2 ms·
And...the 2012 article doesn't actually put Facebook under a critical microscope like it is today. In fact, at the time it was viewed and covered as political g
by partiallypro 8y ago
And...the 2012 article doesn't actually put Facebook under a critical microscope like it is today. In fact, at the time it was viewed and covered as political genius. So, you sort of proved my point. Examples:
https://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/23/magazine/the-obama-campaigns-digital-masterminds-cash-in.html https://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/23/magazine/the-obama-campai...
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/feb/17/obama-campaign-digital-team https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/feb/17/obama-campaign...
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/may/14/obama-digital-campaigning-dashboard https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/may/14/obama-digital-...
- bogomipz 8y ago>"And...the 2012 article doesn't actually put Facebook under a critical microscope like it is today." Maybe reread your own comment above where you stated the concern of "increased scrutiny" and not criticality. The link is evidence of of increased media scrutiny. From seven years ago no less. Specifically it discusses FB's emerging place as a political channel. Scrutiny and criticality are orthogonal concepts.
- partiallypro 8y agoScrutiny requires criticality.