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

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

In their cheerfully-titled report “Obama, Facebook And The Power of Friendship: The 2012 data Election,” The Guardian explained how the Obama campaign harvested data on friend networks from unwitting voters...

At the core is a single beating heart – a unified computer database that gathers and refines information on millions of committed and potential Obama voters.

The database will allow staff and volunteers at all levels of the campaign – from the top strategists answering directly to Obama’s campaign manager Jim Messina to the lowliest canvasser on the doorsteps of Ohio – to unlock knowledge about individual voters and use it to target personalised messages that they hope will mobilise voters where it counts most.

Much More Obama Praise at: www.breitbart.com...

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.

-CareWeMust

a reply to: carewemust

There is no scandal. It's nothing more than yet another feeble attempt from the left to somehow delegitimize the duly elected POTUS.

People have FREELY given up every piece of information on themselves for years via Facebook.

The real scandal is in how Facebook, Google, and Twitter have done nothing but censor anything and everything pro-Trump for more than a year.

Because they are all hypocrites pretty simple.

Who remembers this?

a reply to: carewemust
During his time that was considered smart. Now people are upset. They gave too much info out for free. After he got his second term I stopped using social media. Oddly Trump still likes it. He likes Twitter as I like my voice.

a reply to: carewemust

Did Obama have 4,000 to 5,000 data points on 220 MILLION Americans?

Oh wait...

That was Cambridge Analytica.

a reply to: Outlier13

I agree. MSNBC is trying really hard to do that today. They've somehow got Wiki-leaks working with Cambridge and Russia to get DNC-Podesta-Hillary e-mails.

originally posted by: DanteGaland
a reply to: carewemust

Did Obama have 4,000 to 5,000 data points on 220 MILLION Americans?

Oh wait...

That was Cambridge Analytica.

Actually, he had the full backing of Facebook and Google. They allowed him full use of their databases.

Google had a satellite office in the west wing, ffs.

It's the same old same old... Dems do it then it's fine, Reps do it and it's bad.

That I had to type this to someone is just sad.

a reply to: Lumenari

Not even in the same reality or universe.

False equivalency.

a reply to: moistywood


Senator Obama took those words right out of President Trump's notes.

originally posted by: DanteGaland
a reply to: carewemust

Did Obama have 4,000 to 5,000 data points on 220 MILLION Americans?

Oh wait...

That was Cambridge Analytica.

No he had the entirety of facebook in the bag for him helping him.

Again I find this hilarious.

Cambridge uses a fraction of the data that facebook has to help trump, and it is an epic scandal.

Obama people admit that the people who run Facebook themselves, who have access to far more data than the mere portion Cambridge had, were helping the dems, and that is just shrewd politics.

The hypocrisy is astounding.

originally posted by: DanteGaland
a reply to: Lumenari

Not even in the same reality or universe.

False equivalency.

Yes, comparing a firm using a small fraction of facebook data to help trump to Obama having the entirety of facebook and goolgle working for him is indeed a false equivalency, in that Obamas dealing are an exponentially bigger deal.

a reply to: DanteGaland

Please, explain how it is a false equivalencey.

originally posted by: Allaroundyou
a reply to: carewemust
During his time that was considered smart. Now people are upset. They gave too much info out for free. After he got his second term I stopped using social media. Oddly Trump still likes it. He likes Twitter as I like my voice.

It's interesting that 5 years could cause such a turnaround. What made Americans so sensitive to this harvesting and using personal data in such a short period of time?

I'm not a Facebook or Twitter subscriber. Never had the urge. What do these platforms do to members that's so insulting? They call you at home, or present you with customized ads related to your favorite brand of boxer shorts?

a reply to: Grambler
Do you like making up words?

a reply to: DanteGaland
Sorry... I can't answer your question, because I don't know the definition or significance of "data points".

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...

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: DanteGaland

Please, explain how it is a false equivalencey.

They're not even REMOTELY similar in scope.

originally posted by: DanteGaland
a reply to: Lumenari

Not even in the same reality or universe.

False equivalency.

Im just posting so i can see how you reply to being called on this.

a reply to: Lumenari

Wow.. I didn't know that Google had a satellite office inside of Obama's White House. That's really weird.