"Obviously there are some other factors at work like the involvement of a foreign entity and very questionably ethics in the gathering and compiling of these massive data sets."
I think you answered your own question. Those other factors are the crucial factors that make this situation different. Crimes were allegedly committed. This isn't about using social media, it's about the alleged crimes. I don't even see how you can draw a parallel to Obama's campaign. What crimes did Obama's team allegedly commit?
But what specific crimes were committed? Is it illegal for Russians to buy Facebook ads? Was it illegal for these researchers to harvest Facebook data and was there explicit laws preventing them from using that data in other ways? Certainly there is massive ethical issues but technically illegal?
A merely "massively unethical" secret targeted psyops and propaganda campaign involving a foreign power should still be a cause for concern. Especially if it turns out it worked.
Would we see these activities as unethical if the message was one of hope rather than hate?
For instance, how upset would we be if Sweden purchased a bunch of pro Bernie Sanders Facebook ads and Bernie Sanders ended up getting voted in as president?
There's more being alleged here than another country merely "buying ads" for a candidate. That in and of itself is neither illegal nor unethical. I'm probably more laissez-faire about that then many people ... I wouldn't care if the 50 cent army posted here so long as they were up front about their affiliations. I don't object to the attempt to sway people to one or another point of view, I object to doing so through duplicitous means.
You may be correct in implying that one side is using partisanship to fuel interest in what is, objectively (I believe,) a legitimate concern. But why is the other side is so adamant to dismiss those concerns, regardless of their legitimacy?
It shouldn't matter either way, either there's fire or there isn't.
For what it's worth, I agree with you. One general exception I have is that the backlash is disproportionately targeting big tech/silicon valley, when the backlash should be more societal in nature. Yes, tech should look at making improvements and implementing checks and balances but at what point do we accept responsibility for our actions and stop trying to pawn off our own insecurities, biases, and dark impulses to some far off tech company?
I think you answered your own question. Those other factors are the crucial factors that make this situation different. Crimes were allegedly committed. This isn't about using social media, it's about the alleged crimes. I don't even see how you can draw a parallel to Obama's campaign. What crimes did Obama's team allegedly commit?