Seems like many Facebook users here are sure they are too smart to have been manipulated by CA.

[Squinch]

They are certain only the weak-minded would fall for manipulations like those perpetrated by Cambridge Analytica. They think all talk of boycotting FB for allowing those manipulations is silly.

Here are two things to consider if you are one of those Facebook users who thinks you could not possibly be manipulated:

First, have you ever bought anything as a result of an ad or an infomercial? Have you ever really wanted a snack after watching a food commercial? Do you have any brand loyalties on household products or food items? Did you select your car or truck for any reason other than its ability to do the job you want it to do in the most economic and efficient manner? If so, you have been manipulated. Which means you are subject to manipulation. And what CA did was much more targeted and precise than the ads that have influenced you. They honed their messages to precisely respond to each FB user's fears and prejudices.

Second, even if you are correct and only the weak-minded fell for the sophisticated, pinpointed efforts of Cambridge Analytica, does it not bother you that FB allowed the manipulation of the weak-minded by one political party to influence our elections? Does that not weaken our Democracy and doesn't that give you pause? Does it not bother you that Steve Bannon held all those weak minded people in the palm of his hand and pulled their strings while Zuckerberg smiled down on the whole transaction?

ETA: Don't miss the British news expose on Cambridge Analytica linked in Melissa B's thread. These guys are who has truckloads of personal data, and who have been doing psychological profiling on 50 million American voters: https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=10380218

[Ohiogal]

1. I am SO GLAD I never signed on to Facebook.

[Johnny2X2X]

2. Facebook began emotional manipulation years ago

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/528706/facebooks-emotional-manipulation-study-is-just-the-latest-effort-to-prod-users/

This is not based on intelligence or bullshit meters, this is based on emotion.

[dalton99a]

22. +1. They have teams of PhDs working on it

One is in the news:

https://research.fb.com/people/chancellor-joseph/

Joseph Chancellor
UX Researcher

Human Computer Interaction & UX

I am a quantitative social psychologist on the User Experience Research team at Facebook. Before joining Facebook, I was a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Cambridge, and I received my Ph.D. in social and personality psychology from the University of California, Riverside. My research examines happiness, emotions, social influences, and positive character traits.

Interests

Social influences, happiness, emotions, humility, personality, advertising, video, virtual/augmented reality

[backtoblue]

24. +2 nt

[TexasProgresive]

3. I'm too smart to use fACEbOOK and other anti social media.

Except maybe DU if that counts.

[Wounded Bear]

4. I understand where you're going...

but I still didn't vote for Trump.

But yeah, this is serious stuff, and here in the US there is a severe lack of critical thinking in much of the population. Throw in some economic insecurity and the ability of demogogues to manipulate the masses increases. It doesn't help that much of the "economic insecurity" was bullshit promulgated on Fox and by the candidate.

[Squinch]

8. I know you didn't. But how much of the infighting here in the primaries and run up to the election

was fed by people on our side who had been pinpointed as people who could be made to hate our candidate and who brought that message back here?

I don't know, but I assume that was part of the effort.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

16. Primaries are about infighting

Unless you are going to admit that those that hated Sanders are likely a product of this manipulation, I'm not buying it. Even then, I have reservations based on science and years of studies about the influence of the media.

[Squinch]

34. If it was happening, I would assume that it was happening on both sides of the

primary race, to Hillary and Sanders voters.

If I were the one holding the strings to 50 million voter profiles, one of my major efforts would be to get Hillary and Sanders voters to hate each other. Which would require aiming at supporters of both.

[Hortensis]

59. Cuthbert, why aren't you wondering if they and you

weren't affected? I've often wondered right here on DU where the passionate fuck-the-facts convictions some hold come from. And they're not just for or against either of our last presidential candidates. Maybe they targeted people from every viewpoint and trained them to passionately believe ONLY THEY are the facts people and that everyone else is dishonest?

After all, the whole purpose was to divide us and turn us on each other.

[emulatorloo]

83. There were lots of suspect blogs, websites, and articles drug here from somewhere

maybe not all from Facebook, but certainly some.

“Those that hated Sanders are likely a product of this manipulation”. That’s revisionist history. These suspect sites etc where anti-Clinton.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

87. So what you are saying

is that people that supported Sanders have to be aware that they were dupes in a grand scheme by people on a mission, but Clinton supporters in no way were manipulated.

Because that's what it sounds like. I mean it just isn't possible that the Sanders' hate was driven by someone on a mission? No, of course not because of situation above.

[emulatorloo]

90. Thats not what I said at all

And I supported Sanders in 2016

[CentralMass]

37. Have you looked recently ?

[Squinch]

40. At what?

[CentralMass]

46. The infighting

[Squinch]

48. Can you say what it is you are saying? Yes, there is still infighting. Yes, there is still

bad feeling.

The viciousness of the fighting in this primary was worse than I remember it ever being before.

That seems to support the argument that the trump campaign, through CA was able to use pinpointed manipulation to set supporters of both Democratic primary candidates against each other to weaken the Democratic position.

[CentralMass]

50. This infighting, IMO,has nothing to do with FB. It is manufactured right here,

[SoCalNative]

5. Some of us do not

play any of their games nor do we take any of the quizzes that appear on there. Do they mine other data like web location of sites visited for targeted advertizing? Sure, as do just about all other sites on the internet these days.

Oh, and it's Mark Zuckerberg, not Steve.

[Squinch]

10. Thank you. Correcting.

[Wounded Bear]

15. I'm in that camp...

Never was interested in the games, and I don't do the clickbait "surveys" or "personality tests" they continually push.

Not interested.

[Neema]

58. Me neither. I only use it to communicate with friends and family around the globe and

it has worked better at keeping us connected than ANYTHING else has. I think it's easy for people to dismiss that aspect of it. But I have some friends and relatives who do not have the money for phone calls, and they live 9, 10, even 12 hours away in time zones. They don't have enough bandwidth for Skype, and it wouldn't work for more than a couple of people at a time anyway. Email is difficult for those with less than perfect written language skills. But FB and FB messenger allows us to exchange photos and life events and share in each others' lives. We have private groups where we post updates and photos and family stories. We are even able to check in there during emergencies, which we've used more than once in the last 10 years.

I see the ads on Facebook. I don't click on them. Even if it's something that interests me, I research it elsewhere.

[ancianita]

115. Me, neither. And never "friended" anyone I'd never met in person.

[Little Star]

6. Mark is Zuckerberg's first name and.....

I control my own Facebook page's news feed and so can everyone.

https://www.facebook.com/help/335291769884272


I like facebook.

[Squinch]

14. Thank you. I corrected.

[Squinch]

42. But even though YOU control your feed, what do you think about the fact that

the trump campaign was able to profile and target 50 million American voters?

[OneGrassRoot]

7. We've normalized casual modern exploitation in exchange for convenience. n/t

[Blue_Adept]

9. I use FB Purity

Which means I don't see ads to begin with.

I'm only friends with people I actually know.

And really, not everyone uses FB the same way. It's an individual experience in what's done.

[demmiblue]

11. I don't use Facebook, and I'm not sure why you are targeting/accusing DUers. Strange.

Also, why are you assuming that people are not bothered? I have not seen that argument here.


Edit: I see, more primary drama. Good lawd.

[Squinch]

20. Just because you have not seen it doesn't mean it does not exist. But thanks for kicking.

[demmiblue]

32. You're welcome! I am guessing that you are a Facebook user. n/t

[Squinch]

35. Never have been.

[monmouth4]

49. I love FB and have no intention of giving it up...n/t

[Squinch]

43. Responding to your edit, what do you mean by "more primary drama?"

[marylandblue]

12. Realize even if you don't use face Facebook

you still can influenced by your friends who do. Also they weren't just trying to get you to vote for Trump, but to divide the nation. If you are angry at Trump voters, you have accomplished part of their purpose.

[Squinch]

23. Yes. This. I wonder how much of the hate that was swirling here

originated among people on our own side who may have been targeted.

[LanternWaste]

13. Not certain that only the weak-minded are duped...

Not certain that only the weak-minded are duped, but rather that the lazy mind, lacking discipline (and regardless of cleverness or idiocy), is bamboozled into believing that weakness applies to everyone.

And assigning that to Facebook alone rather than ALL social media, including DU seems rather naive on your part.

But I get it... I use FB and was obviously duped and manipulated into voting for Clinton and getting news from just about every place other than FB. So if that was their agenda... well played, Facebook. Well played.

[Johnny2X2X]

26. Not how this works

Intelligence and discipline have zero to do with this. Do you have emotions? If yes, you can be manipulated, period.

Facebook owes its users a full account of exactly what is done with their data and how it is used to manipulate them.

[Squinch]

28. I get it, Lantern. You feel there is nothing to see here and the CA hijacking of 50 million

people's files is a non-event.

[Tipperary]

79. I know, right?

Fascinating.

[Anon-C]

17. What bothers me is Facebook, Google and Twitter having FTEs...

...working for and on Donald Trumps 2016 campaign.

[ck4829]

18. "Fortunately, I am mighty." - Thor, right as he was slipping into mind control

This is what I think of whenever I hear "I am way too smart to be influenced by Russian propaganda/Cambridge Analytics, smoke it libs!"

[Wwcd]

19. Big K & R..outstanding post.

[IronLionZion]

21. People like to think they're smart and others are severely stupid

and these assholes have ways to manipulate that bias too by posting things that appear true to confirm our own beliefs and stir up our emotions, even if it's to feel good about ourselves and look down on those other idiots. It's everywhere, and it does target plenty of liberals by dividing us against each other and against our party leaders before elections. Often, simply sowing distrust is enough to make a difference in some elections. Or get enough people on our side to feel so disgusted with the situation that they don't vote.

[Johnny2X2X]

29. Yes!

This poster gets it. This has zero to do with intelligence and mental fortitude. We all have emotions, Facebook uses a detailed psychological profile of you to be able to manipulate your emotions. The idea this only happened to weak minded Trumpers is a product of emotional manipulation itself.

[Squinch]

31. I really wonder how much of the viciousness that went on here before the election

was influenced that way. ETA: to be clear, that's not a smear on any candidate's followers. For it to work, I would assume that followers of both primary candidates would have to be manipulated to bring the fight back here from FB.

[IronLionZion]

41. 2016 sucked harder than previous election years

and there was a lot of effort made to divide Dems and generally make people feel disgusted with the system and our own party.

I wouldn't be surprised if it influenced DU. While there were stupid things going on from our party's leaders. There were clearly elements trying to amplify it and provoke us into conflict.

One example is immediately after every horrible tragic terrorist attack, we'll see lots of new DUers sharing juicy details and pure BS not reported by any news outlet. These folks must be trolls.

For Facebook, they easily profile users because of things we like and share on that site. They can build very comprehensive psychological profiles based on our activity there. They also handle authentication for many other sites for those who want the convenience of single sign on. They even had a way to find out which of our friends had "liked" the other candidate's page as a way to expose and unfriend them.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

25. Anyone who thinks this is only a Facebook issue is fooling themselves.

[pnwmom]

99. +1. n/t

[gopiscrap]

27. let's put it this way I have never voted for anyone but a Democrat

and always the most liberal one possible at that. I would vote D no matter what. Republicans can all fuck off and die for all I am concerned. I would even vote for a serial rapist, pedophile, embezzeler etc because I feel repubs are even lower than that. The only care I would have is if the D votes for policies that are D and when they are the same as a repub, I would still vote for the D so they have more reps in Congress than the R's

[Squinch]

30. Does it bother you that the trump campaign targeted and manipulated information

being fed to 50 million American voters?

[gopiscrap]

63. absolutely but it wouldn't bother me a bit if the Democrats did it

because you know the fucking republicans WILL do it

[Squinch]

64. Really? It would bother me.

[gopiscrap]

69. I am all about the win and at this point I don't care how we get there

[hlthe2b]

33. Well, I AM CERTAIN--but only because I'm not registered on Facebook

Twitter and Facebook are a real problem IMO.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

113. ...

(I don't do twits and farcebook either.)

[still_one]

36. I have never had the problem

then again, I don't have a facebook or twitter account

oh well.........

[Squinch]

38. Me either, and maybe that is why I am finding the responses by FB users to be

so puzzling.

Maybe it's a real mind blower and worth trashing our Democratic process and you and I are just missing out.

[still_one]

119. I guess so squinch

[yallerdawg]

39. This helps!

https://adblockplus.org/

For me, to date:

[WhiskeyGrinder]

44. Pretending anyone hasn't been manipulated under American capitalism is laughable. But

castigating people for trying to make informed and conscious choices isn't necessarily helpful, either.

[Squinch]

45. Is that what I am doing? Castigating?

[CentralMass]

47. You are right, I am not concerned, I havn't watched the Fox Network since the 2008 primary

I dropped cable 3 years ago, I do have acess to CNN but watch only to catch debates etc,, I can filter out propaganda whatever the source.

[Squinch]

52. Does it bother you that the trump campaign, through CA, was able to manipulate the FB

feeds of 50 million American voters?

[CentralMass]

53. It bothers me that many sources of information are used to manipulate people.

[Squinch]

56. But this was the one with Steve Bannon and Jared holding the strings.

[CentralMass]

61. Other then one wingtnut cousin in my small circle of FB friends I didn't see any major issue during

the election. When i saw any bs posts I repied and called them as out as fake news and cited information to counter, Howver the maority of my contacts are friend and family and most are democrats. Most do not discuss politics.

[randr]

51. I think we all need to think long and hard how we

carried on over the Hillary/Bernie issue. I suspect some of the ammunition on both sides was implanted through social media.

[msongs]

54. over the air and cable tv runs billions of minutes of political ads. we should ban them too? nt

[Squinch]

60. Do the tv ads you see result from a detailed psychological profile of you specifically based on

all the information you like and share? A psychological profile made without your permission? And controlled by the trump campaign?

[Mike Nelson]

55. Most of my facebook...

...is anti-Trump! Also belong to a Facebook group where we plot how best to accelerate his downfall.

[LeftInTX]

102. I'm in a bunch of anti-Trump groups!

The groups are closed, so we can block spammers. I'm sure there are lurkers, from Cruz, Cornyn, Hurd and Lamar Smith's office staff, cuz we hold protests there.

[Bettie]

57. We've all been manipulated by media of some sort at some point

it is everywhere.

[Blecht]

62. Just like using gasoline to start a grill

"But I'm really careful with how I use it."

There is no safe way to use Facebook!

[dalton99a]

66. It is data mining disguised as social networking

"Give me more information"

[Blecht]

70. Dangerous data mining

It played a big role in getting us President Trump.

[mopinko]

65. so if not fb, what? i promote my small business there.

i have 1600 followers. i have 5 years worth of pics.
where else do i go, and how do i convert all that?

serious question.

[Squinch]

68. I don't know. Really I don't. I have never used it and don't even like

the idea of it, so I don't relate to the necessity, but I do realize that many do find it necessary.

Somehow making FB feel some pain seems to me clearly to be a first step, though. They are abusing their customers in the worst way.

If someone went into your house and took all your photos and listened in on all your conversations with your friends and then packaged that information and gave them to the trump campaign, you would be outraged. But that's essentially what happened. They need to be made to pay for that, and to prove that they won't do that again.

[mopinko]

71. i never take the quizzes, so there's that.

figured out that bs long ago.
also run adblocker, so i never see the ads.

thing is, i never assumed i had any privacy there or anywhere else on the net. even here.

i am not sure they are even the worst actors out there. who knows what twitter is up to.

[Squinch]

73. True. But they did hand trump 50 million detailed psychological profiles of voting Americans to

manipulate and spread his hate and fear. I can't get past that.

But yes. It wouldn't surprise me now if twitter was up to something equally as horrifying.

[phleshdef]

67. I'm not boycotting FB. It serves too many social purposes for me.

And you aren't going to shame me into it.

Something should be done about CA for sure but I'm not just going to stop using Facebook to make a worthless statement.

[Johnny2X2X]

72. Berners!

Since people in this thread are dancing around the subject for some reason, I'll just say it: Bernie supporters were manipulated almost as much as Trump supporters into hating Hillary. And the narrative that really began to flourish and take hold in the primaries is the one that cost her the election.

I voted for Bernie because I've been on to him for decades and know he's an honest politician. But FB among my liberal and college educated group was absolutely polluted with anti Hillary propaganda. I had Berners posting the financial records from the Clinton Foundation and saying, "look, most of the money was spent running the organization, only 5% given to charity as grants." No mention of how the Clinton Foundation is an actual charity and they perform the charity work themselves. I've confronted Bernie supporters with these very facts and all I get is blank stares in reply. And Hillary supporters (of which I am one), there are misinformation stories circulating about Bernie this very day.

Facebook can be shaped based on your psychological profile to manipulate your emotions. DA did this in favor of Trump. And to this day millions of even Hillary supporters believe wrong things about her because of this campaign.

[Squinch]

74. I am a Hillary supporter. I believe if they were manipulating Bernie supporters, they were

manipulating Hillary supporters just as hard. The goal was division. It took both sides.

[Johnny2X2X]

75. Yes

They manipulated many of them to not vote at all.

What was done sounds like fantasy, but it's not, this is real science based on data, they weren't just guessing how many votes this would translate into, they had very accurate predictions.

[Squinch]

78. It really does seem like science fiction.

[GusBob]

76. Ya know, during the primary of 2016, right here on DU

Supporters of one candidate or the other were alert swarmed and manipulated right off the forums.

people were not allowed to freely speak their minds, even when they posted truthful or fact filled opinions

Ironic how that isn't a problem on FB

[CentralMass]

77. Bull. A good percentage of my FB friend voted for Bernie in the primary and we all voted for Hillary

Sanders FB post during the primary were positve posts.


The Washington Post ran an article last summer that looked at the number of voters who voted for Sander in the primary and Trump in the general vs the number of Hillary voters in 2008 who voted for McCain. By a 2:1 margin more Hillary voters voted for McCain in 2008 then did Sanders voters vote for Trump in 2016.

[Johnny2X2X]

93. McCain wasn't running

Saying more McCain supporters voted for Hillary is irrelevant. Enough Bernie voters voted for Trump or didn't vote at all to make a difference when coupled with the psychological warfare that got Republicans to vote for Trump. Neither were insignificant. I suspect that getting Republican voters to think that Hillary was worse than Trump had the largest effect though.

And perhaps more of an impact was the impressions it led to of Hillary that made it harder t defend her. How many times did you hear, "yeah, Hillary is maybe dirty, but Trump is way worse" as a defense of her?

It is a provable fact that Hillary is one of the cleanest politicians we've seen in our lifetime. She has never been charged with a crime, and an email server is the worst thing she's ever done, and even that was blown into something way bigger than t was supposed to be.

[CentralMass]

95. I cited a comparison to 2008.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/08/24/did-enough-bernie-sanders-supporters-vote-for-trump-to-cost-clinton-the-election/?sw_bypass=true&utm_term=.62f06b837207

The executive summary is that by at least a 2:1 margin Hillary voters voted for McCain in 2008 vs the Sanders voters who voted for Trump in 2016. It also cited that "Perhaps the most important feature of Sanders-Trump voters is this: They weren’t really Democrats to begin with."


"How many Sanders voters voted for Donald Trump?

Two surveys estimate that 12 percent of Sanders voters voted for Trump. A third survey suggests it was 6 percent.

First, the political scientist Brian Schaffner analyzed the Cooperative Congressional Election Study, which was conducted by YouGov and interviewed 64,600 Americans in October-November 2016. In that survey, Schaffner found that 12 percent of people who voted in the primary and reported voting for Sanders also voted in November and reported voting for Trump."


Schaffner examined only voters whose turnout in the primary and general election could be validated using voter file data. This excludes people who said they voted but actually did not — although it also excludes people who voted in caucuses or party-run primaries, for which validated turnout data are not as readily available.

Hillary Voters in 2008
"Another useful comparison is to 2008, when the question was whether Clinton supporters would vote for Barack Obama or John McCain (R-Ariz.) Based on data from the 2008 Cooperative Campaign Analysis Project, a YouGov survey that also interviewed respondents multiple times during the campaign, 24 percent of people who supported Clinton in the primary as of March 2008 then reported voting for McCain in the general election.

An analysis of a different 2008 survey by the political scientists Michael Henderson, Sunshine Hillygus and Trevor Thompson produced a similar estimate: 25 percent. (Unsurprisingly, Clinton voters who supported McCain were more likely to have negative views of African Americans, relative to those who supported Obama.)

Thus, the 6 percent or 12 percent of Sanders supporters who may have supported Trump does not look especially large in comparison with these other examples."

"What kinds of Sanders voters supported Trump?

Perhaps the most important feature of Sanders-Trump voters is this: They weren’t really Democrats to begin with.

Of course, we know that many Sanders voters did not readily identify with the Democratic Party as of 2016, and Schaffner found that Sanders-Trump voters were even less likely to identify as Democrats. Sanders-Trump voters didn’t much approve of Obama either.

In fact, this was true well before 2016. In the VOTER Survey, we know how Sanders-Trump voters voted in 2012, based on an earlier interview in November 2012. Only 35 percent of them reported voting for Obama, compared with 95 percent of Sanders-Clinton voters. In other words, Sanders-Trump voters were predisposed to support Republicans in presidential general elections well before Trump’s candidacy."

[marybourg]

80. Yes, well most TV watchers believe they're not

affected by TV ads ("I buy what I like!&quot . But as someone who has essentially not watched commercial TV in 50 years, I can tell you that my buying and consuming habits are waaaay different from those of most people.

[Squinch]

89. Yes, and this is that kind of manipulation on speed.

[ehrnst]

81. And there is a way to determine if you followed or liked russian troll FB pages/posts:

I think that many will avoid checking.

https://techcrunch.com/2017/12/22/check-now-to-see-if-you-liked-any-russian-troll-accounts-on-facebook/

[Squinch]

94. Wow! You should make this an OP.

[ehrnst]

106. Done.

However, I really think that a lot of people here do NOT want that information, because of the implications.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100210380630

I found that I didn't like or follow any of the Bot pages.

[MuseRider]

117. I checked as soon as that was available

because I was curious but was reassured that I was correct, I had not been involved in any of that. It was sure out there. I try, but do not always succeed, to not do politics there.

I don't know why anyone would not want to know.

[DownriverDem]

82. I voted for Hillary

Nothing on FB changed that.

[SpankMe]

84. IMO, libs are different from cons when it comes to manipulation

We're subject to manipulation, too. But when that manipulation is revealed to us, we liberals are more prone to accept we've been manipulated and take future steps to try and recognize it. Not universally, mind you. But, I really believe we can develop resistance better than the cons can.

When conservatives are revealed to have been manipulated, they deny they've been manipulated and double down on the accuracy of the engineered information they've received. They get angry and say that revealing they've been manipulated is itself a nefarious attempt at manipulation.

There are a few on DU right now who say they haven't been manipulated and can't be manipulated in some vast superiority to conservatives. But, this Cambridge thing is pretty new. As it sinks in, I think that rhetoric will ease up and DU'ers will change their tune from "that can't happen to us" to "wow, I'm glad I'm aware".

Keep your eyes open to media - especially Facebook - that looks too good to be true and that conforms too cleanly to your values. All data is suspect. Don't act like Lemmings like Republicans do.

[Squinch]

120. I suspect you are right. I've always noticed how much people seem

to like FB (seems like an outer circle of hell to me. I've never been on it) and right now the media is calling this a "data breach." Once the details are well known of exactly how insidious and large this was, I suspect people will be more serious about it.

I'm disturbed at all the "yeah, well, you watch commercials, right? Same thing!" ads.

I just saw a very funny post with a cartoon of two pigs in a barn saying, "Wow, and we don't even have to pay for the barn! They're letting us live here free!" We're bacon now, kids!

[barbtries]

85. i don't doubt that much content i saw was

pre-manufactured. on twitter i try to be very discretionary for the same reason.
however, it did not change my vote or my beliefs or my determination to learn as much as possible using all the reliable sources available.
my whole extended family uses facebook. i'm not deleting my account.

seems like you might want to tag me stupid. the tone of your post is condescending imo.

[bettyellen]

86. Youre going to get a real wide spectrum of experiences shared here becasue we were all

Micro-targeted. I saw the manipulative bullshit happening against Hillary and some very “passionate” friends parroting lies. Shit, RT Assange and Intercept we’re suddenly their favorite sources- so it was easy for me to see. I saw very little anti- Sanders stuff though, but perhaps it was becasue I never did any quizzes? The anti- Hillary was from people who were predisposed to dislike her. And it turned the dislike into hate. They didn’t care that it was coming from Russia, either.

[poboy2]

92. It really hit home when an otherwise 'liberal' friend suddenly started talking about how

Hillary wanted to get us into a war w/Russia. WTF? Then I realized, her facebook feed was infected.

[bettyellen]

103. Yep- that was targeted toward people who were extremely anxious about war

Remember the Cambridge professor (born in Russian and also working at U of St Petersburg) took grant money to study anxiety in users of social media- from Russia! I guess Cambridge wasn’t savy enough to realize the point was to use people’s anxieties against them?

[Snake Plissken]

88. Facebook is goldmine when it comes to manipulation as are Amazon and Youtube.

Everyone can be manipulated and everyone is manipulated to a certain degree because the information we receive has been manipulated, but people who are attracted to trendy merchandise and trendy topics are extremely susceptible to manipulation and it's who advertisers pay premiums to peddle their products and services to.

[Doodley]

91. Where they were most effective was in creating

Negative feelings about Hillary Clinton and suppressing her vote. The level of hatred for Hillary Clinton is largely because she was redefined by The GOP, Trump and social media. Her approval numbers were in the sixties just a few years before.

[Johnny2X2X]

123. Most admired woman

They turned one of the world’s the most admired women into a hatable character. Even her supporters had trouble defending her in the end. It will be worse the next time.

[Tipperary]

96. I have seen numerous posts that are clearly fake news that duers have posted from fb.

So I do not believe for a minute that posters here are immune from being manipulated.

[retread]

97. I was appalled at the sheer depth and breadth of the data being mined. Every click/keystroke deleted

or sent. All those answers to those silly little quizzes. I realize this is the internet and only a fool expects privacy here, but this is beyond the pale.

Going forward Facebook will have trouble generating revenue to satisfy the bankers. There were already signs of this b4 Cambridge. What do you think they will do with the gold mine they are sitting on? I can't imagine the bankers will allow them to pull back on collecting data. It will only get worse.

[Squinch]

118. I was blown away by how they were cataloging people to find their "paranoid" or "neurotic"

vulnerabilities and then poke at those vulnerabilities.

That is science fiction stuff. And the people who were doing it have the worst possible motives.

[pnwmom]

98. I always check sources before I read anything. And when I see that a FB friend or relative

has posted a lie from a dubious source, I'll reply with a correction from a MSM source.

If people like me leave FB, then we won't know what people like some of my elderly relatives are getting exposed to and we won't have a chance to respond to the lies.

I'm staying. But I do think FB should pay a serious financial penalty for its actions.

[bluescribbler]

100. It bothers the hell out of me.

I recognize the many attempts to manipulate in my life, and am able to resist most of them. I never drink any of the beers advertised on the sports programs I watch. I bought my current vehicle because of its high fuel economy and its reported reliability on Consumers' Reports. On the other hand, I do reach for the pack when I see a character on TV light up a cigarette. The FB bs didn't change my votes in 2016, but I recognize that it did for too many of my fellow citizens.

[Squinch]

101. That's the part that freaks me out. How many of that 50 million?

[infullview]

104. I'm proud to say that I have two facebook profiles

and both of them were created with totally bogus information. The only reason I created them was to be able to read other people's FB pages which you CAN'T do if you don't have a FB account.

FB SUCKS! and so does titter.

[Squinch]

107. LOL!

[MuseRider]

108. Society is simply going to have to learn

how to think again.

So much info, so much BS.

I do FB to keep up with friends and I belong to a lot of groups that help me with some of my interests (oh my the goat groups are wonderful!). Long ago I decided that no matter what I read there (or here, OMG anyone who thinks this stuff was not here was not looking), if it was not on one of the campaign websites or something that I heard directly from the candidate or their people then it was suspicious and not to be believed. AND only the information they said about themselves. It is easy to decide once you filter all the other crap out.

We all have to grow up and it is going to be hard. FB is not the only place but it sure was the BIG place this time. Who knows what is next. It is going to take a lot of adjusting for people and a few years at that.

[Nitram]

109. My view is that conservatives are easily manipulated by fear, and that is what CA focused on.

Fear of immigrants, fear of foreigners, fear of crime, fear of socialism, fear of gays, fear of transgender people, fear of all the things Fox Noise has conditioned them to fear over the last two decades.

I doubt Zuckerberg smiled on "the whole transaction." He turned a blind eye to the use of FB's data for profit, but it is unlikely he would have smiled if he knew it was helping Trump win.

[NRaleighLiberal]

110. do you watch TV? We don't. turned it off 10 years ago.

I use Facebook for gardening activities and my book related things and speaking events.

Much of what is said about FB or Twitter holds for TV or newspapers.

The root cause - targeting - may be different. But broad brush strokes that hint of moral superiority are not helpful right now.

[George II]

111. Well, I know I wasn't. I have two accounts -

One as myself because I needed it for some now forgotten reason, and one under another name in case I want to find out something about someone or something (i.e., look up someone or a business) I don't post anything with either account, and I rarely even access them.

[bpj62]

112. Small minded or stupid

I Love The holier than thou attitude of some of the responses here. I use Facebook because it connects me with friends and family around the world. I do not use it to form my political opinions or as a source of news. No one here should be surprised that a political party found a way to micro target specific groups of people via the data mining of a social media network. Everything Facebook allowed to happen was spelled out in the terms of service. Facebook cut off CA not because they got caught but because they got played. Money talks and I am sure CA paid Facebook a lot of money to build the app and look the other way.

[tclambert]

114. Dunning-Kruger Overdrive

I saw that phrase somewhere recently and loved it. It applies to Trump and any of his followers who think they are "like" a smart person.

[progressoid]

116. Yes, I am too smart. Thanks.

I've spent most of my adult life working in media. I know how the game is played.

[Skittles]

121. it will forever boggle my mind, how many people were sucked into the FB borg

[Egnever]

125. People in general are gullible.

You can see it here daily on a supposedly informed message board. A day hardly goes by some sort of fake headline is posted here and people cheer it.

We all like to think we are immune but we all have our triggers it is finding those triggers that the cambridge and facebook folks are getting really good at and manipulating them.

[Skittles]

127. yup

Russia and repukes know more than anyone how easily manipulated people are

[Tipperary]

128. I have lost count how many fb memes and fake news I have seen posted here.

Lots of gullible duers who seem more than willing to post “news” they see on fb.

[The_jackalope]

124. well, I'm smart enough to use FB Purity.

I use it to block all ads and political posts. Between that and living in Canada, I escaped the worst of the deza.

[Freethinker65]

126. Honestly, the only thing I can not completely explain is my hatred of Wasserman-Schultz

I would say it is possible I read things about her that I did not check and verify to be true. Did that make me a bit more pro-Bernie than I might have been otherwise? I will never know, but I enthusiastically voted for Hillary.

I have not taken any data mining/"personality" tests on FB for years and I unliked a bunch of stuff once I noticed ads popping up years ago, however, my politics do lean left and I have posted on some liberal pages, so I suppose I could have been targeted?