I think the FB/CA thing is prob less about privacy than the specific fear that personal psych profiles create perfect advertising. Everyone could be made to act against their interests, not just gullible people! That this isn't already the case is a pleasant lie we tell ourselves
-
Show this thread
-
Seems likely that: (a) manipulating a given person into doing or believing a specific thing they weren't likely to do or believe anyway is actually still very hard, and (b) manipulating enough people by just casting a sufficiently large net works & has worked for a long time.
3 replies 1 retweet 12 likesShow this thread -
I think most people believe some version of (a) & (b), where (a) is true if the person isn't gullible & (b) is true as long as the target pop contains enough gullible people. But I don't think gullibility explains much. Advertisers target pops that want what they're selling.
1 reply 1 retweet 10 likesShow this thread -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @thebrianzeng
IMO, advertising/meme spread/etc. at any level of efficacy is good or bad for the world only insofar as it's promoting something that's good or bad for the world. Super high-efficacy ads probably create a higher variance spread of possible outcomes, which probably isn't ideal.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
This Tweet is unavailable.
I'm not sure whether it is, either — probably depends on your risk tolerance! In a world where people could be persuaded about anything rather than just nudged a bit further in the direction they were already pointed, I would expect more extreme outcomes, good or bad.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.