4 ms·

Very handy wavy editorial with almost no substance. What exactly did they get wrong and why did they get it wrong, sources? Why do they dismiss someone with a

Very handy wavy editorial with almost no substance. What exactly did they get wrong and why did they get it wrong, sources? Why do they dismiss someone with a PhD and a ton of experience as a "young staffer"?

tptacek 7y ago
It cites reviews of the documentary, goes into some depth about the background of the primary source of the documentary, including the author's own firsthand contact with that source, provides the alternate case study of Ted Cruz's poor experience with CA, cites David Karpf, and culminates with a paragraph-long citation to a well-known peer-reviewed study about the effectiveness of political campaign marketing. By the standards of these kinds of articles, it is the opposite of what you said it is. That doesn't make it right, but does refute the one criticism you managed to marshal.
- TheHypnotist 7y ago
  It's cites a single review and for no other purpose than quoting the reviewer. The rest is hearsay, at best.
Fnoord 7y ago
> Unfortunately, the Cambridge Analytica/Facebook scandal also has renewed a very old and disabling fable embraced by many well-meaning people on the left, which is that Americans (and others overseas) keep voting for right-wing authoritarians because they are being manipulated by the media. This sets the precedent of the entire article, and avoids mentioning the circumstances around the Bush Al Gore election of 2000. And unfortunately, it also ends with such polarizing words: > The Great Hack wants to make its viewers care about data rights and the dangers of modern misinformation campaigns but unfortunately is itself a slick piece of misinformation that plays artfully on the prejudices and misunderstandings rife in its targeted audience. If the weaponization of misinformation was such a powerful tool for changing hearts and minds, why did the left win recent elections in Mexico and Istanbul? Why did Democrats retake the House in 2018? We aren’t losing the war for the future because of some new media masterminds. If we’re losing, it’s because our message—and messengers—aren’t connecting. Because 'the left' isn't excluded in social media manipulation. The narrative that 'the left' (whatever that exactly is) is somehow crying wolf is quite clear, and also tells the observer who this article is trying to convince (hint: those who got manipulated) > The film gives an inordinate amount of attention to Brittany Kaiser, a Democrat who worked for CA’s US branch as its business development director and then—after the revelations of the Facebook breach—apparently had an attack of conscience. They're omitting the data scientist who started whistleblowing. The very same data scientist who said in a Tweet which is quoted, that Kaiser was no whistleblower. Does Kaiser get a lot of attention in this documentary? Yes. Is it unwarranted? I don't know. Is it all positive, is she put in a positive light alone? No way. If you watch the documentary carefully, you can find examples where she is being criticized. The description of events of her 180 u-turn is not pleading her free at all. > According to her, until CA started working for Trump in June 2016, his campaign had no data infrastructure or digital marketing apparatus and no digital strategy. The implication, never blatantly stated but simply conveyed by all the tricks of modern documentary-making—striking digital graphics meant to illustrate how our data leaks into the hands of others, ominous music, and alluring close-ups of Kaiser as she watches the scandal unfold on television—is that Trump won because Cambridge Analytica gave him a secret edge. > All of this is garbage. Kaiser first worked in politics as an intern on the 2008 Barack Obama campaign, helping its social media team, but The Great Hack implies that she ran his whole Facebook operation. Classic straw man, keywords being: implication, implies. The amount of people who had to be manipulated were carefully chosen, and had to be very little amount in US thanks to the way the election system works (with the districts).

tptacek 7y ago

It cites reviews of the documentary, goes into some depth about the background of the primary source of the documentary, including the author's own firsthand contact with that source, provides the alternate case study of Ted Cruz's poor experience with CA, cites David Karpf, and culminates with a paragraph-long citation to a well-known peer-reviewed study about the effectiveness of political campaign marketing. By the standards of these kinds of articles, it is the opposite of what you said it is. That doesn't make it right, but does refute the one criticism you managed to marshal.

TheHypnotist 7y ago
It's cites a single review and for no other purpose than quoting the reviewer. The rest is hearsay, at best.

Fnoord 7y ago

> Unfortunately, the Cambridge Analytica/Facebook scandal also has renewed a very old and disabling fable embraced by many well-meaning people on the left, which is that Americans (and others overseas) keep voting for right-wing authoritarians because they are being manipulated by the media. This sets the precedent of the entire article, and avoids mentioning the circumstances around the Bush Al Gore election of 2000. And unfortunately, it also ends with such polarizing words: > The Great Hack wants to make its viewers care about data rights and the dangers of modern misinformation campaigns but unfortunately is itself a slick piece of misinformation that plays artfully on the prejudices and misunderstandings rife in its targeted audience. If the weaponization of misinformation was such a powerful tool for changing hearts and minds, why did the left win recent elections in Mexico and Istanbul? Why did Democrats retake the House in 2018? We aren’t losing the war for the future because of some new media masterminds. If we’re losing, it’s because our message—and messengers—aren’t connecting. Because 'the left' isn't excluded in social media manipulation. The narrative that 'the left' (whatever that exactly is) is somehow crying wolf is quite clear, and also tells the observer who this article is trying to convince (hint: those who got manipulated) > The film gives an inordinate amount of attention to Brittany Kaiser, a Democrat who worked for CA’s US branch as its business development director and then—after the revelations of the Facebook breach—apparently had an attack of conscience. They're omitting the data scientist who started whistleblowing. The very same data scientist who said in a Tweet which is quoted, that Kaiser was no whistleblower. Does Kaiser get a lot of attention in this documentary? Yes. Is it unwarranted? I don't know. Is it all positive, is she put in a positive light alone? No way. If you watch the documentary carefully, you can find examples where she is being criticized. The description of events of her 180 u-turn is not pleading her free at all. > According to her, until CA started working for Trump in June 2016, his campaign had no data infrastructure or digital marketing apparatus and no digital strategy. The implication, never blatantly stated but simply conveyed by all the tricks of modern documentary-making—striking digital graphics meant to illustrate how our data leaks into the hands of others, ominous music, and alluring close-ups of Kaiser as she watches the scandal unfold on television—is that Trump won because Cambridge Analytica gave him a secret edge. > All of this is garbage. Kaiser first worked in politics as an intern on the 2008 Barack Obama campaign, helping its social media team, but The Great Hack implies that she ran his whole Facebook operation. Classic straw man, keywords being: implication, implies. The amount of people who had to be manipulated were carefully chosen, and had to be very little amount in US thanks to the way the election system works (with the districts).