3 ms·

"Trump won in part because his Internet ground game was better." It really wasn't though. Trump had one of the most poorly managed campaigns of every kind in

by jariel 7y ago

"Trump won in part because his Internet ground game was better." It really wasn't though. Trump had one of the most poorly managed campaigns of every kind in history. It was mostly just him and his Tweets. He didn't have some giant, coordination 'on the ground' or 'tech' operation. In a manner of speaking, it was highly 'authentic' however absurd he is in reality, it wasn't any kind of 'tech savvy operation'. If anything, Trump disrupted the notion that these 'well oiled machines' win. Hillary inherited Obama's pretty good infrastructure, and all of the goodwill of tech people across the land and still lost. I think it's fair for Bloomberg to want to run an ad campaign, but I think the amount he donated should be public and subject to regulation, just like anything else. And of course, same for everyone else. I wonder if Twitter and FB could literally attach 'fact check' addendums to every tweet from someone in political office. Here's me thinking it might make a difference in Trumpland, alas, it probably wouldn't.

threeseed 7y ago
Might want to look into Cambridge Analytica: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/mar/23/leaked-cambridge-analyticas-blueprint-for-trump-victory https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/mar/23/leaked-cambr... It was pretty sophisticated and they obviously had access to a lot of Facebook data with which to microtarget people.
- jariel 7y ago
  No - Cambridge et. al. had little effect on the outcome of the election - their execs even knew this and they completely oversold their capabilities; and the story was widely overblown. (FYI I was personally involved with FB at the time of these major dealings, in a similar scenario, but not Cambridge). Neither really did the Russians. The Trump campaign was run mostly by people lacking political experience, and their technical operations were scant. It was literally Trump family (his son in law etc.) giving him a lot of his most direct advice. For example, how to handle the fallout from the p*y grabbing scandal came from Kushner - not a political operative. It's hard I guess for some people to swallow that Trump won on his platform of outrage, rather than some secret, sophisticated and back-handed GOP operation, but that's the stark reality of his populism.

by jariel 7y ago

threeseed 7y ago

Might want to look into Cambridge Analytica: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/mar/23/leaked-cambridge-analyticas-blueprint-for-trump-victory https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/mar/23/leaked-cambr... It was pretty sophisticated and they obviously had access to a lot of Facebook data with which to microtarget people.

jariel 7y ago
No - Cambridge et. al. had little effect on the outcome of the election - their execs even knew this and they completely oversold their capabilities; and the story was widely overblown. (FYI I was personally involved with FB at the time of these major dealings, in a similar scenario, but not Cambridge). Neither really did the Russians. The Trump campaign was run mostly by people lacking political experience, and their technical operations were scant. It was literally Trump family (his son in law etc.) giving him a lot of his most direct advice. For example, how to handle the fallout from the p*y grabbing scandal came from Kushner - not a political operative. It's hard I guess for some people to swallow that Trump won on his platform of outrage, rather than some secret, sophisticated and back-handed GOP operation, but that's the stark reality of his populism.