problem is this is the sort of thing that gets hyped up easily... see the press lapping up the big timing by the people doing the pitch ref: claims of using ex spies etc..etc.. when they're just talking about subcontracting/putting them in touch with other companies that can offer that. Obviously for people who like their conspiracies (i.e. lots of the readership of alternative media*) this sort of story is golden for them and can be perceived by them to simply reinforce whatever world view they've constructed.
*I don't mean to necessarily include you in that and you've not made clear what media sites you're referring to but take a look at say the comments section under an Alex jones/Info Wars video for the type of conspiraloon people I mean
they can tell for example whether you're a black or white person: 95% accuracy, whether you're democrat or republican: 85% accuracy, whether you're gay: 88% accuracy etc.etc. there are a whole range of things that can be inferred based on what you've chosen to like on facebook
Was it? I'm not sure what is good about that post? Who did they personally bribe? As for influence.. that is what political campaigns do, they influence people via advertising, canvassing and (these days) social media. Optimising your advertising budget on social media to better target people is suddenly being portrayed as something dark/mysterious.
There are legitimate questions to be asked about how they've handled data, have they breached data laws etc.. but the rest is just smoke and mirrors, a story the press are lapping up because a some execs decided to play the big man during a pitch to try and impress a client.
Last edited:
