No, that still doesn't answer the actual question? "And focussing on the method dodges the real question, why were so many people susceptible to such advertising in the first place?" So what was going on in the USA for people to believe Crooked Hilary ads, what was going on for people to be persuaded by anti-immigration ads? You're not changing views, just like you're not selling the customer a car that doesn't already appeal to them. And that's why it doesn't change the direction of the vote, you could use a different approach to reaching those voters and yield similar results. Something before the campaign has already entrenched those views.mrblackbat wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2019 6:30 pmYou mean the bit here?
" In addition, the model identifies the key issues that the voter is interested in and how that aligns with the message from the candidate you want them to vote for, plus the mediums that the person uses. After that, continuous application of adverts on those lines nudge the voter over to your side. The neural network profiling models are complicated, but the theory is not.
So, for example, one set of people will receive Crooked Hillary adverts, another will receive anti immigrant adverts; in the same way that our ads and homepage displays a different car depending on the profile of the customer."
Perhaps rather than assuming I'm being condescending, you might try reading it, eh?
I can never tell if you're missing the gist of my posts through skim-reading or a desire to manufacture an argument out of nothing. But there's only one way for me to respond when you're basically expanding on the point I made in an obnoxious and confrontational way.