Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Evilcart if you go back just a few years the data mining, research analysis on voter and potential voter behavior, the statistical models that were created, were legendary surrounding the Obama 08 campaign. The difference only 8 years ago was that the information the campaign pulled together was used to inform the campaign re: how to contact each potential voter "in person" via snail mail or by phone. Nowadays that information is used to inform campaigns re: how to contact each potential voter via the Internet.
Every move by a candidate during the campaign is meant to manipulate voters into voting for THEM and not the other guy. Did Clinton get Beyonce and Jay-Z to hold a concert because she liked Beyonce and Jay-Z? Did Trump call the wife of a fallen law enforcement officer because he suddenly decided that he liked cops? Did Clinton say she carries hot sauce in her purse because she likes hot sauce on her food? Did Trump quote Bible passages at a meeting of religious leaders because he suddenly found God? Do you think that every American citizen is capable of being manipulated by every opportunistic thing that both opportunistic candidates did? Some did. No doubt. But others fully understood what was at stake with this election, and were wholly engaged in the process. They understood.
The Clinton campaign mined data as well. Just Google it. Much of the information HER campaign received however, was used to tailor TV commercials. We're all tracked. We're all profiled. We're all manipulated. But it is pure speculation to suggest that Clinton would have won if she had used THIS SPECIFIC organization to worm its way into the collective brains of American citizens. She was still who she was. Her message still was what it was. Her weaknesses as a candidate still were what they were. We're all just pawns on a huge chessboard, being moved around the board by others we don't know anything about. All we can do is be aware. And fight for the continued ability and right to be free thinking American citizens.
If your thread OP was meant simply to inform, then I thank you. Every opportunity to point out pieces on the chessboard is a good thing. I'll take from your OP THAT message, and ignore the partisanship. Just as I chose to address your first paragraph ^^^^^ and ignore the second. You're not going to change my mind. I'm not going to change YOUR mind. So let's just keep it civil and try to find whatever common ground we can find. Peace.
To be fair i very clearly state that the primary concern is forward looking. With the vast improvements we are seeing ref individual profiling and the very granular access we have to reach those individuals means we are in a whole new world where you can no longer be sure why you even believe what you believe.
the move away from demographics to much more nuanced and personal profiling it is going to be very hard going forward to have free and fair elections. It is fair to allow either side to lie publicly , repeatedly and knowingly ? Have we reached the limits of free speech? I doubt Cambridge would be as effective in the UK as it can be here, because the UK does has libel laws that prevent defamation even in elections. That alone greatly limits the power of data mining as the messenger can be successfully sued with ease.
Perhaps we have reached that nexus , where free speech is limiting and distorting free elections?
Advertisements made me vote against the candidate who had to be loaded like an inert sheet of drywall into a handicapped-access van on Sept 11, 2016.
Advertisements made me vote against the candidate who violated the Federal Records Act by setting up her own private email server for the obvious purpose of circumventing future Freedom of Information Act requests.
Advertisements made me vote against the candidate who used a purported charitable foundation in a nakedly obvious influence-peddling scheme to launder campaign contributions made by foreign potentates for the purpose of purchasing future policy favors to be furnished by the Oval Office at a later date.
Advertisements made me vote against the candidate who, as Secretary of State and in violation of federal law, ignored 600 separate requests for additional security at the diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, which eventually resulted in the death of four Americans, including the Ambassador to Libya.
Advertisements made me vote against the candidate who violated every fashion law on the books by wearing hideous pants suits, floral muu-muus and Mao jackets, often simultaneously.
Ads are bad. Hillary is good.
umm if you are saying ads don't work on you, then you should be posting on Yahoo, that is a more suitable format .
I'm asking now. Which of the conspiracy theories is true?
Trump won election by using tactics from George Orwell's 1984 (your words in OP) [NOT MY WORDS YOU ARE LYING, that is simply what you inferred correctly or incorrectly ]
Putin & Russians hacked election?
Or most likely
Hillary Clinton lost election because she was a bad candidate.
Your choice.
sorry mate you don't get to define my choices, you asked a question I provided you a rock solid answer that allowed you to decide whatever you want.
My guess is you simply want to define it as binary when clearly it is not. I suggest you simply re-read my reply and put in some effort.
If you want to state that targeted advertising or propaganda constitutes the lack of a free and fair election, then you are going to delegitimize every election since before WWII. A rise in sophistication means nothing if the medium was not before criticized to any great extent.
And you think that the libs didn't use techniques that were similar enough to be indistinguishable in essence if not down to the specific technique? Get real.
Last, questioning election legitimacy based on advertising or released information simply impugns the free agency of every voting American.
You do not, nor does anyone else, have the right to do that.
Americans are not babies. They all have the right to consume and filter, for themselves, every piece of information out there. Lie or not. Because there will always be lies and exaggerations in elections seasons. This complaint amounts to "the voters liked the opposition propaganda too much, and our propaganda not enough".
I did say "apparently" but it doesn't matter if it was password, p@ssw0d, runner2016 or anything else because he willingly supplied to the individuals running the scam with his password.
Someone (could have been anyone) sent Podesta a request for his password which apparently was "password", and since the site appeared to be legitimate, he complied.
It was a classic phishing scam resulting in ten years of Podesta's e-mails being made available to WikiLeaks.
Not really a big problem except that the e-mails confirmed the behind the scenes election tampering so many, including primary opponent Bernie Sanders, had suspected.
The backlash from the revelations resulted in the forced resignation of "dirty" Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and the firing from CNN of Donna Brazil.
Meanwhile, Hillary had state secrets on a homebrew server that everyone and their ugly aunt Tilly likely hacked, but that doesn't seem to be an issue.
So the problem, as you apparently see it, isn't that Team Hillary was trying to steal an election, but that her team's efforts to steal an election were disclosed to the voting public.
Doesn't really sell in Kansas, does it?
OK, Russian intelligence hacked the election!
The real parallel here is between Ingsoc's Inner Party with all it's secrets and manipulation of the truth and the Clinton campaign and the Clinton friendly news media.
Goldstein (perhaps Assange) has betrayed the revolution by doing nothing more than revealing the truth.
To say we dodged a bullet by not electing Hillary is a huge understatement.
"As the upstart voter-profiling company Cambridge Analytica prepared to wade into the 2014 American midterm elections, it had a problem.The firm had secured a $15 million investment from Robert Mercer, the wealthy Republican donor, and wooed his political adviser, Stephen K. Bannon, with the promise of tools that could identify the personalities of American voters and influence their behavior. But it did not have the data to make its new products work. So the firm harvested private information from the Facebook profiles of more than 50 million users without their permission, according to former Cambridge employees, associates and documents, making it one of the largest data leaks in the social network’s history. The breach allowed the company to exploit the private social media activity of a huge swath of the American electorate, developing techniques that underpinned its work on President Trump’s campaign in 2016."
"Christopher Wylie, who helped found Cambridge and worked there until late 2014, said of its leaders: “Rules don’t matter for them. For them, this is a war, and it’s all fair.” “They want to fight a culture war in America,” he added. “Cambridge Analytica was supposed to be the arsenal of weapons to fight that culture war.”"
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How Trump Consultants Exploited the Facebook Data of Millions
