OBAMA was a Cutting-Edge Politician Who Harvested and Used Personal Data Smartly.

a reply to: carewemust

Honestly I don't understand why data that subscribers willingly give to FaceBook, Twitter, etc.. can't be purchased/harvested, and used smartly, to help a candidate, or a company, gain an advantage over competitors. What's the big SCANDAL is this? It's not the same as your personal medical and banking info.

I feel you and agree. Psychometrics has always been a factor in many various ways for social engineering. It is also a great tool for marketing/data and the engineering of consent re:consumerism.

I was going to create a thread over a year ago just after Trump won the election when the "Russia influenced the election" propaganda b.s started to gain steam, but held off. This article published by Stanford University 'The Data That Turned the World Upside Down' published on January 28, 2017 was my main inspiration. Cambridge Analytica and how it was used for BREXIT, Senator Cruz, and the Trump election was at the centre of this article.

publicpolicy.stanford.edu...

The methodology looks quite similar to the one that Michal Kosinski once developed. Cambridge Analytica also uses, Nix told us, “surveys on social media” and Facebook data. And the company does exactly what Kosinski warned of: “We have profiled the personality of every adult in the United States of America—220 million people,” Nix boasts.

How to keep Clinton voters away from the ballot box

Trump’s striking inconsistencies, his much-criticized fickleness, and the resulting array of contradictory messages, suddenly turned out to be his great asset: a different message for every voter. The notion that Trump acted like a perfectly opportunistic algorithm following audience reactions is something the mathematician Cathy O’Neil observed in August 2016.

These “dark posts”—sponsored Facebook posts that can only be seen by users with specific profiles—included videos aimed at African-Americans in which Hillary Clinton refers to black men as predators, for example.

“Pretty much every message that Trump put out was data-driven,” Alexander Nix remembers. On the day of the third presidential debate between Trump and Clinton, Trump’s team tested 175,000 different ad variations for his arguments, in order to find the right versions above all via Facebook. The messages differed for the most part only in microscopic details, in order to target the recipients in the optimal psychological way: different headings, colors, captions, with a photo or video. This fine-tuning reaches all the way down to the smallest groups, Nix explained in an interview with us. “We can address villages or apartment blocks in a targeted way. Even individuals.”

"CAMBRIDGE ANALYTICA COUNTS AMONG ITS CLIENTS THE U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT..."

Why was "data harvesting" and "selective targeting" of ads GOOD when Obama did it, but is now seen as BAD?

A: Some people in society are easily duped. Manufactured hysteria. It is the same reason why many buy into the propaganda of America being the good guys on the world the stage despite the truth being quite the opposite—Psychometrics.

a reply to: Grambler
You know what I was referring to. It’s either that or I am going crazy.

a reply to: Involutionist
A lot here. I will have to go through this, but over the past few days we are seeing posts with some good sources that make me feel very uncomfortable.

I think we all have been influenced in a way, that might make us very defensive about discussing being influaced.

It is pure genius in a way.

Reading up.

Nice post.

a reply to: Involutionist

That was a VERY informative post, Involutionist. I'm pretty sure that most people don't read those boring Terms and Conditions when signing up for Facebook, Twitter, or even ATS for that matter.

Unfortunately, this is territory where there seem to be few (or no) laws that define how a company can and cannot use the personal data we allow them to have.

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Involutionist

That was a VERY informative post, Involutionist. I'm pretty sure that most people don't read those boring Terms and Conditions when signing up for Facebook, Twitter, or even ATS for that matter.

Unfortunately, this is territory where there seem to be few (or no) laws that define how a company can and cannot use the personal data we allow them to have.

Good point. Star.

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: Speedtek
Welcome to ATS - where something horrible is reported, and people justify it with 'meh, but Obama did it too' - like that is an excuse...

The world wide usage of Facebook and Google justified it.

Selective Outrage

Yep the outrage is very selective.

Obama's Team: An opt-in app that you agree to use and allow to share your facebook data with a third party.

Trump's Team: A foreign data firm secretly taking data from 50 million users above and beyond what Facebook allows.

The outrage is very selective.

a reply to: carewemust

who exactly or when do people praise data mining from other institutions?

a reply to: DanteGaland

What are you talking about? It's the same exact thing. Data mining is data mining is data mining. Sounds like you're in denial to me. You're being a hypocrite.

Ok I don’t know much about face book but assuming you took everyone on face book broke them down into their friend groups analyzed their locations and “likes” as well as their status .
My god you would have a lot of data points,I am not even counting their silly surveys here.

a reply to: DanteGaland

originally posted by: DanteGaland
a reply to: Grambler

I DOUBT Facebook and Google (between the TWO of them) have 4-5 THOUSAND data points on 220 MILLION Americans.

CA gathered info from a MUCH WIDER net that just FB and Google.

Spectrum Health...hmmm...

So... even if you are correct (which I doubt), you are pissed because Trump merely did it better than Obama?

a reply to: carewemust

In 2008, Obama also solicited the use of a venue for his largest campaign rally — in Berlin — from Angela Merkel....AND he accepted the counter offered venue. And, of course, the press reported that Republicans were jealous of his fabulous, innovative campaign savvy and treated him like a rock star for it.

Imagine if Trump solicited the use of a venue in Moscow, from Putin, to give a campaign speech to 200,000 people? Mueller’s investigation would long be over and we would have proof of Russian state collusion and foreign influence federal election law violations.

a reply to: DanteGaland

Obama had unfeather access to all facebook data. Go read the wikileaks where facebook and the Obama admin and the Clintons literally worked together creating an api to interface with Facebook. Wow u r such a f*** idiot lemon.

a reply to: carewemust

I'm just curious that if our current president was revealed to have done this what everyone's opinion would be, especially the media...

a reply to: DanteGaland

Nice argument.

Please try again.

originally posted by: amfirst1
a reply to: DanteGaland

Obama had unfeather access to all facebook data. Go read the wikileaks where facebook and the Obama admin and the Clintons literally worked together creating an api to interface with Facebook. Wow u r such a f*** idiot lemon.

Are you sure you understand what you read?

Why would you create an API if your goal is to consume data from Facebook, who currently has a range of APIs for consumption? Those very same endpoints are available to anyone that's willing to pay the fee.

This is a testament to how Obama is perceived by the public at large. Most people I talk to think Obama is incapable of doing anything bad or wrong. It was one hell of an effective public relations campaign the democrats played. It's also dangerous to run such mind controlling practices on large groups of people.

This is how genocides are created...