He said many of those things because Cambridge analytics said he should
Yikes, what an article. Today's challenge to those who still support Trump: read the above and share your thoughts. I am genuinely interested. Not so much in whether you agree about how this process helped Trump win (doubt you'll go there), but more on the overall implications of this use of personal data.
Other than the fact that Google is much more powerful, how is that materially different than this -
1) That link explicitly states that "To date, however, there’s no evidence that any engineers or executives currently working for Google or Alphabet, Google’s parent company, are doing anything to support Clinton’s campaign."
That comment refers to manipulating search results. I haven't seen any evidence from a credible site of search results being manipulated by google. However, google personnel and many in the tech industry were active supporters of Clinton.
My point is that, if anything, she had a huge technological advantage.
3) This quote from the article I linked (which is unclear you read in its entirety or at all): "Political analysts in the Clinton campaign, who were basing their tactics on traditional polling methods, laughed when Trump scheduled campaign events in the so-called blue wall — a group of states that includes Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin and has traditionally fallen to Democrats. But Cambridge Analytica saw they had an opening based on measured engagement with their Facebook posts. It was the small margins in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin that won Trump the election."
More than bad data was in play in Clinton losing those states. Her campaign and the media were overconfident.
Polling methods have been problematic for quite some some time. In the past, Democrats have found an advantage in this area. In 2016, it appears the Republicans found and exploited an advantage.
3a) And this one: "Dark posts were also used to depress voter turnout among key groups of democratic voters," which is a whole nother level beyond standard political ads being sent to targeted audiences...
3b) And implies that even if they are trying to do the same thing and The Groundwork was working for Clinton (which your link implies they were not), The Groundwork clearly has worse algorithms and/or potentially is not as insidiously invasive of privacy and/or is not as unethical in their use. Not that I would condone them anyway because...
4) Even if I'm wrong and they are the same (yet to be proven) I find them equally objectionable, and so should you.
5) ETA - And then there is this quote: "Research by Woolley and his Oxford-based team in the lead-up to the 2016 election found that pro-Trump political messaging relied heavily on bots to spread fake news and discredit Hillary Clinton. By election day, Trump’s bots outnumbered hers, 5:1."
So there you go, she used them too, but at a far lower level which implies quite a lot about how she perceived them and what exactly her bots were doing. Still questionable though, depending on those exact details, to be sure.
If I interpret you and the article correctly, both sides were using bots and trolls. Trump used more and his were more effective?
I think bots, trolls and fake news are objectionable. Both sides used them. Based on your comments, it appears Clinton used them less although it still sounds like she used them a lot. Using something that is wrong less, doesn't vindicate her campaign.
ETA#2 - "Cambridge Analytica may be slated to secure more federal contracts and is likely about to begin managing White House digital communications for the rest of the Trump Administration. What new predictive-personality targeting becomes possible with potential access to data on U.S. voters from the IRS, Department of Homeland Security, or the NSA?"
I would hope NSA and Homeland security data is firewalled. This kind of discussion is why that data shouldn't exist absent a warrant to begin with. Both parties have had ample opportunity to do something about it. Neither have.
I suspect you did not read the whole article at all (I'll admit I was only about halfway through when I first posted).
When I first commented, I hadn't read the entire article and was posting a question. I have now read the article and looked at the site. In my opinion, it's a slanted site and that's a slanted article. It doesn't mean it's entirely false, but I think there is a lot of opinion in there.
Slant isn't unique to the left, it exists on the right as well so when I read an article such as that, I consider the source.