Was the Cambridge Analytica scandal mostly bullshit?
Political scientist David Karpf talks about Cambridge Analytica, and about how their perception by many as masters of advanced digital influence (as portrayed in, for example, the documentary The Great Hack) is inaccurate and exaggerated. Dr. Karpf talks about the effects of political ads, about the role of social media and the internet in politics, and what he sees as the real problems we're facing as a modern society. He also talks about the time he made a tweet comparing Bret Stephens to a bedbug and crazy things ensued. Support the showTo get ad-free episodes, and more, get a premium subscription. To learn more about the show, go to behavior-podcast.com. I'm on Twitter at @apokerplayer. See a summary of my work.
People Who Read People: A Behavior and Psychology Podcast
Audio is streamed directly from the publisher (pscrb.fm) as published in their RSS feed. Play Podcasts does not host this file. Rights-holders can request removal through the copyright & takedown page.
Show Notes
You've probably heard about how Cambridge Analytica used access to the Facebook data of millions of U.S. citizens and advanced digital advertising wizardry to essentially “hack” Americans’ minds and deliver a surprise presidential victory to Donald Trump. This depiction of Cambridge Analytica as nefarious data geniuses has been shared in many news stories (probably most prominently in the documentary The Great Hack).
But what if this perception is untrue? What if Cambridge Analytica were exaggerating their behavior-influencing abilities, as many companies do? And what if our perceptions of CA as geniuses of digital influence is based on people accepting those exaggerated claims uncritically?
That is the stance of political scientist Dr. Dave Karpf, and in this episode he explains why.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices