http://www.stopdatamining.me/opt-out-list/
On another note: the article doesn't discuss any digital initiatives by the Clinton campaign. Given her advantage in fundraising, Clinton undoubtedly had a comparably large digital initiative that campaigned negatively against Trump. Without examining the whole ecosystem it's inaccurate to declare that Trump won because of digital. Both campaign's efforts may have more or less offset each other.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/05/2...
http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/US-GOP-2016-Trump/2016/05/30...
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/donald-trump-tech-data...
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-10-27/inside-the...
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-05-30/googles-er...
When Trump does the exact same thing, we have an article disparaging his win and accusing him of 'voter suppression'.
If this is the new definition of 'voter suppression', I think every politician is guilty of it. I just wish we would stop changing the definitions of everything in an attempt to win an argument or sway public opinion. This is the definition of propaganda.
Clinton paid people to spam public forums with anti-Trump propaganda, but nobody discusses it or even cares about it. The 'rigged' system Trump talked about before the election is still in full force.
http://theantimedia.org/hillary-clintons-internet-troll-army...