It's not as if Donald Trump, or anyone else invented this tactic in 2016, or even the 21st century. Mass media has manufactured consent with those tools for as long as there has been a mass media. William Randolph Hearst was a master of it over 100 years ago. This is a subject that very few in the media are willing to report on, because it would delegitimize the media itself.

Even if there was a media outlet willing to destroy their reputation and business, good luck convincing human beings that they've been conditioned to behave as they do through media messaging. Brainwashing is Hollywood scifi mumbojumbo, not a scientific explanation for why basic training produces a uniform level of discipline in the military, or why millions of people pay for the privilege of inhaling carcinogens.

To top it off, I am well aware of how tinfoil the preceding two paragraphs must sound.

Google's Eric Schmidt proposed a plan similar to this (though in more ambiguous terms) back in 2014, sharing a draft with Cheryl Mills that was forwarded to the Clinton braintrust (John Podesta, Robby Mook and David Plouffe) and subsequently released by Wikileaks[0]. The use of quizzes as a front detailed in OP's article is especially insidious, but the idea of individually targeting voters with "stories" in such a manner was clearly in play. Whether they followed through with it or not, it seems naive to think they won't do something similar in the future now that Cambridge Analytica has been shown to have been so effective.

[0] https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/37262

Going forward?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/feb/17/obama-digital-...

Obviously, this is not identical, but many of the same principles are in play. You can argue around the edges of who understood exactly who was getting what data but I pretty much guarantee you the bulk of the people didn't know exactly what they had just done then, either.

I also do not mean this as a partisan attack, because everyone's gonna do it, and do it better every election cycle, until something major stops them. In 2012 it was widely believed the Republicans simply had no good digital ground game, so I can't really link you to articles about theirs, or I would. And I'm having a hard time imagining what will stop this, short of total internet collapse.

Democrats will use it in completely analogous ways.

I agree. However using the same methods in this election, 'establishment' Hillary would have probably come across as big brother-esque whereas Trump as more of a 'new awareness' message to some targeted users (fitting his rhetoric). Surely not in all cases but perhaps notable enough.

> analogous ways.

I really don't understand what this mean? Can anyone explain?? Thank you :)

similar/comparable (https://www.google.com#q=define%20analogous)

He's deflecting by saying Democrats will do the same thing. It's a false equivalency.

I think the fact that the Dems ran Clinton despite more support in key demos for Bernie shows that as of right now they aren't very interested in following data if it conflicts with their other agendas.

If this trend continues and extends down to congressional elections, etc. for both parties as it is now (Republicans ready to follow data to build campaigns, Democrats playing out of an opaque narrative), this could spell bad news for the future of the American Democratic party.

It's funny because people were playing this exact card during the 2012 election due to Obama's tech-savvy reëlection effort. A lot can change in four years.

That you are repeating this all over the thread doesn't make it a fact.

Sure, if you start with the lens that everything is controlled behind the scenes by shady billionaire puppet masters, then this fits in with that view. But that's just how all the other conspiracy theorists do it, too: hold fast to a predetermined conclusion, highlighting whatever situations you can grab ahold of that look like they fit.

How is this different from "everything Trump is doing is an evil Russian conspiracy" claim that most media seems to be pushing these days? E.g. check out the front page of r/politics. I'm sure Trump will suck or fail in many ways (as all elected leaders do), but we've long time ago lost objectivity.

It isn't, necessarily. Why does it have to be? The fact that those opposed to Trump also think poorly at times doesn't excuse poor thinking elsewhere.

That said, I just went over to /r/politics and saw zero Russia stories on the front page.

Zuckerberg really loves Trump and I can see how he is more than willing to help give Trump the platform he needs to continue to spread his propaganda