This may have predicted something akin to the social networks and provided some impetus for preventing societal manipulation through the targeted advertising that we saw in the 2016 U.S. elections.
This framing seems to be not helpful for understanding how technology affects society.
It’s basically an excuse of explaining why Hillary lost that tries to do it without addressing that Trump message resonated with a lot of swing state voters. As far as tech goes, the person who’s targeting advertising team was backed by the CEO of one of the largest tech companies and had the most money lost.
From a year 2000 perspective you can say that there seems to be a trend of rising polarization between parties measured by metrics like parents being less okay with their children marriaging people of the opposing political party.
This was partly driven by having more niche TV channels. Just like more TV channels allowed for more niches of content consumptions, you could have said that the internet allows for even channels and thus is likely continue the trend of polarization.
It’s also worth noting that the most targeted political advertising is face-to-face and Obama destroyed a lot of that capability that the Democratic party had under Howard Dean’s 50 state strategy. Maybe you can explain that with rising polarization making it less benefitial for party elites to have strong grassroots that could challenge them.
Yeah, it’s tough to come up with the right analogy for this. Perhaps there’s a better one? Nuclear weapons? Or maybe analogies are more of a distraction...
The key issue that comes to my mind is that if you have trouble thinking clearly about an event that happened a few years in the past, how do you think you will be able to think clearly about the future decades from now?
To me it seems that polarization between Republicans and Democrats was one of the key political features of 2016 and that’s something you could forsee with easy extrapolation of trends.
You can look at trends of AI development and who creates powerful AI and extrapolate them.
This framing seems to be not helpful for understanding how technology affects society.
It’s basically an excuse of explaining why Hillary lost that tries to do it without addressing that Trump message resonated with a lot of swing state voters. As far as tech goes, the person who’s targeting advertising team was backed by the CEO of one of the largest tech companies and had the most money lost.
From a year 2000 perspective you can say that there seems to be a trend of rising polarization between parties measured by metrics like parents being less okay with their children marriaging people of the opposing political party.
This was partly driven by having more niche TV channels. Just like more TV channels allowed for more niches of content consumptions, you could have said that the internet allows for even channels and thus is likely continue the trend of polarization.
It’s also worth noting that the most targeted political advertising is face-to-face and Obama destroyed a lot of that capability that the Democratic party had under Howard Dean’s 50 state strategy. Maybe you can explain that with rising polarization making it less benefitial for party elites to have strong grassroots that could challenge them.
Yeah, it’s tough to come up with the right analogy for this. Perhaps there’s a better one? Nuclear weapons? Or maybe analogies are more of a distraction...
The key issue that comes to my mind is that if you have trouble thinking clearly about an event that happened a few years in the past, how do you think you will be able to think clearly about the future decades from now?
To me it seems that polarization between Republicans and Democrats was one of the key political features of 2016 and that’s something you could forsee with easy extrapolation of trends.
You can look at trends of AI development and who creates powerful AI and extrapolate them.