Sure, the Obama and Clinton campaigns used social media and astroturfing. And they developed and targeted their stuff based on psychological profiling. However, as I understand it, their stuff was targeted only in traditional ways. Based on lists from various sources. Some of those lists were based on website signups, and even posting history and so on. But they generally weren't very granular.
Basically, Cambridge Analytica took the behaviorally targeted ad approach that's taken over the Internet, and applied it to political campaigns. So they're doing psychological profiling at the individual level. They targeted likely Clinton and Sanders voters with messages that discouraged voting. They targeted likely Trump voters with messages that bolstered support and encouraged voting. Messages in ads. In Facebook and Twitter posts by agents and bots. Telephone calls. Physical visits by canvassers, who carried phones with apps that provided real time access to individual user profiles.
That was new tech!
But of course, now everyone will be using it. If they can afford it, anyway. And what does that portend for democracy? Nothing good, I'd argue.
LOL, we do know from Podesta emails, that Clinton campaign colluded with Google, Facebook, Twitter directly. Clinton got help from inside of these companies. Don't tell us your nonsense.
Your use of the word "collusion" and list of sites appears intended to imply that the Clinton campaign was as criminal, or more criminal, than the Trump campaign which itself is accused of "collusion" with Russia. You even use italics to emphasize how much worse the implied dirty connections must be between the Clintons and these companies.
What laws, specifically, do you believe the Clinton campaign broke with their "collusion" and in what way was the Clinton campaign's social media strategy intended to deceive?
And for bonus points, why does this only, specifically, implicate Clinton, the Democrats and the left in wrongdoing, but not Trump, the Republicans or the right?
Comments
Sure, the Obama and Clinton campaigns used social media and astroturfing. And they developed and targeted their stuff based on psychological profiling. However, as I understand it, their stuff was targeted only in traditional ways. Based on lists from various sources. Some of those lists were based on website signups, and even posting history and so on. But they generally weren't very granular.
Basically, Cambridge Analytica took the behaviorally targeted ad approach that's taken over the Internet, and applied it to political campaigns. So they're doing psychological profiling at the individual level. They targeted likely Clinton and Sanders voters with messages that discouraged voting. They targeted likely Trump voters with messages that bolstered support and encouraged voting. Messages in ads. In Facebook and Twitter posts by agents and bots. Telephone calls. Physical visits by canvassers, who carried phones with apps that provided real time access to individual user profiles.
That was new tech!
But of course, now everyone will be using it. If they can afford it, anyway. And what does that portend for democracy? Nothing good, I'd argue.
LOL, we do know from Podesta emails, that Clinton campaign colluded with Google, Facebook, Twitter directly. Clinton got help from inside of these companies. Don't tell us your nonsense.
Your use of the word "collusion" and list of sites appears intended to imply that the Clinton campaign was as criminal, or more criminal, than the Trump campaign which itself is accused of "collusion" with Russia. You even use italics to emphasize how much worse the implied dirty connections must be between the Clintons and these companies.
What laws, specifically, do you believe the Clinton campaign broke with their "collusion" and in what way was the Clinton campaign's social media strategy intended to deceive?
And for bonus points, why does this only, specifically, implicate Clinton, the Democrats and the left in wrongdoing, but not Trump, the Republicans or the right?