4 ms·

The story incorrectly reports the company was hired for the trump campaign to do data work. As per https://youtu.be/yjn6wK01cqk?t=1878 https://youtu.be/yjn6wK01

The story incorrectly reports the company was hired for the trump campaign to do data work. As per https://youtu.be/yjn6wK01cqk?t=1878 https://youtu.be/yjn6wK01cqk?t=1878 only staff were hired. edit: provide link, and clarify.

Jakawao 7y ago
Fine, I will bite. https://www.wired.com/story/what-did-cambridge-analytica-really-do-for-trumps-campaign/ https://www.wired.com/story/what-did-cambridge-analytica-rea... Cambridge worked both for the Trump campaign and a Trump-aligned Super PAC. Cambridge Analytica was paid $5.9 million by the Trump campaign, according to Federal Election Commission filings If you have a source that shows otherwise, please share.
- linusnext 7y ago
  5 Million was for ad buys on TV. The rest was just for support staff that actually were not employees of CA.
  - n4r9 7y ago
    The Wired article says the rest went to "Oczkowski and his team". Oczkowski is CA's former head of product and worked there until April 2017. Either way, I'm not sure the distinction you're making is very significant?
    - linusnext 7y ago
      The statement that the stolen data was used for the campaign is contradicted by the interview link provided.
      - n4r9 7y ago
        Ah, I see what you mean, yes: it's denied by the campaign manager.
        rsynnott 7y ago
        In the immortal words of Mandy Rice-Davies, well, he would say that, wouldn’t he?
        linusnext 7y ago
        That's the evidence? Just because you want to believe it does not make it true.
        n4r9 7y ago
        I think the evidence is circumstantial but sufficient to warrant further investigation. CA harvested illegal data, used it in the Cruz campaign, lied about removing it and were then very involved in the presidential election, all within the span of a couple of years. Parscape's denial is not in itself evidence, but I do agree with rsynnott that it's neither here nor there.
linusnext 7y ago
Specifically "which infamously used stolen Facebook data to target voters for President Donald Trump’s campaign in the 2016 U.S. election" from the article is inaccurate.

Jakawao 7y ago

Fine, I will bite. https://www.wired.com/story/what-did-cambridge-analytica-really-do-for-trumps-campaign/ https://www.wired.com/story/what-did-cambridge-analytica-rea... Cambridge worked both for the Trump campaign and a Trump-aligned Super PAC. Cambridge Analytica was paid $5.9 million by the Trump campaign, according to Federal Election Commission filings If you have a source that shows otherwise, please share.

linusnext 7y ago
5 Million was for ad buys on TV. The rest was just for support staff that actually were not employees of CA.
- n4r9 7y ago
  The Wired article says the rest went to "Oczkowski and his team". Oczkowski is CA's former head of product and worked there until April 2017. Either way, I'm not sure the distinction you're making is very significant?
  - linusnext 7y ago
    The statement that the stolen data was used for the campaign is contradicted by the interview link provided.
    - n4r9 7y ago
      Ah, I see what you mean, yes: it's denied by the campaign manager.
      - rsynnott 7y ago
        In the immortal words of Mandy Rice-Davies, well, he would say that, wouldn’t he?
        linusnext 7y ago
        That's the evidence? Just because you want to believe it does not make it true.
        n4r9 7y ago
        I think the evidence is circumstantial but sufficient to warrant further investigation. CA harvested illegal data, used it in the Cruz campaign, lied about removing it and were then very involved in the presidential election, all within the span of a couple of years. Parscape's denial is not in itself evidence, but I do agree with rsynnott that it's neither here nor there.

linusnext 7y ago

Specifically "which infamously used stolen Facebook data to target voters for President Donald Trump’s campaign in the 2016 U.S. election" from the article is inaccurate.