4 ms·

we recently found out that the cambridge analytica scandal was widely overblown and essentially fake news: https://www.newstatesman.com/science-tech/social-med

by ffggvv 6y ago

we recently found out that the cambridge analytica scandal was widely overblown and essentially fake news: https://www.newstatesman.com/science-tech/social-media/2020/10/how-cambridge-analytica-scandal-unravelled https://www.newstatesman.com/science-tech/social-media/2020/...

dane-pgp 6y ago
Thank you for providing a citation for that claim. Please see my response to a similar comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24802636 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24802636
- ffggvv 6y ago
  i appreciate your response but IMO you aren't addressing the core results or argument of the ICO's investigation. You seem to mostly be accusing them of bias. >>More damning was the finding that Cambridge Analytica wasn’t doing anything particularly unique. The information commissioner, Elizabeth Denham, told parliament that “on examination, the methods that SCL (a company that is corporately interlinked with Cambridge Analytica) was using were, in the main, well-recognised processes using commonly available technology” I think that is the killer claim and needs to be addressed head-on instead of hand waving and saying they are biased.
  - save_ferris 6y ago
    That report goes on to reiterate on one of the major points of the CA scandal, that executives of the company explicitly sold themselves as nefarious kingmakers willing to deploy blackmail and honeypots for a client in order to manipulate elections. > All of this does not diminish the nefariousness of Cambridge Analytica and SCL. In fact, arguably the most egregious aspect of the company was their work in countries other than the US and UK. In an undercover sting, Channel 4 filmed CA CEO Alexander Nix boasting of the firm’s willingness to engage in unethical tactics including honeypots, bribes, blackmail and entrapment to swing an election. To your point, the story largely was fake news because they failed to achieve their objective as election manipulators, not because they were wrapped up in some conspiracy theory that accused them of misbehavior. They were caught on camera going around to powerful people and telling them that they could manipulate elections and that absolutely cannot be overlooked. There's an immensely wealthy market for this kind of service, and just because one player overhyped themselves and got caught up in a scandal that largely turned out to be nothing doesn't mean that someone else won't try again.
rtx 6y ago
The real scam was the co-ordinated way in which it was overblown. Marketing colleges should make a case study out of it.

by ffggvv 6y ago

dane-pgp 6y ago

Thank you for providing a citation for that claim. Please see my response to a similar comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24802636 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24802636

ffggvv 6y ago
i appreciate your response but IMO you aren't addressing the core results or argument of the ICO's investigation. You seem to mostly be accusing them of bias. >>More damning was the finding that Cambridge Analytica wasn’t doing anything particularly unique. The information commissioner, Elizabeth Denham, told parliament that “on examination, the methods that SCL (a company that is corporately interlinked with Cambridge Analytica) was using were, in the main, well-recognised processes using commonly available technology” I think that is the killer claim and needs to be addressed head-on instead of hand waving and saying they are biased.
- save_ferris 6y ago
  That report goes on to reiterate on one of the major points of the CA scandal, that executives of the company explicitly sold themselves as nefarious kingmakers willing to deploy blackmail and honeypots for a client in order to manipulate elections. > All of this does not diminish the nefariousness of Cambridge Analytica and SCL. In fact, arguably the most egregious aspect of the company was their work in countries other than the US and UK. In an undercover sting, Channel 4 filmed CA CEO Alexander Nix boasting of the firm’s willingness to engage in unethical tactics including honeypots, bribes, blackmail and entrapment to swing an election. To your point, the story largely was fake news because they failed to achieve their objective as election manipulators, not because they were wrapped up in some conspiracy theory that accused them of misbehavior. They were caught on camera going around to powerful people and telling them that they could manipulate elections and that absolutely cannot be overlooked. There's an immensely wealthy market for this kind of service, and just because one player overhyped themselves and got caught up in a scandal that largely turned out to be nothing doesn't mean that someone else won't try again.

rtx 6y ago

The real scam was the co-ordinated way in which it was overblown. Marketing colleges should make a case study out of it.