Pros:
1. It clearly demonstrated how Cambridge Analytica stole peoples private information and used this to build voter profiles. Informative. There definitely needs to be tighter controls on this.
Cons:
1. At 2hrs - far too long. The above could have been condensed into a 10 min Youtube video, and none of the pertinent details would have been lost.
2. The documentary conflated the demonstrable and possibly illegal act of stealing peoples personal information - with the swaying of fence sitting voters. While they explained and provided evidence for the former, they provided no evidence for the latter. I was literally half way through, and still saying to myself, 'any minute now they are going to have a slew of interviews with fence sitting voters who stated they were swayed by targeted propaganda / fake news - specifically on social media'. Another hour went by and this still did not happen. Very disappointing. Was this not the whole reason d'etre of the documentary? All I got was theory and conjecture that this is why Trump / Brexit happened. In reality no one knows the reasons people voted the way they did, as voting is private. The documentarians never even attempted to explore the idea that maybe - just maybe - the Democrats / Leave campaign, had terrible ideas that were not appealing and that's why they lost their respective elections.
3. The documentarians took their theory a step further, and blamed Cambridge Analytica for violent uprisings, terrorism and on one occasion 100s, possibly thousands of deaths. Even if one were to accept this as fact, Cambridge Analytica are novices in this regard. For just one example, the Mainstream Media convinced the world it was a good idea to invade Iraq utilising fake news and propaganda about their supposed possession of WMDs. A million people have easily died since in Iraq and Afghanistan. But none of Cambridge Analyticas actions are contextualised like this. Its just Mainstream Media = are presumed good truth tellers. Cambridge Analytica = presumed propagandists who initiate insurrections and wars. It is in fact demonstrably the other way around - specifically with regards to war. The documentary would have been much better if it focused on the utilisation of propaganda by media and governments generally, and did not attempt to blame all on CA.
4. It was clear from the excerpts of the British hearing with pink haired man that the documentarians edited or chopped / changed questions and answers. He was looking in the direction of the questioner when the questions were being posed. He was looking in a different direction (or to another person) when giving his answers. The documentarians were obviously swapping different answers to different questions to drive their agenda.
5. Again the length. The last 30 mins were pure emotional fluff. I really didn't get the rationale for extending it to 2hrs. Boooooring.
.... Anyways... I didn't particularly enjoy it.
1. It clearly demonstrated how Cambridge Analytica stole peoples private information and used this to build voter profiles. Informative. There definitely needs to be tighter controls on this.
Cons:
1. At 2hrs - far too long. The above could have been condensed into a 10 min Youtube video, and none of the pertinent details would have been lost.
2. The documentary conflated the demonstrable and possibly illegal act of stealing peoples personal information - with the swaying of fence sitting voters. While they explained and provided evidence for the former, they provided no evidence for the latter. I was literally half way through, and still saying to myself, 'any minute now they are going to have a slew of interviews with fence sitting voters who stated they were swayed by targeted propaganda / fake news - specifically on social media'. Another hour went by and this still did not happen. Very disappointing. Was this not the whole reason d'etre of the documentary? All I got was theory and conjecture that this is why Trump / Brexit happened. In reality no one knows the reasons people voted the way they did, as voting is private. The documentarians never even attempted to explore the idea that maybe - just maybe - the Democrats / Leave campaign, had terrible ideas that were not appealing and that's why they lost their respective elections.
3. The documentarians took their theory a step further, and blamed Cambridge Analytica for violent uprisings, terrorism and on one occasion 100s, possibly thousands of deaths. Even if one were to accept this as fact, Cambridge Analytica are novices in this regard. For just one example, the Mainstream Media convinced the world it was a good idea to invade Iraq utilising fake news and propaganda about their supposed possession of WMDs. A million people have easily died since in Iraq and Afghanistan. But none of Cambridge Analyticas actions are contextualised like this. Its just Mainstream Media = are presumed good truth tellers. Cambridge Analytica = presumed propagandists who initiate insurrections and wars. It is in fact demonstrably the other way around - specifically with regards to war. The documentary would have been much better if it focused on the utilisation of propaganda by media and governments generally, and did not attempt to blame all on CA.
4. It was clear from the excerpts of the British hearing with pink haired man that the documentarians edited or chopped / changed questions and answers. He was looking in the direction of the questioner when the questions were being posed. He was looking in a different direction (or to another person) when giving his answers. The documentarians were obviously swapping different answers to different questions to drive their agenda.
5. Again the length. The last 30 mins were pure emotional fluff. I really didn't get the rationale for extending it to 2hrs. Boooooring.
.... Anyways... I didn't particularly enjoy it.