This is the scariest long-read I’ve come across this month.it explains everything about how the election was lost and how the traditional media did not see that coming.
It also points to a way how to fight back, using the same ad targeting. Forget traditional media. Steve Bannon was, actually, goddamnit, right.
:dubious::dubious::dubious:
Remind me, wasn’t it one of Obama 2008 campaign’s crowing points that they had succeeded because they had utilised social media far more effectively than the McCain/GOP team?
Oh yes. They did. Just one of a plethora of articles on the topic:
NY Times: How Obama Tapped Into Social Networks’ Power
I believe the technical term is “hoist on your own petard”.
I am well aware that my Facebook is a bubble, and there’s not much I can do about it. I remember seeing exactly zero Trump ads, and a whole lot of Clinton ones. Hers were very milquetoast and uninspiring, FWIW. Obama did it much better than Hillary.
The only Republican ads I remember were at the congressional level.
I think I’ve only “liked” things a half dozen times in the history of Facebook.
“Hoist with your own petard.” It means “blew yourself with a bomb,” not “hanged yourself.”
No, I think the term is actually “business as usual”
From that article:
In other words:
-This is a good marketing tool
-It’s available to anyone who wants to pay money for it
-The first person to start using it STILL LOST.
It’s probably a better marketing technique than the techniques it’s supplanting. If that’s the case, I expect most campaigns will start using it in the future. Just like other marketing techniques that have proven effective in the past, like phoning individual voters, and making sure you have nice hair on TV
I thought the opposite was true, since I, who for some reason or another hasn’t gotten around to installing any adblock, was ruthlessly targeted by pro-cheeto ads for the last 2 months of the election. As soon as I would click them to remove them from my suggested list another one would pop up when I logged in. I had to join lots of liberal groups before the ads went away. I’ve since unjoined/unfollowed the groups because you may think the SDMB is an echo chamber (it isn’t) but that’s nothing compared to the groups I joined.
I don’t know what their algorithm saw, well, except my age, income, sex, and race, but demographics is not destiny and only 3 out of my 100 or so Friends that I know of were twitter-in-chief supporters. So targeting FAIL.
But don’t you see? Using that tool should not wait untill the next campaign, media should use it now. By spending, on very targeted Facebook posts in the timeline of Trump voters. With a minimum budget, media can bypass and counterbalance Trump’s tweets, bypass and counterbalance Fox News.
I’m not sure it’s really the media’s job to be quite so blatantly partisan. I’m no fan of Trump, and if the various groups that have mobilized to oppose Trump can use these tools to get their messages out, that’s great. There may be no such thing as an unbiased media source, but I still think their core message is to inform people. I want the media to tell me what is, not for them to find ever more effective ways of convincing me what should be.
Yes, but when you are in Trump bubble land, news about what is does not even reach you. All your facebook time line feeds you is alternative facts and messages about how the mainstream media is lying. It’s a perfect storm.
It is not partisan if you keep the news, that reaches the people, actually fair and balanced.
To do otherwise is a dangerous form of fencesitting.
…yep.
Have a scroll through this twitter feed. Spend a bit of time scrolling down.
https://twitter.com/emjbrooks/lists/who-donald-trump-follows
This is what the President of the United States sees when he scrolls through twitter.
Just think about that for a minute. Think about how Trump has famously ignored the intelligence agencies and the daily briefings. Look at what he turns to instead.
This is a view from inside the bubble.
My twitter feed is 100% different. People are angry on my twitter. There is a lot of activity. People are mobilising. Tweeting facts and figures.
Trump’s feed is comparatively calm. The news is the same, but from a different slant.
This should scare the fuck out of everyone. Because the ramifications are so incredibly scary.
We’ve watched over the last couple of weeks the Trump administration broadcasting blanket propaganda. We’ve seen tables full of blank pieces of paper. Clapping and cheering from paid members of the crowd. They have stood up and told blatant and obvious lies.
And they do this because they know that their words and their actions are being broadcast unfiltered directly to their supporters. There is no nuance. No debunkings. No in depth analysis. Just propaganda.
This (IMHO) was what actually pushed the Trump campaign over the top in the elections. There are no easy ways to combat this. But being aware that this is happening is the first step.
I always pictured it as a giant fishhook.
Popping the bubble would be a great thing - but you don’t need complicated social media algorithms to know who to target - just “Is this person following Breitbart/Infowars/TheBlaze”?
Also, if someone on the “Trump opposition” side of politics wants to use this technique to better target their anti-Trump message - well, sure, why not? It’s still available. It can be used by the left as well as the right.
But, you would have to understand how to use it. Using it to target Trump supporters and pierce their bubble is not actually the way Trump used it. He didn’t GAF about muslims, or gays or Mexicans one way or another. He discovered that there were people out there who hated all these groups, and they’d be happy with him if HE hated them too, and did and said bad stuff to them. It only worked for him because he had zero convictions of his own, and no goals other than ‘make a bunch of money and get people to like me’. His government is doing deplorable shit right now, not because Trump himself is a deplorable (except in the generic ‘has no convictions whatsoever’ sense), and not because he persuaded people to be deplorable, but because he identified that group and made himself its head. The existence of that many deplorables is still the fundamental problem, not social media techniques that have been used to market to them.
If you wanted to do anti-Trump targeted media, it would be slightly harder assuming you were a person who had actual convictions of your own, and weren’t willing to say anything to anyone to get your way. But you could, for instance, show a bunch of stuff about the sea level rising to people living on the coast, Syrian Orthodox Christians getting deported to people who go to church, abortion gag stuff to pro-choice ppl, and so on. Seventy-plus percent of people are not deplorables. There’s still hope.
Only18% of people report often getting news from social media. That is less than the 57% who get it from TV, the 38% who get it online, the 25% who get it from radio, and the 20% who get it from newspapers. There are plenty of ways people get news and we don’t need to get hysterical that some people get it on facebook.
But 18% of the population is hardly anything to sneeze at.
Contra Maastricht, I don’t see why the media would go there, but the Dems certainly should be figuring out how to best play the game on this part of the field.
Glenn Beck runs TheBlaze, does he still dislike Trump? The latest I can find is a few days before the election where he is not aboard the Trump Train.
(post shortened)
*Hoist with your own petard
Injured by the device that you intended to use to injure others.
The phrase ‘hoist with one’s own petard’ is often cited as ‘hoist by one’s own petard’. In the USA, ‘hoisted’ is preferred so the alternative forms there are ‘hoisted with one’s own petard’ is often cited as ‘hoisted by one’s own petard’.*
The petard was a bomb that you intended to use against your enemies gates, or doors. If the petard exploded prematurely, and you were within the blast zone, you would be tossed thru the air. (aka - By your own actions, you’ve screwed yourself.)
This fragmentation of the media is not a new phenomenon, but one that’s been in the making for the past 20-30 years, starting with cable television. Social media just makes us that much more tribal.
As long as I can remember, about 1/3 of the country is die-hard republican or conservative, or at minimum just anti-liberal democrat, regardless of the circumstances. I doubt that this has changed much. What has changed, IMO, is the apathy of the less ideological center, which is actually escaping the reach of both parties. Trump won with die-hards who tune into AM radio or Breitbart newsfeeds, but it was the political middlers, still within the reach of the democrats, who basically gave Trump the win.
Everyone is fretting about the republicans, as they should. But if we want to know when the end is near and when to head for the exits, it would be if / when the democratic party irrevocably splits into factions. If that happens - and it easily could - we are absolutely, positively fucked, for there would be no opposition to the radical GOP, which has suddenly gone from being an uneasy alliance to becoming an alliance united in their opposition to progressives.
I don’t actually know, but a conservative/reactionary site whose owner doesn’t like Trump is actually a great Trump recruiting ground, since it probably has a bunch of readers who are open to liking him, that he wouldn’t want to let slip out of his tiny fingers.
It’s my opinion that the Democrat collective spent way too time telling each other what they wanted to hear. As well as trying to shout down anyone who didn’t faithfully follow Democrat groupspeak. It’s obvious that the Democrat collective had no idea that Hillary could lose until she did.
OTOH, Facebook is Facebook. How many people actually get their political info from Facebook?
True, but they are very understanding when it comes to My Little Pony fan-fic. So I’ve heard.