4 ms·
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 t
by 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 agoThe 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.