3 ms·

It is an unusual affront to democracy. Democracy depends upon a well-informaed public making rational decisions. It cannot and should not be gamed by for-profit

It is an unusual affront to democracy. Democracy depends upon a well-informaed public making rational decisions. It cannot and should not be gamed by for-profit "market makers" at the expense of the American taxpayer and the American people.

anjc 10y ago
This is completely normal in politics and commerce. And regardless, he was elected in a fair vote. The end. If you run another election now he'll win again.
- facetube 10y ago
  US intelligence officials have evidence of Russian disinformation and interference [1]. This is not normal. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:ODNI_Statement_on_Declassified_Intelligence_Community_Assessment_of_Russian_Activities_and_Intentions_in_Recent_U.S._Elections.pdf&page=7 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:ODNI_Stateme...
  - anjc 10y ago
    You're mixing up your points. I never said that it was normal for foreign entities to influence elections, although it also is normal and you can quickly confirm this by looking at the funding received by random parties of your choice.
concinds 10y ago
It may be an affront to democracy, but it's absolutely inevitable, and both sides are doing it; thus you can argue they're cancelling each other out. https://www.technologyreview.com/s/509026/how-obamas-team-used-big-data-to-rally-voters/ https://www.technologyreview.com/s/509026/how-obamas-team-us... All this is, is a refinement of what politicians always did. Micro-targeting based on personality traits is just the natural evolution of the tradition of pandering to voters. Quantitative change, not qualitative. In addition, Obama, Clinton and Trump all employed or used persuasion experts to help their campaigns (Cialdini for the former two, and Trump for himself). This is absolutely unavoidable, and again no qualitative difference between persuasion experts and the traditional PR consultants or speech writers.

anjc 10y ago

This is completely normal in politics and commerce. And regardless, he was elected in a fair vote. The end. If you run another election now he'll win again.

facetube 10y ago
US intelligence officials have evidence of Russian disinformation and interference [1]. This is not normal. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:ODNI_Statement_on_Declassified_Intelligence_Community_Assessment_of_Russian_Activities_and_Intentions_in_Recent_U.S._Elections.pdf&page=7 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:ODNI_Stateme...
- anjc 10y ago
  You're mixing up your points. I never said that it was normal for foreign entities to influence elections, although it also is normal and you can quickly confirm this by looking at the funding received by random parties of your choice.

concinds 10y ago

It may be an affront to democracy, but it's absolutely inevitable, and both sides are doing it; thus you can argue they're cancelling each other out. https://www.technologyreview.com/s/509026/how-obamas-team-used-big-data-to-rally-voters/ https://www.technologyreview.com/s/509026/how-obamas-team-us... All this is, is a refinement of what politicians always did. Micro-targeting based on personality traits is just the natural evolution of the tradition of pandering to voters. Quantitative change, not qualitative. In addition, Obama, Clinton and Trump all employed or used persuasion experts to help their campaigns (Cialdini for the former two, and Trump for himself). This is absolutely unavoidable, and again no qualitative difference between persuasion experts and the traditional PR consultants or speech writers.