Page 189 of 189 FirstFirst ... 89139179187188189
Results 2,821 to 2,834 of 2834

Thread: US Presidential Election 2016

  1. #2821
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,880

    Default Re: US Presidential Election 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by pluralist View Post
    This post from the Jackpine Radicals forum is I think spot on:

    https://jackpineradicals.com/boards/...-impeachmentt/
    I may be unfair to the Jackpinesters, dissapointed Sandernistas. The link you give doesn't give that post, but something different. And an apology to the readership for an unspecified "major screwup." Maybe that post was the screwup?

    -AMH-

  2. #2822
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,467

    Default Re: US Presidential Election 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by A Marxist Historian View Post
    I may be unfair to the Jackpinesters, dissapointed Sandernistas. The link you give doesn't give that post, but something different. And an apology to the readership for an unspecified "major screwup." Maybe that post was the screwup?

    -AMH-
    The post I was quoting is indeed that link, scroll down to the discussion following the opening post, and the post from 'senz' at 6:41pm on May 14 is the one I was quoting from.

    The screw-up they are talking about seems to be a temporary site crash. Apparently some of the posters on there were developing conspiracy theories that the site crash was nefarious because some of them had been discussing a Fox news report regarding the unsolved murder of the DNC official last year. (The Fox News report claimed the DNC official had been sharing information with Wikileaks immediately before his murder, but the source is a private investigator of, according to most, dubious credibility).
    "If you go far enough to either extreme of the political spectrum, Communist or fascist, you'll find hard-eyed men with guns who believe that anybody who doesn't think as they do should be incarcerated or exterminated. " - Jim Garrison, Former DA, New Orleans.

  3. #2823
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,880

    Default Re: US Presidential Election 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by pluralist View Post
    The post I was quoting is indeed that link, scroll down to the discussion following the opening post, and the post from 'senz' at 6:41pm on May 14 is the one I was quoting from.

    The screw-up they are talking about seems to be a temporary site crash. Apparently some of the posters on there were developing conspiracy theories that the site crash was nefarious because some of them had been discussing a Fox news report regarding the unsolved murder of the DNC official last year. (The Fox News report claimed the DNC official had been sharing information with Wikileaks immediately before his murder, but the source is a private investigator of, according to most, dubious credibility).
    Ah. Got it.

    The investigator's reliability is questionable, but so is the "family spokesman" who allegedly delivered a denial from the family, that was pretty obviously written by him not the family. Him being a Democratic Party operative.

    Wikileaks itself, after offering a $20,000 reward for info on the murder of Rich, currently, to use the classic spy game phrase, is refusing to "confirm or deny" the allegation.

    Definitely needs further investigation.

    BTW, I have a personal friend who knew Gavin McFedyan, the alleged channel between Rich and Wikileaks, back in the day. A longtime left activist in America with a very honorable history. His death, unlike that of Rich, was not mysterious. Cancer, last fall, after the leaks did or did not happen.

    -AMH-

  4. #2824
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    5,333

    Default Re: US Presidential Election 2016

    Below is my read of the day from The NY Review of Books (a couple of weeks ahead of schedule).
    This is a major cut and paste (half the article) but i am not sure you can access it and I want to make a record outside the journal's server... I am moving the entire piece into my blog as well.
    RNY

    --

    How He Used Facebook to Win
    Sue Halpern

    June 8, 2017 Issue

    Not long after Donald Trump’s surprising presidential victory, an article published in the Swiss weekly Das Magazin, and reprinted online in English by Vice, began churning through the Internet. While pundits were dissecting the collapse of Hillary Clinton’s campaign, the journalists for Das Magazin, Hannes Grassegger and Mikael Krogerus, pointed to an entirely different explanation—the work of Cambridge Analytica, a data science firm created by a British company with deep ties to the British and American defense industries.

    According to Grassegger and Krogerus, Cambridge Analytica had used psychological data culled from Facebook, paired with vast amounts of consumer information purchased from data-mining companies, to develop algorithms that were supposedly able to identify the psychological makeup of every voter in the American electorate. The company then developed political messages tailored to appeal to the emotions of each one. As the New York Times reporters Nicholas Confessore and Danny Hakim described it:

    A voter deemed neurotic might be shown a gun-rights commercial featuring burglars breaking into a home, rather than a defense of the Second Amendment; political ads warning of the dangers posed by the Islamic State could be targeted directly at voters prone to anxiety….

    Even more troubling was the underhanded way in which Cambridge Analytica appeared to have obtained its information. Using an Amazon site called Mechanical Turk, the company paid one hundred thousand people in the United States a dollar or two to fill out an online survey. But in order to receive payment, those people were also required to download an app that gave Cambridge Analytica access to the profiles of their unwitting Facebook friends. These profiles included their Facebook “likes” and their own contact lists.

    According to the investigative reporter Mattathias Schwartz, writing in The Intercept, a further 185,000 people were recruited from an unnamed data company, to gain access to another 30 million Facebook profiles. Again, none of these 30 million people knew their data were being harvested and analyzed for the benefit of an American political campaign.

    Facebook did turn out to be essential to Trump’s victory, but not in the way Grassegger, Krogerus, and Schwartz suggest. Though there is little doubt that Cambridge Analytica exploited members of the social network, Facebook’s real influence came from the campaign’s strategic and perfectly legal use of Facebook’s suite of marketing tools. (It should be noted that internal Facebook documents leaked in early May show that Facebook itself has been mining users’ emotional states and sharing that information with advertisers.)

    After the initial alarm that an obscure data firm might have wormed its way into the American psyche deeply enough to deliver the election to Trump, critics began to question what Alexander Nix, the head of Cambridge Analytica, called the firm’s “secret sauce,” the algorithms it used to predict a voter’s psychological profile, what is known as “psychographics.” Confessore and Hakim’s article about the firm, which appeared on the front page of the Times, quoted numerous consultants, working for both parties, who were dismissive of the firm’s claims. The mathematician Cathy O’Neil, in a commentary for Bloomberg, called Cambridge Analytica’s secret sauce “just more ketchup.” Using psychological traits to craft appeals to voters, she wrote, wasn’t anything new—every candidate was doing it.

    For decades, in fact, campaigns have been using and refining “microtargeting” techniques, looking at religious affiliations, buying habits, demographic traits, voting histories, educational attainment, magazine subscriptions, and the like, parsing the electorate in order to understand which values and issues are driving which voters. For a few election cycles starting at the turn of the century, the Republicans had the advantage, developing a database called Voter Vault that allowed party operatives to understand voters in an increasingly nuanced way. During the 2004 presidential campaign, for example, the Bush team surveyed a large sample of these voters to assess their attitudes and behaviors, and sorted them into thirty groups, each with similar interests, lifestyles, ideologies, and affinities. It then placed every other voter into one of these groups and developed messaging intended to appeal to each one.

    By 2008, however, the microtargeting advantage had shifted to the Democrats, who had developed their own enormous, dissectable database of voters called VoteBuilder, run by the Democratic National Committee, and others run by for-profit companies that had been created to support the party’s candidates. One of these, Catalist, boasts a national database of 240 million people of voting age, with information on each one drawn from voting rolls, the census, and other public records, as well as commercial data covering “hundreds of fields, including household attributes, purchasing and investment profiles, donation behavior, occupational information, recreational interests, and engagement with civic and community groups.” In 2008 and 2012, the Democrats also had more sophisticated models predicting how people with certain attributes might vote.

    In the course of the 2016 election, the Trump campaign ended up relying on three voter databases: the one supplied by Cambridge Analytica, with its 5,000 data points on 220 million Americans including, according to its website, personality profiles on all of them; the RNC’s enhanced Voter Vault, which claims to have more than 300 terabytes of data, including 7,700,545,385 microtargeting data points on nearly 200 million voters; and its own custom-designed one, called Project Alamo, culled in part from the millions of small donors to the campaign and e-mail addresses gathered at rallies, from sales of campaign merchandise, and even from text messages sent to the campaign. Eventually, Project Alamo also came to include data from the other two databases.

    A principal force behind these various strategies was Brad Parscale, who served as the digital director of the Trump campaign from the primaries through the general election and who in the late spring of 2016 hired Cambridge Analytica as part of this effort. Parscale, who works out of San Antonio, had designed websites for Trump Wineries and other Trump enterprises. Through that work he became friends with Eric Trump, Donald Trump’s son, and Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law and adviser, who Parscale says is like a brother to him.

    Further binding these family ties, Parscale’s marketing and design firm, Giles-Parscale, recently hired Eric Trump’s wife, Lara, to work on Donald Trump’s 2020 reelection campaign. “My loyalty is to the family,” Parscale told the journalists Joshua Green and Sasha Issenberg, whose Bloomberg article “Inside the Trump Bunker, with Days to Go,” on the campaign’s digital strategy, turned out to be the most prescient piece written about Trump’s stunning upset.

    In the early phase of the primaries, Parscale launched Trump’s digital operation by buying $2 million in Facebook ads—his entire budget at the time. He then uploaded all known Trump supporters into the Facebook advertising platform and, using a Facebook tool called Custom Audiences from Customer Lists, matched actual supporters with their virtual doppelgangers and then, using another Facebook tool, parsed them by race, ethnicity, gender, location, and other identities and affinities. From there he used Facebook’s Lookalike Audiences tool to find people with interests and qualities similar to those of his original cohort and developed ads based on those characteristics, which he tested using Facebook’s Brand Lift surveys. He was just getting started. Eventually, Parscale’s shop was reportedly spending $70 million a month on digital advertising, most of it on Facebook. (Facebook and other online venues also netted Trump at least $250 million in donations.)

    While it may not have created individual messages for every voter, the Trump campaign used Facebook’s vast reach, relatively low cost, and rapid turnaround to test tens of thousands and sometimes hundreds of thousands of different campaign ads. According to Issie Lapowsky of Wired, speaking with Gary Coby, director of advertising at the Republican National Committee and a member of Trump’s digital team:

    On any given day…the campaign was running 40,000 to 50,000 variants of its ads, testing how they performed in different formats, with subtitles and without, and static versus video, among other small differences. On the day of the third presidential debate in October, the team ran 175,000 variations. Coby calls this approach “A/B testing on steroids.”


    And this was just Facebook. The campaign also placed ads on other social media, including Twitter and Snapchat, and ran sponsored content on Politico. According to one estimate by a campaign insider, the Trump team spent “in the high eight figures just on persuasion.” Remarkably, none of this money was used on ads created from Cambridge Analytica’s questionably obtained Facebook data.

    Not long after touting the edge it gave the Trump campaign, Cambridge Analytica began walking back its initial claim that psychological targeting was crucial to Trump’s victory. “I don’t want to break your heart; we actually didn’t do any psychographics with the Trump campaign,” Matt Oczkowski, Cambridge Analytica’s chief data scientist, told a panel hosted by Google five weeks after the election. Because the firm was only brought onto the Trump campaign the summer before the general election, he said, “we had five months to scale extremely fast, and doing sexy psychographics profiles requires a much longer run time.” Apparently, Cambridge Analytica had deployed its psychological targeting techniques during the Republican primaries on behalf of Ted Cruz, but Cruz’s failure to win the nomination was cited as evidence that Cambridge Analytica’s models were ineffective and that the company did not understand American politics.

    Though Cambridge Analytica came late to American elections, its British parent company, Strategic Communications Laboratories (SCL), has been a client of the United States government for years. SCL has “provided intelligence assessments for American defense contractors in Iran, Libya and Syria,” according to the Times, and developed so-called influence campaigns for NATO in Afghanistan. Also in Afghanistan, SCL engaged in “target audience analysis” for the United States Department of Defense, identifying who was susceptible to American propaganda. The firm’s methodology, according to its website, has been approved by the UK Ministry of Defence, the US State Department, Sandia National Laboratories, and NATO. It seeks “to understand empirically what the right levers or ‘triggers and filters’ in a given population are, based on a penetrating psychological understanding.” SCL is currently seeking contracts with at least a dozen US agencies, and The Washington Post recently reported that it has already secured work with the State Department.

    Strategic Communications Laboratories may have a special advantage in these efforts now that Cambridge Analytica is largely controlled by Robert Mercer, one of Trump’s major donors. According to The Guardian, Mercer now owns 90 percent of the company, with SCL owning the remaining 10 percent. (Mercer is also the money behind Breitbart News, the website credited with serving up fake and hyped-up articles to incite Trump’s base.) Steve Bannon, Trump’s chief strategist and the former executive chairman of Breitbart News, was on the Cambridge Analytica board until he became the Trump campaign’s chief executive. Robert Mercer’s daughter, Rebekah, served on Trump’s transition team and has stayed on as a Trump adviser. She now runs Making America Great, a pro-Trump advocacy organization largely funded by her father that is dedicated to creating influence campaigns to push what has been called a nationalist—anti-immigration, anti-government—agenda. Its day-to-day director is Emily Cornell, who stepped down as Cambridge Analytica’s senior vice-president for political affairs to take the position.


    Meanwhile, as SCL pursues government contracts, Cambridge Analytica is also vying to create influence campaigns on behalf of the Trump Organization, the parent company of Trump’s various business interests. As an unnamed conservative digital strategist told The Guardian, the data from Cambridge Analytica could be helpful in both “driving sales and driving policy goals. Cambridge is positioned to be the preferred vendor for all that.”

    But weeks before the Mercers set up Making America Great, Brad Parscale had already created his own Trump advocacy group, called America First Policies. The creation of two independent organizations both ostensibly aimed at mustering support for Trump appears to have presaged the fault line that is now emerging between Steve Bannon and the Mercers on one side, and Jared Kushner (and by default Giles-Parscale) on the other. This division was also manifest days after the election as members of team Trump took a victory lap, with Cambridge Analytica’s Nix crediting his firm with the win, and Parscale declaring to the contrary that it was his and Kushner’s overall digital strategy that took Trump over the top.

    Either way, that rift pulls back the curtain on contemporary electioneering—electioneering in the age of big data and social media, both of which were crucial to Trump’s victory, and were used in innovative ways that are likely to be adopted by other candidates from both parties. As Daniel Kreiss points out in his book Prototype Politics, losing campaigns, especially, look to the winning one “to find models for future action.”

    There is no doubt that Trump’s digital operation—overseen by Parscale with the involvement of Giles-Parscale, Cambridge Analytica, the Republican National Committee, and scores of contractors—drew heavily on Barack Obama’s 2012 reelection playbook. Recalling that campaign, Kreiss describes how the Democrats repurposed a marketing strategy called “uplift” or “brand lift” and used it to pursue voters they identified as receptive to Obama’s message. They did so by gathering millions of data points on the electorate from public sources, commercial information brokers, and their own surveys, then polling voters with great frequency and looking for patterns in the responses.

    All this was used to create predictive models of who was likely to vote for Obama, who was not, and who was open to persuasion. It also indicated who would be disinclined to vote for Obama if contacted by the campaign. These models sorted individuals into categories—let’s say, mothers concerned about gun violence or millennials with significant college debt—and these categories were used to tailor communications to members of each group. Kreiss observes that such sorting was necessary because

    it would have been nearly impossible to create personalized messages for individuals from a labor standpoint…. And…the cost of testing individual appeals to determine whether they were actually successful in order to justify the expense of creating them would have been astronomical.

    Full Text.

  5. #2825
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    2,808

    Default Re: US Presidential Election 2016

    How do you think that this compared to HRC's operation? You would have been targeted by this process in a different way to Bob. By the time you realised it, it may have been too late as the process was well underway.

    Regards...jmcc

  6. #2826
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    5,333

    Default Re: US Presidential Election 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by jmcc View Post
    How do you think that this compared to HRC's operation? You would have been targeted by this process in a different way to Bob. By the time you realised it, it may have been too late as the process was well underway.

    Regards...jmcc
    of course i know i was targeted as i stated here repeatedly ... I didn't know how it was done but I could see my feed had been manipulated big time and I also stated here repeatedly that it was obvious in the week preceding the election (after Comey made the statement about the email investigation) that a major operation was going on that even people like myself could only see Trump ads - nothing else).

    Read the article carefully all the way to the end in the NYRB site (i posted only 1/2 above).

    In my case it didnt make a difference whom i would vote for but this bit saddens me tremendously:

    --

    Phrased this way, dark posts sound benign, even benevolent. Parscale and his crew had other ideas. Facebook dark posts, used in tandem with more traditional attack ads, were part of the Trump team’s concerted effort to dissuade potential Clinton voters from showing up at the polls. (In March, Cambridge Analytica won an Advertising Research Foundation David Ogilvy Award for its “Can’t Run Her House” ad, which used a clip from the 2008 Democratic primary of Michelle Obama criticizing Clinton.)

    “We have three major voter suppression operations under way,” a senior campaign official told Bloomberg’s Green and Issenberg. One targeted idealistic white liberals—primarily Bernie Sanders’s supporters; another was aimed at young women—hence the procession of women who claimed to have been sexually assaulted by Bill Clinton and harassed by the candidate herself; and a third went after African-Americans in urban centers where Democrats traditionally have had high voter turnout. One dark post featured a South Park–like animation narrated by Hillary Clinton, using her 1996 remarks about President Bill Clinton’s anti-crime initiative in which she called certain young black men “super predators” who had to be brought “to heel.”

    --

    In the span of one year I saw some acquaintances I had in high esteem churn out completely vicious vitriol against Hillary Clinton (via the Bernie hacks) as if they went completely temporarily mental. People's personal relationships actually changed in the real world after the elections. Nothing went back to normal, to the way it was before, and that is a major difference from previous political campaigns.

    Facebook gave birth to the first Social-Media US President.

    Let us all judge how it goes now that we live in a world where "ALL information wants to be free" ... regardless of it being true or false.
    Last edited by random new yorker; 21-05-2017 at 06:41 PM.

  7. #2827
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    1,640

    Default Re: US Presidential Election 2016

    And to think a man once loved the internet

  8. #2828
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    5,333

    Default Re: US Presidential Election 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by Kev Bar View Post
    And to think a man once loved the internet

  9. #2829
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Rockall
    Posts
    78,031

    Default Re: US Presidential Election 2016

    Heavens above. A conspiracy theory that was correct. End of the day though, what is the evidence that it changed the vote any more than previous conventional campaigns ? And the first Obama campaign was a complete disneyland fantasy concoction.
    “ We cannot withdraw our cards from the game. Were we as silent and mute as stones, our very passivity would be an act. ”
    — Jean-Paul Sartre

  10. #2830
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    2,808

    Default Re: US Presidential Election 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by Kev Bar View Post
    And to think a man once loved the internet
    Teledildonics?

    Regards...jmcc

  11. #2831
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    2,808

    Default Re: US Presidential Election 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by random new yorker View Post
    of course i know i was targeted as i stated here repeatedly ... I didn't know how it was done but I could see my feed had been manipulated big time and I also stated here repeatedly that it was obvious in the week preceding the election (after Comey made the statement about the email investigation) that a major operation was going on that even people like myself could only see Trump ads - nothing else).
    It was far more sophisticated than just targeting FB feeds and showing ads. One of the basic approaches would be to identify opinion influencers. A key part of this is looking at response rates among your social network. At a guess, your social network may have shown a high level of engagement from others in your network. (You all chat a lot and exchange opinions on events.) You would also be a node in other social networks and would be equally as active in those. (Other FB groups and discussions.) So by focusing on people like you rather than every voter, the problem becomes one of changing your opinions and having you propagate various memes (even if only to comment negatively) to others in your social networks.

    In my case it didnt make a difference whom i would vote for but this bit saddens me tremendously:
    You did propagate memes and various stories even if only to comment negatively upon them. This kind of propagation is also effective in that not everyone in your social networks may be as dedicated as you. These stories have to target the floating voters rather than the true believers. It doesn't matter how they reach the floating voters as long as they reach them.

    In the span of one year I saw some acquaintances I had in high esteem churn out completely vicious vitriol against Hillary Clinton (via the Bernie hacks) as if they went completely temporarily mental.
    HRC was always a bad candidate and a very poor choice for the Democrats. The Wikileaks stuff on how HRC got the nomination really made people feel stupid. That's the worst thing that any politican can do to an electorate. People will forgive a politician's mistakes and stupidity but they remember what HRC and her gang did. That's something that the Democrats will have to address but I would not be surprised to see the claws of the Clintonistas being so deeply embedded in the party that Chelsea Clinton will be groomed as a future candidate.

    Facebook gave birth to the first Social-Media US President.

    Let us all judge how it goes now that we live in a world where "ALL information wants to be free" ... regardless of it being true or false.
    Not exactly. More like "You are the information."

    Regards...jmcc
    Last edited by jmcc; Yesterday at 02:39 AM.

  12. #2832
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    5,333

    Default Re: US Presidential Election 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by jmcc View Post
    It was far more sophisticated than just targeting FB feeds and showing ads. One of the basic approaches would be to identify opinion influencers. A key part of this is looking at response rates among your social network. At a guess, your social network may have shown a high level of engagement from others in your network. (You all chat a lot and exchange opinions on events.) You would also be a node in other social networks and would be equally as active in those. (Other FB groups and discussions.) So by focusing on people like you rather than every voter, the problem becomes one of changing your opinions and having you propagate various memes (even if only to comment negatively) to others in your social networks.
    yes i know. I spotted an algorithm maybe half way thru the Bernie bid when i was still looking for a viable alternative to Hillary.

    anyway you have mentioned these influencers previously and i acknowledge they become easy targets but reality is i am not one of those... i have about 230 friends on my FB and i like keeping the list under 200. Influencers have lists 10x larger.

    what I was saying above was that EVERYONE in the US was targeted, myself included, when i spotted the algorithm it was too late already although I stopped liking stuff, cleaned up my FB ad preferences and always advised my friends to be mindful when sharing Hot Items that people who disagree with them will also receive and promote the news.

    I actually use PW to chat about US politics to avoid the FB algorithms and getting boxed in and do not share political Memes as you say above.

    I chat often in closed groups and mostly with EU folks about EU politics... my influencing of a couple ppl re US politics happens via private message or i send them to my blog, mostly they want my opinion as i live in the US.

    But I agree with you, I can't keep all my opinions confined to private messaging or email and i do talk to folks here and there so ideas spread and likes and shares and i believe even comments get recorded .. and if you take into account that a good number of my friends are academics on both sides of the pond, then yeah, it is pretty easy to put me in a box.. when i cleaned up my ad preferences last it had me down as "extremely liberal (progressive in EU terms i think)"....


    You did propagate memes and various stories even if only to comment negatively upon them. This kind of propagation is also effective in that not everyone in your social networks may be as dedicated as you. These stories have to target the floating voters rather than the true believers. It doesn't matter how they reach the floating voters as long as they reach them.
    yes i realized that was part of the algorithm .. but the problem is the Progressive message just isn't as simple and 'populist' as the other side so the medium favors the lowest denominator

    what is the point of saying Hillary was a bad candidate when she won the popular vote by ~ 3 million votes. There were problems and we have the electoral college in the US but would you just drop that BS that Hillary this or that? what is the point ? she lost, it has been over many months now, as I explained to you the day after the election, people moved on the minute we realized she was not getting the Midwest rustbelt vote.


    Not exactly. More like "You are the information."
    Yes I know that. So are you. Now go back and check everything you promoted.

  13. #2833
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    2,808

    Default Re: US Presidential Election 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by random new yorker View Post
    anyway you have mentioned these influencers previously and i acknowledge they become easy targets but reality is i am not one of those... i have about 230 friends on my FB and i like keeping the list under 200. Influencers have lists 10x larger.
    This is where you are wrong. You are a key target because unlike these "opinion influencers", you matter more because of the engagement. Most people think of opinion influencers in terms of the number of Twitter followers or FB friends. This is wrong because most of these "influencers" have no influence at all and rarely communicate with their followers. A major part of this algorithmic approach is to identify people who actually communicate with each other. This is the engagement aspect. Then they build a social network for the community or group to identify the people who communicate most with others (frequency). Thus by targeting these people rather than the entire group, it is possible to reach more people effectively. Just to use a PW example, you would have far more influence than Bob because though Bob kept posting away with lifts from the media, these posts had little if any engagement. Many of your posts were part of conversations. Because Bob's high volume of posts had low engagement, they would have just been seen as random noise with little influence.

    what I was saying above was that EVERYONE in the US was targeted, myself included, when i spotted the algorithm it was too late already although I stopped liking stuff, cleaned up my FB ad preferences and always advised my friends to be mindful when sharing Hot Items that people who disagree with them will also receive and promote the news.
    Everyone was not targeted. The process relied on reducing the set of targets to a smaller one that would amplify any efforts in targeting people in the set. This is something that non-technologist "technology" journalists don't understand about Big Data. The most important part of the process of dealing with Big Data sets is to reduce the data to a smaller and more easily processed set. So while you think of all voters being targeted, the reality is that that set of all voters was quickly winnowed down to a much smaller set. Your advising your friends is classic opinion influencer behaviour of the type these algorithms need to identify.

    I actually use PW to chat about US politics to avoid the FB algorithms and getting boxed in and do not share political Memes as you say above.
    Well you were also sharing posts on Trump and various memes associated with him.

    yes i realized that was part of the algorithm .. but the problem is the Progressive message just isn't as simple and 'populist' as the other side so the medium favors the lowest denominator
    The medium favours the most effective and frequent communicator. The usual idiots in the media criticised Trump for tweeting. It was a very smart move that actually neutralised a lot of the power of the people in the media who thought that they should be able to tell people what to think. It also made Trump seem more human than HRC. Rather than HRC with her tweeting committee, Trump's tweets gave the impression of having Trump on the keyboard or phone. That whole "one of us" thing is an amazingly effective electoral asset. By comparison HRC's was an "us and them" relationship.

    what is the point of saying Hillary was a bad candidate when she won the popular vote by ~ 3 million votes.
    Against a candidate like Trump, a decent Democrat candidate would have wiped him out. She wasn't a good candidate and polarised too many people. Rather than being a president of the people and for the people, she was boxed into being a Washington insider who thought it was her turn. Once that idea took hold, she was in serious trouble against an "outsider" like Trump.

    There were problems and we have the electoral college in the US but would you just drop that BS that Hillary this or that? what is the point ? she lost, it has been over many months now, as I explained to you the day after the election, people moved on the minute we realized she was not getting the Midwest rustbelt vote.
    Let's see if the Democrats have learned anything from this mess in 2020.

    Yes I know that. So are you. Now go back and check everything you promoted.
    Except I didn't promote anything and am not a player in this data set as I have no vote and very little influence. The nearest I got to a campaign e-mail was a Netflix marketing e-mail from President Underwood long after the election was over.

    Regards...jmcc

  14. #2834
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    1,640

    Default Re: US Presidential Election 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by jmcc View Post
    Teledildonics?

    Regards...jmcc


    With my preference for analogue sex, I confess I had to wiki that to confirm my suspicions.

    Oh the brave new world.

    Now where's my hit of soma?

Page 189 of 189 FirstFirst ... 89139179187188189

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Share us
Follow Us