5 ms·

Facebook’s 2016 Election Team Gave Advertisers a Blueprint to a Divided US

82 points by tareqak 9y ago

tareqak 9y ago
Techmeme summary: Alex Kantrowitz / BuzzFeed: Facebook provided political advertisers 14 targeted categories from very liberal “youthful urbanites” to very conservative “great outdoors” during 2016 election
Jun8 9y ago
Here's a WaPo summary on the legality of "the Russians" buying Facebook ads: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/09/07/did-facebook-ads-traced-to-a-russian-company-violate-u-s-election-law https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/09.... Basically, it all hinges on if the ads mention a candidate (illegal) or were worded in a vague manner (gray zone).
- lostboys67 9y ago
  Maybe all political advertising needs to have a named publisher like in the UK get caught promoting a candidate without stating the publisher and their election agent will get you in the election court.
  - xkcd-sucks 9y ago
    "Published by Americans for a Safer Tomorrow, inc."
jparse 9y ago
All in all, this is why there is no dislike button. The entire Facebook system incentivizes division because division creates revenue. It's a perpetual loop. Let's walk through how it works: Step 1) A person posts, or shares, something incredibly divisive. Note: There is no feedback button to let the poster know the content is hateful and that broader society disapproves of it. There is also no consequence to posting it most of the time. Step 2) The content attracts likes. Since there is no dislike button, or negative feedback, any likes received makes the poster feel good. Step 3) The poster is emboldened and increases his/her frequency of posting divisive or hateful content. This attracts a following and more engagement for the original poster. The poster has no need to create inclusive content. They are incentivized to find and highlight divisive thoughts from their life because it rewards them with engagement and the Facebook system re-enforces those thoughts. Step 4) Repeat Each subsequent post creates more comments, more engagement, more passion. This is great for Facebook because it means more time on site and increased usage frequency. The handout Facebook is giving advertisers is proof of that. They are monetizing the system. Make no mistake, it is designed to work this way and they are profiting from it.
- ben_jones 9y ago
  While I agree with your argument I think negative comments are a form of feedback and they're omitted from your post. I wonder how people who work for Facebook feel about stuff like this signing their checks. I've long postured it only takes a steady six-figure paycheck to convince an intelligent college-educated individual to put their head in the sand.
- jauer 9y ago
  > Since there is no dislike button, or negative feedback, any likes received makes the poster feel good. Sure there is. Next to Like you have: Love, Laugh, Wow, Sad, Angry.
  - jparse 9y ago
    That is not a dislike button. For example, you can select angry and it leaves it up to interpretation what you are angry about. Either way, most people think it is about the article you are sharing. Here is an example: Share a post about Black Lives causing a riot. Clear this is fake. Now if a reader of that post puts angry. Are they indicating the post is fake and they are angry with the original poster? Or are they now angry with Black Lives Matter because they think they caused a riot? Facebook designed it this way so that the original author of the post still gets positive feedback. There is no need to change his/her behavior. They keep posting and the engagement for Facebook keeps rolling.
    - Shish2k 9y ago
      > Are they indicating the post is fake and they are angry with the original poster? Or are they now angry with Black Lives Matter because they think they caused a riot? How is dislike any clearer?
- halflings 9y ago
  Facebook is private (at least most posts are). So "broader society" will not be giving feedback. YouTube is public, and has a dislike button... many "fringe" videos still have tons of likes because they are mostly viewed by people sharing the same opinions.
inopinatus 9y ago
Neal Stephenson's Interface (1994) has never been more relevant. "The corresponding item on the list was highlighted, a bright purple box drawn over it so that the user could see which category he was dealing with at the moment. The hundred categories and names on the list were as follows: IRRELEVANT MOUTH BREATHER 400-POUND TAB DRINKER STONE-FACED URBAN HOMEBOY BURGER-FLIPPING HISTORY MAJOR SQUIRRELLY WINNEBAGO JOCKEY BIBLE-SLINGING PORCH MONKEY ECONOMIC ROADKILL PENT-UP CORPORATE LICKSPITTLE HIGH-METABOLISM WORLD DOMINATOR MIDAMERICAN KNICKKNACK QUEEN ..."
- sudojudo 9y ago
  Yikes, one of those categories is not like the others. Seeing that you're an Aussie, you might not be aware, but folks in the US will instantly spot a nasty racial slur in your list. Because your personal and professional info is associated with this account, you should probably edit the end off the bible-slinging line. As a favor to you, I'm going to flag the comment.
  - jskopek 9y ago
    Wise of you to bring that up, but I feel you might be overplaying the slight. It's a direct quote from a book, so I'd be more angry at the author in this case. Still, good thing to point out.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - sudojudo 9y ago
      Thanks. You're correct and I overplayed it. It's clear that he's quoting the author, but racial tensions and identity politics have me running in paranoid mode these days. Forgot that this is Hacker News and not Tumblr; I don't even know where they keep the pitchforks and torches around here.
  - inopinatus 9y ago
    Upvoted - not because I agree (I would never knowingly misquote a novel) - but because you're being downvoted and I'll defend your right to point out how horrible it is. And it is horrible. Interface is a satire on the political process, and portrays data-driven political operatives as the most contemptible and cynical manipulators. The casual prejudice of pigeonholing everyone does them (and their real-world counterparts) no favours. And race and class and privilege are distinguishing characteristics of the segments in the Facebook chart.
thisisit 9y ago
I remember reading about Obama's election and the use of "big data" and "data science" to target voters: 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... The social media companies picked on that and ran with it. So, while Facebook is not exactly the paragon of ethical behavior, this is just fodder for click bait. If the same targeting had worked in someone's favor the article would have been "gave advertisers an edge over traditional advertising" or something.
- sogen 9y ago
  Check Cambridge Analytica: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/16/15657512/cambridge-analytica-trump-kushner-flynn-russia https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/16/15657512/...
  - tanilama 9y ago
    They helped Tory in this summer GE in UK, and they failed miserably.
    - sogen 9y ago
      uh? they were behind Brexit
- tanilama 9y ago
  Guess that backfires.
- lostboys67 9y ago
  I went to a talk by blue state and the main use of big data was identifying local affinity groups who could then go out and do traditional electoral work.
horsecaptin 9y ago
Remember: If you're not the customer, then you are the product.
Animats 9y ago
This idea goes back a long way. See "The 480", from 1964.[1] Karl Rove got his start doing such analysis. There's a famous picture of young Rove with a reel of computer tape. Such data used to be used to target direct mail and phone calls. It didn't help with TV and newspapers, though, and they were more important. The difference this time is that Facebook now has a big fraction of the news business. Now this stuff has real traction. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_480 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_480
pjc50 9y ago
The implication of this is that the real "filter bubble" is not the one people choose by their free association with other people, but the filters applied by the platform for advertising purposes. Your neighbours are reacting to ads, news and clickbait that you've never even seen and may not have the opportunity to see.
digitalshankar 9y ago
Reddit is different, you don't have public profile with you identity. The upvote and down vote are true opinion of people.
fapjacks 9y ago
BAM! You've been Buzzfed!

82 points by tareqak 9y ago

Techmeme summary: Alex Kantrowitz / BuzzFeed: Facebook provided political advertisers 14 targeted categories from very liberal “youthful urbanites” to very conservative “great outdoors” during 2016 election

Jun8 9y ago

Here's a WaPo summary on the legality of "the Russians" buying Facebook ads: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/09/07/did-facebook-ads-traced-to-a-russian-company-violate-u-s-election-law https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/09.... Basically, it all hinges on if the ads mention a candidate (illegal) or were worded in a vague manner (gray zone).

lostboys67 9y ago
Maybe all political advertising needs to have a named publisher like in the UK get caught promoting a candidate without stating the publisher and their election agent will get you in the election court.
- xkcd-sucks 9y ago
  "Published by Americans for a Safer Tomorrow, inc."

jparse 9y ago

All in all, this is why there is no dislike button. The entire Facebook system incentivizes division because division creates revenue. It's a perpetual loop. Let's walk through how it works: Step 1) A person posts, or shares, something incredibly divisive. Note: There is no feedback button to let the poster know the content is hateful and that broader society disapproves of it. There is also no consequence to posting it most of the time. Step 2) The content attracts likes. Since there is no dislike button, or negative feedback, any likes received makes the poster feel good. Step 3) The poster is emboldened and increases his/her frequency of posting divisive or hateful content. This attracts a following and more engagement for the original poster. The poster has no need to create inclusive content. They are incentivized to find and highlight divisive thoughts from their life because it rewards them with engagement and the Facebook system re-enforces those thoughts. Step 4) Repeat Each subsequent post creates more comments, more engagement, more passion. This is great for Facebook because it means more time on site and increased usage frequency. The handout Facebook is giving advertisers is proof of that. They are monetizing the system. Make no mistake, it is designed to work this way and they are profiting from it.

ben_jones 9y ago
While I agree with your argument I think negative comments are a form of feedback and they're omitted from your post. I wonder how people who work for Facebook feel about stuff like this signing their checks. I've long postured it only takes a steady six-figure paycheck to convince an intelligent college-educated individual to put their head in the sand.
jauer 9y ago
> Since there is no dislike button, or negative feedback, any likes received makes the poster feel good. Sure there is. Next to Like you have: Love, Laugh, Wow, Sad, Angry.
- jparse 9y ago
  That is not a dislike button. For example, you can select angry and it leaves it up to interpretation what you are angry about. Either way, most people think it is about the article you are sharing. Here is an example: Share a post about Black Lives causing a riot. Clear this is fake. Now if a reader of that post puts angry. Are they indicating the post is fake and they are angry with the original poster? Or are they now angry with Black Lives Matter because they think they caused a riot? Facebook designed it this way so that the original author of the post still gets positive feedback. There is no need to change his/her behavior. They keep posting and the engagement for Facebook keeps rolling.
  - Shish2k 9y ago
    > Are they indicating the post is fake and they are angry with the original poster? Or are they now angry with Black Lives Matter because they think they caused a riot? How is dislike any clearer?
halflings 9y ago
Facebook is private (at least most posts are). So "broader society" will not be giving feedback. YouTube is public, and has a dislike button... many "fringe" videos still have tons of likes because they are mostly viewed by people sharing the same opinions.

inopinatus 9y ago

Neal Stephenson's Interface (1994) has never been more relevant. "The corresponding item on the list was highlighted, a bright purple box drawn over it so that the user could see which category he was dealing with at the moment. The hundred categories and names on the list were as follows: IRRELEVANT MOUTH BREATHER 400-POUND TAB DRINKER STONE-FACED URBAN HOMEBOY BURGER-FLIPPING HISTORY MAJOR SQUIRRELLY WINNEBAGO JOCKEY BIBLE-SLINGING PORCH MONKEY ECONOMIC ROADKILL PENT-UP CORPORATE LICKSPITTLE HIGH-METABOLISM WORLD DOMINATOR MIDAMERICAN KNICKKNACK QUEEN ..."

sudojudo 9y ago
Yikes, one of those categories is not like the others. Seeing that you're an Aussie, you might not be aware, but folks in the US will instantly spot a nasty racial slur in your list. Because your personal and professional info is associated with this account, you should probably edit the end off the bible-slinging line. As a favor to you, I'm going to flag the comment.
- jskopek 9y ago
  Wise of you to bring that up, but I feel you might be overplaying the slight. It's a direct quote from a book, so I'd be more angry at the author in this case. Still, good thing to point out.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - sudojudo 9y ago
    Thanks. You're correct and I overplayed it. It's clear that he's quoting the author, but racial tensions and identity politics have me running in paranoid mode these days. Forgot that this is Hacker News and not Tumblr; I don't even know where they keep the pitchforks and torches around here.
- inopinatus 9y ago
  Upvoted - not because I agree (I would never knowingly misquote a novel) - but because you're being downvoted and I'll defend your right to point out how horrible it is. And it is horrible. Interface is a satire on the political process, and portrays data-driven political operatives as the most contemptible and cynical manipulators. The casual prejudice of pigeonholing everyone does them (and their real-world counterparts) no favours. And race and class and privilege are distinguishing characteristics of the segments in the Facebook chart.

thisisit 9y ago

I remember reading about Obama's election and the use of "big data" and "data science" to target voters: 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... The social media companies picked on that and ran with it. So, while Facebook is not exactly the paragon of ethical behavior, this is just fodder for click bait. If the same targeting had worked in someone's favor the article would have been "gave advertisers an edge over traditional advertising" or something.

sogen 9y ago
Check Cambridge Analytica: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/16/15657512/cambridge-analytica-trump-kushner-flynn-russia https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/16/15657512/...
- tanilama 9y ago
  They helped Tory in this summer GE in UK, and they failed miserably.
  - sogen 9y ago
    uh? they were behind Brexit
tanilama 9y ago
Guess that backfires.
lostboys67 9y ago
I went to a talk by blue state and the main use of big data was identifying local affinity groups who could then go out and do traditional electoral work.

horsecaptin 9y ago

Remember: If you're not the customer, then you are the product.

Animats 9y ago

This idea goes back a long way. See "The 480", from 1964.[1] Karl Rove got his start doing such analysis. There's a famous picture of young Rove with a reel of computer tape. Such data used to be used to target direct mail and phone calls. It didn't help with TV and newspapers, though, and they were more important. The difference this time is that Facebook now has a big fraction of the news business. Now this stuff has real traction. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_480 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_480

pjc50 9y ago

The implication of this is that the real "filter bubble" is not the one people choose by their free association with other people, but the filters applied by the platform for advertising purposes. Your neighbours are reacting to ads, news and clickbait that you've never even seen and may not have the opportunity to see.

digitalshankar 9y ago

Reddit is different, you don't have public profile with you identity. The upvote and down vote are true opinion of people.

fapjacks 9y ago

BAM! You've been Buzzfed!