Oh fuckinell.
From the antidotezine article Trump Knows You Better Than You Know Yourself linked on the new thread:
'In the Miami neighborhood of Little Haiti, Cambridge Analytica regaled residents with messages about the failures of the Clinton Foundation after the 2010 earthquake in Haiti, in order to dissuade them from turning out for Clinton. This was one of the goals: to get potential but wavering Clinton voters—skeptical leftists, African-Americans, young women—to stay home. To "suppress" their votes, as one Trump campaign staffer bluntly put it. In these so-called dark posts (paid Facebook ads which appear in the timelines only of users with a particular suitable personality profile), African-Americans, for example, are shown the nineties-era video of Hillary Clinton referring to black youth as "super predators." '
That's exactly what I think I've been seeing on MN wrt to feminist interests. To a tee. Introduce doubt, get people to stay at home or not wholeheartedly support something they'd naturally and on-balance support.
Look at the reception of the women's march blog post ("Nah, course we shouldn't go"). Which starkly contrasted with the enthusiastic threads after the march ("That showed the TransActivists and slimy anti-feminist Piers Morgan.")
I'm not suggesting that any particular poster on the blog thread was originating the "don't march" message , and there were many thoughtful posts, carefully analysing important stuff. But. The outcome was posters working themselves into a position where they wouldn't attend the march.
And I thought, "Who wanted this outcome? And when did trans issues become so large that women choose not to join women's marches just because trans? We're being nerd-sniped."
(I haven't re-read the threads to analyse in detail, so maybe I've got this all wrong - it's only my impression. But bloody hell that article rings bells.)