3 ms·

The overwhelmingly negative response from the primarily US-based HN audience to this, in stark contrast to the very positive responses from actual recipients of

The overwhelmingly negative response from the primarily US-based HN audience to this, in stark contrast to the very positive responses from actual recipients of contact in this initiative (and the subsequent extremely positive and progressive election turnout statistics) are surely symptomatic of some significant fundamental differences in the perception of politics in both countries. I appear to be literally the only person in this thread who thinks this is OK. As someone who's largely opposed to advertising full stop, in any form, this doesn't seem the same to me in any way. Nor can I see any reason to find it objectionable. What exactly is it about this that makes people uncomfortable?

GauntletWizard 9y ago
It doesn't pass the sniff check. They've made an extraordinary claim - That people want to be catfished so that they can be politically re-educated. They provide only anecdotal evidence. The bar of evidence that they'd have to clear is incredibly high - If they paraded out a thousand happy people saying that they'd been on the receiving end of this bot, and that they {liked it, changed their views, were indifferent}; It would still be significantly more logical that they'd simply paid a bunch of actors than that they'd actually done what they've done (which most conservatives would call significantly immoral; A form of fraud that's certainly not illegal but worthy of community shunning) But I don't actually believe that anyone could actually believe this is OK. I think it's more likely you're a paid shill for this 'service' than that you're an outside observer that's believes this is a public good, or even a public neutral. You're a troll, and I guess I've just fed the trolls. Edit: Actually, I take most of this back. There's a more logical conclusion: There's a population of not-conservatives who play one as part of the mating ritual, allowing them to be 'convinced'. They were happy to have confirmation that their ploy worked.
- qbrass 9y ago
  More likely, there was already a bunch of people on Tinder trolling people for fun, who came across this and wanted in on the deal so they could troll people and get paid for it.
  - lucideer 9y ago
    I perhaps misread the article - I didn't see the part where it said these people were paid? I was under the impression they were all volunteers, no?
    - qbrass 9y ago
      The quote was about people showing interest when they learned what was going on, not the people working for them. By the time you find out they're not getting paid, you've already expressed enough interest to have someone use you as an example of someone wanting to join them.
dwaltrip 9y ago
Well, it would be much better if the article wasn't written by those who organized the efforts. They are likley to be heavily biased towards interpreting the outcome positively, especially in a public write up. They could have somewhat alleviated this concern with hard data, but unfortunately they did not do so. For me, it's pretty simple. I don't like it for the same reason that I don't like door-to-door solicitors or activists.
- lucideer 9y ago
  This is a fair point. I would like to see hard data. While I'm based in Ireland, I do know a good deal of people in the UK who voted and campaigned (and one who ran for LibDems), and we are also quite close and clued in to UK politics here in general. To me, their account seems plausible based on my own anecdotal knowledge of how campaigning during the election went. The youth vote turnout was unprecedented, and there was a lot of people involved in various "weird", innovative grass-roots voluntary political campaigns for Corbyn. In that sense, it felt very Sanders-esque, so the reference to Clinton in the article is bizarre. Particularly given the almost universal, blatant anti-Corbyn media bias. This may also be another reason it seems OK - Clinton/other political campaigns have big media behind them (and large financial interests), so I don't think it would work for them. People wouldn't be as willing to volunteer their time for such an industry-backed cause. Corbyn, like Sanders was very much demonized by the media (tbh, probably worse than for Sanders), so this may seem more like fighting back to people involved (both the senders and receivers of the messages). Point taken on the door-to-door solicitors or activists, but that depends on the cause really too I think. Certainly most people despise commercial door-to-door calls, but I personally do door-to-door political canvassing here in Ireland, which is the norm here and in the UK, and the vast majority of feedback is positive. Nobody minds when its politics.

GauntletWizard 9y ago

It doesn't pass the sniff check. They've made an extraordinary claim - That people want to be catfished so that they can be politically re-educated. They provide only anecdotal evidence. The bar of evidence that they'd have to clear is incredibly high - If they paraded out a thousand happy people saying that they'd been on the receiving end of this bot, and that they {liked it, changed their views, were indifferent}; It would still be significantly more logical that they'd simply paid a bunch of actors than that they'd actually done what they've done (which most conservatives would call significantly immoral; A form of fraud that's certainly not illegal but worthy of community shunning) But I don't actually believe that anyone could actually believe this is OK. I think it's more likely you're a paid shill for this 'service' than that you're an outside observer that's believes this is a public good, or even a public neutral. You're a troll, and I guess I've just fed the trolls. Edit: Actually, I take most of this back. There's a more logical conclusion: There's a population of not-conservatives who play one as part of the mating ritual, allowing them to be 'convinced'. They were happy to have confirmation that their ploy worked.

qbrass 9y ago
More likely, there was already a bunch of people on Tinder trolling people for fun, who came across this and wanted in on the deal so they could troll people and get paid for it.
- lucideer 9y ago
  I perhaps misread the article - I didn't see the part where it said these people were paid? I was under the impression they were all volunteers, no?
  - qbrass 9y ago
    The quote was about people showing interest when they learned what was going on, not the people working for them. By the time you find out they're not getting paid, you've already expressed enough interest to have someone use you as an example of someone wanting to join them.

dwaltrip 9y ago

Well, it would be much better if the article wasn't written by those who organized the efforts. They are likley to be heavily biased towards interpreting the outcome positively, especially in a public write up. They could have somewhat alleviated this concern with hard data, but unfortunately they did not do so. For me, it's pretty simple. I don't like it for the same reason that I don't like door-to-door solicitors or activists.

lucideer 9y ago
This is a fair point. I would like to see hard data. While I'm based in Ireland, I do know a good deal of people in the UK who voted and campaigned (and one who ran for LibDems), and we are also quite close and clued in to UK politics here in general. To me, their account seems plausible based on my own anecdotal knowledge of how campaigning during the election went. The youth vote turnout was unprecedented, and there was a lot of people involved in various "weird", innovative grass-roots voluntary political campaigns for Corbyn. In that sense, it felt very Sanders-esque, so the reference to Clinton in the article is bizarre. Particularly given the almost universal, blatant anti-Corbyn media bias. This may also be another reason it seems OK - Clinton/other political campaigns have big media behind them (and large financial interests), so I don't think it would work for them. People wouldn't be as willing to volunteer their time for such an industry-backed cause. Corbyn, like Sanders was very much demonized by the media (tbh, probably worse than for Sanders), so this may seem more like fighting back to people involved (both the senders and receivers of the messages). Point taken on the door-to-door solicitors or activists, but that depends on the cause really too I think. Certainly most people despise commercial door-to-door calls, but I personally do door-to-door political canvassing here in Ireland, which is the norm here and in the UK, and the vast majority of feedback is positive. Nobody minds when its politics.