Analyst: Cambridge Analytica, Palantir and Quid Helped Trump Win Election (2017)
medium.com
medium.com
Is it really so hard to believe that people didn’t like Hillary and didn’t think that another 8 years of the same would be good for them?
Second, I do think you have a point. To some degree these kinds of tactics have been employed before, but a) perhaps not as maliciously as this time, and b) I believe the landscape of 'influence' changed with the arrival of phenomena like Facebook as mobile phones, and perhaps it just took a while to properly 'weaponise' them.
On the one hand, I feel that this whole kerfuffle is a bit too hysterical considering, as you say, these companies existed before 2016. But on the other hand, many people worried about these things before and it's only now that the concerns are getting (hopefully) the attention they deserve. That's a good thing.
So while I think you have a point, ultimately I don't agree with your conclusion. I do not think it was 'just' that people didn't like Hillary and somehow happened to choose against their own interest.
This is exactly the flawed takeaway from this election.
Mainstream voters kept telling us that they are not optimistic about their economic future, they kept complaining about their jobs going overseas, they kept complaining about immigration and our response was: ”it is better for you”.
We lost 2016 and will lose 2020.
Political advertising has existed for a long time. In news papers, radio, tv, and on social media. Most advertisers and political ad agencies will tell you that pschographic targeting isn’t useful at all. The only thing that works is raise money or “get out the vote” campaigns.
Yes it's unthinkable for a particularly vocal portion of the electorate that rabidly supported her and Clinton herself. Hence the non-stop "X rigged the system for Trump ... it's the only explanation!" rather than holistically looking at the causes of defeat.
The simplest example of this is Clinton not visiting a swing state like Wisconsin at all during the election. Compare that to Trump holding ten rallies there[1]. Is it really a shocker that a State chose the candidate that actually went to their doors, spoke to them, and listened to them?
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rallies_for_the_Donald...
Hillary quite openly stated that she didn't care about the so-called "flyover" states (the "deplorables"), why is anyone surprised that in return, they voted against her?
Where the most people are, actually interacting with folks from different backgrounds and places, she won.
You’re spreading the same lies that were bought and paid for by people like CA. It’s no surprise you’re arguing against the effectiveness of these people: you’re the poster child for their victims.
The only similarity is they both used social media.
I don't know if I'll ever get that trust back, (and maybe I shouldn't, skepticism of what you read on the internet is good), but it makes it pretty clear to me that the original promise of the internet will never be realized with the internet in its current form. The reality is that you can't trust any information gleaned from a forum or discussion website. Even something like HN, which holds itself out to be a little better than most in terms of elevating the discussion, is not immune to professional manipulation.
(Which is not to say what they did was not wrong, just that I doubt it was effective)
I could easily believe that CA's data set provided valuable information not available otherwise about people's political views (if it recorded what people had read and 'liked'), but I'm very sceptical that there was any particularly clever analysis going on.
The rah rah USA USA USA bullshit of my youth took a long time to get deprogrammed from my brain. Marketing/propaganda toward youths is even more insidious and effective over a lifetime. Although, facebook/twitter/etc have really upped the game for adults.
Perhaps all the attention from this news coverage (almost all negative) gave Trump the edge.
Perhaps the average person realized that something is fishy about all this coordinated negative coverage and looked for alternative sources.
Perhaps his message was powerful and important enough for most people that they could ignore the negative media assault.
Either way, I think it's time to stop looking for scapegoats and move on.
This is how you know you’re a conspiracy theorist: when multiple sources report the same thing, you assume it’s a sign of scary collusion instead of the simpler fact that it’s the truth.
It seems like maybe we should try to understand why the message was so effective?
The fact that Reagan - one of those destructive and incidiously evil influences on modern US politics - isn’t villified but in fact bizarrely lionized by a large section of the population should be proof of that enough.