3 ms·

The obvious difference being state sponsored actors from a foreign entity weaponized this “feature.” Not sure how you’re equating the two, but it’s disingenous

The obvious difference being state sponsored actors from a foreign entity weaponized this “feature.” Not sure how you’re equating the two, but it’s disingenous.

chrisco255 8y ago
I don't care whether it's a foreign entity or a domestic one...it's dubious and not good for the future of American politics.
jimmytucson 8y ago
If the entity is uncovering a fact then what does it matter whether it's a foreign or domestic entity who uncovered it? The fact itself is what's interesting. I get that an entity could be more interested in uncovering facts about one party than another but in this particular case, the fact was that the Democratic Party was acting "unethically" in some people's eyes. If they hadn't been then it wouldn't have "influenced" people's opinions. Another way to look at it: that entity didn't annotate the emails, the content of the emails was enough to anger people. I'm not try to fork this into a flame war, I'm genuinely interested in what other users of this site think, particularly those who think differently than I do.
- lovehashbrowns 8y ago
  > If the entity is uncovering a fact then what does it matter whether it's a foreign or domestic entity who uncovered it? How's that even a legitimate question? I can list a few reasons why it matters: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Ru... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_in_the_Russian_Federation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_in_the_Russian_Fede...
citilife 8y ago
I actually would argue it doesn't matter if it's an internal or foreign actor that's doing it. The results / outcomes are effectively the same, the problem is the same. It's disingenuous to claim a feature like targeted advertising is also "weaponized". There's always been targeted propoganda, that doesn't make it a weapon. Everyone is capable of self deception and their own decisions. If you argue against that, then we probably should start debating whether or not democracy is a good idea. The problem here, is that we've gotten to a point anyone can target any person or subset of people. They don't even need to be a state actor. If we view that as bad, then we should probably research it (not just the 2016 election, but all elections).
- scrollaway 8y ago
  The point is about the wording. That this is possible at all is bad regardless of whether it's pro-democrat, pro-republican, pro-communist or whatever. But you complain people are calling it "manipulating an election". They're calling it that because of who is doing it (foreign agents) and why they are doing it (to gain control over a powerful enemy state). That is what makes it election interference and it seems very purposefully blind not to acknowledge it.

The obvious difference being state sponsored actors from a foreign entity weaponized this “feature.” Not sure how you’re equating the two, but it’s disingenous.

chrisco255 8y ago

I don't care whether it's a foreign entity or a domestic one...it's dubious and not good for the future of American politics.

jimmytucson 8y ago

If the entity is uncovering a fact then what does it matter whether it's a foreign or domestic entity who uncovered it? The fact itself is what's interesting. I get that an entity could be more interested in uncovering facts about one party than another but in this particular case, the fact was that the Democratic Party was acting "unethically" in some people's eyes. If they hadn't been then it wouldn't have "influenced" people's opinions. Another way to look at it: that entity didn't annotate the emails, the content of the emails was enough to anger people. I'm not try to fork this into a flame war, I'm genuinely interested in what other users of this site think, particularly those who think differently than I do.

lovehashbrowns 8y ago
> If the entity is uncovering a fact then what does it matter whether it's a foreign or domestic entity who uncovered it? How's that even a legitimate question? I can list a few reasons why it matters: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Ru... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_in_the_Russian_Federation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_in_the_Russian_Fede...

citilife 8y ago

I actually would argue it doesn't matter if it's an internal or foreign actor that's doing it. The results / outcomes are effectively the same, the problem is the same. It's disingenuous to claim a feature like targeted advertising is also "weaponized". There's always been targeted propoganda, that doesn't make it a weapon. Everyone is capable of self deception and their own decisions. If you argue against that, then we probably should start debating whether or not democracy is a good idea. The problem here, is that we've gotten to a point anyone can target any person or subset of people. They don't even need to be a state actor. If we view that as bad, then we should probably research it (not just the 2016 election, but all elections).

scrollaway 8y ago
The point is about the wording. That this is possible at all is bad regardless of whether it's pro-democrat, pro-republican, pro-communist or whatever. But you complain people are calling it "manipulating an election". They're calling it that because of who is doing it (foreign agents) and why they are doing it (to gain control over a powerful enemy state). That is what makes it election interference and it seems very purposefully blind not to acknowledge it.