3 ms·
There is extreme value in knowing who your most-prospective marks are. If you had a population of 1,000 people, and had to sell something (read: convince to vot
by akersten 5y ago
There is extreme value in knowing who your most-prospective marks are. If you had a population of 1,000 people, and had to sell something (read: convince to vote a certain way) to 400 of them, wouldn't you like to know the subset of those people who are already predisposed to your position and just need a little more nudging with a narrowly-tailored meme , instead of making a dartboard attempt against all 1,000?
That was the entire value-add of Cambridge Analytica , whose Facebook-API data-gathering loophole has now been replaced by just engaging suckers via the platform itself and a tiny bit of NLP/sentiment analysis.
- obelos 5y agoI suspect there's also value in avoiding showing some forms of persuasive/propagandistic content to those who are unlikely to be amenable to it. This allows the content to circulate with less suppressive feedback from a target's peers.
- AlexAndScripts 5y agoYou can also avoid targeting people who already support you. Or, in the case of Cambridge Analytica's brexit manipulation, identify those who have never voted before (using hundreds of indicators) and introduce them to politics... Their first information being propaganda from the leave campaign.