[flagged]
The parent poster is correct. What was once praised as savvy is now being eliminated as an option all together as it's become useful to the other side of the political spectrum.
Same thing happened to certain classes of companies when Obama was elected, so what?
> The parent poster is correct
No they weren't. You don't just get to pass off an idea as fact.
> praised as savvy is now being eliminated
Because of bad press that's not worth the tiny revenues political ads bring in vs. everything else. Maybe they've simply made the better economic decision to avoid the revenue impact of these class of ads. Much more likely than "Tech Giants collude to deny Trump campaign access to social media advertising".
If you have better information or know more of the truth than other commenters, it's important to present that in a form which readers can respect and learn from. Otherwise you end up discrediting the very truth you're advocating for, leaving us all worse off.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/feb/17/obama-digital-...
It's also a fact that these very left leaning platforms are now removing the ability to do exactly what Obama was praised for.
You've not disputed either of those, just called the people pointing them out childish conspiracy theorists.
The emphasis of reporting on the targetting as opposed to the worse moral dodginess confuses me even from a cynical "assume jealousy from old media" perspective. I only have vague guesses of incompetence for not emphasizing the even worse parts or not being their target audience.
> "Consciously or otherwise, the individual volunteer will be injecting all the information they store publicly on their Facebook page – home location, date of birth, interests and, crucially, network of friends – directly into the central Obama database.
That's literally the thing people are upset that Cambridge Analytica did.