4 ms·

> it was to suppress and divert turnout of the opponent's supporters. Surely you're aware that political mudslinging ads have been a thing since like, forever,

> it was to suppress and divert turnout of the opponent's supporters. Surely you're aware that political mudslinging ads have been a thing since like, forever, right? > finding black voters and highlighting Hillary's 25-year-ago comment on "superpredators" Maybe don't say such crazy things, don't have to worry about someone calling you out on it. I don't recall her campaign ever addressing this issue, I don't recall any sit down where the media pressed her on the issue.

toss1 7y ago
Yes, I'm very well aware that this has been a thing since, like, forever. A fine example was in the 2000 South Carolina primary when Karl Rove working for Bush, distributed door-to-door flyers just ahead of the primary that implied that John McCain had an illegitimate black baby from an affair. McCain had actually adopted a child from Bangladesh. McCain lost the primary. Similarly with the HRC issue. It is one thing to have it in the news - or not, quite another to specifically harvest by 280 point tested psychological profiles the people who will be most receptive to changing their behavior by that argument, then silently targeting them in personalized advert campaigns that cannot even be discovered (FB doesn't make public the ads & targeting). This is about scalability - just like speeding tickets have been a think since, like, forever, but the cops have to be there, or at least post a camera. This is more like if they started handing out tickets via tracking GPS, for every second you exceed the limit. Same law/situation, scalable technology, entirely different implications.
- mirimir 7y ago
  I've worked as a canvasser, and organized door-to-door campaigns. One of the key CA products was an app for canvassers, telling them about each home on their route. So they knew which homes to ignore, and what message to deliver for the ones worth hitting. And that both saved time, and arguably increased effectiveness.
  - toss1 7y ago
    excellent info - thanks!
- kordlessagain 7y ago
  All this is doing is leading to the looming amplification attributed to social media and hyper-connectivity. Tipping something over when it is unstable is a decent strategy, but chances increase they'll get something squished at some point in the near future.
- linuxftw 7y ago
  > It is one thing to have it in the news - or not If by "news" you mean gate-keeping establishments owned by very large conglomerates. There's very little local independent news for the average person. There is only politicized news. It's up to every individual to be their own arbiter of truth and morality. It's my opinion that both major parties in the US lie and deceive, so the things you're referring to have no special merit with me. Remember when Donna Brazile leaked the debate questions to Hillary? Hillary got up on that stage and lied to your faces. Manipulating voters is manipulating voters, the method is immaterial. The only solution is to let the system buckle under it's own weight. You, as an individual, have to admit to yourself and others that the system is rigged and full of liars, criminals, and cronies regardless of side.
  - toss1 7y ago
    This is a fine example of the mistake of false equivalence, and its consequences. Of course one can find infractions from anyone. As Cardinal Richelieu famously said: "If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him." Getting a debate question in advance is nowhere near the scale of engaging with and changing the country's policy in favor of foreign enemies - yet you use this example to equate it and conclude that we should crash the system. The result of crashing the system is NOT any kind of improvement. It is anarchy, which is quickly filled in with goverment by warlords -- that is not a situation under which anyone wants to live. Yes, the system will always have room for improvement, and yes there will always be at least cheating at the edges. That does not mean that we should make the PErfect the enemy of the Good. We must distinguish between minor cheating and corruption tantamount to treason. We must remain fully involved -- as Jefferson said, "the price of liberty is eternal vigilance", and build, maintain, and improve the system of checks and balances. Expecting people to be perfect is a fools errand. The key is to build and maintain a system where the power is distributed - different concentrations of power checked and balanced by others -- so that when people inevitably cheat, the effect is limited, yet the society can still coordinate enough power to accomplish great things.
    - linuxftw 7y ago

toss1 7y ago

Yes, I'm very well aware that this has been a thing since, like, forever. A fine example was in the 2000 South Carolina primary when Karl Rove working for Bush, distributed door-to-door flyers just ahead of the primary that implied that John McCain had an illegitimate black baby from an affair. McCain had actually adopted a child from Bangladesh. McCain lost the primary. Similarly with the HRC issue. It is one thing to have it in the news - or not, quite another to specifically harvest by 280 point tested psychological profiles the people who will be most receptive to changing their behavior by that argument, then silently targeting them in personalized advert campaigns that cannot even be discovered (FB doesn't make public the ads & targeting). This is about scalability - just like speeding tickets have been a think since, like, forever, but the cops have to be there, or at least post a camera. This is more like if they started handing out tickets via tracking GPS, for every second you exceed the limit. Same law/situation, scalable technology, entirely different implications.

mirimir 7y ago
I've worked as a canvasser, and organized door-to-door campaigns. One of the key CA products was an app for canvassers, telling them about each home on their route. So they knew which homes to ignore, and what message to deliver for the ones worth hitting. And that both saved time, and arguably increased effectiveness.
- toss1 7y ago
  excellent info - thanks!
kordlessagain 7y ago
All this is doing is leading to the looming amplification attributed to social media and hyper-connectivity. Tipping something over when it is unstable is a decent strategy, but chances increase they'll get something squished at some point in the near future.
linuxftw 7y ago
> It is one thing to have it in the news - or not If by "news" you mean gate-keeping establishments owned by very large conglomerates. There's very little local independent news for the average person. There is only politicized news. It's up to every individual to be their own arbiter of truth and morality. It's my opinion that both major parties in the US lie and deceive, so the things you're referring to have no special merit with me. Remember when Donna Brazile leaked the debate questions to Hillary? Hillary got up on that stage and lied to your faces. Manipulating voters is manipulating voters, the method is immaterial. The only solution is to let the system buckle under it's own weight. You, as an individual, have to admit to yourself and others that the system is rigged and full of liars, criminals, and cronies regardless of side.
- toss1 7y ago
  This is a fine example of the mistake of false equivalence, and its consequences. Of course one can find infractions from anyone. As Cardinal Richelieu famously said: "If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him." Getting a debate question in advance is nowhere near the scale of engaging with and changing the country's policy in favor of foreign enemies - yet you use this example to equate it and conclude that we should crash the system. The result of crashing the system is NOT any kind of improvement. It is anarchy, which is quickly filled in with goverment by warlords -- that is not a situation under which anyone wants to live. Yes, the system will always have room for improvement, and yes there will always be at least cheating at the edges. That does not mean that we should make the PErfect the enemy of the Good. We must distinguish between minor cheating and corruption tantamount to treason. We must remain fully involved -- as Jefferson said, "the price of liberty is eternal vigilance", and build, maintain, and improve the system of checks and balances. Expecting people to be perfect is a fools errand. The key is to build and maintain a system where the power is distributed - different concentrations of power checked and balanced by others -- so that when people inevitably cheat, the effect is limited, yet the society can still coordinate enough power to accomplish great things.
  - linuxftw 7y ago