this post was submitted on 19 Jun 2023
351 points (98.6% liked)
Asklemmy
43943 readers
103 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Mind sharing the TL;DR about your paper?
They handed data to bad actors who then targeted groups of citizens down to groups of 10 people on social media with hypertargeted "dark ads". These ads were only shown once and couldn't be found again.
This targeting was focused at all groups, all races/ages/demographics/political leaning but decently increased towards the green party candidate for a good second towards the end of the election. It was mainly positive towards Trump but focused heavily on all candidates to sow division.
In spending, if I remember correctly, Clinton spent like 8mil on social media campaigns. Trump spent something like 180mil.
Facebook facilitated and was complicit in all of this. They collected the data of how long we looked at things, where our cursors were, who we communicated with, etc. They benefited from all of this through the ads.