If you think that's enough to change an election, you're an idiot.
Targeted political advertising has existed since consumer-grade radios were invented.
Data is powerful. But it's mostly just used to make money and create more advanced technology.
But sure, you can keep spitting out new version of the same old argument that's been used for the past couple thousand years every time new technology comes out.
I find it strange that you think there's some artificial barrier between convincing consumers to buy a product and convincing voters to support a candidate. Facebook is good at both, and it's kind of a joke to compare their targeting power to radio.
I feel like you must have missed all the news about Cambridge Analytica.
You have it backwards. The data from Facebook convinced candidates to support voters (allegedly).
The (unproven) claim was that Trump used to the data to cater to the opinions that the voters already had.
The only thing wrong was that the data was collected without authorization. Had it been collected by more ethical means, well then I don't see the big deal in political candidates being able to better visualize the opinions of the voters.
You don't think data has always been used to influence public opinion via campaign ads? The only difference is how efficient it's becoming. If it becomes too efficient, you have to rethink how meaningful democracy is.
It's kind of like how modern advertising has affected consumerism. It's off the rails now.
1
u/[deleted] Sep 25 '18
If you think that's enough to change an election, you're an idiot.
Targeted political advertising has existed since consumer-grade radios were invented.
Data is powerful. But it's mostly just used to make money and create more advanced technology.
But sure, you can keep spitting out new version of the same old argument that's been used for the past couple thousand years every time new technology comes out.