4 ms·

I am definitely not pro-republican, but I think that crap like this really fuels the republican fire. It feels unethical. It feels like yet another attempt to j

I am definitely not pro-republican, but I think that crap like this really fuels the republican fire. It feels unethical. It feels like yet another attempt to jam politics down my throat at every turn. "Congratulations you've got a match" - Just kidding no one wants to date you, they just want to sway you to their political agenda. Honestly I think that part of the problem with politics, is that it's become so repulsive. Partially from b.s. tactics like this.

walls 9y ago
Agreed, this is a super scummy practice that is most likely against the terms of service.
lalos 9y ago
Scummy but most probably legal since its a form of speech. One could restrict this with the ToS and enforcing it.
lucideer 9y ago
"Tinder is too casual a platform for users to feel hoodwinked by some political conversation. By and large, users surprised us with their receptiveness. Some people who received bot messages asked how they could join us." It seems that the data contradicts your own personal view of this practice. I don't really see what's repulsive or b.s. about it tbh. It's just automating the initiation of a dialogue. People are volunteering for it. There's nothing sinister as the intent is upfront and above board, and in terms of the content of your average Tinder conversation, politics is as fair game as any other topic surely? I don't live in the US though, like many on here, so perhaps the perception would be different in the political climate over there.
- phil21 9y ago
  In the past we simply called this spamming, and it was pretty much universally reviled. I find it somewhat ironic/interesting given my past that the current industry is effectively focused on spamming society to sell stuff. I find the e-mail spammers of old to be far more ethical than what is happening today backed by billions of dollars.
  - lucideer 9y ago
    This isn't spamming though, by any definition. Spamming is unsolicited contact. All contact on Tinder is solicited (and a good deal of the non-automated content is a lot more "scummy" than this). I'm finding the sentiment on HN in response to this bizarre but I guess your reference to "industry" (and billions of dollars) may be a hint. US political campaigns are quite a different beast to elsewhere, and yes, a lot more comparable to campaigns of massive multinational corporations.
    - phil21 9y ago
      Huh? It's spamming by every definition. When I swipe right on Tinder, it's not to get a political message. It's to (presumably) get laid. Bots that send me a political or commercial message on a service that specifically denies such contact is the definition spamming. It's the same thing as giving your e-mail address to play a cool new game, the game not existing, and now you're being spammed to death. Or messaging that interesting/hot girl from the AIM chatroom, only to find it's a bot advertising a commercial site. I'd say this is exactly the same line of thought, something I know for a fact since in a past life I've worked for folks who "marketed" in such a manner. The thought patterns are absolutely identical, and I'd be surprised if this political company didn't actually hire a SEO/chat spam company to implement such a feature. All you have to do is s/politics/penny stocks/ and this turns into an entirely different story. The content of the message doesn't matter, it's still abusing a service to send an unwanted political or commercial message. Edit: Typos
      - lucideer 9y ago
        Swiping right on Tinder gets you contact with that person. Nothing more. No guarantee of content topic (or sex). You're swiping to talk to someone.
        xraystyle 9y ago
        > You're swiping to talk to someone. The key word in your sentence above is 'someone'. Not a goddamn bot whose raison d'être is to spam you with an unsolicited political message. How anyone can look at this and not see it as anything other than spam is beyond me.
chroem- 9y ago
>...crap like this really fuels the republican fire. It feels unethical. It feels like yet another attempt to jam politics down my throat at every turn. Understatement of the year. The fact that the Clinton campaign thought that it would be a good idea to create an online astroturfing group, and then tell the world about it like it was a brilliant idea, is what made me vote third party.
- lern_too_spel 9y ago
  The fact that you didn't know that the Clinton campaign did no such thing contributed to our current situation.
  - lern_too_spel 9y ago
    And the fact that GP still doesn't know to this day suggests our future is bleak. Democracy relies on an educated electorate. With that out of the way, using spam to educate the electorate as in this Tinder example or as in GP's imagined Clinton campaign rubs me the wrong way.
    - chroem- 9y ago
      Sure, it was a PAC, but to deny that it existed and the two had close ties is a gross misrepresentation of the truth. The amount of gaslighting by the old guard in the DNC to justify why they supposedly lost unfairly does not bode well for the next election. You need people to actually like you in order to win elections. You can't do that by selling out to big business, and then trying to smooth things over with billions in ads and outright sockpuppetry. Here, read up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correct_the_Record https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correct_the_Record
      - lern_too_spel 9y ago
        Why don't you read your own link? Nowhere is there any evidence that they were astroturfing. All of their social media accounts were clearly marked as paid for by the PAC, just like the social media accounts of any other PAC, as required by FEC rules.

walls 9y ago

Agreed, this is a super scummy practice that is most likely against the terms of service.

lalos 9y ago

Scummy but most probably legal since its a form of speech. One could restrict this with the ToS and enforcing it.

lucideer 9y ago

"Tinder is too casual a platform for users to feel hoodwinked by some political conversation. By and large, users surprised us with their receptiveness. Some people who received bot messages asked how they could join us." It seems that the data contradicts your own personal view of this practice. I don't really see what's repulsive or b.s. about it tbh. It's just automating the initiation of a dialogue. People are volunteering for it. There's nothing sinister as the intent is upfront and above board, and in terms of the content of your average Tinder conversation, politics is as fair game as any other topic surely? I don't live in the US though, like many on here, so perhaps the perception would be different in the political climate over there.

phil21 9y ago
In the past we simply called this spamming, and it was pretty much universally reviled. I find it somewhat ironic/interesting given my past that the current industry is effectively focused on spamming society to sell stuff. I find the e-mail spammers of old to be far more ethical than what is happening today backed by billions of dollars.
- lucideer 9y ago
  This isn't spamming though, by any definition. Spamming is unsolicited contact. All contact on Tinder is solicited (and a good deal of the non-automated content is a lot more "scummy" than this). I'm finding the sentiment on HN in response to this bizarre but I guess your reference to "industry" (and billions of dollars) may be a hint. US political campaigns are quite a different beast to elsewhere, and yes, a lot more comparable to campaigns of massive multinational corporations.
  - phil21 9y ago
    Huh? It's spamming by every definition. When I swipe right on Tinder, it's not to get a political message. It's to (presumably) get laid. Bots that send me a political or commercial message on a service that specifically denies such contact is the definition spamming. It's the same thing as giving your e-mail address to play a cool new game, the game not existing, and now you're being spammed to death. Or messaging that interesting/hot girl from the AIM chatroom, only to find it's a bot advertising a commercial site. I'd say this is exactly the same line of thought, something I know for a fact since in a past life I've worked for folks who "marketed" in such a manner. The thought patterns are absolutely identical, and I'd be surprised if this political company didn't actually hire a SEO/chat spam company to implement such a feature. All you have to do is s/politics/penny stocks/ and this turns into an entirely different story. The content of the message doesn't matter, it's still abusing a service to send an unwanted political or commercial message. Edit: Typos
    - lucideer 9y ago
      Swiping right on Tinder gets you contact with that person. Nothing more. No guarantee of content topic (or sex). You're swiping to talk to someone.
      - xraystyle 9y ago
        > You're swiping to talk to someone. The key word in your sentence above is 'someone'. Not a goddamn bot whose raison d'être is to spam you with an unsolicited political message. How anyone can look at this and not see it as anything other than spam is beyond me.

chroem- 9y ago

>...crap like this really fuels the republican fire. It feels unethical. It feels like yet another attempt to jam politics down my throat at every turn. Understatement of the year. The fact that the Clinton campaign thought that it would be a good idea to create an online astroturfing group, and then tell the world about it like it was a brilliant idea, is what made me vote third party.

lern_too_spel 9y ago
The fact that you didn't know that the Clinton campaign did no such thing contributed to our current situation.
- lern_too_spel 9y ago
  And the fact that GP still doesn't know to this day suggests our future is bleak. Democracy relies on an educated electorate. With that out of the way, using spam to educate the electorate as in this Tinder example or as in GP's imagined Clinton campaign rubs me the wrong way.
  - chroem- 9y ago
    Sure, it was a PAC, but to deny that it existed and the two had close ties is a gross misrepresentation of the truth. The amount of gaslighting by the old guard in the DNC to justify why they supposedly lost unfairly does not bode well for the next election. You need people to actually like you in order to win elections. You can't do that by selling out to big business, and then trying to smooth things over with billions in ads and outright sockpuppetry. Here, read up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correct_the_Record https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correct_the_Record
    - lern_too_spel 9y ago
      Why don't you read your own link? Nowhere is there any evidence that they were astroturfing. All of their social media accounts were clearly marked as paid for by the PAC, just like the social media accounts of any other PAC, as required by FEC rules.