They didn't collaborate with CA, they just had gaping security holes in their API that allowed CA (or anyone) to easily grab tons of data on people's friends. FB patched those holes up right away when they found out, not because they were concerned with what CA was doing, but because CA did all this without paying them for targeted advertising.

[+] ideonek@piefed.social -22 points 1 month ago (4 children)

Yes, meta sucks. But Cambrige Analytica is a bogeyman invented to scare us into thinking that digital marketing acctually works. It doesn't. Even if you have no morals.

[–] ChicoSuave@lemmy.world 22 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Given how hard so many democracies have turned towards hard right politics after Cambridge Analytica was founded, it would seem they figured out how to move the broader popular sentiment.

[+] ideonek@piefed.social -6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

And that's exactly the impression they were hopping to acchive. You're pissed and outraged... But in the back of your head there is "marketing can control mind and souls" thought. That's exactly why the AI-guys are the first one who warn us about dengers of sentient killig robots. They suggest the capabilties that AI is nowhere close to have.

[–] ChicoSuave@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

That doesn't make sense. They want me to believe that their techniques work, but they don't actually work, so the broad shift in global politics in the digital age -which has never happened before in history like this - is just a natural thing? You aren't good at what you're trying to do.

[–] ideonek@piefed.social -1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

both the uniquness and the scale of the change is debatable. Sentiments shifts trough th3 history preaty regularly.
what's more likely: that the reason for the shift is complex and multifactorial? Or that this unprecedented shift is all orchestrated by handful of man ploting in one room and using mysterious technology that no other replicate despite literally everyone trying... Yet the same people with all that piwrful tools failed to control the media narrative around them. It's harder than shifting the world in the unprecedented way? Its a simple explanation, easy target. It's not supported by the acctual facts.

It's still truth. Even if I fail to convey it.

Would someone who is much more respectable than I am convince you? Or is your mind set.

https://www.pushkin.fm/podcasts/against-the-rules/the-alex-kogan-experience

[–] SphereofWreckening@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Digital Marketing is one of, if not the biggest killer of personal privacy in the modern age. The amount of data they collect can be used to sway a person towards just about anything: at least, as long as they have the right inclinations. Something that was very much targeted and exploited with Cambridge Analytica.

This is the issue with Cambridge Analytica that has gone over your head. Also, no one is going to listen to a 50+ minute podcast just to try and understand whatever point you're trying to make.

[–] ideonek@piefed.social 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Yes, it is a killer of personal information. For sure. And it's all for nothing. The ads that are broadly targeted, striped from cookies data competly are only marginally less effective than ads narrowly targeted. Last people who even rect to ads are dying out out of old age. Digital-ads natives generations are skipping them without even consciously noticing them. All measurable metricks are falling every year. All those facebook and google empires are build on sand. https://freakonomics.com/podcast/does-advertising-actually-work-part-2-digital-ep-441/

Cambringe Analyitica took unrealibke data, and used it in that weay that wouldn't work even if it was relible. It's a campfire story like those "future mother learned that she is pregnant becouse she started reciving the ads of babystrollers"... It makes the impressions that marketers are gods, with access to amazing forces that can influence anyone to do anything. In fact we are only good at two things: explaing why it's a good thing that all your campaigns have negative ROI, and taking credits for things that happen independently to our actions (like seasonal changes in demand).

CA and FB are just as immoral as you supsect. But they are much less competent.

[–] ganksy@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The fuck are you throwing them cover?? They were in the bag for Trump.

[–] ideonek@piefed.social -4 points 1 month ago

They were. And they support did shit. There are enought reasons to despite trump and meta without leaning into myth and legends.

[–] HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

It depends on what is being sold.

[–] ideonek@piefed.social -4 points 1 month ago

Sure. Any clame will become true, if you make it broad enought.

[–] TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Nice try CA.

[–] ideonek@piefed.social -4 points 1 month ago

I'm claiming they are snake oil salesman. You say they are magic with powers no other marketer have.