Slashdot Mirror
FWD.us: GOP Voters To Be Targeted By Data Scientists
theodp writes: "We are excited to announce that FWD.us and Hackers/Founders are joining forces to host the 'DEBUG DC' Growthathon on June 21st & June 22nd," reads the blog over at FWD.us, the PAC whose Founders and Major Contributors include current and former CEOs from Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, AOL, and LinkedIn. "This is a unique opportunity to push the envelope in online advocacy for immigration reform." The blog entry explains, "The machine of government is wedged, and is in desperate need of debugging. How do we DEBUG DC? Step One: Target critical legislative districts. Step Two: Data mine these districts to find registered voters who are registered Republicans who we think are likely to support immigration reform. Step Three: Growth hack ways to motivate these people to effectively engage their legislators to tell them they want them to call for a vote on immigration reform. Step Four: Measure results. Step Five: Iterate." The Eventbrite invitation for the event includes a call for Data Scientists who are "pissed off about immigration and want to fix it," are "well versed in statistics and data analysis," and can "infer voter sentiment from sparse data." So, how does this jibe with the outrage expressed by the FWD.us supporters' companies over unauthorized government surveillance?
You average GOP voter strongly values privacy and will not look kindly at this kind of targeted approach.
That's right Republican voters! You too can help Microsoft and Google and Yahoo get immigration laws "reformed" so that we can stop this silly H1-B dance and REALLY start sucking up every warm body from India and the Philippines and anywhere else that thinks $14,000 a year is a hell of a lot of money!
I am Data Jesus and I have come to intelligently design a new kingdom by selecting leadership comprised of doomsday preppers, plumbers, and an Alaskan volleyball player.
Remember, You are unique...just like everyone else.
Your average GOP voter is the same as your average democrat voter, with different parents and geography. I have never, personally, met more than one republican that didn't like science, and she was a nut-job. Also, republican or democrat is not the dividing line for individual privacy. That's a non-partisan issue (unless you're libertarian, in which case it's your quest in life to remove all privacy violations). I was skeptical, at first, about targeted approaches generated from big-data problems. Then I got on google fiber. There were some HUGE privacy concerns there, since they basically keep a tcpdump (minus packet contents) of all your internet history as part of your google-fiber profile for 3 days. Before that, they just knew that I was an adult male. After being on google fiber, all my internet ads changed from gaming and porno to high end computer hardware and data center products. As it turns out, I greatly prefer seeing computer hardware ads (particularly when I'm at work). Targeted approaches bred from privacy violations aren't necessarily a bad thing, it's what people do with them that's the problem. Technologies can be used effectively to make the world a better place, or abused to make it worse, it doesn't mean the technology is inherently evil. I don't think democrats would have problem being data-mined and invited to public events surrounding global warming policy, and I doubt these GOP voters will care that they were selected by a computer to be invited to take part in something that they're interested in.
This is really an effort by big multinationals to suppress tech job wages in the US by keeping up the H1B visa racket, and all the associated visa rackets.
http://cis.org/no-stem-shortag...
While Republican voters might appear to be for immigration reform by the polls, their idea of reform is vastly different than what these people are proposing.
They first want a secure border... meaning no flood of new illegals, drugs, gangs, etc.
They clearly feel lied to by democrats saying the border is the most secure ever. Just look at the 50,000 children who have just crossed since January. If you can't stop children, how do you plan on stopping the "bad guys"?
Republicans would also support more work visas -- both skilled and unskilled. They don't care about having more immigrants here. They want an orderly process which no administration has been able to provide.
Obama's blanket amnesty isn't too popular but most Republicans would be up for the debate if they were confident the problem wouldn't keep compounding itself with new illegals.
As a habitually Republican leaning voter and a geek myself, I find this insulting. Of course being treated as an optimization problem for data analysts is something that happens all the time in commerce and advertising. But I am turned off by multiple disingenuous elements here. Let's name a few:
1. It isn't about "immigration reform", it's about amnesty. The Democrat agenda will do nothing to reduce illegal immigration, but rather increase it.
2. Bringing in lots of new workers is a direct cause of lower wages and more job competition and unemployment in the USA.
3. Really rich, corporate Republicans want more labor because it benefits them fiscally.
4. Lots of Democrats in general want more immigrants because it strengthens the power of the government and the welfare state, and shifts voting demographics favorably for them (e.g. when they turn Texas blue, they win the presidency for the foreseeable future).
5. So the bottom line is that when they approach a presumably low information Republican voter, they will have to lie their little tails off about their agenda to get him/her to go along with their so-called "immigration reform".
(Do I sound a little mad?)
So while I'm not a tin-foil-hat wearing conspiracy theorist, I do note amongst the young technorati something of a double-standard. Surveillance, big data and privacy violations are bad when they're used to infringe social rights, but GOOD when they're used to attack people perceived as infringing social rights... C'est la vie.
But more to the point, single-issue activists ALWAYS misunderstand the voting habits of multi-issue voters. Particularly Republicans, who are not just straight-up conservatives as they are often portrayed, but often socially liberal _fiscal_ conservatives who choose not to vote based on social policy. Turning multi-issue swing voters into single-issue activists isn't a straight-forward process, even if you identify who they are.
Finally, this kind of effort makes the assumption that such voters are simply awaiting the right contact or motivation to write their congressperson and demand action. Whereas, in reality, while activists often view the disengaged as "against the cause", the reality is, in most instances, such voters just don't care about that cause.
Notice: Your mouse has been moved. Windows will now restart so this change can take effect.
Second paragraph on the FWD.us page:
Our outdated immigration system does not meet Americaâ(TM)s workforce needs in a global economy. We have a system that tells talented immigrants that we don't welcome their contributions. It is a system that cannot keep the United States competitive in a global economy. The time is now for Congress to act on meaningful immigration reform that boosts the American economy and does right by American families.
This is not about amnesty for illegals, this is about H1B expansion.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
And then presumably the scientists get replaced by cheaper H1B "scientists"?
1) You're full of crap, because BOTH parties don't like anyone who isn't a lobbyist or fundraising donor.
2) This is a dangerous precedent, no matter who does it or they target - I get enough political spam as it is. Last thing I need is for a bunch of politically-motivated ideologues to harass me in a targeted way** because they think I might be a useful-but-unwitting pawn in their efforts. If you think this will stop with some party faction looking for like-minded people, you're deluded. Next they'll reach out to independents and no-party types, and possibly even further out.
3) As a result of 2: Fuck that, and fuck them.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
"The hostility towards immigration is"
There is NO HOSTILITY TOWARDS IMMIGRATION. There is however hostility towards lawbreakers and those who ignore our constitution and borders.
Why is this simple fact apprently impossible for you people to understand?
How about this. I am coming over to your apartment this evening to eat your food, fuck your wife and children and then shit all over your floor and if you don't like it you can go fuck yourself. FUCK YOU if you are hostile to having GUESTS IN YOUR HOUSE.
Get it?
A transparently cynical ploy to increase their pipeline of Asian / Indian H1B visa slave labor. DIAF.
True fiscal conservatism is often at odds with social conservatism. True fiscal conservatism isn't a bad thing - I think many Dems would actually lean more toward a purely fiscally based Republican party, but the social issues keep everyone split into their respective camps despite the similarities in fiscal policy. For example, a true free market conservative has no problem with abortion clinics. They provide a service for which there is a demand. No federal dollars are permitted to go to abortion services, although the clinics also provide everything from well baby services to OB/GYN services in rural areas that require some community funding to fully support (since it's not profitable to operate a small clinic in the middle of nowhere that only half the population + children will use.) Still, it makes monetary sense to fund those clinics at nominal levels rather than have pregnant women dying because they were unaware of ectopic pregnancies, so again, it's government money well spent. A social conservative looks at the clinic though and sees a horrible infestation of sin upon the world and has the urge to bomb it.
Another example would be the mandatory drug testing put in place in Florida for food stamp benefits. After the pilot program in which less than 2% of those tested failed the drug test and were denied benefits, it became clear that the state was losing money and the program should have been halted. (I believe it cost them $100,000 more than they saved to test everyone, even charging some people a fee for the test.) A business minded fiscal conservative would have killed the program because it cost more than it saved. A social conservative would freak out because The Undeserving could get free food if the program was cancelled.
It's this divide in thought between the two wings of the party that drives the fiscally conservative Democrats crazy. They might be willing to compromise with the Republican fiscal wing on some things, but the social wings of either party cannot compromise because they each think the other is Satan.
Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
These folks simply do not understand that the underlying goal is to drive U.S. wages to third world levels by introducing large labor surpluses. Not just unskilled/low skill labor, either. They want to greatly expand work visas for skilled and highly skilled workers to reduce labor costs and increase profits. Anyone who does not understand this needs to take some J.C. basic Economics courses. And, for those who talk about expanding the economy to accommodate millions of new workers; how's that working for you?
"Computers are useless. They can only give you answers."
-- Pablo Picasso
but the Republican did just that, but the Democrats killed the US particle accelerator program. I was one (of hundreds) working on the SSC design at the time by the way. Of course, the SSC was located in Texas.....
> something that might shed light on the mysteries of the atom/universe/big bang.
Something like the Super Collider? That would be the archetypal Republican, Ronald Reagan. The space station? Reagan again. Increased funding for the national science foundation? Reagan. Research tax credits? Reagan.
Republicans oppose "give half a billion of taxpayer money to your largest campaign bundler's failing solar company", but that's not really research. That's more accurately termed a "slush fund".
Yes, republican presidents have their own slush funds. This president's slush fund just happens to be titled "alternative energy fund", but it has nothing to do with science.