
How Tinder could take back the White House - greeneggs
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/22/opinion/how-tinder-could-take-back-the-white-house.html
======
jordan801
I am definitely not pro-republican, but I think that crap like this really
fuels the republican fire. It feels unethical. It feels like yet another
attempt to jam politics down my throat at every turn.

"Congratulations you've got a match" \- Just kidding no one wants to date you,
they just want to sway you to their political agenda.

Honestly I think that part of the problem with politics, is that it's become
so repulsive. Partially from b.s. tactics like this.

~~~
lucideer
_" Tinder is too casual a platform for users to feel hoodwinked by some
political conversation. By and large, users surprised us with their
receptiveness. Some people who received bot messages asked how they could join
us."_

It seems that the data contradicts your own personal view of this practice.

I don't really see what's repulsive or b.s. about it tbh. It's just automating
the initiation of a dialogue. People are volunteering for it. There's nothing
sinister as the intent is upfront and above board, and in terms of the content
of your average Tinder conversation, politics is as fair game as any other
topic surely?

I don't live in the US though, like many on here, so perhaps the perception
would be different in the political climate over there.

~~~
phil21
In the past we simply called this spamming, and it was pretty much universally
reviled.

I find it somewhat ironic/interesting given my past that the current industry
is effectively focused on spamming society to sell stuff. I find the e-mail
spammers of old to be far more ethical than what is happening today backed by
billions of dollars.

~~~
lucideer
This isn't spamming though, by any definition.

Spamming is unsolicited contact. All contact on Tinder is solicited (and a
good deal of the non-automated content is a lot more "scummy" than this).

I'm finding the sentiment on HN in response to this bizarre but I guess your
reference to "industry" (and billions of dollars) may be a hint. US political
campaigns are quite a different beast to elsewhere, and yes, a lot more
comparable to campaigns of massive multinational corporations.

~~~
phil21
Huh? It's spamming by every definition.

When I swipe right on Tinder, it's not to get a political message. It's to
(presumably) get laid. Bots that send me a political or commercial message on
a service that specifically denies such contact is the definition spamming.

It's the same thing as giving your e-mail address to play a cool new game, the
game not existing, and now you're being spammed to death. Or messaging that
interesting/hot girl from the AIM chatroom, only to find it's a bot
advertising a commercial site.

I'd say this is exactly the same line of thought, something I know for a fact
since in a past life I've worked for folks who "marketed" in such a manner.
The thought patterns are absolutely identical, and I'd be surprised if this
political company didn't actually hire a SEO/chat spam company to implement
such a feature.

All you have to do is s/politics/penny stocks/ and this turns into an entirely
different story. The content of the message doesn't matter, it's still abusing
a service to send an unwanted political or commercial message.

Edit: Typos

~~~
lucideer
Swiping right on Tinder gets you contact with that person. Nothing more. No
guarantee of content topic (or sex). You're swiping to talk to someone.

~~~
dwaltrip
Nothing in life is "guaranteed". However, we often manage to form reasonable
expectations about how things work. And when such reasonable expectations are
broken, there are ramifications.

In this case, I would guess that unexpected political spam devalues Tinder and
makes people less likely to use it. Imagine if large numbers of organizations
started using Tinder to spread a message or support their cause. It would make
finding a date on the app significantly more frustrating.

------
grej
I'd be very surprised if the users who "lent" their profiles to allow the
group to make political spambots aren't violating Tinder's TOS.

Regardless of your political leanings, this whole operation feels pretty
scummy to me.

------
lucideer
The overwhelmingly negative response from the primarily US-based HN audience
to this, in stark contrast to the very positive responses from actual
recipients of contact in this initiative (and the subsequent extremely
positive and progressive election turnout statistics) are surely symptomatic
of some significant fundamental differences in the perception of politics in
both countries.

I appear to be literally the only person in this thread who thinks this is OK.
As someone who's largely opposed to advertising full stop, in any form, this
doesn't seem the same to me in any way. Nor can I see any reason to find it
objectionable.

What exactly is it about this that makes people uncomfortable?

~~~
dwaltrip
Well, it would be much better if the article wasn't written by those who
organized the efforts. They are likley to be heavily biased towards
interpreting the outcome positively, especially in a public write up. They
could have somewhat alleviated this concern with hard data, but unfortunately
they did not do so.

For me, it's pretty simple. I don't like it for the same reason that I don't
like door-to-door solicitors or activists.

~~~
lucideer
This is a fair point. I would like to see hard data.

While I'm based in Ireland, I do know a good deal of people in the UK who
voted and campaigned (and one who ran for LibDems), and we are also quite
close and clued in to UK politics here in general. To me, their account seems
plausible based on my own anecdotal knowledge of how campaigning during the
election went.

The youth vote turnout was unprecedented, and there was a lot of people
involved in various "weird", innovative grass-roots voluntary political
campaigns for Corbyn.

In that sense, it felt very Sanders-esque, so the reference to Clinton in the
article is bizarre. Particularly given the almost universal, blatant anti-
Corbyn media bias. This may also be another reason it seems OK - Clinton/other
political campaigns have big media behind them (and large financial
interests), so I don't think it would work for them. People wouldn't be as
willing to volunteer their time for such an industry-backed cause. Corbyn,
like Sanders was very much demonized by the media (tbh, probably worse than
for Sanders), so this may seem more like fighting back to people involved
(both the senders and receivers of the messages).

Point taken on the door-to-door solicitors or activists, but that depends on
the cause really too I think. Certainly most people despise commercial door-
to-door calls, but I personally do door-to-door political canvassing here in
Ireland, which is the norm here and in the UK, and the vast majority of
feedback is positive. Nobody minds when its politics.

------
GauntletWizard
I encourage them to try this. It will deliver amazing results - To
republicans. It will virtually assure not just Trump 2020, but Schwarzenegger
2024; It will be a coup of epic proportions for the GOP.

Who are they targeting with this system? Angry young men. What have they
identified as Angry Young Men's problem? Women won't have sex with them. What
do they propose? Offer sex, then never deliver. If a chatbot delivers
ridiculous political pandering, and gets in the way of the actual end goal
(Sex) by delivering chaff and false-leads, where will the anger be
concentrated? Certainly, fundamental attribution error will slough plenty of
it off on women, further radicalizing them. But mostly, and correctly, their
ire will fall towards the PACs who've set out to 'convince' them; By playing a
game wrong and showing that they're untrustworthy, they'll become more jaded
and resistant to whatever ideas they're proposing.

It's the evolutionarily correct response - Don't co-operate with those that
are trying to trick you. The continued rise of cognitive science as a
persuasion tactic, "gamification", and other means of non-subtle manipulation
are significantly responsible for the national divide - It's not unreasonable
to fight aggressively against those you believe are manipulating you. It's
just that there are two camps to the manipulation, and it's much easier to see
the manipulation in the other camp.

------
arandr0
I think HN has been majorly mis-reading this -- it sounds like the article
describes a Tinder-mediated get out the vote campaign. It attempts to reach
youth (vastly more likely to be progressives, statistically) and convince them
to vote by using a marketing strategy that works very well on youth in other
media, that is, convince them attractive eligible potential partners care
about (whatever is being sold: voting, owning a particular car brand, using a
particular kind of perfume or cosmetic). It does not specifically target
conservatives and again, especially in the UK, a minority of people 18-25 vote
conservative. But for what it's worth, I believe the electoral system in the
US will make this less effective there. Telling all the young millenials in
college towns to go vote by quirky social media means is unlikely to have an
effect on the older rural population (The campaign only targets 18-25 and a
lot of people in rural areas don't use Tinder), and a lot of states can't be
won only through college towns.

------
protomyth
I suppose they think they are helping, like Hollywood actors spending an
awards show spouting off. Really, they just feed into the "us vs them"
mentality and help the politician they hate get a few more votes.

~~~
lucideer
In this case, there's a lot to indicate that this initiative did in fact help.

~~~
protomyth
I'm a bit unconvinced given all the other polling and election predictions
that has failed in the last couple of years.

~~~
lucideer
I was referring to results, not predictions. This election is in the past...

------
allendoerfer
There are no girls on the internet.

~~~
guessbest
> With the help of two software engineers, Erika Pheby and Kyle Buttner,

There is at least one.

~~~
GauntletWizard
At least one who self-identifies with a feminine name. Did you just assume her
gender? Or perhaps you know that Kyle is female-identifying.

~~~
true_religion
I had actually thought Kyle was a girls' name due to only knowing a female
Kyle (spelled Kyle, pronounced Kylie).

