WASHINGTON – Experts told NBC News that Cambridge Analytica’s claim to use “psychographic” data-targeting voters based on their beliefs, personalities, and attitudes-is neither new nor clearly effective.
The firm, hired by Donald Trump’s campaign, has faced heavy criticism over how it allegedly collected Facebook users’ data without permission. Alexander Nix, the company’s CEO, was recorded by ITN Channel 4 News-NBC’s partner in the U. K.-explaining how they could sway elections abroad using bribes, blackmail, and fake news campaigns.
Still, it’s unclear if the $15.4 million spent by Trump and other political groups during the 2016 race actually paid off for Cambridge Analytica.
“What they’re doing is bullshit, basically,” said Antonio García Martínez, a former Facebook employee who helped develop its ad-targeting system. “This has been tried before. There’s no reason to think it’s particularly powerful.”
Alexander Nix, CEO of the London-based political consulting firm ‘Cambridge Analytica’ leaves his offices through the back door in London, Britain on March 20, 2018. FACUNDO ARRIZABALAGA / EPA
In theory, Cambridge Analytica claimed it could predict and shape voter behavior by analyzing personal info Facebook users shared through an “OCEAN” personality quiz measuring openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness and neuroticism. The whole point of “psychographic” targeting was to make ads that better convinced voters to pick certain candidates or just get out and vote.
Martínez said that compared to what had been done before in political ads targeting this might look good.
“The reality was that political ad targeting in the past wasn’t very good,” Martínez said. “I think what’s happened is they just caught up.”
Since the election was won by roughly 80,000 votes across three states many things might have played a role. But people from both parties familiar with data science say there isn’t much proof Cambridge Analytica made a difference-or offered more useful info than basic voter lists Trump’s team could have gotten elsewhere.
Simply put: they don’t believe Cambridge Analytica tipped the scales in that election.
“Any data is only useful in so far as it can help me build a more predictive model,” said a top GOP data scientist who wanted anonymity because this topic is sensitive. “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 score targeting truly can be used to behaviorally persuade a voter, I’ll remain skeptical of the value.”
Eric Wilson, a GOP digital strategist said even if personal details from Facebook were stronger than other data sources campaigns still need smart ads tailored well enough to matter.
“The psychographic data is only as good as the creative you’re able to generate,” he added.
A Democrat involved with digital politics also thought claims about Cambridge Analytica’s success last cycle are way overblown.
But Christopher Wylie-who helped start Cambridge Analytica and led research there till 2014-said their work operates subtly enough most people wouldn’t notice its effects.
“A lot of what information operations is about warping people’s perceptions,” Wylie told NBC News. “This company came from military contractors. The goal isn’t standard political ads where people know they’re being pitched; it’s changing what folks believe about what’s real.”
Trump’s campaign spent $5.9 million with Cambridge Analytica; Ted Cruz’s run paid them $5.8 million; Make America Number 1-a super PAC funded by billionaire Robert Mercer (who backed Cruz first then switched support to Trump)-gave around $1.5 million more.
Mercer put lots of money into Cambridge Analytica and his daughter Rebekah sits on its board-which suspended Nix on Tuesday.
Wylie pointed out Steve Bannon-a Mercer ally who later ran Trump’s campaign-was especially interested in what they offered.
“Steve wanted weapons for his culture war,” Wylie told ITN Channel 4 news. “We gave him tools to do exactly that-to change America culturally.”
Cambridge Analytical has denied Wylie’s claims calling him part of “a malicious attempt” aimed at hurting them.
Jessica Baldwin-Philippi , assistant professor at Fordham University studying digital politics , said Trump’s campaign wasn ‘t all that impressive digitally.
“The idea that they had a robust data campaign is just not true,” she said. “They were doing best practice stuff on Facebook but not consistently. It wasn ’ t deep or strong.”
She agreed with others saying there ’ s little proof Cambridg e Analyticawins swayedtheelectio n.
“ Time after time studies show us th at voting history and location matter way more than crazy specific microtargeting,” she explained.
[ad _2 ]
Source link
