1. Exquisite Tweets from @Pinboard, @billjings

    PreoccupationsCollected by Preoccupations

    The problem with this argument is an inversion of the private and public sphere. Campaigning is an inherently public activity; running Facebook ads that only a tiny targeted audience can see is different. It removes public accountability. twitter.com/kreissdaniel/s…

    Daniel Kreiss @kreissdaniel
    Running targeted negative ads to make an opponents’ supporters less likely to vote is not ‘voter suppression,’ it’s fucking campagning...

    Reply Retweet Like

    Pinboard

    Pinboard

    This is an argument @zeynep made a long time ago and has really stuck with me. In the past, politicians campaigned in public, while voters deliberated in private. Now our deliberations are in public spaces, while politicians can whisper different things in each voter's ear.

    Reply Retweet Like

    Pinboard

    Pinboard

    We're used to this fight in the context of campaign funding—we recognize that anonymity and secrecy in campaign funding are bad for democracy. But we haven't learned to cope with the ways social media lets politicians secretly and anonymously target once-public campaign speech.

    Reply Retweet Like

    Pinboard

    Pinboard

  2. Missing tweet: 975181192936022016

  3. It is a structural problem of social media, and Facebook in particular, that has nothing to do with party. It is destabilizing to democracy to give politicians a tool that lets them whisper a different promise in every ear.

    Reply Retweet Like

    Pinboard

    Pinboard

  4. This is the culmination of something bigger than Facebook, though. Republicans did the same thing with direct mail in the 80s. Obama with email

    Reply Retweet Like

    billjings

    William "Jings" Phillips

  5. That's a good point. But the refinements matter, too—that you can do this instantly, at scale, and with algorithmically generated and targeted messaging is new.

    Reply Retweet Like

    Pinboard

    Pinboard