6 ms·

Cambridge Analytica first supported Cruz against Trump. So there is little hard evidence that it is such a powerful weapon. Bannon is on the board of the compan

by pesenti 10y ago

Cambridge Analytica first supported Cruz against Trump. So there is little hard evidence that it is such a powerful weapon. Bannon is on the board of the company and these articles feel like company-fed buzz. I led Mercer's old team at IBM for a few year and we also developed NLP/ML-based profiling technology. They work better than chance but not much better (there is lots of published literature on the subject) and definitely not enough to make a big difference from just feeding fake news to everybody equally.

raverbashing 10y ago
So maybe the secret is in the marketing
AJ007 10y ago
The key to success with Facebook advertising is making ads which get more attention than all of the other potential ads that could be shown to the user at that time. Because it is an auction system that requires only a very tiny advantage over the competition. Politics, in my opinion, is creating a product capable of fitting more people inside than the other candidate can. Certainly it is vastly easier to make out-performing political ads based on data points like pro-gun, hunter verse making ads for Coca-Cola based on data points like breast feeding, yoga. Perhaps this is more about category discovery and targeting (vastly more difficult without Facebook) than any cutting machine learning.
- jacobolus 10y ago
  Friendly note: you want “versus” or “vs.”, not “verse”.
zzalpha 10y ago
They work better than chance but not much better When you're dealing with razor thin margins in individual electoral districts, and 300M people, even slightly better than chance can be pretty powerful.
- pesenti 10y ago
  Yes but so are many other factors. In a tight election you can attribute the win to a plethora of factors, doesn't make each of them more meaningful. Plus the profiling itself not being very reliable, I have big doubt as to their ability to change people's opinion based on that.
- pjmorris 10y ago
  Razor thin margins seems to lead to a multitude of arguments for how a variety of things could have swayed the election. None of these things explain why the election was close, but that seems like a much more important thing to understand.
nickpsecurity 10y ago
Remember that they're responding to demand. Trump was closer to what the Red states wanted than Cruz. Demand shifted in his favor. So, then the tools for responding to demand had to shift to Trump. It's just like in marketing where you always have to target the offering to what the audience wants. If you want to understand that demand, below is my favorite article on what Trump was tapping into and how liberals were coming across to them. Next liberal candidate needs to change marketing to appeal to some of these in the swing states. They certainly had opportunities but substituted mockery for appeal to them. http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reasons-trumps-rise-that-no-one-talks-about/ http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reasons-trumps-rise-that-no-on...
- chillwaves 10y ago
  That article is ridiculous. Yes, I understand there is a country culture that supports Trump, but let's not pretend they live some special life of toil and oppression at the hands of the liberal elite. Sure, they might believe in their victimhood, and Trump is fluent in speaking that language. Doesn't make it true. We all struggle to survive in this economy and we all have our own problems -- the difference is those of us who will not drag the country down by supporting a transparently dishonest conman in an attempt to lash out at those we perceive to be doing better but undeserving. Justifying this perspective is a fallacy.
  - graeme 10y ago
    Have you been to those areas? It's pretty rough. The mortality stats have been rapidly worsening in rural areas, vs. rising for all other groups. How you feel about their vote and how you feel about the material circumstances of their life are two distinct things. It's quite possible they've got a legitimate grievance, and nonetheless voted poorly. I say this as a member of the liberal elite in urban Canada. Things are great right now for my set! I've been to Pittsburgh and rural Vermont within the past year, as well as NYC. In Pittsburgh I happened to be in a hospital waiting room and saw some of the poorest looking white people I've ever seen. Missing teeth, ragged clothing, leathered skin, sunken eyes. It was shocking. In Vermont, I heard many stories of the opioid crisis. It sounded quite severe. I've also driven through rural Maine with my family. Rusting cars and junk heaps in every backyard, doors falling off the hinges, chickens running amok. Certainly they're not the only group to have struggles. But to dismiss their troubles is part of what got us here. Here are some stats on the recent mortality shift: http://www.pnas.org/content/112/49/15078.full http://www.pnas.org/content/112/49/15078.full

by pesenti 10y ago

raverbashing 10y ago

So maybe the secret is in the marketing

AJ007 10y ago

The key to success with Facebook advertising is making ads which get more attention than all of the other potential ads that could be shown to the user at that time. Because it is an auction system that requires only a very tiny advantage over the competition. Politics, in my opinion, is creating a product capable of fitting more people inside than the other candidate can. Certainly it is vastly easier to make out-performing political ads based on data points like pro-gun, hunter verse making ads for Coca-Cola based on data points like breast feeding, yoga. Perhaps this is more about category discovery and targeting (vastly more difficult without Facebook) than any cutting machine learning.

jacobolus 10y ago
Friendly note: you want “versus” or “vs.”, not “verse”.

zzalpha 10y ago

They work better than chance but not much better When you're dealing with razor thin margins in individual electoral districts, and 300M people, even slightly better than chance can be pretty powerful.

pesenti 10y ago
Yes but so are many other factors. In a tight election you can attribute the win to a plethora of factors, doesn't make each of them more meaningful. Plus the profiling itself not being very reliable, I have big doubt as to their ability to change people's opinion based on that.
pjmorris 10y ago
Razor thin margins seems to lead to a multitude of arguments for how a variety of things could have swayed the election. None of these things explain why the election was close, but that seems like a much more important thing to understand.

nickpsecurity 10y ago

Remember that they're responding to demand. Trump was closer to what the Red states wanted than Cruz. Demand shifted in his favor. So, then the tools for responding to demand had to shift to Trump. It's just like in marketing where you always have to target the offering to what the audience wants. If you want to understand that demand, below is my favorite article on what Trump was tapping into and how liberals were coming across to them. Next liberal candidate needs to change marketing to appeal to some of these in the swing states. They certainly had opportunities but substituted mockery for appeal to them. http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reasons-trumps-rise-that-no-one-talks-about/ http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reasons-trumps-rise-that-no-on...

chillwaves 10y ago
That article is ridiculous. Yes, I understand there is a country culture that supports Trump, but let's not pretend they live some special life of toil and oppression at the hands of the liberal elite. Sure, they might believe in their victimhood, and Trump is fluent in speaking that language. Doesn't make it true. We all struggle to survive in this economy and we all have our own problems -- the difference is those of us who will not drag the country down by supporting a transparently dishonest conman in an attempt to lash out at those we perceive to be doing better but undeserving. Justifying this perspective is a fallacy.
- graeme 10y ago
  Have you been to those areas? It's pretty rough. The mortality stats have been rapidly worsening in rural areas, vs. rising for all other groups. How you feel about their vote and how you feel about the material circumstances of their life are two distinct things. It's quite possible they've got a legitimate grievance, and nonetheless voted poorly. I say this as a member of the liberal elite in urban Canada. Things are great right now for my set! I've been to Pittsburgh and rural Vermont within the past year, as well as NYC. In Pittsburgh I happened to be in a hospital waiting room and saw some of the poorest looking white people I've ever seen. Missing teeth, ragged clothing, leathered skin, sunken eyes. It was shocking. In Vermont, I heard many stories of the opioid crisis. It sounded quite severe. I've also driven through rural Maine with my family. Rusting cars and junk heaps in every backyard, doors falling off the hinges, chickens running amok. Certainly they're not the only group to have struggles. But to dismiss their troubles is part of what got us here. Here are some stats on the recent mortality shift: http://www.pnas.org/content/112/49/15078.full http://www.pnas.org/content/112/49/15078.full