11 ms·

Edit: This is an honest question -- just wondering the difference in tactics and have received one helpful comment so far. --- When Obama won in '08 and '12,

Edit: This is an honest question -- just wondering the difference in tactics and have received one helpful comment so far. --- When Obama won in '08 and '12, his team of data "nerds" were lauded as geniuses. Examples: How Obama Tapped Into Social Networks’ Power https://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/10/business/media/10carr.html https://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/10/business/media/10carr.htm... When the Nerds Go Marching In https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/11/when-the-nerds-go-marching-in/265325/ https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/11/when-... Can someone distinguish between what Obama and Trump were doing when it comes to digital campaigning?

throwaway5752 7y ago
Yes, easily. Microtargeting and related campaigns can be distinguished entirely by the content of they present. Microtargeting is just a technique that can be used for good or bad. In the case of Obama's campaign, nobody has accused them of misleading or false information. Brexit and the the US 2016 election was almost defined by misleading or false information (as you can see by lingering Pizzagate, QAnon, and Bengazi conspiracy theories). Amused at the downvotes. It is true. You can not like Clinton and not vote for her, or Obama. I don't judge and people can disagree. But the amount of false content in those campaigns (which came to be known as "fake news" after the fact) was unprecedent, was aided/spreaded by foreign sources, and was largely on partisan lines. Evidence includes https://news.stanford.edu/2017/01/18/stanford-study-examines-fake-news-2016-presidential-election/ https://news.stanford.edu/2017/01/18/stanford-study-examines... among countless others). It would be just as wrong if, say, the Sander campaign did the same thing.
- munk-a 7y ago
  I do agree that Obama's campaign used this much "more ethically" but I didn't then and still don't approve of micotargeting or campaign advertising in general. I really want to see the US get to publicly funded elections because full public funding would cost not even a sliver of what elections current run and provide a more even playing field for candidates.
  - RcouF1uZ4gsC 7y ago
    > I really want to see the US get to publicly funded elections because full public funding would cost not even a sliver of what elections current run and provide a more even playing field for candidates. I would be in favor of that if we also blocked media coverage of the election other than strictly objective dates and times style coverage. No opinion sections in newspapers, no “John Oliver” type shows talking about politics, no Fox and Friends, etc. Otherwise, you give tremendous power to the owners of media companies and then all the previous funds that were raised will go towards buying or starting media companies so they can give your candidate favorable coverage.
    - runarberg 7y ago
      While true—the USA does indeed need election media reforms—these seem like a minute problems next to other issues that the US election system has, including voter suppression/exclusion, non-participation, gerrymandering, as well as all the problems that follows first past the post, single preferential voting with nth degree representation. If we only fixed the media coverage of the election while still not allowing Puerto Ricans to vote in the Primaries, and still allow super governmental agencies (like the DNC) to conspire with candidates, I don’t think a lot would change.
      - Ill_ban_myself 7y ago
        Maybe you’re one of today’s 10000 https://xkcd.com/1053/ https://xkcd.com/1053/ But it’s been widely accepted since West Wing first aired that corruption in America’s electoral system (and politics generally) can be traced back to campaign finance reform as patient-0. Representatives are constantly campaigning and raising money for the next election and the rest follows from freeing them to actually do their job.
        runarberg 7y ago
        So your saying that any attempt to reform the election system in America is futile? Edit: I’m not sure which reforms you are referring to, but I bet that corruption existed in American politics before that, even before election financing was a thing. Corruption is a serious problem in democracies that have serious and strict regulations on campaign financing. A prime example here is Israel.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- jtbayly 7y ago
  So in other words, there is nothing wrong with paying for data from CA or others?
  - throwaway5752 7y ago
    Depends on how the data was acquired, wouldn't you say? Wasn't there some problems in the news about how CA acquired their FB metadata that was confirmed by one of their contractors in Canada? I think the better question is "is paying Facebook to generate models and run advertising campaigns on those identified by those models right?"
    - shadowgovt 7y ago
      The problem was they broke Facebook's TOS. ... and Facebook thinks that's a problem because it's using Facebook to compete with Facebook, not for other moral reasons. They were breaking the part of the TOS where app developers were banned from trying to reconstitute the social network dataset outside of Facebook via secondary signal.
  - harikb 7y ago
    Is there any evidence Obama campaign made people install apps in the pretext of a poll and harvested FB data? Don't confuse using "FB advertising platform" with "stealing FB data outside of their terms and selling it" If CA was not involved and Trump campaign merely used FB advertising, we wouldn't be arguing about this particular point. Still bad on FB, but that is a different matter.
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 7y ago
  > Microtargeting and related campaigns can be distinguished entirely by the content of they present. So, campaigns I agree with getting their message out is great, but campaigns I disagree with can’t use these technologies.
  - throwaway5752 7y ago
    No, everyone is going to use these techniques. But using arms commercial entities to spread libel (so close to the election it cannot be acted upon, or from sources outside of jurisdiction) or using information obtained illegally crosses a line. I don't care what country or what party. Beyond specific candidates and policies, this is more important because it undermines the integrity of the process. I think the number of people in jail as a result of the 2016 elections is a pretty good indication of how far from normal this all was.
    - legolas2412 7y ago
      So does criticism of Trump and unfounded theories about him being controlled by Russians also libel?
      - throwaway5752 7y ago
        "Timeline of Trump business activities related to Russia" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_projects_of_Donald_Trump_in_Russia#Timeline_of_Trump_business_activities_related_to_Russia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_projects_of_Donald_Tr... "Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (2019–2020)" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_investigations_into_Trump_and_Russia_(2019%E2%80%932020) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_investigations_int... I have no interest in accusing anyone of anything but will point to timelines of documented activity that are hosted on a website widely considered to be a reliable source of information. I think those accusations are distinct from "Pizzagate" in ways that are obvious.
        cheese4242 7y ago
- hajile 7y ago
  Cambridge Analytical would have been fine if they hadn't been spreading "fake news"? I'm sorry, but I think this kind of practice should be banned no matter if it's true, false, political, commercial, non-profit, or whatever.
  - throwaway5752 7y ago
    Aside from data collection questions, yes. I think it's distasteful, but I think it's inevitable. The same techniques are used by grocery stores to send people coupons. This isn't cutting edge.
  - runarberg 7y ago
    Sure, microtargeting is bad and should be illegal, but that is not what the parent is asking about. Microtargeting is a fact, and it is immensely powerful. If you don’t use it for your campaign in 2020 you will loose. So you should understand why well meaning candidates use it. That said there is still a world of difference using it to spread your agenda, vs. using it to spread false information in order to spread your agenda. While microtargeting is a fact and not forbidden by national law, we need to understand why people use it and universally condemn it when people use it to spread lies.
- cheese4242 7y ago
  The amount of false and misleading information spread about Trump has been staggering though. Trying to pretend this only goes one way is a joke. Is there even any proof that these micro-targeting campaigns swayed the election in anyway? Has anyone stopped to consider that maybe enough people just preferred Trump over Hillary and the election outcome was not the result of a some facebook ads?
  - dariusj18 7y ago
    I only have circumstantial evidence of seeing vulnerable family members slide into rabid fanaticism, rambling (nonsensically so) off obviously fake news stories as if they even understood the context. Falling pray to this type of propaganda is not a particularly conservative vs liberal thing from my perspective, it's just that the Conservatives have weaponized misinformation in an organized manner.
    - cheese4242 7y ago
      I don't see any evidence that the right has "weaponized misinformation in an organized manner" anymore so than the left has.
      - dariusj18 7y ago
        Honestly, I have a hard time finding any organized left-wing disinformation. Perhaps that's the evidence of left-wing disinformation? Could you point me to some resources so that I might have a better understanding?
        cheese4242 7y ago
        The whole "Trump is controlled by Russia" thing, for starters.
        dariusj18 7y ago
        This doesn't seem like misinformation to me. Certainly there are people who believe Trump is somehow directly controlled by Russia, but it doesn't seem to be an organized effort. Whereas there is plenty of evidence that Trump was aided by Russia and has many financial ties to Russian oligarchs. This credibly opens up a wealth of possible ways that he could be compromised. It's one of the reason politicians attempt to avoid the appearance of impropriety.

throwaway5752 7y ago

Yes, easily. Microtargeting and related campaigns can be distinguished entirely by the content of they present. Microtargeting is just a technique that can be used for good or bad. In the case of Obama's campaign, nobody has accused them of misleading or false information. Brexit and the the US 2016 election was almost defined by misleading or false information (as you can see by lingering Pizzagate, QAnon, and Bengazi conspiracy theories). Amused at the downvotes. It is true. You can not like Clinton and not vote for her, or Obama. I don't judge and people can disagree. But the amount of false content in those campaigns (which came to be known as "fake news" after the fact) was unprecedent, was aided/spreaded by foreign sources, and was largely on partisan lines. Evidence includes https://news.stanford.edu/2017/01/18/stanford-study-examines-fake-news-2016-presidential-election/ https://news.stanford.edu/2017/01/18/stanford-study-examines... among countless others). It would be just as wrong if, say, the Sander campaign did the same thing.

munk-a 7y ago
I do agree that Obama's campaign used this much "more ethically" but I didn't then and still don't approve of micotargeting or campaign advertising in general. I really want to see the US get to publicly funded elections because full public funding would cost not even a sliver of what elections current run and provide a more even playing field for candidates.
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 7y ago
  > I really want to see the US get to publicly funded elections because full public funding would cost not even a sliver of what elections current run and provide a more even playing field for candidates. I would be in favor of that if we also blocked media coverage of the election other than strictly objective dates and times style coverage. No opinion sections in newspapers, no “John Oliver” type shows talking about politics, no Fox and Friends, etc. Otherwise, you give tremendous power to the owners of media companies and then all the previous funds that were raised will go towards buying or starting media companies so they can give your candidate favorable coverage.
  - runarberg 7y ago
    While true—the USA does indeed need election media reforms—these seem like a minute problems next to other issues that the US election system has, including voter suppression/exclusion, non-participation, gerrymandering, as well as all the problems that follows first past the post, single preferential voting with nth degree representation. If we only fixed the media coverage of the election while still not allowing Puerto Ricans to vote in the Primaries, and still allow super governmental agencies (like the DNC) to conspire with candidates, I don’t think a lot would change.
    - Ill_ban_myself 7y ago
      Maybe you’re one of today’s 10000 https://xkcd.com/1053/ https://xkcd.com/1053/ But it’s been widely accepted since West Wing first aired that corruption in America’s electoral system (and politics generally) can be traced back to campaign finance reform as patient-0. Representatives are constantly campaigning and raising money for the next election and the rest follows from freeing them to actually do their job.
      - runarberg 7y ago
        So your saying that any attempt to reform the election system in America is futile? Edit: I’m not sure which reforms you are referring to, but I bet that corruption existed in American politics before that, even before election financing was a thing. Corruption is a serious problem in democracies that have serious and strict regulations on campaign financing. A prime example here is Israel.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
jtbayly 7y ago
So in other words, there is nothing wrong with paying for data from CA or others?
- throwaway5752 7y ago
  Depends on how the data was acquired, wouldn't you say? Wasn't there some problems in the news about how CA acquired their FB metadata that was confirmed by one of their contractors in Canada? I think the better question is "is paying Facebook to generate models and run advertising campaigns on those identified by those models right?"
  - shadowgovt 7y ago
    The problem was they broke Facebook's TOS. ... and Facebook thinks that's a problem because it's using Facebook to compete with Facebook, not for other moral reasons. They were breaking the part of the TOS where app developers were banned from trying to reconstitute the social network dataset outside of Facebook via secondary signal.
- harikb 7y ago
  Is there any evidence Obama campaign made people install apps in the pretext of a poll and harvested FB data? Don't confuse using "FB advertising platform" with "stealing FB data outside of their terms and selling it" If CA was not involved and Trump campaign merely used FB advertising, we wouldn't be arguing about this particular point. Still bad on FB, but that is a different matter.
RcouF1uZ4gsC 7y ago
> Microtargeting and related campaigns can be distinguished entirely by the content of they present. So, campaigns I agree with getting their message out is great, but campaigns I disagree with can’t use these technologies.
- throwaway5752 7y ago
  No, everyone is going to use these techniques. But using arms commercial entities to spread libel (so close to the election it cannot be acted upon, or from sources outside of jurisdiction) or using information obtained illegally crosses a line. I don't care what country or what party. Beyond specific candidates and policies, this is more important because it undermines the integrity of the process. I think the number of people in jail as a result of the 2016 elections is a pretty good indication of how far from normal this all was.
  - legolas2412 7y ago
    So does criticism of Trump and unfounded theories about him being controlled by Russians also libel?
    - throwaway5752 7y ago
      "Timeline of Trump business activities related to Russia" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_projects_of_Donald_Trump_in_Russia#Timeline_of_Trump_business_activities_related_to_Russia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_projects_of_Donald_Tr... "Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (2019–2020)" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_investigations_into_Trump_and_Russia_(2019%E2%80%932020) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_investigations_int... I have no interest in accusing anyone of anything but will point to timelines of documented activity that are hosted on a website widely considered to be a reliable source of information. I think those accusations are distinct from "Pizzagate" in ways that are obvious.
      - cheese4242 7y ago
hajile 7y ago
Cambridge Analytical would have been fine if they hadn't been spreading "fake news"? I'm sorry, but I think this kind of practice should be banned no matter if it's true, false, political, commercial, non-profit, or whatever.
- throwaway5752 7y ago
  Aside from data collection questions, yes. I think it's distasteful, but I think it's inevitable. The same techniques are used by grocery stores to send people coupons. This isn't cutting edge.
- runarberg 7y ago
  Sure, microtargeting is bad and should be illegal, but that is not what the parent is asking about. Microtargeting is a fact, and it is immensely powerful. If you don’t use it for your campaign in 2020 you will loose. So you should understand why well meaning candidates use it. That said there is still a world of difference using it to spread your agenda, vs. using it to spread false information in order to spread your agenda. While microtargeting is a fact and not forbidden by national law, we need to understand why people use it and universally condemn it when people use it to spread lies.
cheese4242 7y ago
The amount of false and misleading information spread about Trump has been staggering though. Trying to pretend this only goes one way is a joke. Is there even any proof that these micro-targeting campaigns swayed the election in anyway? Has anyone stopped to consider that maybe enough people just preferred Trump over Hillary and the election outcome was not the result of a some facebook ads?
- dariusj18 7y ago
  I only have circumstantial evidence of seeing vulnerable family members slide into rabid fanaticism, rambling (nonsensically so) off obviously fake news stories as if they even understood the context. Falling pray to this type of propaganda is not a particularly conservative vs liberal thing from my perspective, it's just that the Conservatives have weaponized misinformation in an organized manner.
  - cheese4242 7y ago
    I don't see any evidence that the right has "weaponized misinformation in an organized manner" anymore so than the left has.
    - dariusj18 7y ago
      Honestly, I have a hard time finding any organized left-wing disinformation. Perhaps that's the evidence of left-wing disinformation? Could you point me to some resources so that I might have a better understanding?
      - cheese4242 7y ago
        The whole "Trump is controlled by Russia" thing, for starters.
        dariusj18 7y ago
        This doesn't seem like misinformation to me. Certainly there are people who believe Trump is somehow directly controlled by Russia, but it doesn't seem to be an organized effort. Whereas there is plenty of evidence that Trump was aided by Russia and has many financial ties to Russian oligarchs. This credibly opens up a wealth of possible ways that he could be compromised. It's one of the reason politicians attempt to avoid the appearance of impropriety.