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: 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.