Stop referencing Cambridge Analytica. They grossly overstated their results with intent. Everyone seems to have taken the headlines produced from their first po

Stop referencing Cambridge Analytica. They grossly overstated their results with intent. Everyone seems to have taken the headlines produced from their first post-US-election presentation as truth, without even bothering to watch that presentation. Because when doing so even the most forgiving would get a sense of screaming suspicion. They brag about taking one Republican candidate (Ted Cruz) from the bottom of 20 candidates to... #3 in the Republican party primary. And then the logic of the headlines continue on to claim that this means with 300 likes they can predict you better than you mother. Candidate #3? I promise you there were as many data analytic companies as there were candidates but the difference is that only Cambridge Analytica came up with the clever marketing pitches to promote their strategy and only they had the guts to promote that strategy even though their pony lost the race. And it shouldn't surprise anyone because good marketing strategy, not good data, lead to such sensational headlines. Cambridge Analytica should be treated with the suspicion provided to all marketing firms, because it is clear when looking closely that this is what they are, and one with a rather shady history full of scams at that: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-03-23/trump-data-gurus-leave-long-trail-of-subterfuge-dubious-dealing https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-03-23/trump-dat... https://hn.algolia.com/?query=cambridge%20analytica&sort=byPopularity&prefix&page=0&dateRange=all&type=story https://hn.algolia.com/?query=cambridge%20analytica&sort=byP... Stop referencing Cambridge Analytica. The headlines that their marketing produced just happen to fit so nicely in the techno-evil horror fluff stories we all as liberal leftists (myself included) so desperately want to eat. But find better references, please!