4 ms·

>Is Facebook just a fancy machine for auctioning off the electorate to the highest bidder? Doesn’t the 2016 presidential election disprove this? The candidate

>Is Facebook just a fancy machine for auctioning off the electorate to the highest bidder? Doesn’t the 2016 presidential election disprove this? The candidate who spent the most lost the election.

gotocake 8y ago
Although that candidate did get a few million more votes. I’m not trying to make some bitter comment, just that if you consider Facebook as selling votes, the highest spender did get the most.
- TangoTrotFox 8y ago
  One important factoid that goes against this view is that Clinton's margin of victory in California was substantially greater than her entire margin of victory in the popular vote. The reason I mention this is because you spend where you need to spend. California was never even remotely in contention and so it's safe to say that Clinton was not spending to try to win by millions in California. In other words, it's unlikely that her spending produced the votes she was trying to 'buy'.
  - gotocake 8y ago
    That’s roughly in line with Obama’s last election in which he won CA by about 3 million votes. In the 2008 election the margin was about the same. Clinton won CA by 4 million popular votes, so I doubt the total of her 3 million excess can be explained there. It’s also, if you’ll forgive my pedantry, a factoid rather than a fact because even in states she lost you have to consider how much more she would have lost by without the ad spend. We don’t have access to the information that would allow us to make thst determination.
    - TangoTrotFox 8y ago
      I agree with you, but I don't see how this goes against what I'm saying? In 2008 Obama won California by 3 million. He won in the rest of the nation, excluding California, by 7 million. In 2016 Clinton won in California by 4 million. She lost in the rest of the country, excluding California, by a million. I completely agree that without excessive spending her margin of defeat, outside of California, would likely have been greater. But this also shows that the spending alone does not, in current times, map strongly to votes. And I hope this will continue to be a thing. In my opinion, people are overestimating the significance of the centralized internet forces, such as Facebook, and discounting the significance of decentralized internet forces - such as discussions perhaps not dissimilar to the one you and I are sharing. There's no doubt that advertising has a significant effect, but I think it's perhaps less than ever before largely because people half way around the world from one another can chat and have far more relevant conversations than any sort of 'Hi, I'm Bob. My opponent's an asshole. Vote for me!' piece, or even the more refined. 'Hi, I'm Bob. My meta-analytics indicate that you like broccoli. Omg, I do too. My opponent doesn't. He hates broccoli and all it stands for. Also, he's an asshole, like anybody who wouldn't like broccoli amirite!? Vote for me!' Even outside of the presidential consider things like Sanders. Yes at some point he was competitive in fund raising, but his success was not because of the fund raising. Rather his fund raising came as an effect, rather than a cause, of his success. And again that success was something that was driven by the decentralized and oft difficult to predict, let alone control, forces of internet communication.
  - masonic 8y ago
    Clinton's margin of victory in California was substantially greater than her entire margin of victory in the popular vote Heck, her margin in New York City alone was greater.
OnlineCourage 8y ago
No it just shows that machines do not always work.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
bilbo0s 8y ago
Facebook sells votes. But our presidential elections only count states.

>Is Facebook just a fancy machine for auctioning off the electorate to the highest bidder? Doesn’t the 2016 presidential election disprove this? The candidate who spent the most lost the election.

gotocake 8y ago

Although that candidate did get a few million more votes. I’m not trying to make some bitter comment, just that if you consider Facebook as selling votes, the highest spender did get the most.

TangoTrotFox 8y ago
One important factoid that goes against this view is that Clinton's margin of victory in California was substantially greater than her entire margin of victory in the popular vote. The reason I mention this is because you spend where you need to spend. California was never even remotely in contention and so it's safe to say that Clinton was not spending to try to win by millions in California. In other words, it's unlikely that her spending produced the votes she was trying to 'buy'.
- gotocake 8y ago
  That’s roughly in line with Obama’s last election in which he won CA by about 3 million votes. In the 2008 election the margin was about the same. Clinton won CA by 4 million popular votes, so I doubt the total of her 3 million excess can be explained there. It’s also, if you’ll forgive my pedantry, a factoid rather than a fact because even in states she lost you have to consider how much more she would have lost by without the ad spend. We don’t have access to the information that would allow us to make thst determination.
  - TangoTrotFox 8y ago
    I agree with you, but I don't see how this goes against what I'm saying? In 2008 Obama won California by 3 million. He won in the rest of the nation, excluding California, by 7 million. In 2016 Clinton won in California by 4 million. She lost in the rest of the country, excluding California, by a million. I completely agree that without excessive spending her margin of defeat, outside of California, would likely have been greater. But this also shows that the spending alone does not, in current times, map strongly to votes. And I hope this will continue to be a thing. In my opinion, people are overestimating the significance of the centralized internet forces, such as Facebook, and discounting the significance of decentralized internet forces - such as discussions perhaps not dissimilar to the one you and I are sharing. There's no doubt that advertising has a significant effect, but I think it's perhaps less than ever before largely because people half way around the world from one another can chat and have far more relevant conversations than any sort of 'Hi, I'm Bob. My opponent's an asshole. Vote for me!' piece, or even the more refined. 'Hi, I'm Bob. My meta-analytics indicate that you like broccoli. Omg, I do too. My opponent doesn't. He hates broccoli and all it stands for. Also, he's an asshole, like anybody who wouldn't like broccoli amirite!? Vote for me!' Even outside of the presidential consider things like Sanders. Yes at some point he was competitive in fund raising, but his success was not because of the fund raising. Rather his fund raising came as an effect, rather than a cause, of his success. And again that success was something that was driven by the decentralized and oft difficult to predict, let alone control, forces of internet communication.
- masonic 8y ago
  Clinton's margin of victory in California was substantially greater than her entire margin of victory in the popular vote Heck, her margin in New York City alone was greater.

OnlineCourage 8y ago

No it just shows that machines do not always work.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

bilbo0s 8y ago

Facebook sells votes. But our presidential elections only count states.