As I said in my original comment, the data might have been used in aggregate, for things like campaign strategy (“go campaign in Tallahassee!”). But the articles on this subject that have gotten the most attention imply that this data was used, specifically, to target ads on Facebook. Therefore my extensive experience with the platform, that you rudely sought to trivialize in your comment, is directly relevant. Once again, you cannot use the data they had to target people in the way that is being implied in most of these articles.
Finally, to put your comments to rest (hopefully), the data wasn’t used even off of Facebook in the way that you and these articles are claiming. See [1]. Enjoy the rest of your day.
The data was used in aggregate to produce detailed profiles (upwards of 40k of them), as reported by the original whistleblower and every reputable news source who's reported on it, and in far more detail than "go campaign in X".
More like "This specific group of people in X who like guns, willie nelson and dislike bananas would be receptive to a picture of willie nelson squashing a banana with Hillary Clinton's face on it with a caption about 2A". Then, spread this picture organically through facebook groups for people who hate bananas, love willie nelson and guns.
To be clear: the story is not at all "oh no they brought targeted facebook adverts", and it should be evident that perhaps your logic or understanding is faulty rather than a worldwide media conspiracy to short Facebook stock.
and it should be evident that perhaps your logic or understanding is faulty rather than a worldwide media conspiracy to short Facebook stock.
Classic liberal tactic: dismiss people that point out the obvious flaws in your rhetoric by painting them as conspiracy theorists. I don’t think it’s a “worldwide conspiracy to short Facebook stock”. I think that the media outlets distributing these stories, which are spreading false information and implying things that aren’t possible (as my comment points out), hate Trump, are pissed that they were unable to manipulate the election in the way that they wanted, and are doing what they can to ensure he doesn’t win in 2020. But it wouldn’t surprise me if they attempted to get a little cream on top and tried to profit from their false narrative by shorting the stock as well. There’s actually nothing wrong with that, as long as the stories are factual, but it’s illegal (at least under US law) when they are not.
the story is not at all "oh no they brought targeted facebook adverts"
That isn’t all of the story, but that is a part of the narrative that is being told, and that part is factually impossible. Further, even the rest of your claims that they actually used the psychographic profiles are simply not accurate. See: https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/20/17138854/cambridge-analyt...
Finally, to put your comments to rest (hopefully), the data wasn’t used even off of Facebook in the way that you and these articles are claiming. See [1]. Enjoy the rest of your day.
[1]https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/20/17138854/cambridge-analyt...