5 ms·

Remember when they praised the Obama campaign's efficient use of tech/social-media, including targeted advertising? Why do you think this new fangled opposition

Remember when they praised the Obama campaign's efficient use of tech/social-media, including targeted advertising? Why do you think this new fangled opposition to political ad spend is timing itself right before the 2020 ramp up? Hint: it's because tech Titans and their cronies can't tolerate an opposition campaign being just as good at tech/social-media targeting. Not because of some new found puritanical, ethical hate of politics

tomnipotent 7y ago
This sounds more like a conspiracy theory. All of the "tech giants" are secretly collaborating to prevent Trump from advertising on their networks. That's much more likely than they've all just decided to juice isn't worth the squeeze and have more than enough money coming in without political ads.
- malvosenior 7y ago
  It's not a conspiracy theory to say that the vast majority of employees at the tech giants are very anti-Trump. People were openly weeping in their offices after he was elected, execs gave people time off to cope. The parent poster is correct. What was once praised as savvy is now being eliminated as an option all together as it's become useful to the other side of the political spectrum.
  - tomnipotent 7y ago
    > People were openly weeping in their offices after he was elected, execs gave people time off to cope. Same thing happened to certain classes of companies when Obama was elected, so what? > The parent poster is correct No they weren't. You don't just get to pass off an idea as fact. > praised as savvy is now being eliminated Because of bad press that's not worth the tiny revenues political ads bring in vs. everything else. Maybe they've simply made the better economic decision to avoid the revenue impact of these class of ads. Much more likely than "Tech Giants collude to deny Trump campaign access to social media advertising".
    - malvosenior 7y ago
      You keep calling it a conspiracy theory without providing any evidence that it is. It's a known fact that Obama was praised for targeted political advertising: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/feb/17/obama-digital-data-machine-facebook-election https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/feb/17/obama-digital-... It's also a fact that these very left leaning platforms are now removing the ability to do exactly what Obama was praised for. You've not disputed either of those, just called the people pointing them out childish conspiracy theorists.
      - tomnipotent 7y ago
        > You keep calling it a conspiracy theory without providing any evidence that it is That's not how it works. You need to provide actual evidence to back up your conspiracy, other than "Obama did it once" and "I have a gut feeling". How does Obama being praised for his campaign have ANYTHING to do with the motivations of staff and employees at these companies making these decisions today? > ability to do exactly what Obama was praised for Cambridge Analytica?
        malvosenior 7y ago
        If the staff of these companies was actually concerned about this issue, they wouldn't have allowed Obama to do this. It's clearly not an issue with the technique, but who is employing it. > Have you been living under a rock? Cambridge Analytica? Like I said, Obama did exactly that (from the article I posted): > "Consciously or otherwise, the individual volunteer will be injecting all the information they store publicly on their Facebook page – home location, date of birth, interests and, crucially, network of friends – directly into the central Obama database."
        tomnipotent 7y ago
        No one in 2012 knew how out-of-control the combination of social media advertising combined with politics could be, and it's absolutely disingenuous to expect people to predict the future because you have the benefit of hindsight. Obama's campaigned happened to be the 1st, and it was newsworthy. Then the next cycle happened, Facebook had more than doubled in size and this time around the combination was abused - enter Cambridge Analytica and Russia. Now the tech companies have spent days in front of the Senate & House in DC, and somehow we're surprised they've decided now of all times to call it quits? During one of the hottest political contests in recent history? What's more likely - tech giants colluded to stiff Trump and the right, or they all decided not to be a player in something so political and rather lose out on inconsequential revenues?

tomnipotent 7y ago

This sounds more like a conspiracy theory. All of the "tech giants" are secretly collaborating to prevent Trump from advertising on their networks. That's much more likely than they've all just decided to juice isn't worth the squeeze and have more than enough money coming in without political ads.

malvosenior 7y ago
It's not a conspiracy theory to say that the vast majority of employees at the tech giants are very anti-Trump. People were openly weeping in their offices after he was elected, execs gave people time off to cope. The parent poster is correct. What was once praised as savvy is now being eliminated as an option all together as it's become useful to the other side of the political spectrum.
- tomnipotent 7y ago
  > People were openly weeping in their offices after he was elected, execs gave people time off to cope. Same thing happened to certain classes of companies when Obama was elected, so what? > The parent poster is correct No they weren't. You don't just get to pass off an idea as fact. > praised as savvy is now being eliminated Because of bad press that's not worth the tiny revenues political ads bring in vs. everything else. Maybe they've simply made the better economic decision to avoid the revenue impact of these class of ads. Much more likely than "Tech Giants collude to deny Trump campaign access to social media advertising".
  - malvosenior 7y ago
    You keep calling it a conspiracy theory without providing any evidence that it is. It's a known fact that Obama was praised for targeted political advertising: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/feb/17/obama-digital-data-machine-facebook-election https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/feb/17/obama-digital-... It's also a fact that these very left leaning platforms are now removing the ability to do exactly what Obama was praised for. You've not disputed either of those, just called the people pointing them out childish conspiracy theorists.
    - tomnipotent 7y ago
      > You keep calling it a conspiracy theory without providing any evidence that it is That's not how it works. You need to provide actual evidence to back up your conspiracy, other than "Obama did it once" and "I have a gut feeling". How does Obama being praised for his campaign have ANYTHING to do with the motivations of staff and employees at these companies making these decisions today? > ability to do exactly what Obama was praised for Cambridge Analytica?
      - malvosenior 7y ago
        If the staff of these companies was actually concerned about this issue, they wouldn't have allowed Obama to do this. It's clearly not an issue with the technique, but who is employing it. > Have you been living under a rock? Cambridge Analytica? Like I said, Obama did exactly that (from the article I posted): > "Consciously or otherwise, the individual volunteer will be injecting all the information they store publicly on their Facebook page – home location, date of birth, interests and, crucially, network of friends – directly into the central Obama database."
        tomnipotent 7y ago
        No one in 2012 knew how out-of-control the combination of social media advertising combined with politics could be, and it's absolutely disingenuous to expect people to predict the future because you have the benefit of hindsight. Obama's campaigned happened to be the 1st, and it was newsworthy. Then the next cycle happened, Facebook had more than doubled in size and this time around the combination was abused - enter Cambridge Analytica and Russia. Now the tech companies have spent days in front of the Senate & House in DC, and somehow we're surprised they've decided now of all times to call it quits? During one of the hottest political contests in recent history? What's more likely - tech giants colluded to stiff Trump and the right, or they all decided not to be a player in something so political and rather lose out on inconsequential revenues?