<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>munk-a</author><text>I do agree that Obama&amp;#x27;s campaign used this much &amp;quot;more ethically&amp;quot; but I didn&amp;#x27;t then and still don&amp;#x27;t approve of micotargeting or campaign advertising in general.  I really want to see the US get to publicly funded elections because full public funding would cost not even a sliver of what elections current run and provide a more even playing field for candidates.</text><parent_chain><item><author>throwaway5752</author><text>Yes, easily. Microtargeting and related campaigns can be distinguished entirely by the content of they present. Microtargeting is just a technique that can be used for good or bad. In the case of Obama&amp;#x27;s campaign, nobody has accused them of misleading or false information. Brexit and the the US 2016 election was almost defined by misleading or false information (as you can see by lingering Pizzagate, QAnon, and Bengazi conspiracy theories).&lt;p&gt;Amused at the downvotes. It is true. You can not like Clinton and not vote for her, or Obama. I don&amp;#x27;t judge and people can disagree. But the amount of false content in those campaigns (which came to be known as &amp;quot;fake news&amp;quot; after the fact) was unprecedent, was aided&amp;#x2F;spreaded by foreign sources, and was largely on partisan lines. Evidence includes &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;news.stanford.edu&amp;#x2F;2017&amp;#x2F;01&amp;#x2F;18&amp;#x2F;stanford-study-examines-fake-news-2016-presidential-election&amp;#x2F;&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;news.stanford.edu&amp;#x2F;2017&amp;#x2F;01&amp;#x2F;18&amp;#x2F;stanford-study-examines...&lt;/a&gt; among countless others). It would be just as wrong if, say, the Sander campaign did the same thing.</text></item><item><author>chishaku</author><text>Edit:  This is an honest question -- just wondering the difference in tactics and have received one helpful comment so far.&lt;p&gt;---&lt;p&gt;When Obama won in &amp;#x27;08 and &amp;#x27;12, his team of data &amp;quot;nerds&amp;quot; were lauded as geniuses.&lt;p&gt;Examples:&lt;p&gt;&lt;i&gt;How Obama Tapped Into Social Networks’ Power&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.nytimes.com&amp;#x2F;2008&amp;#x2F;11&amp;#x2F;10&amp;#x2F;business&amp;#x2F;media&amp;#x2F;10carr.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.nytimes.com&amp;#x2F;2008&amp;#x2F;11&amp;#x2F;10&amp;#x2F;business&amp;#x2F;media&amp;#x2F;10carr.htm...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;i&gt;When the Nerds Go Marching In&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.theatlantic.com&amp;#x2F;technology&amp;#x2F;archive&amp;#x2F;2012&amp;#x2F;11&amp;#x2F;when-the-nerds-go-marching-in&amp;#x2F;265325&amp;#x2F;&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.theatlantic.com&amp;#x2F;technology&amp;#x2F;archive&amp;#x2F;2012&amp;#x2F;11&amp;#x2F;when-...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;Can someone distinguish between what Obama and Trump were doing when it comes to digital campaigning?</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Cambridge Analytica were the tip of the iceberg</title><url>https://graphcommons.com/stories/3f057b42-09fb-49af-aab4-f5243e48734d</url></story>
<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>hajile</author><text>Cambridge Analytical would have been fine if they hadn&amp;#x27;t been spreading &amp;quot;fake news&amp;quot;?&lt;p&gt;I&amp;#x27;m sorry, but I think this kind of practice should be banned no matter if it&amp;#x27;s true, false, political, commercial, non-profit, or whatever.</text><parent_chain><item><author>throwaway5752</author><text>Yes, easily. Microtargeting and related campaigns can be distinguished entirely by the content of they present. Microtargeting is just a technique that can be used for good or bad. In the case of Obama&amp;#x27;s campaign, nobody has accused them of misleading or false information. Brexit and the the US 2016 election was almost defined by misleading or false information (as you can see by lingering Pizzagate, QAnon, and Bengazi conspiracy theories).&lt;p&gt;Amused at the downvotes. It is true. You can not like Clinton and not vote for her, or Obama. I don&amp;#x27;t judge and people can disagree. But the amount of false content in those campaigns (which came to be known as &amp;quot;fake news&amp;quot; after the fact) was unprecedent, was aided&amp;#x2F;spreaded by foreign sources, and was largely on partisan lines. Evidence includes &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;news.stanford.edu&amp;#x2F;2017&amp;#x2F;01&amp;#x2F;18&amp;#x2F;stanford-study-examines-fake-news-2016-presidential-election&amp;#x2F;&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;news.stanford.edu&amp;#x2F;2017&amp;#x2F;01&amp;#x2F;18&amp;#x2F;stanford-study-examines...&lt;/a&gt; among countless others). It would be just as wrong if, say, the Sander campaign did the same thing.</text></item><item><author>chishaku</author><text>Edit:  This is an honest question -- just wondering the difference in tactics and have received one helpful comment so far.&lt;p&gt;---&lt;p&gt;When Obama won in &amp;#x27;08 and &amp;#x27;12, his team of data &amp;quot;nerds&amp;quot; were lauded as geniuses.&lt;p&gt;Examples:&lt;p&gt;&lt;i&gt;How Obama Tapped Into Social Networks’ Power&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.nytimes.com&amp;#x2F;2008&amp;#x2F;11&amp;#x2F;10&amp;#x2F;business&amp;#x2F;media&amp;#x2F;10carr.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.nytimes.com&amp;#x2F;2008&amp;#x2F;11&amp;#x2F;10&amp;#x2F;business&amp;#x2F;media&amp;#x2F;10carr.htm...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;i&gt;When the Nerds Go Marching In&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.theatlantic.com&amp;#x2F;technology&amp;#x2F;archive&amp;#x2F;2012&amp;#x2F;11&amp;#x2F;when-the-nerds-go-marching-in&amp;#x2F;265325&amp;#x2F;&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.theatlantic.com&amp;#x2F;technology&amp;#x2F;archive&amp;#x2F;2012&amp;#x2F;11&amp;#x2F;when-...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;Can someone distinguish between what Obama and Trump were doing when it comes to digital campaigning?</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Cambridge Analytica were the tip of the iceberg</title><url>https://graphcommons.com/stories/3f057b42-09fb-49af-aab4-f5243e48734d</url></story>