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."
If we agree with the person doing the activity?
Why, that's just democracy in action!
This wouldn't be a problem if the media were still fulfilling their role of informing people of the facts, instead of also taking up the role of interpreter of those facts.
So what if you're influenced by something you hear? That's normal: you receive information and act on it. You should, however, have -all- the information and not just the subset deemed supportive of the cause by invisible people, with the rest made up with suggestive phrasing and outright lies. But reporting of actual facts, supported by accurate and relevant numbers, has become a rarity, and finding those numbers is becoming less and less possible, despite the vast possibilities the internet offers for unlocking information.
So it's all down to hollow phrases, and given that total lack of input, people become suggestible. I would suggest, however, that the solution lies in a well-educated population that is aware of the problem, and is given unlimited access to uncensored facts and figures.
This is enough that they can identify what ads to show you to influence your opinion (Candidate X strongly supports issue Y), but more importantly they can share this info with canvassers who can target the undecided votes in a constituency and knock on their doors and say 'have you thought about [issue that we know is your number one priority], are you aware that our candidate believes [exactly what you believe]?'.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Indeed. The Brexit and Trump are the most stupid things voters did recently, but they are not unique. The vulnerability here are voters without a clue about reality. That one cannot easily be fixed, but throwing the staff and financiers of such companies in jail would be a start.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Or 30+ years of political experience, in-depth exposure to and familiarity with US law, experience with international relations, military operations, and other required skills. Instead, this campaign let Bozo get elected because he was orange and talked down to women and treated them as objects. You're 1/2 already, but still no Trump or Putin.
The butthurt is strong in this one!
If the Horrendous Harridan was so fucking competent, why'd she run such an utter train-wreck of a campaign?
Hillary! LOST!!! BWAAA HAAA HAA!
America lost.
anybody else sick to the back teeth of listening to these tinfoil hat conspiracy theories from people with far left views?
And yet Stallman is the crazy one? The man is a fucking prophet. Almost everything about computers he's predicted has come true including the eventual turning of computing technology and user data against democracy.
I'm pretty sure Obama For America employed many, if not all the same tactics in 2008 election...
Why yes, look at MIT's Technology Review, the New York Times, and InfoWorld - again, another glaring example of a profound double-standard. When Team Obama did it, it was "ground-breaking", when Republicans employ similar tools it a nefarious plot to control the world!
Ken
Both Brexit and Trump are examples of votes where there were designated "right" solution and designated "wrong" solution. If the "wrong" decision is objectively wrong then there's no need to put it into the ballots in the first place. So any vote that have only one designated right option is not vote at all, and shouldn't have happened in the first place. So you may consider that people chose "wrong" option as protest against this false democracy. If people's votes don't matter then there's no way they could make a stupid vote, or any meaningful vote at all beside a vote of non-confidence.
30+ years of political experience also means 30+ years of being exposed to corruption and becoming a stagnant and stale piece in the political field.
The latest US presidential election was a lose-lose situation. Overall the election highlights that the US election system has become pretty stale. A transit to the election pattern that France uses would be a step forward. But that would hurt both the Democrats and the Republicans.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
That must have been the best part of 20 minutes when I could see ads this century
You mean overt ads. Ads that are integrated into the content are not skipable. And we are not even talking about positive feedback loops in curated feeds.
I still find it incredibly funny that people think anybody at all in US politics is less corrupt than a casino owning property developer. Atlantic City is such a bastion of law and order after all.
Yawn.
The left can start complaining about people like this after George Soros is hanged for crimes against humanity and the murders, riots, and more he's caused through his various NPOs.
When informed about mass surveillance and privacy issues many people respond that they have "nothing to hide". My response to them is that they may have no criminal activity to hide, but with all that information they can be me manipulated without knowing it. I give the example of a first date. If you know what the person likes and dislikes before the date you can easily shape your approach to the evening, presenting yourself to be as pleasing as possible.
Well put, nuanced point. Unfortunately, I tend to find people who use the "I have nothing to hide" don't do nuance well. What does seem to get through to them is the following: "Do you mind taking a dump in the middle of 5th Avenue/Main Street/The High Street? No? Why not? What have you got to hide?" Privacy is a right and a requirement for decent quality of living, irrespective of whether or not you "have anything to hide." And there are lots of reasons to legitimately have something to hide: childhood sexual abuse, escaping an abusive and dangerous partner, a foolish act committed as a teenager or young adult that would mar your reputation or prevent you from obtaining gainful employment (e.g. driving drunk, or experimenting with drugs, or whatever other nonsense young people often get mixed up in before they're old or wise enough to know better), and so on.
This isn't just an assault on our democracy. It's an assault on our humanity.
So you voted for McCain, not Obama, right?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
You voted for Trump because you identify with his white nationalism and you blindly hate the left. You feel like you're losing all the entitlements and benefits you had as a white male and you blame it on women and minorities....
As a white male, this is the funniest thing I've read all day! In all seriousness, though, THIS is the reason why Trump won. Average people who go to work every day, spend time with the family, and try to be involved in their communities are tired of being labeled, called names, told they're meanies, etc. when they don't agree with mouth-foaming liberals. Liberals have nobody to blame but yourselves for Trump.
The butthurt is strong in this one!
If the Horrendous Harridan was so fucking competent, why'd she run such an utter train-wreck of a campaign?
Hillary! LOST!!! BWAAA HAAA HAA!
So, tell me, are you part of what is described in the summary and articles? I have noticed that since shortly before the election, all of the message boards I participate in have been swarmed with right-wing trolls. And I do mean all of them. The vast majority are just like you; hurling stupid insults and trying to get under people's skin and provoke an emotional response. Either Trump's supporters just all decided to get active online at the same time, or there is a coordinated effort going on. Knowing what I do about social manipulation, I suspect the latter.
So are you one of them? Do you get paid for this? Are you merely a computer program? These are the questions we need to ask, at least to ourselves, when reading comment sections and other social media. Well funded organizations are working to manipulate and influence what we think, what our values are and how we view the world. Let's at least keep an eye out for it.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
Yeah, she's got experience in politics. Experience agreeing with the Republican's biggest mistakes while having enough baggage and inconsistencies to alienate basically everyone. She voted for the Patriot Act and the Iraq War. She shouldn't be running for dog catcher, let alone POTUS. And yes, that applies to the majority of the rest of the Dem leadership too. That's why they've lost at historical levels despite increasingly favorable demographic advantages.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Remember, the Republicans had some 16 candidates to chose from, while the Democrats ostensibly only had one, being the Bernie never had a chance against the rigged DNC election machine. The bad choice of the Republicans is their choice of their party members, the bad choice of the Democrats was the DNC choice. The fact that Bernie made a significant run and almost beat Hillary shows you how bad a candidate she really was.
Hillary Loss is fully on the DNC and Hillary as a candidate.
That, and the US Presidential Election is almost always a lose lose proposition. That is the nature of the two party electoral nonsense.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
The vulnerability here are voters without a clue about reality. That one cannot easily be fixed, but throwing the staff and financiers of such companies in jail would be a start.
Does that include companies like The Guardian too? They're one of the biggest culprits when it comes to trying to influence clueless voters with their version of reality. Hell, these demagogues are still peddling the "Pepe is racist hate speech" nonsense, on their frontpage no less.
The only thing you've revealed here is that you've never even picked up a copy of the guardian.
The Daily Mail and their ilk are the biggest culprits in trying to influence clueless voters. This does not excuse the Guardian but what you wrote is completely wrong. The Guardian is trying to influence clued voters, why (and this is how we can tell you've never read the Guardian) is because the Guardian is written much more eloquently. There is a minimum education level required to understand the language used, your clueless readers end up going back to the Daily Mail or Sun to read celebrity trash and extreme right wing propaganda sandwiched between Page 3 girls. The Sun and DM target the most basest desires (which is why they're little more than soft porn these days) with the most basic language.
It's clear you're a Murdoch fanboy (Fox News/Daily Mail) as you don't even know that "front page" is two words.
Now if it were up to me, I wouldn't get rid of the DM or the Guardian. I'd simply enforce the same editorial standards as the BBC across the entire industry... And I'd tighten them up too. Get caught publishing a falsehood, a retraction must be issued on the front page. Get caught doing it deliberately, the retraction must run for 5 days.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Liberals have nobody to blame but yourselves for Trump.
No, no, no, no, no. Party A does not get to blame party B for party A's candidate. Be proud of what your own candidate stands for if you wish, but you *DO NOT* get to deflect imperfections of your own candidate/office holder onto another party. Trump is who he is, and we have what we have because we keep on nominating unlikable candidates and can't agree on basic facts about what's important.
... when they don't agree with mouth-foaming liberals.
Also, you don't get to react like this to a comment about someone talking about you 'blindly hating the left' with this comment. Stick to your points, and the people who feel compelled to use labels will rightly be ignored.