Slashdot Mirror
Did A Billionaire Harvest Big Data From Facebook To 'Hijack' Democracy? (theguardian.com)
Long-time Slashdot readers walterbyrd and whoever57 both submitted the same article about the mysterious data analytics company Cambridge Analytica and its activities with SCL Group, a 25-year-old military psyops company in the U.K. later bought by "secretive hedge fund billionaire" Robert Mercer. One former employee calls it "this dark, dystopian data company that gave the world Trump."
Facebook was the source of the psychological insights that enabled Cambridge Analytica to target individuals. It was also the mechanism that enabled them to be delivered on a large scale. The company also (perfectly legally) bought consumer datasets -- on everything from magazine subscriptions to airline travel -- and uniquely it appended these with the psych data to voter files... Finding "persuadable" voters is key for any campaign and with its treasure trove of data, Cambridge Analytica could target people high in neuroticism, for example, with images of immigrants "swamping" the country. The key is finding emotional triggers for each individual voter. Cambridge Analytica worked on campaigns in several key states for a Republican political action committee. Its key objective, according to a memo the Observer has seen, was "voter disengagement" and "to persuade Democrat voters to stay at home"... In the U.S., the government is bound by strict laws about what data it can collect on individuals. But, for private companies anything goes.
A branch of this company reportedly also received half the campaign budgets of four pro-Brexit campaign groups, and there's some dark talk about "military-funded technology that has been harnessed by a global plutocracy...being used to sway elections in ways that people can't even see." The article notes the two firms have plied their services in Russia as well as Lithuania and the Ukraine, and suggests that "we are in the midst of a massive land grab for power by billionaires via our data. Data which is being silently amassed, harvested and stored."
A branch of this company reportedly also received half the campaign budgets of four pro-Brexit campaign groups, and there's some dark talk about "military-funded technology that has been harnessed by a global plutocracy...being used to sway elections in ways that people can't even see." The article notes the two firms have plied their services in Russia as well as Lithuania and the Ukraine, and suggests that "we are in the midst of a massive land grab for power by billionaires via our data. Data which is being silently amassed, harvested and stored."
Trump won fair and square. Get over it, leftists. Legally buying information to better reach and influence voters isn't hijacking an election. Trump and the Republicans ran a better and smarter campaign, and this is just another example of them doing so. Americans don't want leftist policies and it's time that you liberals get over it. Clinton's had far more money than Trump's, so they easily could have acquired the same information. And yet they made blunder after blunder, including not visiting Midwest states that they took for granted. You lost. Get over it, leftists.
- snruter rotsac
Not a fan of Clinton (both of them!) by a long stretch...
but compared to them Trump's a major catastrophe. Really.
Both Brexit and Trump are examples of votes where there were designated "right" solution and designated "wrong" solutionApparently though,
No not "designated", "obviously". As in, Brexit was obviously the wrong move. However, many people are impervious to evidence, no matter how obvious it makes a point.
To say there was a designated outcome is facile. There was a leave campaign for Brexit (as well as a remain one) run by a bunch of the people in power. They called it the official campaign and lied egregiously.
If the "wrong" decision is objectively wrong then there's no need to put it into the ballots in the first place.
Another facile comment. In the case of Trump/Clinton, it was an election. You have those very 4 years, it's not like you can avoid putting it to the ballot. In the case of Brexit, yes it was completely the wrong move. It was a mix of the Tories not wanting to share power with the lib-dems again combined with some political infighting. There was no need to go to the ballot over that. And making such a major change on a simple majority was beyond stupid.
So you may consider that people chose "wrong" option as protest against this false democracy.
Yeah well, protest votes count. In the case of the US anyone who protest voted did it by voting for the party of evil. I mean, what else would you describe a party that makes rape a preexisting medical condition so coverage can be denied, but not, say, erectile dysfunction.
At some point, you have to take responsibility for your actions. If you vote for the far worse evil, you have some responsibility for their actions.
SJW n. One who posts facts.