[bart_spoon]

> Probably the most useful takeaway from CA's approach is that it's useful to realize how malleable opinions are of large swaths of "independent" voters. Ad experts and entertainment companies have known this for decades, but I get the sense the average American citizen still thinks of themselves as a free and independent thinker and not a product of their environment.

I would dispute this claim, as it has yet to be proven any of the work Cambridge Analytica did was in any way influential or effective. As someone who has worked extensively in data science, including on marketing campaigns, I'm becoming increasingly convinced that the effectiveness of advertising, or at least targeted advertising, is so overstated as to be bordering on snake-oil. Others working in the space agree [0].

[0] https://thecorrespondent.com/100/the-new-dot-com-bubble-is-h...

[cwkoss]

Marketers are most effective at selling their own industry

[shadowgovt]

If we assume that's true, it would imply marketing works, would it not?

[Intermernet]

It implies that marketing works for marketing. It's possible that those involved in the marketing sector are more vulnerable to marketing. This vulnerability could be the reason that they have faith in the sector's methods, and are therefore employed in the sector.

Many people are marketing averse, and marketing at them will have a negative effect. It just seems that there are enough people around who respond positively to marketing to make it a successful business.

[tie_]

Awesome article - thanks for sharing!

I'll support the authors (and their conclusions) by clicking on the ads links on the site /j