[LukaAl]

I find it remarkable that people don't understand there's a non-subtle difference between signing up voluntarily on the Obama website using Facebook and consenting to the information collection vs. signing up for a quiz from an unrelated company and having that data used by the Trump campaign.

If you don't understand the difference, it is the same difference between having consensual sex with your girlfriend and raping your neighbor girlfriend because she consented to have sex with him...

Now, this metaphor is imperfect, but from what we could see the Obama campaign was within the boundary allowed by Facebook TOS and what disclosed to the user. Did they push this to the limit? Yes. To the point that FB didn't think it was feasible. But legit according to the rule. Maybe having consensual extreme BSDM sex with your girlfriend vs. raping your neighbor's GF? Quiz, which one is legal and which one is not?

[vanilla_nut]

I believe the Obama campaign used Facebook friend connections to target individual voters [1]

("Online, the get-out-the-vote effort continued with a first-ever attempt at using Facebook on a mass scale to replicate the door-knocking efforts of field organizers. In the final weeks of the campaign, people who had downloaded an app were sent messages with pictures of their friends in swing states. They were told to click a button to automatically urge those targeted voters to take certain actions, such as registering to vote, voting early or getting to the polls.")

Note that I specifically picked an article from 2012 because the past 48 hours has seen quite a few articles discussing the Obama Facebook campaign -- articles which I'd argue are likely subject to a taint of bias, given the recent CA events (I'd guess that journalists are digging for a story, which tends to skew perspectives). Anyway, this kind of targeting is, in hindsight, not really OK with me -- but I think the line here is that the Obama campaign collected information and asked your friends (who supported the campaign) to pitch in by asking particular friends to vote. This year's election was much more subtle, since instead targeted voters were treated to a slew of biased ads and propaganda stories. At least, that's how I see it.

Also, while I don't disagree with your analogy, anything involving sexual assault is probably going to hurt rather than help your arguments with most crowds. I don't think it's something we should ignore, of course, but we should keep in mind that it's a strong metaphor -- akin to calling someone "literally Hitler" -- so you might want to reconsider that in the future. Not trying to be a jerk, just trying to be helpful, so feel free to ignore my unsolicited advice.

[1] https://www.cnn.com/2012/11/07/tech/web/obama-campaign-tech-...

[rdtsc]

> signing up voluntarily on the Obama website using Facebook

So the whole social graph signed up to Obama's website? Because that's exactly what was happening.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/feb/17/obama-digital-...

---

Every time an individual volunteers to help out – for instance by offering to host a fundraising party for the president – he or she will be asked to log onto the re-election website with their Facebook credentials. That in turn will engage Facebook Connect, the digital interface that shares a user's personal information with a third party.

Consciously or otherwise, the individual volunteer will be injecting all the information they store publicly on their Facebook page – home location, date of birth, interests and, crucially, network of friends – directly into the central Obama database.

---

> it is the same difference between having consensual sex with your girlfriend and raping your neighbor girlfriend because she consented to have sex with him...

Really, rape, that's the best metaphor to reach for...

[thousandautumns]

You are right, that is non-subtle difference and should be noted. But I feel like the most egregious aspect of the process was being able to gather data on unsuspecting users by getting their friends to use the app. That's entirely legal, but definitely is the part that I think most people take the biggest offense to, and that is something that was done by both the Trump and Obama teams.

[dominotw]

horrible metaphors.

[mistermann]

The world would be a much better place if people weren't so utterly ignorant of their personal bias.

[vanilla_nut]

I fail to see how this comment is at all constructive to the situation at hand. What personal bias are you talking about here? Would it really be that hard to elaborate? Instead of acting like you're better than the grandparent poster, it would be far better to either a) engage him in a conversation or b) not comment at all.

[mistermann]

Constructive conversation on certain topics is sometimes not possible when in a forum that leans too far to the right or the left. There is a common mentality among many people where they know they are right, such that no response to differing opinions is even necessary, a downvote will do (which is doubly useful, because it censors the downvoted person for some period of time). And if you do not support the narrative, you will be downvoted. Respect is a two way street, or at least it used to be.

I'm happy to engage in a debate any time, finding someone else willing to participate is a problem when everyone is only interested in discussing the nuances of how they agree with each other.

I'll also disagree that it's not better to comment at all - voices of dissent are valuable in a democracy, silencing them is the actually dangerous path to take, but that seems to be the path that's been chosen, so we'll see how it works out.

[vanilla_nut]

I agree that constructive conversation is sometimes very very difficult depending on biases in participants. You make a good point that people sometimes simply dismiss differing ideas because "they're wrong" with little basis -- these kind of shortcuts are generally necessary in life (you'd never get anything done if you didn't sometimes use heuristics to assess the value of an argument) but also reinforce biases since your heuristics tend to favor arguments with which you agree.

However, I'd just like to say that your previous comment didn't give me much of an impression that you're happy to engage in a debate -- how on earth can I participate in a conversation with you when your comment is 18 words, and I have no clue what you're trying to express? That is why I responded: because I had no clue what you were trying to say, but I was curious.

My point about "not commenting at all" wasn't so much in regard to democracy (on a political platform, most discussion is good, because you need to consider the needs of many different people), but rather just a guide to good behaviour, a la "if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all." I think HN is made a better place by dissenting opinions (I dislike echo chambers in general) but one-off dismissive comments do not a constructive conversation make. You need to give reasoning and explain your arguments.

I also noticed that you seem a little preoccupied with downvotes. Personally, I don't think you should sweat them too much, as long as you feel like you're having constructive conversations and behaving civilly (in this comment thread, I'm happy to report that you made a lot of good points, and did a lot better than that first comment I responded to). If somebody downvotes you simply for having a different opinion, they're breaking HN rules. Downvotes, as far as I know, are supposed to be used for limiting the visibility of off-topic/poor quality comments. So if you get downvoted, your comments might be poor quality... or you might just be off topic. This thread is awfully off-topic, but I personally believe it's good quality discussion, so if it gets downvoted, I don't mind much: I still benefited, but it might get hidden from general readers. That's OK.

Anyway, thank you for responding to my (probably slightly-too-critical) comment in a reasonable way where you explained your thoughts. I apologize for misjudging you based on your previous comment.

[mistermann]

> You make a good point that people sometimes simply dismiss differing ideas because "they're wrong" with little basis -- these kind of shortcuts are generally necessary in life (you'd never get anything done if you didn't sometimes use heuristics to assess the value of an argument)

YES! The problem is, who besides you and I realize this, nowadays? As far as I can tell, and believe me I'm sincerely looking for it, I feel like people are falling into some sort of a zombie state. Reddit has been like this for quite some time now, I honestly think it is spreading to HN now, at least on any topic that has a non-technical, non-purely-objective component.

> However, I'd just like to say that your previous comment didn't give me much of an impression that you're happy to engage in a debate -- how on earth can I participate in a conversation with you when your comment is 18 words, and I have no clue what you're trying to express? That is why I responded: because I had no clue what you were trying to say, but I was curious.

That's me lashing out at you due to my frustration with the new culture of close-mindedness around here. 100% wrong on my part no doubt, but being reasonable doesn't do shit so might as well join the party and get an adrenalin shot I guess is my thinking.

> If somebody downvotes you simply for having a different opinion, they're breaking HN rules

That didn't used to be true, because there have been discussions about just that. Currently, it's not even mentioned in Guidelines or FAQ afaict. (I've been breaking a few of these lately tbh.)

> So if you get downvoted, your comments might be poor quality

My main frustration is, you can post a substantive, reasoned comment, and rather than a reasoned disagreement, just downvotes. And fast. That by itself is not so big a deal, it's the intellectual swagger (my interpretation, of course) that so many people carry, but can't piece together a decent argument. Again, this is pretty much what reddit has become, but it's sad to see even HN isn't immune.

> I apologize for misjudging you based on your previous comment.

I can be a jerk from time to time.

Thanks for replying by the way, encountering someone who actually thinks, even if it's differently than me (not that it's the case here), helps restore my faith in humanity.

[icebraining]

The problem with your previous comment is that it's not even clear from what are you dissenting.

[mistermann]

Fair enough, but it wouldn't have made any difference. Disagreement with this particular aspect of the local culture will get you a downvote, not a discussion. Any discussion, if you're lucky to get one, would be better described as a re-education lecture, to teach you the "facts" of "how things are".

Jonathan Haidt has studied this psychological phenomenon quite extensively and in my opinion it does a good job of explaining the recent unusual behavior of the public, it's a shame no one's interested.

The moral roots of liberals and conservatives

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vs41JrnGaxc

[grzm]

I've found Haidt's work very useful. One of the things I've taken from Haidt is how important both sides of the communication are. Blaming everything on "the other side" as you are doing here ("ny discussion, if you're lucky to get one, would be better described as a re-education lecture" and "it's a shame no one's interested") does exactly the opposite, regardless of how accurate you might feel the description is.

If you're looking for nuance and constructive discussion, it's crucial to put that foot forward yourself. And understanding, given the climate, that it's likely going to be a lot of work, as you're working against built-in human psychological biases that are unfortunately being reinforced by many trends in media, both traditional and online. Loading your discourse with the phrases you do here are working against that. I'm glad that you've found Haidt interesting in some way. Step up and work the problem, rather than contribute to it. There's no quick fix.