back
2 comments
Its interesting that theres another thread right now about how being unwavering on political issues. Isn't A/B testing about as far from that as you could possibly get?

If you are trying to get elected at the national level and you are A/B tesing, isn't wavering exactly what you are doing? Isn't it it essentially well-targeted and opportunistic populism? Isn't this very, very bad?

(this comment isnt aimed at pella, more aimed at the idea of politicians a/b testing)

> Isn't A/B testing about as far from that as you could possibly get?

No, A/B testing doesn't mean flip flopping on the message. You'd want to test various campaigns delivering the same message different ways to see which one converts better. Maybe one set of words gets more donations while another gets more volunteers while another barely gets anything.

I don't think that's how it works, but I'm loving the image of the following:

We need to <%= state.color == 'red' ? "bomb" : "negotiate with" %> Iran.

Since when is giving people what they want, in a democracy, "very, very bad?"
How is it different from directly buying votes?
The same way advertising a product is different from giving it away.