have been talking about the issues surrounding said business model for more than 5 years.
I am aware of their various uses of user data, and I don't have any problem if people use the info I provide or the info anyone provides voluntarily. In fact, I think it is a good thing which allows me to get ad messages I may be interested in without wading through offers I'd never consider!
DeleteI have used that data myself. In doing ad campaigns for local businesses, I have also used Facebook to do some of the same things the Trumpers did here. It is incredibly useful. That's marketing. You identify a target group likely to be interested in your pitch, then you make the pitch in a way that causes them to respond. If you can hit the target group without wasting any of your ad budget on people outside the target, you have found the friggin' Holy Grail of marketing. It is just incredible to be able to send ads for a Packers-watching night at a sports bar only to Packers fans who like to drink away from home and live inside a very short radius around that bar, especially if paying only for impressions within that group.
The difference in the Cambridge data, at least according to the news stories, is that Facebook could be used through my quiz responses, with my permission granted by clicking on the "allow" button, to access data about my friends without THEM giving their permission for that use. I was not aware that Facebook permitted that kind of mining, and I don't believe they should.
But to be fair, any time you provide info about yourself on the internet you should probably not be surprised that somebody else, somebody you did not intend to have it, does have it. Using the internet is pretty much like going out to a public place. Somebody is going to see what you are doing, and other people are going to find out.
No disagreement, Scoop. My heartburn is with the folks that are in a tizzy about Facebook's data-gathering, etc. I am not surprised in the least with what Cambridge did. They took advantage of hastily and/or poorly considered policies Facebook implemented to "protect" their data sources (users.)
Delete