What Netflix’s ‘Great Hack’ Gets Wrong About Cambridge Analytica
&gt; When it comes to voters’ decisions about their choice of candidate, most forms of paid political persuasion, including TV ads, online ads, mailers, phone calls, and door knocking, have no discernible effect in terms of changing people’s minds.<p>So the billions spent on campaign advertising essentially has no effect? I don&#x27;t buy that for a second, otherwise it wouldn&#x27;t be a billion dollar industry.<p>We know that advertising has a psychological effect on people, and advertisers know how to exploit this in susceptible individuals to sell their product.<p>We also know that the winning margin of the 2016 election was only 79,316 votes[1]. So Cambridge Analytica didn&#x27;t need to influence millions of people to succeed, as long as they managed to sway some who were already on the fence to not vote for Clinton.<p>This article attempts to discredit the documentary by focusing on whether CA succeeded or not, when the real issue is private data collection, user profiling and tracking, and the usual evils of advertising, which they conveniently choose to ignore.<p>[1]: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.vanityfair.com&#x2F;news&#x2F;2016&#x2F;12&#x2F;hillary-clinton-margin-loss-votes" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.vanityfair.com&#x2F;news&#x2F;2016&#x2F;12&#x2F;hillary-clinton-marg...</a>