4 ms·

From the article: ”When the leader of a political party can be tricked in such fashion by his own officials, voters themselves stand little chance.” This even

From the article: ”When the leader of a political party can be tricked in such fashion by his own officials, voters themselves stand little chance.” This event does not support the conclusion that social media ads are effective at “tricking voters”. These ads weren’t even shown to voters. Employees simply microtargeted their boss to convince him that the ads were running. The idea that social media ads are somehow effective at brainwashing people into switching sides has been a clickbait staple among journalists the last few years, but it is wholly unproven. If they want to sell this narrative, they’ll certainly need do it more convincingly than they did here.

yawaramin 8y ago
I think it supports the conclusion very well. If you can microtarget ads at segments of voters, you can find a way to tell different types of people exactly what they want to hear. You can quite effectively prey on their fears and weaknesses, pit them against each other–divide and conquer. Facebook has long promised more visibility for users into ads, and that would go a long way to fighting this kind of trickery ... if it ever materialises.
- downandout 8y ago
  People don’t look to social media for content that changes their opinion. They look to it to confirm their already held opinions. It’s an echo chamber. Nobody is changing their opinion based on a random ad they see on Facebook. The genesis of these articles - the media’s quest to explain how it failed to manipulate our Presiential election in favor of their chosen candidate - is also based on a false premise. Russian Facebook ads didn’t get Trump elected. The choice by Democrats to run a candidate against him that much of the country disliked did.
- repolfx 8y ago
  And what makes you think you know the personal fears and weaknesses of every single voter, or that you can trivially flip votes by making ads about them? After all, in theory politicians are actually meant to implement manifestos, and if they are telling everyone different messages that'll get picked up immediately once people start debating the election down their local drinking hole. The idea that you can buy elections through advertising is a typical position of the left (and these days, by extension, of journalists). Recall the huge fuss Obama and the Democrats kicked up when campaign spending limits were removed by the Supreme Court? Obama was even talking about a constitutional amendment. Then Hillary outspent Trump 2:1 on advertising and still lost. They disproved their own thesis.
frabbit 8y ago
The downvoting of the above comment is ridiculous. There are two distinct issues: 1) ads may persuade voters to do X 2) the belief that everyone is seeing the same ads As the above comment correctly points out this story offers no evidence that #1 is taking place.

yawaramin 8y ago

I think it supports the conclusion very well. If you can microtarget ads at segments of voters, you can find a way to tell different types of people exactly what they want to hear. You can quite effectively prey on their fears and weaknesses, pit them against each other–divide and conquer. Facebook has long promised more visibility for users into ads, and that would go a long way to fighting this kind of trickery ... if it ever materialises.

downandout 8y ago
People don’t look to social media for content that changes their opinion. They look to it to confirm their already held opinions. It’s an echo chamber. Nobody is changing their opinion based on a random ad they see on Facebook. The genesis of these articles - the media’s quest to explain how it failed to manipulate our Presiential election in favor of their chosen candidate - is also based on a false premise. Russian Facebook ads didn’t get Trump elected. The choice by Democrats to run a candidate against him that much of the country disliked did.
repolfx 8y ago
And what makes you think you know the personal fears and weaknesses of every single voter, or that you can trivially flip votes by making ads about them? After all, in theory politicians are actually meant to implement manifestos, and if they are telling everyone different messages that'll get picked up immediately once people start debating the election down their local drinking hole. The idea that you can buy elections through advertising is a typical position of the left (and these days, by extension, of journalists). Recall the huge fuss Obama and the Democrats kicked up when campaign spending limits were removed by the Supreme Court? Obama was even talking about a constitutional amendment. Then Hillary outspent Trump 2:1 on advertising and still lost. They disproved their own thesis.

frabbit 8y ago

The downvoting of the above comment is ridiculous. There are two distinct issues: 1) ads may persuade voters to do X 2) the belief that everyone is seeing the same ads As the above comment correctly points out this story offers no evidence that #1 is taking place.