What I can piece together: Clinton had an in-house algorithm/data decision team, while Parscale (no team, less money) went with what Facebook offered (fairly routinely) to big clients. Clinton team seems to have been particularly sub-par and Facebook does offer *a lot*.¯\_(ツ)_/¯https://twitter.com/WIRED/status/968512992873799682 …
-
-
It's also important to remember that they carried over much of the data from the Cruz campaign to the Trump one, and that *half* of their work wasn't voter targeting, it was 1) donor modeling and 2) early campaign messaging refinement.
-
These firms often deal in the dark arts, and there are always things we don't know about yethttps://twitter.com/verge/status/968582882062143489?ref_src=twcamp%5Eshare%7Ctwsrc%5Em5%7Ctwgr%5Eemail%7Ctwcon%5E7046%7Ctwterm%5E3 …
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Three main pts: 1/ T campaign didn't match creative to audience, but A/B tested through FB (source: Axios) 2/ CA provided seed for FB Lookalike (source: Bloomberg) 3/ initial seed was psych targeted by CA, which triggered FB emotional feedback loops (source: Persuasion Machine)
-
Two other unexplored pts as of now: 4/ were same seed audiences delivered to SuperPACs, enabling FB-mediated coordination? (this would match what seems to have happened for Brexit) 5/ can it be excluded that Russians had same seed data?
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.