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.