21 ms·
If Then: How the Simulmatics Corporation Invented the Future
- mc32 6y agoWhat’s fascinating is that prior to CA helping targeting in the previous election cycle, this capability was kind of embraced by politicians and industry as the next evolution in political campaigning... but few recognized an issue with that kind of data usage at the time...
- dominotw 6y agoI remember media singing praises for Obama campaign about how effective they were with social media. Using that to contrast him to mccain who apprently didn't know how to use email.
- mensetmanusman 6y agoYa, the double standard is obvious. I laughed when I read all these articles about Trump which were the same about Obama on this issue, but with a completely different tone.
- slg 6y agoThere isn't a double standard. The criticism of CA is not that data use is bad. It is that they did it in unethical and potentially illegal ways.
- dominotw 6y ago> potentially illegal ways. Is anyone in jail? Are there any pending legal cases against them?
- slg 6y agoDoes someone not being in jail somehow prove what they did is legal? Is someone always held individually liable for corporate misdeeds? There have been multiple fines related to this scandal from multiple governments. There have been Congressional hearings on it in the US. There have been numerous lawsuits. I did say "potentially" in that first comment because I can't say definitively that they acted illegally, but there is a lot of smoke here. If people are going to make the accusation that it is a double standard, where is the smoke surrounding Obama's use of data?
- dominotw 6y agothe phrase "potentially illegal" makes no sense to me. I can claim that your comment is "potentially illegal" ..means nothing. > There have been Congressional hearings on it in the US. There have been numerous lawsuits. doesn't mean its illegal. Its just politics to discredit opposition's election victory. This is equivalent to "hillary's emails" which also had lawsuits and congressional hearings. Now no one cares about it. Same with CA, no one will hear about it once democrats win. > where is the smoke surrounding Obama's use of data? There isn't because republicans didn't think it would be politically useful like "hillary's emails".
- rtx 6y ago>potentially illegal Sounds like a dog whistle
- slg 6y agoI like how you pulled out that one piece that is politically motivated without addressing the more apolitical fines or lawsuits. None of that has existed in relation to Obama as far as I'm aware. And it isn't like Republicans would let Obama slide on something if there was any chance to call him out for it.
- dx87 6y agoThe Obama administration was praised for gathering the same information about users without their consent. Obama's campaign manager said that Facebook told them that if it was anyone else gathering that much information, they would have blocked it, but that Facebook was "on their side". There's absolutely a double standard.
- slg 6y agoDo you have a source for that? Your comment is the top Google result when I search for that "on their side" quote with various nouns about Obama and Facebook data collection. EDIT: This was a few spots down in the search results and explains how Obama's data collection was different than CA. https://washingtonmonthly.com/2018/03/21/no-obama-didnt-employ-the-same-strategies-as-cambridge-analytica/ https://washingtonmonthly.com/2018/03/21/no-obama-didnt-empl...
- hogFeast 6y agoIt wasn't. It was exactly the same. The issue was never that CA did this with "false pretences" (they didn't sign up users directly, that was done by an academic who then sold the data) or that by signing users up on your own website, you were doing some above board. The issue was that Facebook allowed access to not only your account but your friend network. That was what Obama used, that is what CA used, that is why both tried to get the Facebook login, and, btw, the end goal was exactly the same: microtargeting of ads. Btw, there are probably hundreds of other companies who are doing the same thing. A lot of the "data science" startups are using this data in their products, there was an Israeli startup (mentioned here recently) that somehow had click data from Google, individual search data from Google...this isn't just politics, this personalised, identifying data that is somehow everywhere.
- dsaavy 6y agoThis realization really pushed me away from mainstream media entirely. I explicitly remember and can still find articles about Obama's campaign being cutting edge by using "behavioral data" (https://theweek.com/articles/451328/how-obama-won-internet https://theweek.com/articles/451328/how-obama-won-internet). Yet when the same actions were taken by conservative candidates it was ridiculed. As an independent I just couldn't trust these sources any longer. Yes the methods of data collection were slightly different between Obama's campaign and what Cambridge Analytica did and sold to conservative candidates. Obama's campaign claimed they didn't do as much with the data and it was within the FB ToS, but these claims don't change the ethics and since 2004 both parties have been building their data infrastructure out to sway voters (https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2012/10/obamas-secret-weapon-democrats-have-a-massive-advantage-in-targeting-and-persuading-voters.html https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2012/10/obamas-secret-we...). Both parties are nefarious in their use of data and attempt to persuade voters through micro-targeted outrage, and it makes me wary of ever voting for either of the two parties' candidate.
- loceng 6y agoThe solution is to not allow targeting for political ads. Costs will go up as you'll be competing for same eyes, and you'll have to spend more to reach everyone you want - plus has added benefit of allowing to see what messaging and narratives opposition is perpetuating.
- mc32 6y agoAnd for those platforms it’s a plus as well (more political ad income) given the poor quality of the average eyeball.
- loceng 6y agoInteresting question arises - does advertising to Republicans or Democrats cost more or less than the other? Either way the mechanism would be good to level the playing field further.
- dashundchen 6y agoIs there any evidence the Obama campaign did what Cambridge Analytica/Trump was being criticized for? Which was harvest private data (including messages and news feed) from Facebook users and their friends via an app that was ostensibly non-political, and then in turn sell it to a super PAC that for microtargeting. I'll note that the super PAC involved was likely coordinating with a campaign in violation of FEC campaign finance laws. The CA scandal resulted in a $5 billion fine to Facebook by the FTC. I think it's disingenuous to say what the Obama campaign and Trump/Cambridge did were close to the same.
- TristanDaCunha 6y agoDisclosure: I worked at Cambridge Analytica. Cambridge Analytica were accused of taking data mainly on what pages users 'Liked' - not private messages or news feed. (Unless you have a source?) Obama campaign boasted about having access to the entire friends network. In other words, they know who each person was and what the connections between them were. Facebook openly said that they helped the Obama campaign get and utilise 100% of the friends network data on Facebook.
- loceng 6y agoFairly sure that's not anywhere near the whole picture of what CA was accused of? I thought CA ran surveys and from that data could make implications based on the friends and friends if friends of the person who took the survey?
- auganov 6y agoMy understanding is the quizzes were just viral Facebook apps to get API authorizations which back then let you download a lot of friends' basic data. Simple scraping would get you a lot of the same data back then but it would be more involved and less solid legally. CA just figured out an easy way to do a huge scrape of Facebook. I'd be surprised if many other organizations out there aren't sitting on similar datasets. Even without asking any psychometric questions you could easily seed this through the dataset based on just a few examples or ground truths. This part seems rather unspectacular. With all the likes you can already tell who's alike. You just need to label the clusters. CA's sell was this data would allow them to target super precisely and send different messages to different groups. But there's a big bottleneck at message creation. If you have 10 ads you can only target 10 groups uniquely. I'd be much more impressed if CA actually had software to manage ad creation, placement and performance tracking.
- sjg007 6y agoObama's was a get out the vote campaign which is different from Trump and Russia's active misinformation campaigns.
- naiveprogrammer 6y agoEven if we accept the idea that CA was decisive to Trump's victory (I don't think it was, not even close), I think that you are absolutely on point here. I do think democrats were caught by surprise in 2016 and, instead of blaming themselves for their debacle, they sourced it elsewhere.
- dillondoyle 6y agoThe main problem with CA was that they tricked users into giving up FB data, pretended to be a college research study, violated FB's terms, and then when FB told them to get rid of the data they didn't.
- lanevorockz 6y agoIt's very silly to imagine that CA was the only player on the market. They are just the one that worked for the incorrect candidate.
- colordrops 6y agoYes, we only ever hear about CA, and never about David Brock and Share Blue / Correct the Record.
- hardlianotion 6y agoApologies for not reading the article, but the key feature of Cambridge Analytica seems to have been that their stuff didn’t appear to work.
- macspoofing 6y agoThe key feature of CA is that they were affiliated with the Trump campaign and therefore were made to be the scapegoats for what EVERYONE was doing. And yes, what they were doing specifically was a nothing burger.
- cryptoz 6y agoI have only seen this concept on HN and not elsewhere. Can you explain what you mean? What about CA “didn’t appear to work”? I went researching just now and didn’t find anything online to back up that vague opinion, so what exactly do you mean? There is certainly no way to know to what extent CA content changed voter patterns and actions. I don’t understand how you could be so confident you are right.
- mhh__ 6y agoSome people (largely on the left) like to treat Cambridge Analytica as a dark boogey-man that broke politics. This is partly true, however, a lot of hysteria around it is based off taking CA's marketing copy at face value. The Cruz campaign (IIRC) fired them because they were useless.
- losteric 6y agoHowever, if CA is capable of delivering one should view them as more than “just“ a business... Perhaps CA’s owners found more value in not helping Cruz win?
- fsflover 6y agoYes, it did work: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22466733 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22466733 Cambridge Analytica were the tip of the iceberg (graphcommons.com)
- jrochkind1 6y agoRecent lengthy New Yorker article on the same topic, Simulmatics in the JFK presidential campaign: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/08/03/how-the-simulmatics-corporation-invented-the-future https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/08/03/how-the-simulm... And a couple subsequent letters from readers on the article: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/09/07/letters-from-the-september-7-2020-issue https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/09/07/letters-from-t... The New Yorker article was odd to me for a New Yorker article, it had a lot of historical context without a lot of details of what Simulmatics actually did for the Kennedy campaign. Perhaps there isn't a lot of historical record/people who want to talk about it. I was left feeing like I had learned that the Simulmatics founders had an idea, and successfully sold it to the Kennedy campaign and made some money, but not sure to what extent it actually provided value in that actual campaign. With some people suggesting the same might be true of Cambridge Analytica.... the more things change? (I have no opinion on what value either CA or Simulmatics actually provided, I don't know enough). I haven't listened to/read the NPR piece yet.
- drewda 6y agoFYI, these are all excerpts or reviews of the same book by the historian Jill Lepore. (I've quite enjoyed her writing over the years and highly recommend it.)
- jrochkind1 6y agoJill Lepore is also a staff writer at New Yorker, whose writing appears regularly in it. But I guess her recent book is one reason why all these media outlets are covering the same historical topic right now!
- sandwall 6y agoRead this first: https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/08/19/1006365/if-then-lepore-review-simulmatics/ https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/08/19/1006365/if-then-... Thought the NPR article was well enough to share, but preferred the MIT piece (albeit behind a paywall)
- kikokikokiko 6y ago
- lazycrazyowl 6y agoSentimetrix is another major player, who were the winner of DARPA competition in this domain and have customer across public and private sectors. http://www.sentimetrix.com/ http://www.sentimetrix.com/
- ryanmarsh 6y agoCambridge Analytica was a pissant compared to the data political parties easily buy from advertising data companies. The whole controversy surrounding them is like getting upset about grocery store discount cards but ignoring that Facebook exists. Also, campaigns don't have to buy or amass that data anymore. Facebook is the largest purchaser of consumer data. So now if you use Facebook for campaign ads you get all that "for free". Lastly, wait until you find out what the NSA knows about you. Surely that data would never be used for nefarious purposes...
- andy_ppp 6y agoThe problem back then I guess was there’s no feedback loop and a limit to the propaganda you can produce.
- dariusj18 6y agoThere's nothing new about using data and analysis to attempt to target voters. The issue with CA was the methods they used to obtain that data.
- jgalt212 6y agoHer podcast, The Last Archive is good. I enjoyed the following episodes. I have not listed to the entire season, so the list below is not comprehensive. https://www.thelastarchive.com/season-1/episode-5-project-x https://www.thelastarchive.com/season-1/episode-5-project-x https://www.thelastarchive.com/season-1/episode-7-the-computermen https://www.thelastarchive.com/season-1/episode-7-the-comput... https://www.thelastarchive.com/season-1/episode-10-tomorrowland https://www.thelastarchive.com/season-1/episode-10-tomorrowl...
- ngold 6y agoGroovy, always looking for a new one and this looks good. I wonder when Dan Carlin is coming back?
- dang 6y agoThe CA aspect is distracting from the interesting part of this story, i.e. the part that hasn't been discussed before. Curiosity wants diffs (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=diffs%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...). I've changed the title to be that of the book under review. Actually we've started doing that for most book review posts (e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24474073 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24474073). It seems to make for better discussion.