What I can piece together: Clinton had an in-house algorithm/data decision team, while Parscale (no team, less money) went with what Facebook offered (fairly routinely) to big clients. Clinton team seems to have been particularly sub-par and Facebook does offer *a lot*.¯\_(ツ)_/¯https://twitter.com/WIRED/status/968512992873799682 …
-
-
Trump had a much smaller, lagging organization assembled much later and haphazardly. It also seems clear that they turned over most of their work to Facebook's politics team and the platform itself which did a lot of heavy lifting for them. https://twitter.com/rmmageddon/status/968635817517375489 …
This Tweet is unavailable.Show this threadThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Did they disdain certain tools because they were problematic? I think that's an interesting path to consider. Because in hindsight most of us agree that the manipulative nature of Trump's campaign was harmful.
-
I wouldn't like to see democrats using those same tools in the same ways.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
If I understand this thread correctly- Dems in 2020: "TRY THIS ONE WEIRD TRICK TO GET RID OF TRUMP" & "YOU WON'T BELIEVE WHAT HAPPENED NEXT! https://twitter.com/nxthompson/status/967515446307106817 …
This Tweet is unavailable.Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
*Seriously* sketchy.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.