Mike Bloomberg is plowing millions of dollars into a secretive tech firm | Hacker News Reader

Mike Bloomberg is plowing millions of dollars into a secretive tech firm

cnbc.com

114 pointshsnewman82 comments

An elaborate propaganda machine privately funded by, and for the sole benefit of, a billionaire. I'm sure the Republicans have their own, so let's not be partisan here but merely call it for what it is.

I did get a chuckle from the blurb in a job posting promoted below by one of the propagandists working on the machine though:

>You are: A dynamic, seasoned software engineer who can bring your in-depth expertise and computer science experience to save our democracy.

War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Come help us weaponize data against the citizenry for our billionaire candidate, it will save democracy.

What an absolute circus US politics has descended into.

This is a very theatrical way to respond to a wealthy person creating a web consulting shop to run their doomed campaign's Internet presence.

Late edit

I added a word before "campaign".

Why "doomed"? Would love to hear what you think about it.

Trump won in part because his Internet ground game was better. Look for the Dems and everyone else to not only copy but improve on that, fake news and trolling included.

Prepare to be force fed propaganda like a fois gras goose every election year. Welcome to the future.

I don't know why this was voted down. Obama had an excellent ground game and an excellent (for its time) Internet/social media game. They were quite public about it and everybody took notice. The GOP definitely upped its game and of course candidate T had been working the social media channels since the 80s.

As with advertising in general nobody really knows what works and what doesn't, but these national campaigns have the budget to just try it all.

This is a weird future though. Its not about the issues, its about who has better targeting. That's it.

And if both sides have equally good targeting, the result is an even split of the populations attention. No one wins.

So how does this cycle break. Where is Daenerys?

> Its not about the issues, its about who has better targeting. That's it.

Eh, it's never been about the issues. It's so rarely about the issues that we name political periods after it (e.g. Prohibition, Abolitionist, et cetera).

What it's about, what it's always been about, is identity. And targeting, at its best, lets one efficiently drive an identity message. (At its worst, it lets one send diverging messages to diverging groups. But that tends to backfire, eventually.)

Given identity is multifarious (common identities are forged on class, race, ideology, religion, dialect, et cetera), there is room for creativity as politicians craft their image to collect a coalition.

Another interpretation of this is that it is even more about issues, though. At the end of the day, you're targeting people based on their interest in / feelings on particular issues. Everyone wants to be so alarmist about all of this, but the reality is that this is democracy functioning as intended. Candidates are trying to fit even more tightly to what the voters want.

Unfortunately that’s not true. If you look at the thorough reporting of Cambridge Analytica’s operations for example, it shows that their targeting was not based on issues but on psychological profile, which they determined with personality tests. Specifically they focused their attention on people exhibiting signs of neurosis and anxiety, and then experimented with various content designed to amplify their fears. Once they got the right level of “engagement”, they hammered crucial electoral districts in swing states with a deluge of weaponized propaganda. In that election the issue (“payload” would be a better term) boiled down to “Hillary Clinton is corrupt and belongs in jail”. The point is not to convince millions of people to change their minds, but to manipulate a few tens of thousands of crucial undecided voters into distrusting one candidate without really knowing why, just enough to change their vote (or perhaps just stay home - Cambridge Analytica had conducted vote suppression campaigns in other countries as well).

This is essentially large scale human experimentation. We have to accept the fact that it works, and is not at all politics as usual. To expect to be targeted with “issues” is to expect to be treated like a human being. But to be targeted in this way is to be treated like a lab rat.

> Unfortunately that’s not true. If you look at the thorough reporting of Cambridge Analytica’s operations for example, it shows that their targeting was not based on issues but on psychological profile, which they determined with personality tests. Specifically they focused their attention on people exhibiting signs of neurosis and anxiety, and then experimented with various content designed to amplify their fears.

Sure, that was their marketing pitch. But we have no evidence that anything like that actually worked, or was meaningfully implemented at scale. Secondly, what does it mean to "target people with anxiety or neurosis"? Were they shifting their opinions? Or were they just saying, "Hey, are you afraid of stuff? Well, we've got the candidate for you". My guess is it's the latter, and if it's the latter, that's just another way of communicating issue alignment of their candidate.

I don't think there is any substantial evidence at all that CA or anyone like them was actually shaping opinion. As far as I know, all the evidence indicates that they were finding the issues people cared about, and explaining why and how Donald Trump aligned with them on those issues.

The underlying fact that nobody seems to want to face is that large numbers of people aligned with him on many important issues. Not because they were tricked, but because that's what they truly wanted.

Overall I agree. The left was ecstatic about Obama’s ground breaking use of social media and analytics in his first presidential campaign, but now are crying foul because the right has caught up and even pulled ahead. I’m not entirely happy about the tactics due to the privacy implications, but that’s a separate issue.

What does worry me is that the messaging being targeted in this way is often disingenuous. Parties will target one message at one demographic and a contradictory message at another demographic. So if a consistent message is simply being targeted effectively that’s fine, but deceptively tailoring the message to the target is a legitimate concern.

You’re making a false equivalence. The Obama campaign hired savvy analysts and marketers to run a modern web and email campaign. A lot of what they did was pioneer what is now standard in almost every campaign: heavy use of email follow-ups to keep supporters engaged; recruiting and coordinating canvassing teams nationwide; using social media as a primary channel of communication rather than a gadget.

What the Trump campaign did was go to Paul Manafort, the guy who fixed Ukrainian campaign using black ops disinformation campaigns on behalf of Putin, and hire him to run his campaign!

The only thing those campaigns had in common is that they used the Internet efficiently. But they used them very differently to achieve different goals. To compare them as equivalent is irresponsible.

You keep implying differences, while not actually stating them. Who was hired is not a salient difference, in this context. The tactics employed by each are essentially the same: Heavy internet advertising with effective, outcome-based targeting. For all of Cambridge Analytica's marketing puff pieces, I see no evidence they were doing anything fundamentally different.

Just to be clear, you are willing to say on the record that the Obama campaign and Manaford, a convicted criminal who is known to have worked for a mass murdering autocratic regime as their expert electoral fixer, are “essentially the same” in their use of the Internet?

If so, you’ll have to find someone else to engage in debate with you. If you are capable of believing such a thing, we simply don’t have enough moral common ground to have a productive conversation.

I will say for the benefit of others who might read this, that how successful Cambridge Analytica actually was in manipulating US voters in 2016 is irrelevant to whether or not A) mass disinformation is a real threat to elections everywhere (it is) and B) the Trump campaign employed Cambridge Analytica to manipulate US voters using mass disinformation (they did).

> Just to be clear, you are willing to say on the record that the Obama campaign and Manaford, a convicted criminal who is known to have worked for a mass murdering autocratic regime as their expert electoral fixer, are “essentially the same” in their use of the Internet?

In their use of the internet in relation to their respective presidential campaigns, yes. Do you have specific evidence to the contrary?

> If so, you’ll have to find someone else to engage in debate with you. If you are capable of believing such a thing, we simply don’t have enough moral common ground to have a productive conversation.

So, just to be clear, at the first sight of a challenge and request for literally any supporting evidence at all, you're backing away, while pretending to do so out of contempt?

It's become quite clear that you don't actually have any evidence to back up your claims here. Though feel free to prove me wrong.

Exactly. I don't care how many ads you show me, I'm not voting for a candidate that I don't agree with on some level.

Lying is a problem, not ads.

>> So how does this cycle break. Where is Daenerys?

It stops when people get so used to recognizing it that they give up social media and the usual news sources.

Everyone needs to watch "they live" and realize that it's happening more than ever.

> Its not about the issues

Politics isn’t about issues, it’s about ideology. You have no idea what the sausage maker that is Congress will churn out at the end of the day. But you know who agrees with you on the big picture principles of the universe. And targeting helps you find those people and get them to vote.

>> its about who has better targeting.

In a dark way, this is expected, right? Politicians often lie. But targeting now allows them to tell a different lie to different groups, each seemingly serving a sub-population's desires -- without groups hearing each-others messages.

Campaign finance reform.

> Where is Daenerys?

That would be aliens.

Any time a presidential candidate has dominated in the mass media of the day, they've won the election. FDR did it with radio. Kennedy did it with television. Obama did it with traditional social media. Trump did it with guerilla social media.

I can't necessarily say these presidents weren't elected on the basis of issues, but beating the competition at getting your message on the popular mass media does seem to be a common factor in all these elections.

If there were a way to disrupt the economy of information that Cambridge Analytica types can manipulate democracies with, we still wouldn't break the whole cycle, but we would at least break this latest and most uncomfortable iteration.

Anything paid for by the campaign is required to say so. Paid trolling does not work unless it is done illegally or by non-American entities who are not subject to those regulations.

Staffers for political campaigns don't include paid for disclaimers on their Tweets, even though they are paid a salary by their employing committee

What about the mass of money paid for by secret Super PACs with vague sounding names like "Paid for by Concerned Mothers of America"

So far that seems to be how its done.

"Trump won in part because his Internet ground game was better."

It really wasn't though.

Trump had one of the most poorly managed campaigns of every kind in history.

It was mostly just him and his Tweets.

He didn't have some giant, coordination 'on the ground' or 'tech' operation.

In a manner of speaking, it was highly 'authentic' however absurd he is in reality, it wasn't any kind of 'tech savvy operation'.

If anything, Trump disrupted the notion that these 'well oiled machines' win. Hillary inherited Obama's pretty good infrastructure, and all of the goodwill of tech people across the land and still lost.

I think it's fair for Bloomberg to want to run an ad campaign, but I think the amount he donated should be public and subject to regulation, just like anything else. And of course, same for everyone else.

I wonder if Twitter and FB could literally attach 'fact check' addendums to every tweet from someone in political office. Here's me thinking it might make a difference in Trumpland, alas, it probably wouldn't.

Might want to look into Cambridge Analytica:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/mar/23/leaked-cambr...

It was pretty sophisticated and they obviously had access to a lot of Facebook data with which to microtarget people.

No - Cambridge et. al. had little effect on the outcome of the election - their execs even knew this and they completely oversold their capabilities; and the story was widely overblown.

(FYI I was personally involved with FB at the time of these major dealings, in a similar scenario, but not Cambridge).

Neither really did the Russians.

The Trump campaign was run mostly by people lacking political experience, and their technical operations were scant. It was literally Trump family (his son in law etc.) giving him a lot of his most direct advice. For example, how to handle the fallout from the p*y grabbing scandal came from Kushner - not a political operative.

It's hard I guess for some people to swallow that Trump won on his platform of outrage, rather than some secret, sophisticated and back-handed GOP operation, but that's the stark reality of his populism.

Are you talking about Hawkfish, CNBC, Bloomberg or Washington Post?

Bloomberg is clearly extremely competent. Pluralism won't win, determinism will. If you feel it's broken, and you do nothing, you are much lower than a successful person who is attempting to do something.

You mean 'determination'? There are lots of determined, unsuccessful people.

Well the part about a counterweight being needed does ring true.

Though that still seems like to evils counter-balancing each other. There is a real need to legislate against this on an overall level.

The average guy on the street just isn't equipped to survive this highly sophisticated data driven type of attack. Hell I'm not confident I am.

>There is a real need to legislate against this on an overall level.

I could not disagree more strongly. Legislation is simply the people already in position pulling the ladder up behind them. The people with money and lawyers will insert and then exploit loopholes.

Instead, disrupt it at its source. Flood the data collectors with adversarial noise, learn to remove your personal information from the web, and so on. Personal privacy is becoming a duty not just to ourselves but to our democracy.

>Instead, disrupt it at its source.

As grand as that sounds it's not viable. People aren't even coping with tech basics let alone large scale evasion of the sophisticated tracking being deployed.

Sure you can maybe get the top 10% most tech savy to do something like removing their personal info, but that's not enough to move the needle.

Legislation might though. See GDPR forcing companies to stop logging IPs. That's way more tangible. Of course there will be loopholes - legislation is imperfect - but we need something that has any kind of effect asap.

Well, with the citizens united decision, The country decided that buying a power is acceptable. Choosing whether this Bloomberg company upsets you or makes you happy is still just haggling over the price.

Interviewed there last week for a software engineering position after some people in my network went over there. Didn't get the gig but I came away impressed with the team and the mission. It's a unique opportunity to build a state-of-the-art data system with unlimited resources. I've heard that the comp is very, very good but can't confirm that from my own experiences. If you think you can survive the sprint, I think it's a great opportunity.

Jeff, if you're still lurking in the thread -- we've chatted at the Kairos & the Arena summits. I've got the political and tech background to make an impact. If you're willing to take a flier on me, I'm all-in. Email is in my profile.

'Unlimited resources' are exactly the thing we don't need shaping a democratic election. Shame on you and anyone else seeking to work for such a firm. Ill take my downvotes, this is bedrock ethics.

I want to add a +1 to this.

It's shameful that talented engineers would spend their productive years building a dystopian future because "the comp is very, very good" or for other equally immoral and unethical reasons. It's "I got mine, good luck getting yours" v2.

I don't think history will look kindly on these folks.

Unfortunately, this is our reality. I’d highly recommend Dark Money by Jane Mayer if you haven’t read it already. Of course, this same machinery has already been built time and time again in the Valley.

> Unfortunately, this is our reality.

It's not. Sanders is going to stomp Bloomberg in the primary, with a tiny fraction of the resources behind him that Bloomberg has and a magnitude more of the public support.

Trump won while spending a lot less money than what Clinton vaporized in her election campaign. He decimated the formidable Bush money machine right out of the gate, humiliating Jeb Bush as a weak candidate before the first inning was over.

This is increasingly the era of populism. It's raging all over the planet right now (Trump in the US, Brexit in UK, SD in Sweden, riots in Iran and everywhere else, and so on). The establishment candidates, such as Bloomberg, can't win under any scenario no matter how much money they burn.

Sanders and Warren are the only real competing candiates to Trump, as they're both populists. If the Democrats make the mistake of running Biden, he'll be embarrassed in the general election. Spending $500m vs $1 billion versus $2 billion will not matter in the least in 2020.

You're missing the big picture if you're just focusing on the Presidential election. Jane Mayer does a great job of showing how money pervades politics at all levels, down to the most local judicial races. I've also seen it firsthand. It's also important to remember that Hawkfish =/= Bloomberg 2020 and their output will be available to Democratic candidates up and down the ballot.

>Jeff, if you're still lurking in the thread -- we've chatted at the Kairos & the Arena summits. I've got the political and tech background to make an impact. If you're willing to take a flier on me, I'm all-in. Email is in my profile.

Is solicitation posts for a job after being turned down post interview a thing?

What impact (specifically) would you like to contribute to?

Seems like OP wants to add another qualifier on his CV which will help him pursue politics even further. I wouldn't want to hire a software engineer who has aspirations to run for office either.

lol I already ran once and that was plenty for me

It’s worked for me in the past ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I'd love to know what the interview process was, the sprint?, the skills they were looking for and testing for. Trying to decide on next courses to take, and one I started is in similar areas I would guess.

comp isn't above market rate. without equity or bonuses & with the long hours required, not sure what the upside is.

The possibilities of Bloomberg money & commitment to invest in digital/experiment are huge. My political digital wet-dream: an org with enough $$$ to get access to bid-stream + processing/compute/intelligence + large audience graph tied to voter data = biggest coup in voter profiling and targeting ever.

Modeled issue/turnout scores updated in near real time using a large % of every individual's entire web surfing/app usage history. Even a user graph graphed to 20% of voter file + bidstream data would be an unimaginably ginormous amount of data.

Like imagine receiving a field call & digital ads after reading an oped on universal healthcare by Bloomberg in nytimes, receiving call about that issue that night and a series of healthcare digital ads following you everywhere after reading.

it would be 'fb is listening to my phone' level of effectiveness - and as I'm sure nearly everyone here would say creepy/horrible.

i think a lot of DSP/players are now afraid of working in politics, but perhaps someone like beeswax or hell directly from IPONWEB would do it for the right money with the right protections built in. i bet bloomberg could also call up Oracle who has sucked up all the data companies recently.

I'm not a supporter of Bloomberg's candidacy, but we need to thank him and other tech leaders who are contributing to Democratic politics, especially the political infrastructure we so desperately need.

Critics are right to be skeptical about rich people spending a lot of money in politics, but that doesn't automatically mean every big money tech political initiative is in the wrong.

In the eyes of tech critics, tech is either not engaged enough in politics, or we're donating too much to political organizations, or we're turned away from directly giving money to Warren and other progressives.

Can someone tell me what critics really want the tech community to do aside from cease to exist?

This just sounds a lot like The Groundwork, which was the Eric Schmidt-funded company that did all of Hillary Clinton's campaign technology work. During the 2016 campaign, The Groundwork's site consisted solely of an Illuminati-esque logo, but today has a more informative/generic site offering their services to people that are not Hillary Clinton.

https://thegroundwork.com/

Presumably it's cool to start a company in this space solely to elect one person, because if you can say you got a President elected, it's going to be good business after that?

Except the groundwork has effectively gone out of business and no longer has anyone working there.

They made a good faith effort to find non HRC campaign and non profit customers after the election but never found meaningful market fit. It was an odd assortment of tech that felt like what it was: an attempt to productize an enormous consulting engagement to build whatever the campaign wanted.

It's all an interesting campaign finance loophole though. You can fund money loosing tech companies to work with candidates and as long as they charge the campaign something, it's an interesting way to spend huge amounts of dark money on elections.

Whoa, the front of the site would give you no idea of that!

Though the blog is an intriguing hint that something's amiss: https://thegroundwork.com/blog/

It's all SEO spam.

Part of the problem that Cambridge Analytica ran in to was that it was a "foreign agent". A lot of what it did would be legal under an American entity, and I think many in politics know this.

AFAICT, the foreign agent stuff happened in the 2014 mid-terms and was only exposed when they came under fire for the data breach. I think why CA went down is not because the core of what they were doing was illegal, but because after their data scandal no campaign would have wanted to associate with them.

Ironically, there are so many snake oil peddlers in the data brokerage business that my hunch is that they probably didn't actually derive much value from the data they got in trouble for having.

Money in politics <-> Data in politics

Sounds like a new conversation to be had

This is another data race.

Campaigns are highly regulated for a reason and I hope some movement to protect voters against data attacks and manipulation will go above and beyond what your average adword target would be protected for.

Maybe data as a property right? https://www.yang2020.com/policies/data-property-right/

Data is the oil of the 21st century.

“In God we trust. Everyone else bring data.”

So, it's a data analytics company ?

Yes, to address as part of Hawkfish, it's a data and tech platform for progressive candidates and causes, including voter segmentation and digital activation and engagement. Really Dems have been quite behind the Republican data trust which has been funded for a decade by right-wing special interests, and the goal of Hawkfish is to level the playing field, for democratic candidates up and down the ballot, and advocacy groups for climate, women's rights, education, gun safety common sense, and more.

For folks interested in jobs from the data science and full-stack Eng side, job postings are here:

https://boards.greenhouse.io/hawkfish/

Jeff Glueck

> it's a data and tech platform for progressive candidates and causes

Are you able to share any other candidates or causes you have worked with? Bloomberg isn't exactly the most popular candidate among progressives and without knowing the other customers this looks like a vanity company with the primary goal of getting him elected.

I'm quite surprised to hear this.

When I was finishing up school (2013), our professor had worked out an agreement with the two congressional campaigns to allow our class to volunteer on both sides of the aisle. At that time, Republican data might as well have been non-existent when compared to the Democratic Votebuilder system.

the R version of votebuilder sucks, but the larger for-profit data-warehousing model has been a big asset almost a decade before Ds caught on (and are still losing digital).

Rs have been leading here for a long time. Kochs funded for-profit i360 which seems to me to be the first, most successful model. They enabled programmatic access to voter data (and even as a D buyer I was able to execute against) while most D campaigns below presidential weren't even really buying programmatic.

> Really Dems have been quite behind the Republican data trust

Do you have any actual evidence for that? Because mainstream media have been saying the opposite since Obama.

What you said is exactly what a company looking for dem dollars would say. Which is pretty much what Cambridge Analytic said to the gop candidates.

You're thinking of Project Narwhal: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2012/02/project-narwhal-...

I think the distinction here may be "the Obama campaign" vs "the DNC" but yes, the media lauded expansive data collection, microtargeting, and get out to vote (gotv) efforts in the ancient days of 2012-2015.

Here's a mainstream article: https://www.wired.com/story/democrats-fix-crumbling-data-ope..., I have heard that both the previous setup and the new setup are worse than reported.

On a different level, Obama drastically reduced the funding for the DNC and weakened the organization, possibly as part of a grand bargain with Hillary (https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/nov/2/brazile-says...).

Additionally, the consensus is that Trump's team embraced FB ads / other digital much more than Clinton's team. FB embedded "representatives" (presumably sales/operations people who understood how to best use FB ads) with both campaigns but only Trump's really listened: "Hillary Clinton’s campaign didn’t have Facebook employees stationed on site, according to people familiar with the campaign. One former Clinton campaign official said the campaign didn’t want to give Facebook employees “24/7 opportunity” to sell more ads by embedding with its staff. A spokesman for Mrs. Clinton didn’t respond to a request for comment." (https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-facebooks-embed-in-the-trum...).

Of course, to Kick's point, the specific company being discussed here is a Bloomberg operation, not a Democratic or "progressive" operation, whatever those terms mean. If Sanders or Warren win the primary, will Bloomberg redirect the company to their control / use?

Is this platform also against certain things, like getting weaponized against universal health coverage?

Bloomberg's own campaign site promotes universal coverage and specifically promotes adding a public option to the ACA. (Disclaimer: not a Bloomberg supporter and don't plan to be, I just know how to use Google to find stuff like this out.)

This reminds me we need counterweights and counters for the counters.

With some of the health and drug plans being pitched I noticed a huge influx of negative ads about them.. the pharma and insurance coompanies have tons of money to push 'facts' - and there is no counter balance aside from some of the media.. other parts of the media we weaponized into do commercials for them and for some the paychecks or residual percentages kept them quiet about any possible discrepancies..

So we have some good counterweights with some media fact checking numbers and ways for plans from Warrren and Sanders - which was good because it has kept the conversation going.. but where is the counter to that counter?

Transparent facts and callouts of the false facts in ways that are easier to find perhaps?

I tried to reverse image search a hoax pic someone had posted on fbook the other day and it was not as simple as it should of been - no wonder people are having a hard time determining truth.. partial truth.. plain lies / intent.. etc..

bloomberg promising public option? Is he paying for it? How is it going to happen? If him and all his Dems win? Let's see we had that once - Obama and both sides of congress had full control of all the laws and purse strings, promised affordable health care and keep our docs.

That did not really work out the way everyone thought, and I see similar with these kinds of promises on a candidate's site. How they intend to do these things is just as important as promises them imho.

It's not really clear to me either how Bloomberg expects to pass his health plan, but the same objection applies to everyone on his left too. While my preference is similar to Bloomberg's in this case, I still find it a bit frustrating that the debate is focused mostly on what is possible in our broken political system rather than what kind of policy would lead to optimal outcomes.

public option generally does not equivocate to universal coverage. If he advocated against public option for Single Payer, then you could call it universal/progressive.

Public option doesn't address runaway drug spending. 1 bulk purchaser of drugs could set the price basically that we're willing to pay, the federal government could also strip patents of companies found price-fixing or price-gouging.

I mean he's rich, so he def. could be progressive in that maybe he doesn't need the money the pharmacy/insurance companies would give him to not be progressive, but I'd have to see it before I believe it. I mean there are progressive billionaires - Nick hanover has given tons of Ted talks on income inequality.

There's definitely other options this cycle though if you're skeptical and want a real progressive, so why take the chance?

Single payer may guarantee universal coverage, but it is not the only route to achieving it - there are multiple counter-examples among advanced nations. If your goal is to improve health care and reduce costs, you should consider all options, not just the ones that flatter your ideological biases. That doesn't mean accepting clearly bad-faith arguments like "let's abolish malpractice lawsuits" at face value, but it does mean you have to explain why (for example) Germany's multi-payer health insurance system would be unacceptable for Americans. (Germany is significantly more socialized than the ACA, but significantly less socialized than Warren's current M4A plan. EDIT: or maybe not, as comment below suggests, but it definitely includes private health insurers, which Warren has said she would abolish.)

Germany's multi-payer system has significantly stricter consumer cost controls and Germany in general has more government-run health providers (eg: your out-of-pocket costs are effectively capped at a low % of your household's income). It's a good bit more socialized than Warren's and might, taken as a whole, be more socialized than even Sander's M4A plan.

Perhaps a German HNer can chime in on how frequent medical bankruptcies are in their country.

You used "equivocate" incorrectly. Also, as Kevin Hart says in the 40yo virgin, you're throwing too many terms at me (public option, universal, single payer, progressive) and I'm gonna take it as disrespect.

Well couldn't the signs be any clearer?

$100M + Mr Bloomberg + "secretive tech firm" + "Your Data" * 1 billion = Palantir 9.0

It's not going to be "good", whatever it is.

I hate everything about this.

> “It’s clear to me and other tech leaders that Trump and the GOP are better at creating and sharing engaging online content than anyone on the Democratic side,” Conway said in explaining his conversation with Bloomberg.

No no no. I don’t want bipartisan “engaging” content, I want data analytics use for hyper-targeted political advertising pulled from the list of allowable political tactics.

I find this encouraging. If Bloomberg can convince Sanders or Warren to be his VP candidate, together they could give Trump a run for his money.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com