4 ms·

> I remember when the Obama campaign hired data scientists and used targeted social networking tools to pursuade voters who were on the fence and it was heralde

> I remember when the Obama campaign hired data scientists and used targeted social networking tools to pursuade voters who were on the fence and it was heralded as brilliant and the future of politics. If you go back to 2008 election, the media was praising Obama as the first social media president. Remember how well obama used youtube, myspace, facebook, reddit and the burgeoning social space during his election? It's strange how the media is now attacking the social media space they loved so much because trump won the election. > Why is any of this news? I think it's because the media and the democrats and a large segment of the elites need something to blame for trump's win. They don't want to blame hillary or themselves for the loss, so they attack social media. During the 2016 election, Trump was complaining about foreign interference in the elections. And Obama stated there was no foreigner interference and that Trump was whining because he was losing in the polls. Back then, the traditional media was backing obama and mocking trump. Now that trump has won, the traditional media is the one pushing the foreign interference narrative. But I guess it is all conjecture. But ever since trump won the election, there has been a relentless propaganda campaign against social media by the establishment. You can't go a day without seeing a propaganda piece on traditional or social media about how bad social media is.

noelwelsh 9y ago
There are actual reasons to be worried about this kind of thing: - The advertisements were not overt ("fake news") - It raises the barrier of entry to the political process - Filter bubble effects Or you can believe a story about "elites" and "biased media".
- zombieprocesses 9y ago
  > There are actual reasons to be worried about this kind of thing: I suppose. Why weren't people worried about this during obama's campaign? > - The advertisements were not overt ("fake news") - It raises the barrier of entry to the political process - Filter bubble effects If filter bubble effects are a problem, then we should be looking into traditional media, not social media. I'd say there is more of a filter bubble issues in CNN, NYTimes, WashingtonPost, Foxnews, etc than in social media. When nearly 100% of the largest media organizations are endorsing one candidate and/or espousing one type of ideology, maybe we should be looking at that. > Or you can believe a story about "elites" and "biased media". It's not a matter of believing. It's a matter of fact. Foxnews and the right wing were also whining about social media when obama won. Now it's the media and the left wing whining about social media because trump won. The only difference is that the leftwing has a much greater media presence. It's so funny how both sides are the same. When it looked like trump was losing, he was blaming foreign interference and biased media and fake news. And the media/leftwing was mocking him for being paranoid and a sore loser. Now that trump won, it's the media/leftwing whining about foreign interference and biased social media and fake news. The hypocrisy displayed by every side is rather disheartening.
  - noelwelsh 9y ago
    1. Obama's use of social media was reported. 2. Why is whatever Obama did relevant to this story? Do two wrongs make a right? 3. Where in the linked article does the journalist inject their own opinion? I couldn't find any instances. The opinions came from the interview subjects, and are reported by the journalist as they should be.
evedawned 9y ago
Using Facebook to raise money, organize locally, fight smear campaigns and get out the vote is vastly different than harvesting data to build a surveillance machine
tensor 9y ago
If you had read the article, you would have seen that it is the elites who are running these operations. The "liberals" are not the ones who are the elites, it's the ones with money funding this sort of thing. It very clearly names the contributors, I suggest reading it. There is still no evidence that 2008 had any foreign influence. The tactics used in 2008 did not include the sort of misinformation information warfare now being conducted. In contrast, in Brexit and Trump's wins this article is claiming that there is conclusive foreign interference. Regarding the establishment, the only propaganda campaigns I can see being waged are against the mainstream news (the ongoing fake news propaganda) and against the tech companies who I suppose are "new money" and not in with the oil and finance czars funding this sort of thing. The article is really interesting, you should read it. It basically suggests that democracy has largely failed in the age of information warfare. Targeted campaigns by rich elites and foreign governments can now influence votes and psychology on a massive scale. It's no longer about "my side and their side." All of us are on the losing side here.

noelwelsh 9y ago

There are actual reasons to be worried about this kind of thing: - The advertisements were not overt ("fake news") - It raises the barrier of entry to the political process - Filter bubble effects Or you can believe a story about "elites" and "biased media".

zombieprocesses 9y ago
> There are actual reasons to be worried about this kind of thing: I suppose. Why weren't people worried about this during obama's campaign? > - The advertisements were not overt ("fake news") - It raises the barrier of entry to the political process - Filter bubble effects If filter bubble effects are a problem, then we should be looking into traditional media, not social media. I'd say there is more of a filter bubble issues in CNN, NYTimes, WashingtonPost, Foxnews, etc than in social media. When nearly 100% of the largest media organizations are endorsing one candidate and/or espousing one type of ideology, maybe we should be looking at that. > Or you can believe a story about "elites" and "biased media". It's not a matter of believing. It's a matter of fact. Foxnews and the right wing were also whining about social media when obama won. Now it's the media and the left wing whining about social media because trump won. The only difference is that the leftwing has a much greater media presence. It's so funny how both sides are the same. When it looked like trump was losing, he was blaming foreign interference and biased media and fake news. And the media/leftwing was mocking him for being paranoid and a sore loser. Now that trump won, it's the media/leftwing whining about foreign interference and biased social media and fake news. The hypocrisy displayed by every side is rather disheartening.
- noelwelsh 9y ago
  1. Obama's use of social media was reported. 2. Why is whatever Obama did relevant to this story? Do two wrongs make a right? 3. Where in the linked article does the journalist inject their own opinion? I couldn't find any instances. The opinions came from the interview subjects, and are reported by the journalist as they should be.

evedawned 9y ago

Using Facebook to raise money, organize locally, fight smear campaigns and get out the vote is vastly different than harvesting data to build a surveillance machine

tensor 9y ago

If you had read the article, you would have seen that it is the elites who are running these operations. The "liberals" are not the ones who are the elites, it's the ones with money funding this sort of thing. It very clearly names the contributors, I suggest reading it. There is still no evidence that 2008 had any foreign influence. The tactics used in 2008 did not include the sort of misinformation information warfare now being conducted. In contrast, in Brexit and Trump's wins this article is claiming that there is conclusive foreign interference. Regarding the establishment, the only propaganda campaigns I can see being waged are against the mainstream news (the ongoing fake news propaganda) and against the tech companies who I suppose are "new money" and not in with the oil and finance czars funding this sort of thing. The article is really interesting, you should read it. It basically suggests that democracy has largely failed in the age of information warfare. Targeted campaigns by rich elites and foreign governments can now influence votes and psychology on a massive scale. It's no longer about "my side and their side." All of us are on the losing side here.