You're perfectly correct. The advantage of social media, if it exists at all, is symmetric between right and left. The 2008 Obama campaign was universally celebrated in the press for its deft use of social media [0, 1, 2, 3, 4], which included data mining in the style of Cambridge Analytica but at several times the scale, and using that data to hyper-target its message. Strangely, at the time this was universally called the future of democracy, not its end.
Obama and the Democratic Party are, by no stretch of the imagination, far-left.
I suspect whoever had used it first would have been celebrated at the time. Every new innovation usually reveals its problems only later. Targeted ads 15 years ago were touted as being able to ensure we'd have a healthy relationship with ads, and only get ads we desired. Didn't turn out like that, did it?
If Cambridge Analytica had come along 5 years earlier in the political cycle, the Republicans would have been lauded for finding a marvellous new technique to engage the electorate, and the Democrats caught the flak for breaking democracy. Give it a couple more elections and I imagine much of the developed world will have outlawed micro-targeted political ads.
It might be somewhat collectively balanced, but I certainly wouldn't call it symmetric.
People don't realize that the Obama campaign and Cambridge Analytica were essentially doing the exact same thing. CA just didn't have explicit permission.
The bigger problem is that Facebook denied everyone else the same inside access that it proactively offered to the Obama campaign. Which is the only reason CA was doing it in the first place.
Guardian are UK based. The far left in the UK barely exist, or at least are spread so thin they barely matter. There's dozens (hundreds?) of fringe groups still, and sub-groups within Labour.
The right seem to have had their Internet act rather more together - whether the ERG wing of the Tories, UKIP, or the outright fascist Britain First. Or at least slightly less inclined to split into the People's Front of Judea, Judean People's Front, Popular Judean People's Front - membership of one, etc.
Maybe a better question is why the far left haven't been able to replicate what might seem pretty obvious for a fringe group? I suspect in other parts of Europe they are doing much better at it...
The far left in the UK barely exist, or at least are spread so thin they barely matter.
I don’t want to get into an ideological flamewar (hello dang!) but this factually isn’t true. Momentum have gotten so out of hand that even Tom Watson is telling people to vote for BoJo now.
It probably does, but the far left is not so big and rabidly destructive at the present time, at least from the available evidence. That might change, of course.
There are no doubt destructive tendencies on the far left as well (horrible cult-like groups have survived from the 1960s up till now tbh). But there is important way that a particular so of right-wing approach has fed on the current climate.
Imagine, if you will, a fusion of a hate group, a conspiracy theory and a multilevel marketing campaign (and it's not hard given you can see these things in action today). Such tend to be radical, bizarre but not anti-capitalist since they are quite overtly a business (and arguably "right wing" is not almost the best for them but they're seldom left wing 'cause they're businesses).
Because right wingers have higher engagement and are more profitable to target, as outlined in this buzzfeednews piece:
> Several teens and young men who run these sites told BuzzFeed News that they learned the best way to generate traffic is to get their politics stories to spread on Facebook — and the best way to generate shares on Facebook is to publish sensationalist and often false content that caters to Trump supporters.
> Earlier in the year, some in Veles experimented with left-leaning or pro–Bernie Sanders content, but nothing performed as well on Facebook as Trump content.
> "People in America prefer to read news about Trump," said a Macedonian 16-year-old who operates BVANews.com.
Personally I think it's because right wingers find obviously made up tabloid pieces hilarious and share with their network where as left wingers are more shocked and appalled that someone would lie on the internet.
knzhou|6 years ago
0: https://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/10/business/media/10carr.htm...
1: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2008/nov/07/barackoba...
2: https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2008/11/19/barack-ob...
3: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71bH8z6iqSc
4: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZmcyHpG31A
NeedMoreTea|6 years ago
I suspect whoever had used it first would have been celebrated at the time. Every new innovation usually reveals its problems only later. Targeted ads 15 years ago were touted as being able to ensure we'd have a healthy relationship with ads, and only get ads we desired. Didn't turn out like that, did it?
If Cambridge Analytica had come along 5 years earlier in the political cycle, the Republicans would have been lauded for finding a marvellous new technique to engage the electorate, and the Democrats caught the flak for breaking democracy. Give it a couple more elections and I imagine much of the developed world will have outlawed micro-targeted political ads.
beerandt|6 years ago
People don't realize that the Obama campaign and Cambridge Analytica were essentially doing the exact same thing. CA just didn't have explicit permission.
The bigger problem is that Facebook denied everyone else the same inside access that it proactively offered to the Obama campaign. Which is the only reason CA was doing it in the first place.
NeedMoreTea|6 years ago
The right seem to have had their Internet act rather more together - whether the ERG wing of the Tories, UKIP, or the outright fascist Britain First. Or at least slightly less inclined to split into the People's Front of Judea, Judean People's Front, Popular Judean People's Front - membership of one, etc.
Maybe a better question is why the far left haven't been able to replicate what might seem pretty obvious for a fringe group? I suspect in other parts of Europe they are doing much better at it...
goatinaboat|6 years ago
I don’t want to get into an ideological flamewar (hello dang!) but this factually isn’t true. Momentum have gotten so out of hand that even Tom Watson is telling people to vote for BoJo now.
satya71|6 years ago
joe_the_user|6 years ago
Imagine, if you will, a fusion of a hate group, a conspiracy theory and a multilevel marketing campaign (and it's not hard given you can see these things in action today). Such tend to be radical, bizarre but not anti-capitalist since they are quite overtly a business (and arguably "right wing" is not almost the best for them but they're seldom left wing 'cause they're businesses).
jazzyjackson|6 years ago
> Several teens and young men who run these sites told BuzzFeed News that they learned the best way to generate traffic is to get their politics stories to spread on Facebook — and the best way to generate shares on Facebook is to publish sensationalist and often false content that caters to Trump supporters. > Earlier in the year, some in Veles experimented with left-leaning or pro–Bernie Sanders content, but nothing performed as well on Facebook as Trump content. > "People in America prefer to read news about Trump," said a Macedonian 16-year-old who operates BVANews.com.
Personally I think it's because right wingers find obviously made up tabloid pieces hilarious and share with their network where as left wingers are more shocked and appalled that someone would lie on the internet.
tdurden|6 years ago
You have to be kidding