The Great Hack focusses almost entirely on Cambridge Analytica and their use of Facebook data in manipulating both the Trump presidential campaign and the Brexit campaign, both in 2016. I remember following this pretty much as it happened. I didn't read too much into it, but I was aware of Cambridge Analytica's involvement, their connection to Facebook, and all the official investigations that spawned from them. I knew there was a guy who took them to court demanding his data back, and I know the work of Carole Cadwalladr. So for me this documentary wasn't quite as enlightening as it maybe should've been. For me, all it did was supply context and connect it all up in a nice little package.
My biggest criticism comes from how specific it was. As I said, this documentary is about Cambridge Analytica using Facebook data to manipulate political outcomes. The truth is that this is a much large issue that involves many more individuals and companies around the world. At best the documentary mentions them, glosses over them, and then moves on. One such example being the social media techniques used in the Obama campaign of 2012. What I've just said is as deep as the documentary delves into it, like a bullet point that has to be ticked off in order to appear neutral. It doesn't explain what techniques were used, by who, or how much of an impact it had. Similarly the documentary features a lot of content from a sales presentation of Cambridge Analytica's, but only pinpoints what it wants to talk about; what supports it's message. On a page all about what and how much data Cambridge Analytica has to draw from, Facebook is not the only one, but none of the other data-farming companies are even mentioned in passing. Who are they? Where did they get our data? Should we be concerned about them too? Ultimately The Great Hack feels shallow, because it only scratches the surface. It only talks about the most well-known and talked about case. What about other companies like Cambridge Analytica who are still functioning today?
I also felt in failed to provide opposing viewpoints. Okay, much of that couldn't be helped. They did have one guy from Cambridge Analytica, but he didn't provide anything of much substance, and when he contradicted other people featured, there was no explanation or citation behind which person is the more credible. Case in point, we are introduced to Chris Wylie who blew the whole thing open. The Great Hack hails him as a hero. Later on the guy who worked for Cambridge Analytica (Julian Wheatland) chimes in to discredit Wylie, saying he only worked at the company for nine months. The documentary just cuts to the next scene, never offers citation or explanation, and I was left wondering whether Wylie was a credible source or not. Was he someone we should be getting behind or someone we should be a bit more wary of? They featured Wheatland's discrediting to sow doubt and, again, appear neutral, but did nothing with the information. Other than Wheatland, every other viewpoint was very much from those trying to bring the company down, from outside the industry. The only word we got from Alexander Nix (Cambridge Analytica CEO) was in archive footage from investigations, or leaked soundbites from a sales pitch.
However the viewpoints we do get were enthralling to watch from a purely entertainment standpoint. David Carroll is the guy who took Cambridge Analytica to court for his data back. He's a knowledgeable guy who knows what he's talking about, but being a victim means he actually doesn't know a whole lot beyond his own case. He's almost dropped entirely by about halfway through the documentary. Carole Cadwalladr features more prominently, showing off her box of research, snippets from her recent TED talk, her own version of events and what she discovered (although amusingly her article on Brittany Kaiser's involvement was barely mentioned at all until it broke and we watched Kaiser's reaction). The other big contributor is Brittany Kaiser, and in many ways this documentary is her story. This is her redemption arc, in a way. We learn about how she started out in human rights, became an intern in Obama's campaign, but then her family got into financial trouble so she joined Cambridge Analytica in order to actually earn some money. The film portrays her as hugely remorseful of the things she was involved in, and her personal viewpoint of things talked about are enlightening to hear directly from her. Whether she comes off as likeable or ethical is subjective, and ultimately irrelevant to what the documentary is trying to achieve.
In all I'd say The Great Hack is a good starting point of a documentary. If you're not aware of the things it talks about, it will be enlightening. It may even change your social media habits. But it also feels shallow and one-sided. I don't feel like I got the whole picture, and too many details were glossed over or left out entirely. Some revelations like Cambridge Analytica's brutal involvement in Trinidad & Tobago will leave a sour taste, as will all the unrepentant confessions caught on the sly, but for the most part what was featured is easily searched up on the internet; I encountered most of it by accident as it was happening. I give The Great Hack a 7/10. It did its job, even if its job was too focussed and specific.
My biggest criticism comes from how specific it was. As I said, this documentary is about Cambridge Analytica using Facebook data to manipulate political outcomes. The truth is that this is a much large issue that involves many more individuals and companies around the world. At best the documentary mentions them, glosses over them, and then moves on. One such example being the social media techniques used in the Obama campaign of 2012. What I've just said is as deep as the documentary delves into it, like a bullet point that has to be ticked off in order to appear neutral. It doesn't explain what techniques were used, by who, or how much of an impact it had. Similarly the documentary features a lot of content from a sales presentation of Cambridge Analytica's, but only pinpoints what it wants to talk about; what supports it's message. On a page all about what and how much data Cambridge Analytica has to draw from, Facebook is not the only one, but none of the other data-farming companies are even mentioned in passing. Who are they? Where did they get our data? Should we be concerned about them too? Ultimately The Great Hack feels shallow, because it only scratches the surface. It only talks about the most well-known and talked about case. What about other companies like Cambridge Analytica who are still functioning today?
I also felt in failed to provide opposing viewpoints. Okay, much of that couldn't be helped. They did have one guy from Cambridge Analytica, but he didn't provide anything of much substance, and when he contradicted other people featured, there was no explanation or citation behind which person is the more credible. Case in point, we are introduced to Chris Wylie who blew the whole thing open. The Great Hack hails him as a hero. Later on the guy who worked for Cambridge Analytica (Julian Wheatland) chimes in to discredit Wylie, saying he only worked at the company for nine months. The documentary just cuts to the next scene, never offers citation or explanation, and I was left wondering whether Wylie was a credible source or not. Was he someone we should be getting behind or someone we should be a bit more wary of? They featured Wheatland's discrediting to sow doubt and, again, appear neutral, but did nothing with the information. Other than Wheatland, every other viewpoint was very much from those trying to bring the company down, from outside the industry. The only word we got from Alexander Nix (Cambridge Analytica CEO) was in archive footage from investigations, or leaked soundbites from a sales pitch.
However the viewpoints we do get were enthralling to watch from a purely entertainment standpoint. David Carroll is the guy who took Cambridge Analytica to court for his data back. He's a knowledgeable guy who knows what he's talking about, but being a victim means he actually doesn't know a whole lot beyond his own case. He's almost dropped entirely by about halfway through the documentary. Carole Cadwalladr features more prominently, showing off her box of research, snippets from her recent TED talk, her own version of events and what she discovered (although amusingly her article on Brittany Kaiser's involvement was barely mentioned at all until it broke and we watched Kaiser's reaction). The other big contributor is Brittany Kaiser, and in many ways this documentary is her story. This is her redemption arc, in a way. We learn about how she started out in human rights, became an intern in Obama's campaign, but then her family got into financial trouble so she joined Cambridge Analytica in order to actually earn some money. The film portrays her as hugely remorseful of the things she was involved in, and her personal viewpoint of things talked about are enlightening to hear directly from her. Whether she comes off as likeable or ethical is subjective, and ultimately irrelevant to what the documentary is trying to achieve.
In all I'd say The Great Hack is a good starting point of a documentary. If you're not aware of the things it talks about, it will be enlightening. It may even change your social media habits. But it also feels shallow and one-sided. I don't feel like I got the whole picture, and too many details were glossed over or left out entirely. Some revelations like Cambridge Analytica's brutal involvement in Trinidad & Tobago will leave a sour taste, as will all the unrepentant confessions caught on the sly, but for the most part what was featured is easily searched up on the internet; I encountered most of it by accident as it was happening. I give The Great Hack a 7/10. It did its job, even if its job was too focussed and specific.