And sure, Facebook and Twitter played a part in this information aspect certainly. But companies like Salesforce that automate people out of work, these companies have zero accountability for the people who get laid off when eliminated with CRM workflows for example. There's no framework for understanding the consequences of who you eliminate when you automate. How are these people supposed to feed their families when you've automated them out of work?

As a tech worker, I've been responsible for eliminating far more American jobs, many in the heartland, than any Mexican immigrant ever has. What have I done to deal with the consequences of that? Many, many people have been laid off because of the things I've built in the last 15 years. I ignored them, told myself they weren't valuable anyhow. We owe these people solutions for basic income, we owe them more opportunities for jobs out in the red states, the red counties of america. We created this. All of it.

I agree this is likely. You know, it's a funny sort of thing - people work in the left-coast SV bubble-world making friendly-looking social media applications and suddenly they find they're being looked at by the Old Media crowd like they're a bunch of weapons dealers. I saw a surprisingly self-aware look at this the other day: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/04/political-me...

In short, former cool-kid Adbusters "meme warrior", accustomed to culture-jamming the elitist logics of "late capitalism", finds himself alarmingly surrounded by the shadowy Meme Magicians of Esoteric Kekism. Meanwhile the Hillary-friendly corporate media looks on, powerless to sink Trump with criticism, but equally unable to stop themselves from giving him free publicity. Suddenly, he finds the corporate mass media to be a "protective membrane between the public and overly toxic ideas."

How the turntables, as they say.

I think what's really interesting is the difficulty of discerning how effective this social media meme politics actually is, or to systematize its internal structure. This isn't a TV ad campaign or a stump speech, it's a distributed, continuous cacophony. So how can you tell whether it's what's boosting the campaign, or whether it's just an epiphenomenon of an already-successful campaign? This makes social media campaigning seem very threatening - when you can't tell how it works, who knows how powerful it might really be?

So true too. A long long time ago I was actually involved with Adbusters.. later on, in between stints of automating knowledge workers out of existence, I worked to help engineer some of the viral marketing techniques that were weaponized in this election. After Brexit, I went completely insane from knowing what would happen this week. There was no way to stop it.

The problem is that virtually everyone dramatically underestimates the power of viral manipulation. People believe that they have the power to make their own choices, that they have their own thoughts. But the truth is, they really don't. At all. Manipulating a tribe of humans to your cause is all just a matter of effort and patience. My worldview is shaped by the information I have. I just happen to spend a lot of time consuming complex information. Most people don't have that luxury. So they're completely vulnerable. Social media is powerful beyond the capabilities that I think anyone ever envisioned. And it's begun to take on a new life of it's own.

I tend to think that the effectiveness of advertisement and memery really depend on the context. When it comes to something where a choice has direct effects and costs - when buying a plane ticket or an appliance, for example - there is a strong incentive to discern true information and disregard advertising fluff. This is because one's own choice is the determining factor, and a poor choice has clear consequences. But in politics? A single vote is astronomically unlikely to influence anything - so voting is evaluated socially, expressively. Its benefits and costs are what it does for one's self-image, or group membership, or whatever. So there's not much incentive, for nearly everybody, to sort the real from the imaginary when considering politics. That's the kind of environment in which meme magic flourishes, because believing does make it real - real enough for its purposes. This also means that it's nigh-impossible to design or predict success in this sort of information distribution. When your content is made real or unreal by raw imagination and social dynamics, most of it is, I think, a case of people succeeding accidentally and claiming later that that's what they meant to do all along. So it can be powerful - but is almost impossible to control in an organized way.

Well, it's not just tech; it's any large corporation that gets coverage. Some people can only hear "we're making the world better" so much when by all appearances they are just making their own world better. I know it's not a fair assumption to make, but look at what gets reported (billion dollar companies that produce nothing with no profits, high level executives greatly rewarded for failure, and so on) versus the unknown companies that actually are trying to make things better with no coverage.

Certainly. But this is about information. There are a lot of people who increasingly understand the dynamics of how the information economy affects popular opinion, how it affects the workforce, how it has disrupted work and yet done nothing to solve the problems that came with the consequences of that disruption.

And many on the left outside of the valley bubble really thought that a boom in the left-leaning Bay Area meant that there were powerful people there who had their backs in all of this. They feel very hurt that tech seemed to sit on the sidelines through the election, and in some regards pretty much enabled and profited off the mass-dissemination of misinformation.

So it's not just about corporate greed this time. It's about information, disruption, workforce automation, and the responsibilities that come from building and wielding powerful information tools.