9 ms·

> From the UK it looks like this. Trump used data, Facebook helped, politicians are upset that Trump was helped by the Facebook platform (conveniently forgettin

by cubano 9y ago

> From the UK it looks like this. Trump used data, Facebook helped, politicians are upset that Trump was helped by the Facebook platform (conveniently forgetting that every campaign before that has used large amounts of Facebook user data), let's punish Facebook. Bingo we have a winner. That's exactly what this is really about...nothing more. Our media and political masters are still in deep shock that Trump usurped them and stole the most coveted position from them as an outsider. Heads must roll! Talk about not caring about it "users"...almost half the population of the US voted for Trump, and these elites couldn't care less about them or the message they are obviously trying to send.

bnolsen 9y ago
Pretty funny that in the preceding years they gave for free the same data to the Obama administration. Then they sell it for the Trump campaign and all hell breaks loose. Maybe facebook should have given that away for free too? It's pretty obvious there's a huge double standard going on here that's totally being ignored. I find it funny at how willing the left is to self destruct without thinking.
- runamok 9y ago
  Who gave the data (what data?) for free? Facebook? Cambridge Analytical? Iiuc the whole brouhaha comes from 2 facts. 1. An old app (some survey app) sold it's data against fb's terms of services to an outside group. 2. Fb's access rights used to Grant access to the info not only of the user of the app but also that user's friends and thus ballooned from 700k users to 50+ million. Now as far as allowing political campaigns to target people for all kinds of criteria I am sure that is still happening and how all advertising works...
danShumway 9y ago
I'm tempted to agree. I despise Trump and I despise the dishonest, manipulative way he ran his campaign, but some of the recent coverage smacks to me of people just coming up with more excuses to get around the fact that a lot of people voted for him. We have a habit of being kind of condescending towards rural voters, and the trend towards, 'you didn't have any agency, you were just manipulated into this' is uncomfortable to me.
- justherefortart 9y ago
  The fact that more people voted for the opponent should say something as well. 2.9 million more votes is a big fucking deal IMO> https://www.cnn.com/2016/12/21/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-popular-vote-final-count/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2016/12/21/politics/donald-trump-hillary...
  - danShumway 9y ago
    I feel like Gerrymandering is a separate conversation. I'm sympathetic to people who feel like Hillary should have won based on popular vote, but even if Hillary had won, that's still 46% of the population who voted against her, and I still think it's dangerous to chock a number like that up to "well, the Russians meddled and Facebook is evil." A lot of people consciously chose to vote for Trump, not because they were mind controlled, but because they actually thought he was the best candidate.
    - justherefortart 9y ago
      I live in Oklahoma. People vote against her here because she's on the other team and 2+ decades of Republicans smearing her. 46% against concerns you more than 48% against? Lmfao. Oklahoma is a subsidized state full of ignorant people for the most part. I live in an "educated" town and its abysmal here just the same. So when propaganda/marketing to people that don't even understand the basics, Hillary gonna take UR guns and murder them babbies, sells quite well. All the while everything is reverting to the ownership class. I'm well off so it will all be fine for me, but for the working middle-class and poor. It's only going to get worse, and voting for Republicans for the past 4 decades has clearly shown that to be the case.
      - danShumway 9y ago
        I didn't expect Trump to win - I thought that people who were giving Hillary an 80% chance were not giving her enough credit. So... yeah. 46% for is more surprising to me than 48% against. I honestly expected closer to 60% against. My takeaway from election night was, "Oh, I really don't understand American demographics very well."
c0nducktr 9y ago
> ...almost half the population of the US voted for Trump Well that's obviously not true. Edit: I understand what I hope you're trying to stay, that almost have of the people who cast votes in the US Presidential election voted for Trump, but when using statistics in an argument, it's important to correctly represent the data. Implying that half of the US voted for Trump is dishonest, even when 'the US' is defined as "eligible voters".
wyck 9y ago
Exactly, because the DNC (Hillary, Obama) used the same data techniques. The head of Hillary's election marketing even tweeted about this and was a catalyst for the recent news, but not a peep from the media. It was the Russians....lol.
CoryG89 9y ago
> ...almost half the population of the US voted for Trump Ahem.. almost half the voting population voted for Trump. That is no where near half the actual population. Perhaps being gullible enough to believe your vote will matter overlaps largely with gullible enough to vote for Trump.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
gkfasdfasdf 9y ago
> ...almost half the population fo the US voted for Trump Not even close to true. Approx 63 million voted for Trump, which is 25% of the US voting population of 250 million [0], and only 20% of the overall US population. Also...more people voted for his main opponent. [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout_in_the_United_States_presidential_elections#cite_ref-electproject.org_9-0 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout_in_the_United_St...
sjg007 9y ago
Trump was bankrolled by a couple of elites as well as being an elite himself if you believe he's a billionaire. This is just a changing of the guard. Same thing happened with the tea party. In fact Trump hijacked the tea party. Removing the CA profiles won't stop the same electioneering that happened. What really is the problem are the trolls and the Russian/foreign money.

by cubano 9y ago

bnolsen 9y ago

Pretty funny that in the preceding years they gave for free the same data to the Obama administration. Then they sell it for the Trump campaign and all hell breaks loose. Maybe facebook should have given that away for free too? It's pretty obvious there's a huge double standard going on here that's totally being ignored. I find it funny at how willing the left is to self destruct without thinking.

runamok 9y ago
Who gave the data (what data?) for free? Facebook? Cambridge Analytical? Iiuc the whole brouhaha comes from 2 facts. 1. An old app (some survey app) sold it's data against fb's terms of services to an outside group. 2. Fb's access rights used to Grant access to the info not only of the user of the app but also that user's friends and thus ballooned from 700k users to 50+ million. Now as far as allowing political campaigns to target people for all kinds of criteria I am sure that is still happening and how all advertising works...

danShumway 9y ago

I'm tempted to agree. I despise Trump and I despise the dishonest, manipulative way he ran his campaign, but some of the recent coverage smacks to me of people just coming up with more excuses to get around the fact that a lot of people voted for him. We have a habit of being kind of condescending towards rural voters, and the trend towards, 'you didn't have any agency, you were just manipulated into this' is uncomfortable to me.

justherefortart 9y ago
The fact that more people voted for the opponent should say something as well. 2.9 million more votes is a big fucking deal IMO> https://www.cnn.com/2016/12/21/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-popular-vote-final-count/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2016/12/21/politics/donald-trump-hillary...
- danShumway 9y ago
  I feel like Gerrymandering is a separate conversation. I'm sympathetic to people who feel like Hillary should have won based on popular vote, but even if Hillary had won, that's still 46% of the population who voted against her, and I still think it's dangerous to chock a number like that up to "well, the Russians meddled and Facebook is evil." A lot of people consciously chose to vote for Trump, not because they were mind controlled, but because they actually thought he was the best candidate.
  - justherefortart 9y ago
    I live in Oklahoma. People vote against her here because she's on the other team and 2+ decades of Republicans smearing her. 46% against concerns you more than 48% against? Lmfao. Oklahoma is a subsidized state full of ignorant people for the most part. I live in an "educated" town and its abysmal here just the same. So when propaganda/marketing to people that don't even understand the basics, Hillary gonna take UR guns and murder them babbies, sells quite well. All the while everything is reverting to the ownership class. I'm well off so it will all be fine for me, but for the working middle-class and poor. It's only going to get worse, and voting for Republicans for the past 4 decades has clearly shown that to be the case.
    - danShumway 9y ago
      I didn't expect Trump to win - I thought that people who were giving Hillary an 80% chance were not giving her enough credit. So... yeah. 46% for is more surprising to me than 48% against. I honestly expected closer to 60% against. My takeaway from election night was, "Oh, I really don't understand American demographics very well."

c0nducktr 9y ago

> ...almost half the population of the US voted for Trump Well that's obviously not true. Edit: I understand what I hope you're trying to stay, that almost have of the people who cast votes in the US Presidential election voted for Trump, but when using statistics in an argument, it's important to correctly represent the data. Implying that half of the US voted for Trump is dishonest, even when 'the US' is defined as "eligible voters".

wyck 9y ago

Exactly, because the DNC (Hillary, Obama) used the same data techniques. The head of Hillary's election marketing even tweeted about this and was a catalyst for the recent news, but not a peep from the media. It was the Russians....lol.

CoryG89 9y ago

> ...almost half the population of the US voted for Trump Ahem.. almost half the voting population voted for Trump. That is no where near half the actual population. Perhaps being gullible enough to believe your vote will matter overlaps largely with gullible enough to vote for Trump.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

gkfasdfasdf 9y ago

> ...almost half the population fo the US voted for Trump Not even close to true. Approx 63 million voted for Trump, which is 25% of the US voting population of 250 million [0], and only 20% of the overall US population. Also...more people voted for his main opponent. [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout_in_the_United_States_presidential_elections#cite_ref-electproject.org_9-0 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout_in_the_United_St...

sjg007 9y ago

Trump was bankrolled by a couple of elites as well as being an elite himself if you believe he's a billionaire. This is just a changing of the guard. Same thing happened with the tea party. In fact Trump hijacked the tea party. Removing the CA profiles won't stop the same electioneering that happened. What really is the problem are the trolls and the Russian/foreign money.