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: 5, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday March 19 2018, @03:12PM (12 children)
The instant it's used. Advertising with the purpose of convincing people rather than informing them should never be used by any government. Now if it's not the government paying for it, all's fair in love and spam so long as you're not breaking fraud/liable/etc... laws.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by isostatic on Monday March 19 2018, @03:31PM (5 children)
In 2016 either Clainton or Trump was going to win. Both were advertising with the purpose of convincing people.
How does the fact the money for this comes from people who expect government kickbacks rather than direct from the taxpayer really make a difference?
(Score: 3, Disagree) by ilPapa on Monday March 19 2018, @04:46PM (2 children)
I bet if you really thought about it for a minute, you could come up with a good answer.
You are still welcome on my lawn.
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Tuesday March 20 2018, @02:29PM (1 child)
No would be the answer. If I'm Joe Moneyballs, I pay $100m to Kang for their campaign, $100m to Kodos, and whoever wins is expected to pay me back (after all that's just good business, I expect a return on investment)
This means that Kang and Kodos both work for me, both of them will pass that $1b no-bid contract as they can't afford not to have my $100m bribe^H^H^H^H^H donation at the next election.
This is far worse than the government running an advertising campaign convincing people to wear a seatbelt.
(Score: 2) by ilPapa on Tuesday March 20 2018, @06:40PM
The problem is your false equivalency and "both-siderism" isn't borne out in real life. For the most extreme example, look at something like NRA campaign contributions/endorsements. You can have 80-plus percent of the population supporting stricter gun laws, but because Republicans know which side of the bread their ammo is on, they'll vote against their constituents every time.
When it all comes down to it, we need to forbid corporate campaign contributions and have stricter campaign finance laws generally.
You are still welcome on my lawn.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by fritsd on Monday March 19 2018, @05:15PM
I think it makes a big difference, because in the country where I come from, party political broadcasts on TV were all allotted a slot on prime-time national TV, and every single one starts with a clear disclaimer: "This is a party political broadcast from the party of XYZ".
That way you are on-guard that the broadcast *will* contain bullshit. But this is new and we are not inoculated against it:
With these Cambridge Analytica techniques, they don't have to say who paid for the message. They don't even have to say that they especially targeted it to influence YOU (and the other millions in your specific category). They don't have to say which political party it is meant to benefit (might make a really abominable fake political party broadcast for the other party, ABC. Who is going to find out? Remember the Canadian automatic telephone message scandal? Irritate the voters and claim to be from party ABC instead of XYZ). Maybe the advertisement isn't even overtly political, but it just awakens your fears and doubts. Isn't all advertisement for hairloss lotions and bad breath chewing gum of this type?
What I've learned is, that even when I wouldn't know how to do all this shit, there are people who are experts at it, and who have made a well-paid career out of it.
I believe that, if these influence techniques didn't work, then organisations wouldn't spend billions to continue the work of the Father of Lies, and nephew of Sigmund Freud, Edward Bernays [wikiquote.org]:
(from "Propaganda", © 1928)
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday March 20 2018, @10:25AM
It makes a world of difference. People expect to be lied to by their politicians while they're running but if they do once they're elected we tend to get pretty pissed off.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by meustrus on Monday March 19 2018, @06:43PM (5 children)
I'm curious where you draw this "government" line. Cambridge Analytica is not a "government" entity. Do you include political organizations? What about corporations with self-motivated political opinions? What about private corporations whose primary customer is the government?
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday March 20 2018, @10:23AM (4 children)
Proper government only.
If you can't figure out the difference between a private citizen lying to you and your government lying to you, you've got some problems that need addressed.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by meustrus on Tuesday March 20 2018, @01:58PM (3 children)
Proper government hasn't done any marketing here. One big reason for that is that people have been making your distinction for so long that agents of the US government have essentially stopped marketing themselves. Instead, they rely on third party private organizations to advertise their politics, unencumbered by the very rules you are saying don't apply to private organizations.
And let's not make this personal. It's easy enough to insult your opponent's intelligence. Doing so simply avoids dealing with the very real problem of the general low intelligence of the voting population.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday March 20 2018, @04:08PM (2 children)
Politicians are not government while running and I have no special problem with them marketing themselves in any manner they choose to. What I object to is using governmental power and funds to sway the electorate. That is the exact opposite of government's proper function. Politicians using campaign funds, private citizens, corporations, or lobbying groups using their own funds... to push the $issue narrative, fine. Using governmental power and funds to do so, fuck that.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by meustrus on Tuesday March 20 2018, @04:27PM (1 child)
So to be clear, are you saying that what Cambridge Analytica did was perfectly fine, because it is not a government entity?
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday March 20 2018, @04:51PM
Yup.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.