SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the psychological-warfare-in-peacetime dept.
The Guardian has an article about a whistleblower from Cambridge Analytica, who claims to have devised a strategy to "weaponize" Facebook profiles, in order to use those profile for targeted advertising to sway the US elections in 2016.
(The Guardian headline titles are often crap). I read a few older articles, presumably by the same author: she had a series of articles in March--May 2017 about Cambridge Analytica being used as a weapon to convince British voters to vote for Brexit in the referendum. It seems that her investigative journalism encouraged this wistleblower to "come out" and be interviewed by her.
Here's one: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/may/07/the-great-british-brexit-robbery-hijacked-democracy
Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others (Churchill), but when does advertising cross the line into psychological warfare against your own population?
Additional coverage at The Register
(Score: 3, Insightful) by fyngyrz on Monday March 19 2018, @02:11PM (4 children)
"Don't need" is not the same as "against your own interest."
One of these things is not at all like the other.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Thexalon on Monday March 19 2018, @03:13PM (1 child)
Yes it is.
Let's say, for example, that advertising convinces you to buy a TV you don't need. And not only that, you can't actually afford it, but you got it because it was "No money down! No payments for 6 months!" And being a bit of an idiot you saw that and thought "Free TV, until I win the lottery!" And 6 months later, you're now scrambling to pay far too much for your TV that you didn't need, until eventually you screw up and get the TV repo'd, and your credit rating is shot. Now, I guess in that scenario, you got to see a bunch of inanity on your nicer TV, but you paid dearly financially for it, and would have gotten much the same enjoyment from the TV you already had.
Or even worse, how about when the thing you don't need is much more expensive, like a college degree from a barely accredited private college that nobody in your field will take seriously?
Convincing people to buy things they don't need is part of the method by which the middle class is prevented from joining the ownership class.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Monday March 19 2018, @03:51PM
If you don't need it, you convince yourself to buy for your own reasons. You know your own circumstance and you're a thinking human being; you have independent agency. This, in and of itself, is very far from from convincing you to do something to hurt yourself, such as presenting a choice falsely where the pitch is it won't hurt you, but it actually will. Elsewhere in the thread [soylentnews.org], C0lo put a finger on the issue of the lie very well.
But let's roll with that as you continue:
No, this is not at all the same. This is convincing you to buy a TV against your interests. The pitch is it won't hurt you; but it will.
You have specifically called out putting the buyer into interest-bearing (I'm reading "far too much" to indicate interest-bearing) debt without including a counterweight of an investment that provides returns equal to or more than the debt service; this is always, without exception, against the buyer's interests: TVs, homes, cars, etc., you are always worse off as compared to buying without going into uncompensated debt. It's unfortunately very common, but its a choice that defrays the buyer's financial state more than actually needed for the purchase at issue.
Circumstances can force these choices: For instance, you don't have a car, or your car dies, you have to get to work, you don't have adequate savings to purchase the replacement – you may be forced into an interest-plus debt-bearing purchase. But it will do you more financial damage than if you had been able to make the purchase outright, or if you have a compensating investment that returns equal to or more than the interest on the debt.
As is entering into debt without a corresponding investment that returns equal to or more than the debt service.
(Score: 2) by BK on Monday March 19 2018, @03:16PM (1 child)
It seems that "against your own interest." is hard to define except in extreme hindsight. So check back in 100 years, right? Not very useful.
Secession was clearly against the USA South's own interest. I wonder if you could have convinced many in North Carolina of that in ~1860?
...but you HAVE heard of me.
(Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Monday March 19 2018, @04:01PM
Not always.
The more accurate information you have about the initial metrics, and therefore likely consequences of your choice, the better you can triage the decision-making process if you take the time to do so.
So in a very complex move - like deciding if the secession of the south is a good idea at that point in time - evaluation is tough, even when you give it a truly effortful try at weighting. More data will be available later, but hindsight isn't available to the decision makers. Foresight is something else entirely; the more complex the issuee is, the harder it is to come by.
In a non-complex move - like buying something you don't need when you don't have the money to buy it without incurring extra costs - evaluation on the available facts is actually not tough, and failure to make the decision that benefits you most can only be attributed to your own lack of care in making the decision. Here, foresight is not only available, but easily come by.