3 ms·
Folks bring up the Obama comparison... because... well... its a pretty comparable situation. I'm not so charitable towards the public. I wouldn't place any be
by SmirkingRevenge 9y ago
Folks bring up the Obama comparison... because... well... its a pretty comparable situation.
I'm not so charitable towards the public.
I wouldn't place any bets that the striking wave of outrage directed at Facebook right now isn't strictly related to the outcome. In this case, that outcome is Trump in the White-house. Not that that isn't a good reason to be outraged - but I don't think its a very principled reason.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- jrs235 9y agoPre-2016 Trump campaign, data was used to reach people and encourage voting. 2016 Trump campaign, data was used to stir up FUD and/or discourage voting.
- SmirkingRevenge 9y agoThat's a rather suspiciously self-serving and self-reassuring characterization of each scenario, that I don't think holds up with a bit of intellectual honesty. In either case, similar amounts of personal data was harvested from facebook, for whatever purposes the clients cared to use it for, to predictable results. EDIT: And that's all besides the point - the problem isn't that someone with bad intentions got ahold of data and used in a way they shouldn't have, the problem is people are just getting ahold of data they should not have - period.
- rdtsc 9y ago> 2016 Trump campaign, data was used to stir up FUD and/or discourage voting. How so? Unless they were working with the rest of the media outlets and pushing the "Trump has no chance" / "He will never be the president" story. Do you know of any such campaigns? I mostly see it as a mass media hubris. The same outlets Clinton was expecting to help her ended up undermining the election for her, because, well if Trump only has 1% of winning, why bother putting on the shoes and going out to vote.