petitefrancaise

Most of those questions were answered in the original articles to which I posted links.

The point of the thread though is precisely this:
HER TECH TEAM MUST HAVE SUCKED!!

go and think about that one. eh.

Pulaski

What were these ads targeted at you by the Republicans saying?

And aside from the use of technology to fine-tune the process, I don't see it as any different from placing your TV ads selectively in coverage of NASCAR or basketball games, your radio ads on talk radio or rap stations, and which neighbourhoods to send mail shots to and canvass door to door. Present your case to those who are open to it, and not to those who aren't - isn't that common sense?

Nutek

An Ad blocker is a wonderful thing.

Pulaski

Maybe she was just a bad candidate without a clear message. The main thrust of her campaign appeared to be "ignore all the dirt in my past, vote for me because I'm a woman".

Gender should be irrelevant - it's all about the policies. I would vote for a woman, and have indeed done so, both directly as an MP, and indirectly as for the PM, but that was because I agree with their policies, them being female was irrelevant to the decision.

petitefrancaise

I have that. But still get FB ads. I regularly report them as not relevant. Maybe you don't realise you are getting ads? Cleverly disguised as "posts" . Of course FB figured out how to get round adblockplus.

Pulaski nothing to do with gender and your post about Hillary's campaign just shows how much of a skewed message you were getting.

Nutek

You have to assume that every single thing you put online can be / will be / is data mined and sold to anybody willing to pay.

FB is probably the worst of the bunch, simply due to the sheer quantity of "personal" crap that people stick up there.
Companies like Amazon aren't far behind, though they are as likely to be a customer as a provider I suppose.

[Edit] Meant to add... No FB for me, thankfully.

Pulaski

So what message was I missing? .... And as I asked above, what message was FB targeting at you?

But me? ..... I rarely use FB (maybe once or twice a month).

I don't watch TV at all (we have no TV service, not satellite, not cable, not terrestrial) and I don't stream TV - most of my cnn,com I see at work, so I cannot watch videos).

We don't get a newspaper,

I listen to a couple of radio stations for about an hour a day aggregate, mostly while driving, split fairly evenly between a classic rock station and a news/talk station (which is broadcasting NEWS between 7am and 8am and between 6pm and 7pm, not phone-ins and talking heads).

Until a couple of weeks ago we had a subscription to New Yorker, for the factual and literary articles, but New Yorker is "out-there liberal", apparently beyond the editorial staff of the New York Times. I also have a subscription to Car & Driver, and Handyman, neither of which have any political content that I have ever noticed, either in editorials or print ads.

My news mostly comes from CNN.çom, supplemented with a little bbc.çom for British and international news,

So, a simple question: who exactly was feeding me a skewed message? .... Other than CNN, and posters on BE.

livinginnyc

It is indeed, along with Ghostery, script monkey and a few other toys.

Its not quite that easy these days - Facebook being the largest of the sites has very, very far reaching tenticles. For example, if said friend has an account and you don't, uploads a pic of you and tags your name in it, has WhatsApp with your number or is sharing contacts with Facebook... well it now knows what you look like (so approx age, race, gender.etc), your name and your number and approx location. This is what socialgraph (a database engine aimed at social media) was designed implicitly for - connecting dots.

I'm not scaremongering, just highlighting the fact that in this day and age, the old addage of "don't like, don't use" is becoming increasingly redundant.

No platform can get past my tin foil hat though, I rock that look. PM me if you want LINYC's '17 tin-foil summer/fall collection

Nutek

Where are you getting tin foil? All I can find is aluminum.

petitefrancaise

From the NYTimes:
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/20/o...uiz.html?&_r=0

"One recent advertising product on Facebook is the so-called “dark post”: A newsfeed message seen by no one aside from the users being targeted. With the help of Cambridge Analytica, Mr. Trump’s digital team used dark posts to serve different ads to different potential voters, aiming to push the exact right buttons for the exact right people at the exact right times.

Imagine the full capability of this kind of “psychographic” advertising. In future Republican campaigns, a pro-gun voter whose Ocean score ranks him high on neuroticism could see storm clouds and a threat: The Democrat wants to take his guns away. A separate pro-gun voter deemed agreeable and introverted might see an ad emphasizing tradition and community values, a father and son hunting together.

In this election, dark posts were used to try to suppress the African-American vote. According to Bloomberg, the Trump campaign sent ads reminding certain selected black voters of Hillary Clinton’s infamous “super predator” line. It targeted Miami’s Little Haiti neighborhood with messages about the Clinton Foundation’s troubles in Haiti after the 2010 earthquake. Federal Election Commission rules are unclear when it comes to Facebook posts, but even if they do apply and the facts are skewed and the dog whistles loud, the already weakening power of social opprobrium is gone when no one else sees the ad you see — and no one else sees “I’m Donald Trump, and I approved this message.”

While Hillary Clinton spent more than $140 million on television spots, old-media experts scoffed at Trump’s lack of old-media ad buys. Instead, his campaign pumped its money into digital, especially Facebook. One day in August, it flooded the social network with 100,000 ad variations, so-called A/B testing on a biblical scale, surely more ads than could easily be vetted by human eyes for compliance with Facebook’s “community standards.”

Perhaps out of necessity, the Trump team was embracing a new-media lesson: It didn’t have to build everything from scratch. Mark Zuckerberg and others had already built the infrastructure the campaign needed to reach voters directly. When “Trump TV” went live on Facebook before and after the second debate it raked in $9 million in donations in 120 minutes.

In the immediate wake of Mr. Trump’s surprise election, so many polls and experts were so wrong that it became fashionable to declare that big data was dead. But it isn’t, not when its most obvious avatar, Facebook, was so crucial to victory."

As I said, disingenuous of Zuckerberg to make his famous fake new post....

MidAtlantic

You seem to be saying that Trump's team was smarter than Clinton's, just as Obama was smarter at using social media for both his elections. I am no fan but I am not sure why you are blaming Zuckerberg. He just has space to sell and I doubt if he cares who uses it.

livinginnyc

I don't know you well enough to answer that question, but it involves the dark web

chawkins99

So the Trump campaign spent its limited funds much more effectively and efficiently than the Clinton campaign.
If Trump carries this forward to his presidency, isn't that good for the country?
IIRC, most of Hillary's TV ads were more about bashing Trump than about her own policies.

thinbrit

I find it pathetic that so many people are looking for reasons why Hillary lost the election. Here is yet another 'reason' <sigh>. I'm sure the alt left will try and make a big deal about it. Just like they did about the 'Russian hackers' targeting her email to 'sway' the election (the alt left ignored the content of the emails, and the manner in which they were stored, and how the Dems claimed thousands of them to be lost instead of handing them to investigators). Now we are to believe that FB advertising was to blame.

I can't recall a single election advert, or any advert for that matter, on any media platform including conventional TV and radio were the message wasn't targeted to its audience. I target my business ads using 'big data', often resulting in Google adwords 'bidding wars' amongst my competitors. The Dems spent billions pushing Hillary ( https://newrepublic.com/political-ad-database ). If you are saying Trump pulled it off with targeted FB ads instead of 'wasting billions of dollars' then perhaps he is the better candidate to be running our country.

She lost. Get over it.

petitefrancaise

There's just one problem Thinbrit.
Facebook tells the world that it is a technology platform, not a media platform. So I agree, if I go to a media site then I expect that I will see a particular point of view. FoxNews anyone? I would expect there to be ads on that site that support the views of that site. Media platforms are subject to laws on what they publish.
Technology platforms aren't.

Zuckerberg initially insisted that FB was a technology platform and so exempt from those laws but started saying something rather different late December. Now apparently, FB is a "new type of media platform".

further reading people
https://techcrunch.com/2016/12/21/fbonc/