4 ms·

I feel like a company named "Shadow" funded by "Acronym" doesn't instill confidence.

skat20phys 7y ago
For me, this whole thing goes in the category of "what the @#$ were they thinking?" I'm not sure if I should interpret it as a isolated case of misjudgment, evidence of poor organizational features, overinterpreting the significance of this by outsiders (the Iowa caucuses are notoriously fuzzy, which is kinda the point of them, so maybe the party saw this as an appropriate test case?), technological naivete, or what.
- t-writescode 7y ago
  Exactly. Digitizing even the caucus voting steps, after what happened in Georgia, the 2016 DNC and all other voting controversies, why they would use an app to manage votes - especially one by “Shadow, sponsored by Acronym” is ... tone deaf.
peac3 7y ago
I think whats more alarming, is that if you read either Shadow or Acronym's websites is that they are primarily based on an ideological "Progressive" position. Is this what anyone wants the future of politics. Shadowy opaque companies running an arms race to win elections.
- saeranv 7y ago
  What's wrong with them being ideologically progressive? This is tech developed for the Democratic Party, of course they're going to be progressive.
  - inkeddeveloper 7y ago
    Not sure how tech and progressive politics interact; handling of data is another issue but that's not the tech side IMO.
- csb6 7y ago
  > they are primarily based on an ideological "Progressive" position Doubtful, considering many members of the moderate Democratic establishment were involved or associated with these companies, including former advisers and strategists of the Clinton campaign, which was definitely not progressive. Buttigieg, a moderate, and his campaign have also worked with these companies. So I think it’s misleading to call them “progressive”; it would be more accurate to say “moderate” or “establishment”.
acheron 7y ago
The founder was last seen stroking his Persian cat.

For me, this whole thing goes in the category of "what the @#$ were they thinking?" I'm not sure if I should interpret it as a isolated case of misjudgment, evidence of poor organizational features, overinterpreting the significance of this by outsiders (the Iowa caucuses are notoriously fuzzy, which is kinda the point of them, so maybe the party saw this as an appropriate test case?), technological naivete, or what.

t-writescode 7y ago
Exactly. Digitizing even the caucus voting steps, after what happened in Georgia, the 2016 DNC and all other voting controversies, why they would use an app to manage votes - especially one by “Shadow, sponsored by Acronym” is ... tone deaf.

peac3 7y ago

I think whats more alarming, is that if you read either Shadow or Acronym's websites is that they are primarily based on an ideological "Progressive" position. Is this what anyone wants the future of politics. Shadowy opaque companies running an arms race to win elections.

saeranv 7y ago
What's wrong with them being ideologically progressive? This is tech developed for the Democratic Party, of course they're going to be progressive.
- inkeddeveloper 7y ago
  Not sure how tech and progressive politics interact; handling of data is another issue but that's not the tech side IMO.
csb6 7y ago
> they are primarily based on an ideological "Progressive" position Doubtful, considering many members of the moderate Democratic establishment were involved or associated with these companies, including former advisers and strategists of the Clinton campaign, which was definitely not progressive. Buttigieg, a moderate, and his campaign have also worked with these companies. So I think it’s misleading to call them “progressive”; it would be more accurate to say “moderate” or “establishment”.

acheron 7y ago

The founder was last seen stroking his Persian cat.