Cambrige Analytica may have behaved inappropriately, even illegally, but don't get your hopes up that it could all have been very different. The Trump election win was more or less decided by around 80,000 votes in three states and the UK's EU referendum by a 52%/48% split, so it's hardly surprising the losing sides want to hear any explanation that it was swung by anything other than their own arguments. Isn't that always the way? I still believe my dad voted for Margaret Thatcher because she sat on a tank. Republican and Democratic data science analysts, who deal with mined information all day every day, say the type of information provided by Cambridge Analytica wasn't effective and was no more valuable than the basic data the Trump campaign could have gotten elsewhere. Antonio García Martínez is a former Facebook employee who worked on Facebook's ad-targeting setup. “What they’re doing is bullshit, basically,” he said. “This has been tried before. There’s no reason to think it’s particularly powerful." One Republican data scientist suggested, "Whether or not someone likes Taylor Swift or did a keg stand in college is far less useful to me than whether or not they voted in the Republican or Democratic primary in previous years. And until someone proves to me that OCEAN (openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness and neuroticism) score targeting truly can be used to behaviorally persuade a voter, I’ll remain skeptical of the value." Trump's campaign gave $5.9 million for Cambridge Analytica's services. As a comparison for contextual purposes, the data shows that Ted Cruz's presidential campaign spent $5.8 million on the exact same service. Jessica Baldwin-Philippi is an assistant professor at Fordham University and studies digital political campaigns. "The idea that they had a robust data campaign is just not true," she says. "They were doing very best practice stuff on the Facebook side, but they weren't doing this universally. It wasn't deep or robust. "Time and again, studies have shown us that the most persuasive targeting metrics are not crazy-specific microtargeting data but public-record voting history data and geography." In fact, if we microanalyse this information, it would seem we should be celebrating that a bunch of scammers milked Trump of 1% of his election campaign funds for a couple of tins of tartan paint. So they targeted ads using data to appeal to people's fears. And yet we consistently see headlines about what "might" happen or what "could" happen after Brexit, in supposedly responsible newspapers, which play on fears. Daniel Kahneman won a Nobel prize for economics and in his book, "Thinking Fast and Slow." he said: "Tetlock interviewed 284 people who made their living 'commenting or offering advice on political and economic trends.' He asked them to assess the probablilities that certain events would occur in the not-too-distant future, both in areas of the world in which they specialized and in regions about which they had less knowledge. Would Gorbachev be ousted in a coup? Would the United States go to war in the Persian Gulf? Which country would be the next big emerging market? In all, Tetlock gathered more than 80,000 predictions....Respondents were asked to rate the probablilities of three alternative outcomes in every case: the persistence of the status quo. more of something such as political freedom or economic growth, or less of that thing. "The results were devastating. The experts performed worse than they would have had they simply assigned equal probabilities to each of the three potential outcomes. In other words, people who spend their time, and earn their living, studying a particular topic produce poorer results than dart-throwing monkeys, who would have distributed their choices evenly over the options." Predictions of what might happen belong in the Fortean Times, not the Sunday Times. He also said research showed that people who think they're not easily swayed and are too clever for that are still more likely to believe something simply if it's in bold. Not you all, obviously, because you're too clever.
Agreed I would argue that the proliferation period under Reagan was actually a less likely time for WW3 than previously.. .. I was being a little tongue in cheek with the we are doomed rhetoric lol. Although with the weakening of the alliances that were in effect during the cold war, reactions to smaller incidents could become increasingly unpredictable. Actually think it's more likely to be Iran. Saudis and Israel would be in for it but not the rest of NATO ...which normally would be an issue but withTrump? Who knows. But he's Bush weak...is over awed by military leaders and hawkish bluster and domestically in trouble which is usually when a modern president picks his own war to fight.
It's really no different than voter targeting of the past only on a new platform where people have fell over themselves to hand over the information unknowingly or not. The issues in this case are being conflated. If info was hacked or stolen there are laws to deal with that... could those laws be tightened yes but theft, bribery, infringing on electoral laws are all identified with legislation in place to combat it. The effect of the targeting being argued as some new phenomenon ? Is just nonsense. Voters have been targeted illicitly or otherwise since ancient Greece and beyond. People don't need to be intelligent they just need to be trained in interrogating any source material they are presented with before accepting it as fact or because it reinforces their preferred views. I have to say I laughed at the idea that parties paid for info that basically boiled down to "blast the rural white dudes with the idea the brown and black people are criminals etc so vote GOP" Or flood areas where white voters in UK were anti immigration with "your nhs will be saved from the immigrants If you vote leave etc" I could have charged half the amount for the same advice based on local sales figures of the Daily Mail.
Melania has addressed Stormy Daniels’ interview about Trump affair ALL EYES are on Donald Trump’s marriage in the wake of Stormy Daniels’ recent interview. And sources say Melania is struggling to cope. http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/re...r/news-story/ca1a6a16a9a6fd30471983130b81da57
IMO your second paragraph holds the key to the real truth. There is a reason why trump visited those 3 states most of all. HE was there rallying and imo that traditional political work did the trick not facebook. I think the stats showed he visited them far far more than clinton did so he targeted them with all forms of political messaging. to back this up here is a link https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/20...0-percent-key-battlegrounds-final-100-n683116 my takeaway form this is that boots on the ground is still the far best way to reach people who vote.
His marriage is all a sham. It's obvious no affection there and reporters who were with the first couple said she cried in despair when he won election. She wants nothing to do with him. He probably is blackmailing her not to leave him whilst he is in office.
Interesting programme last night about the Seth Rich murder conspiracy. It seems to suit both sides. Did he leak Clinton emails to show the DNC conspiring against Sanders and give Clinton the win? Did he leak them to show Russian hacking? Did he leak them in secret support of Trump? Did he leak them without knowing the Russians were also hacking? Did he really leak them at all, as Assange hinted? One question still nags after all the back and forth: the supposed robbery. If he had nothing to do with the leak, if it really was only the Russians and the murder was just a robbery, why were none of those saying so proving it was a robbery? Nobody explained the phone, watch, wallet and other valuables untouched on a guy shot in the back. If they were so sure, where was the data to show that's a regular occurrence in street robberies?
Aye, a funny sort of robbery that shoots the victim in the back twice, and then leaves behind all his valuables. Only in America!
Haven't seen it but are his family not suing various media, primarily fox for creating and reporting these conspiracy theories?
a conspiracy but would say. how do you know there was anything left on the guy anyway who told you and why did they want yoy to know it.
The family want a lobbyist who was helping them to stop, because his motives have become apparent as self-serving. I don't think they're happy that it's being made out Seth was a secret Trump supporter and being used to deny Russian hacking. He supported Sanders, which was allegedly his motive for leaking the emails showing the DNC was conspiring to give Clinton the nomination. Nobody seemed to consider there could be more than one thing at play. He may have leaked Clinton's emails because of the DNC, while being unaware that the Russians were hacking for Trump. It's not necessarily an either/or scenario. In that case, nobody comes out of it smelling of roses. As history has so often shown, power corrupts. Nobody's denying he had his phone, watch, wallet and jewellery on him. It would have been in the police report, so hard to deny. If there was doubt, I think those saying it was a robbery would've made a lot more of it.
Washington (CNN)Jill McCabe on Monday called President Donald Trump's attacks on her family, culminating in her husband's firing, a "nightmare." The wife of former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe called out the President for his public attacks, centered on her 2015 run for the state Senate in Virginia, in a Washington Post op-ed. "For the past year and a half of this nightmare, I have not been free to speak out about what happened. Now that Andrew has been fired, I am," wrote Jill McCabe, who is an emergency room pediatrician. https://edition.cnn.com/2018/04/02/politics/jill-mccabe-donald-trump-wapo/index.html
Trump Denies Knowledge of $130,000 Payment to Stormy Daniels . https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-...30-000-payment-to-former-porn-star-1522963827 This man is compulsive liars, where does the money comes from. His lawyers paid?.
Sorry, you just used the fakest news on the planet as a source mate, demonstrably the fakest news on the planet, I can prove it.
Trump derangement syndrome, neither of your two recent posts have a shred of evidence for anything, and I am being objective. Try actually posting something with some tangible stuff in it ffs So, you are also a fan of the court of public opinion. Hang your head in ****ing shame
"while being unaware that the Russians were hacking for Trump" please, don't tell me you buy this moronic crap, or should I post an analysis of the "hacking" that was in fact nothing to do with Russians? How versed are you in meta data and hacking or Crowdstrike or SecureWorks? To date not one jot of evidence.. but don't let that stop you Crowdstrike were onto a Nigerian fishing scam operation, not a Russian hacking operation. This phishing scam was attributed to APT28 and it was BOLLOCKs
lol, sources say anonymous sources yet again, and Australian news lol I miss the good old days when journalists provided solid evidence or more lately ANY evidence at all, for their claims. Now they don't even have sources any more, just anonymous and we are all meant to swallow it. Same with the litany of fake stories about Corbyn, but given your political outlook you didn;t need any help concluding Corbyn stories were lies? Pity the same standards of objectivity don't apply to everyone eh
