4 ms·

I don't think the comment you're responding to was made in good faith https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

DanielBMarkham 9y ago
Maybe so. I try to assume positive intent. Many times I end up looking like somebody who can't take a joke, but it's extremely difficult to sort out nuance by reading a brief sentence or two.
- 52-6F-62 9y ago
  I think the effort at sincerity is a worthwhile one, so good on you. Popular irony has so circled back on itself that it’s nearly lost all meaning. It seems like a waste of time, because if it isn’t funny then it’s only purpose is to humiliate or politicize.
nerdponx 9y ago
I should have made it clear in my comment that I did not have political intentions. The Obama campaign innovated the use of social media data in elections. I wanted to know if the EFF had anything to say about it at the time. That's it.
- zaksoup 9y ago
  appreciate your genuine followup. As dang said, given that this exact comment has been made, more or less verbatim, as intentional whataboutism it's become my default assumption. A frustrating part of whataboutism is that it works so well because of good-faith contributors still being able to cause the same derailment/distraction that a cleverly placed bad-faith comment can.
  - Natsu 9y ago
    It's part of why I hate seeing that as a dismissal, it seems to only contribute to the damage rather than limit it. Anyhow, back on the original question, I honestly don't remember the question of Obama's data mining getting much attention at all. There were a handful of laudatory articles, but most of the focus was on how Obama outmaneuvered Hillary via strong electoral strategies, rather than voter targeting. It is somewhat interesting that Hillary's losses both look very similar in those regards, though. So it was noticed on some level, but it just didn't get much scrutiny that I can recall.
    - zaksoup 9y ago
      I disagree. Saying "this is off-topic/derailing" whether or not it's genuine is the only preventative measure. You can say "this is whataboutism, ask this elsewhere" and still engage with OP as if they were acting in good faith.
      - DanielBMarkham 9y ago
        Yes. The trick is to identify what something looks like and then assume positive intent and carry on -- as I did in my post. For the record, I shared several Obama/data stories with friends, specifically mentioning how this was the sign of a really bad thing. (Not the details of what they did, the concept of using deep personal data and friend networks as a way to monitor and persuade voters.) I am especially concerned that the public can't seem to focus on this problem unless there are clearly set up good guys, bad guys, and some kind of simplistic emotionally-manipulative narrative. So, for instance, the current narrative is foreign powers using FB in a way most users never expected to (perhaps) deeply influence a U.S. election. For many news consumers, that's got a bunch of cartoon figures acting almost like villains in a movie. Much more concerning to me is the fact that data, once collected, can go and do anything. Being too much for any one person to understand, we rely on programming to do things with it. In effect, we are creating systems that we ourselves do not understand. So how could we understand the downstream effects? For every Hollywood Standard Movie Plot news story, how many other bad downstream effects are happening that we don't know and might never figure out? I know this sounds a little bit like arguing from ignorance, but my point is that these are systems about which we cannot reason. So Zuckerberg may have a noble cause and be on a mission to connect the world so that it can be a better place. In the process the things he created could end up killing millions. And it might be a hundred years before we figure it out, if ever. (Likewise, he may actually cause more good than harm in the world -- and 20 years from now somebody steals the data and uses it to start a war killing tens of millions. Is that Zuckerberg's fault? With something like, it's not simply a matter of "stealing". If I were creating and collecting H-bombs in my basement and somebody broke in, the crime involved is not simply "theft". Something much worse is going on.)

DanielBMarkham 9y ago

Maybe so. I try to assume positive intent. Many times I end up looking like somebody who can't take a joke, but it's extremely difficult to sort out nuance by reading a brief sentence or two.

52-6F-62 9y ago
I think the effort at sincerity is a worthwhile one, so good on you. Popular irony has so circled back on itself that it’s nearly lost all meaning. It seems like a waste of time, because if it isn’t funny then it’s only purpose is to humiliate or politicize.

nerdponx 9y ago

I should have made it clear in my comment that I did not have political intentions. The Obama campaign innovated the use of social media data in elections. I wanted to know if the EFF had anything to say about it at the time. That's it.

zaksoup 9y ago
appreciate your genuine followup. As dang said, given that this exact comment has been made, more or less verbatim, as intentional whataboutism it's become my default assumption. A frustrating part of whataboutism is that it works so well because of good-faith contributors still being able to cause the same derailment/distraction that a cleverly placed bad-faith comment can.
- Natsu 9y ago
  It's part of why I hate seeing that as a dismissal, it seems to only contribute to the damage rather than limit it. Anyhow, back on the original question, I honestly don't remember the question of Obama's data mining getting much attention at all. There were a handful of laudatory articles, but most of the focus was on how Obama outmaneuvered Hillary via strong electoral strategies, rather than voter targeting. It is somewhat interesting that Hillary's losses both look very similar in those regards, though. So it was noticed on some level, but it just didn't get much scrutiny that I can recall.
  - zaksoup 9y ago
    I disagree. Saying "this is off-topic/derailing" whether or not it's genuine is the only preventative measure. You can say "this is whataboutism, ask this elsewhere" and still engage with OP as if they were acting in good faith.
    - DanielBMarkham 9y ago
      Yes. The trick is to identify what something looks like and then assume positive intent and carry on -- as I did in my post. For the record, I shared several Obama/data stories with friends, specifically mentioning how this was the sign of a really bad thing. (Not the details of what they did, the concept of using deep personal data and friend networks as a way to monitor and persuade voters.) I am especially concerned that the public can't seem to focus on this problem unless there are clearly set up good guys, bad guys, and some kind of simplistic emotionally-manipulative narrative. So, for instance, the current narrative is foreign powers using FB in a way most users never expected to (perhaps) deeply influence a U.S. election. For many news consumers, that's got a bunch of cartoon figures acting almost like villains in a movie. Much more concerning to me is the fact that data, once collected, can go and do anything. Being too much for any one person to understand, we rely on programming to do things with it. In effect, we are creating systems that we ourselves do not understand. So how could we understand the downstream effects? For every Hollywood Standard Movie Plot news story, how many other bad downstream effects are happening that we don't know and might never figure out? I know this sounds a little bit like arguing from ignorance, but my point is that these are systems about which we cannot reason. So Zuckerberg may have a noble cause and be on a mission to connect the world so that it can be a better place. In the process the things he created could end up killing millions. And it might be a hundred years before we figure it out, if ever. (Likewise, he may actually cause more good than harm in the world -- and 20 years from now somebody steals the data and uses it to start a war killing tens of millions. Is that Zuckerberg's fault? With something like, it's not simply a matter of "stealing". If I were creating and collecting H-bombs in my basement and somebody broke in, the crime involved is not simply "theft". Something much worse is going on.)