Using big data and propaganda to nudge elections was already well enough known to be a minor plot thread in House of Cards a few years ago. The one thing I find lacking in discussing anything like this is that the articles are always written from one side. You can say that this article is about Mercer, so it should only focus on his activities, but it's really about controlling influence in conservative politics, when this is all being done in the presence of George Soros. There was enormous detail in the article. I'd rather read half that detail, and then look at the activities from the liberal side, and compare and contrast. To me, the interesting part isn't that one side or the other is doing these things; it's what BOTH sides are doing to US.
And there you've slung just enough mud to implicate Obama in the same kind of antics without offering any tangible proof. And conflated Big Data and propaganda too. Nice.
The Obama campaign's use of technology was well documented - a two minute Google threw up detailed articles from MIT, Forbes, Technology Review.
If you have a substantive point to make about any of that, or any proof at all that the Obama campaign has indulged in the kind of propaganda Bannon et al are neck deep in, you should make it instead of resorting to hand wavy arguments like this.
"And there you've slung just enough mud to implicate Obama in the same kind of antics without offering any tangible proof. "
Are you kidding? Obama invented the use of social tools to get elected. [1]
Google, who, as an org make up probably 95% Obama voters, have a deep relationship with government [2]. And Sheryl Sandberg worked for the Democratic apparatus.
There's nothing entirely wrong with either things (possibly), but the point is that it's 'nefarious' when conservatives have money and access but not when massive and institutional entities like Google do for the Democrats? Google and Facebook are two organizations that, if they chose to, could control the outcome of the election - that's a pretty scary conflict of interest. Exxon certainly couldn't. Where is the uproar?
Surely, it's worth pointing out where 'big money/business and politics collide', but it's very hypocritical to scream about the plight of one side, and not the other.
If anything - this somewhat hypocritical posturing, generally supported by the MSM, gives credence to those who argue the MSM is at least softly biased in one direction. Though I tend to generally trust most of the big news orgs, I believe there is a degree of 'sidedness' on this issue.
"how the Republicans' failure to do this proved they were behind the times"
I distinctly remember that. Then there's a fit now among liberals that the Republicans are doing what liberals say they should've been doing. Hell, they're doing it better. Liberals will need to up their game plus have a final candidate that's worth something in next election.
Up their game by enlisting the help of a foreign nation to help stand up an entire group of social network trolls whose entire mission is to muddy the waters and push fabricated stories?
Elections have always been dirty. It seems winners now use social media or trolls. So be it until that is banned and policed. Losing a Presidency because you followed the rules feels much worse than gaining it breaking some. I don't even think it's possible any more for honest plays to happen given superficial voters with conflicting needs/wants that cost average of $200 mil of others's money to reach.
The substantive point is nudging people on their unconscious biases has always been iffy. The practice doesn't turn distasteful when a nasty figure employs the tool, it had always been that way, even in the hands of the good guys.
The point stands - produce specific instances of the Obama campaign doing the same and then we can talk about whether they're morally equivalent.
There are some uses of nudge theory - using it to lower college dropout rates, encouraging tax payments - where the ethics are not clear cut and you can make an argument one way or another. 'It happened on House of Cards' isn't going to cut it.
Don't you wish politicians would be voted into the office based on the strength of their arguments and their track record, instead of the insights of their data science team? That's how democracy is supposed to work; knowing who to pay for their data science expertise isn't a suitable performance metric.
> The commenter said 'This has been happening for ages, Obama did it too'
You're the only one mentioning "Obama" in this comment tree. You were quick to assume a defensive position for whatever reason, but his is aimed at both parties in general.
> What you appear to be asking for is 'balance' - I'm asking of you, what's missing from the account in the OP?
You're assuming again. I do not expect the Guardian to expose its party, but it would be interesting to see both sides laid bare next to each other.
"isn't that one side or the other is doing these things; it's what BOTH sides are doing to US."
There's a weak implication there that the Democracts are doing something similar to Big Data + troll armies that this article covers. I'd have asked for clarification before jumping straight to "Obama doing same thing" but I see where kristianc is getting the impression.
