The 2018 Facebook Data Controversy and Technological Alienation

2021 ◽  
pp. 449-461
Author(s):  
Ananda Mitra ◽  
Yasmine Khosrowshahi
Keyword(s):  
Big Data ◽  
Presidential Election ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Unstructured Data ◽  
The Us ◽  
Private Corporation ◽  
Us Presidential Election ◽  
Point Of Departure ◽  
The Way

The controversy surrounding the way in which data was obtained and used by a private corporation, Cambridge Analytica, in connection with the US Presidential election of 2016 begs a series of questions and points to the critical connection between big data and a variety of fundamental human imperatives such as privacy and freedom of expression amongst others. This chapter uses the issues surrounding the controversy as a point of departure to explore two related issues – first the way in which the “technologically alienated” individual makes technological decisions without being mindful of the consequences of the technological choices and secondly the way in which the alienation can be utilized to obtain detailed information from the structured and unstructured data that makes up the gigantic corpus of big data.

scholarly journals Tax plan debates in the US presidential election: A dynamic CGE analysis of growth and redistribution trade-offs

2018 ◽  
Vol 68 ◽  
pp. 529-542 ◽  
Author(s):  
Keshab Bhattarai ◽  
Paul Bachman ◽  
Frank Conte ◽  
Jonathan Haughton ◽  
Michael Head ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Presidential Election ◽  
Trade Offs ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Presidential Election ◽  
Dynamic Cge

How Twitter drives the global news agenda: Tweets from Brazil, Russia, India, China, the UK and US and online discourse about the 2016 US presidential election

2021 ◽  
pp. 174276652110399
Author(s):  
Jane O’Boyle ◽  
Carol J Pardun
Keyword(s):  
Social Media ◽  
Content Analysis ◽  
News Media ◽  
Presidential Election ◽  
Online Discourse ◽  
Political Communications ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Presidential Election ◽  
The Uk ◽  
India And China

A manual content analysis compares 6019 Twitter comments from six countries during the 2016 US presidential election. Twitter comments were positive about Trump and negative about Clinton in Russia, the US and also in India and China. In the UK and Brazil, Twitter comments were largely negative about both candidates. Twitter sources for Clinton comments were more frequently from journalists and news companies, and still more negative than positive in tone. Topics on Twitter varied from those in mainstream news media. This foundational study expands communications research on social media, as well as political communications and international distinctions.

The Internet and Access to Information about Politics

2019 ◽  
pp. 228-247 ◽  
Author(s):  
William H. Dutton ◽  
Bianca C. Reisdorf ◽  
Grant Blank ◽  
Elizabeth Dubois ◽  
Laleah Fernandez
Keyword(s):  
Social Media ◽  
Presidential Election ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Internet Users ◽  
Political Implications ◽  
The Us ◽  
Echo Chamber ◽  
Us Presidential Election ◽  
Filter Bubble ◽  
Filter Bubbles

Concern over filter bubbles, echo chambers, and misinformation on the Internet are not new. However, as noted by Howard and Bradshaw (Chapter 12), events around the 2016 US presidential election and the UK’s Brexit referendum brought these concerns up again to near-panic levels, raising questions about the political implications of the algorithms that drive search engines and social media. To address these issues, the authors conducted an extensive survey of Internet users in Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain, and the US, asking respondents how they use search, social media, and other media for getting information about politics, and what difference these media have made for them. Their findings demonstrate that search is one among many media gateways and outlets deployed by those interested in politics, and that Internet users with an interest in politics and search skills are unlikely to be trapped in a filter bubble, or cocooned in a political echo chamber.

The 2016 Election: Like 1888 but not 1876 or 2000

2018 ◽  
Vol 52 (1) ◽  
pp. 20-24 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fabrice Barthélémy ◽  
Mathieu Martin ◽  
Ashley Piggins
Keyword(s):  
House Of Representatives ◽  
Presidential Election ◽  
Presidential Elections ◽  
Anomalous Behavior ◽  
Electoral College ◽  
Popular Vote ◽  
The Us ◽  
2016 Election ◽  
Us Presidential Election ◽  
House Size

ABSTRACTDonald J. Trump won the 2016 US presidential election with fewer popular votes than Hillary R. Clinton. This is the fourth time this has happened, the others being 1876, 1888, and 2000. In earlier work, we analyzed these elections (and others) and showed how the electoral winner can often depend on the size of the US House of Representatives. This work was inspired by Neubauer and Zeitlin (2003, 721–5) in their paper, “Outcomes of Presidential Elections and the House Size.” A sufficiently larger House would have given electoral victories to the popular vote winner in both 1876 and 2000. An exception is the election of 1888. We show that Trump’s victory in 2016 is like Harrison’s in 1888 and unlike Hayes’s in 1876 and Bush’s in 2000. This article updates our previous work to include the 2016 election. It also draws attention to some of the anomalous behavior that can arise under the Electoral College.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document