[decasteve]

> Cambridge Analytica was a good example of this as well. The press fell over themselves to characterise their technology as some sort of election tipping, mind controlling super tool. They probably loved it. In reality there's not even any scientific backing for their targeting and it most likely did barely anything, they just wanted to look like James Bond's Spectre.

Reading what’s still out there about Cambridge Analytica ignores the findings of the UK’s Information Commissioner which indeed found they were basically throwing data at scikit-learn hoping for a result — the script kiddie version of machine learning.

How many of the journalists gone back to correct their misinformation on the topic? Many of the articles are still out there in their original form and those hacks are still making hay on the subject.

[long_time_gone]

== How many of the journalists gone back to correct their misinformation on the topic?==

What was their misinformation? It seems like they were right about Cambridge Analytica’s goals and tactics. You are claiming their technology wasn’t great, but that doesn’t change how they obtained it or what capabilities they were selling.