
US billionaire helped to back Brexit - jsvaughan
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/feb/26/us-billionaire-mercer-helped-back-brexit?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
======
FeatureRush
The main point from this article seems to be that the service was provided for
free, without registering it as a donation.

Some details on the actual technology are in this related article:

[https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/feb/26/robert-
merc...](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/feb/26/robert-mercer-
breitbart-war-on-media-steve-bannon-donald-trump-nigel-farage)

> On its website, Cambridge Analytica makes the astonishing boast that it has
> psychological profiles based on 5,000 separate pieces of data on 220 million
> American voters

Then there are some speculation what data could it be and how would it be
used. From that, it seems that the difference between other "Better audience
targeting" tools used for typical commercial advertising campaigns would be
mainly scale and accuracy?

As a side note, does anyone else thinks that this specific photo in article
about manipulation was used to manipulate my emotions and invoke negative view
of the other side?

[https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/feb/26/robert-
merc...](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/feb/26/robert-mercer-
breitbart-war-on-media-steve-bannon-donald-trump-nigel-farage#img-4)

~~~
adnzzzzZ
>Then there are some speculation what data could it be and how would it be
used. From that, it seems that the difference between other "Better audience
targeting" tools used for typical commercial advertising campaigns would be
mainly scale and accuracy?

Some of it is explained on this 5 minutes video (ignore the clickbait title).
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yo3gOoOSdhY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yo3gOoOSdhY)
According to this professor one of the things they used for better targetting
is a person's Big 5 personality profile that they extract from Facebook likes.

~~~
NPMaxwell
Great video. Lots to think about. Like personality tests in general, test of
big 5 personality traits correlate with behavior at about .2 to .3. For
example, they have a correlation of .2 to .3 with GPA
([http://www.gwern.net/docs/conscientiousness/2007-noftle.pdf](http://www.gwern.net/docs/conscientiousness/2007-noftle.pdf)).
This is a typical correlation level with behavior for all personality tests.
To give you a sense of this, simulate a personality test result with 90 zeros
and 10 ones. Then add a column of 90 zeros and 10 ones for the behavior you
are predicting. Arrange your behavior ones so that 7 line up with personality
zeros (were not predicted) and 3 line up with ones (predicted). That's a
correlation of .24. If you picked 10% randomly, you would have found (on
average) 1 of the people showing the behavior and you would have mistakenly
flagged 9 who would not produce the behavior. With the test, you find 3 and
mistakenly flag 7. If the test and behavior are spread 50/50, you find 32,
when random selection of 50% would have found 25. Combine that correlation
with the problem that the Facebook data is not perfectly correlated with how
people would fill out the Big 5 personality instrument. If you insisted that
your modelers create a model of the the Big 5 and then insisted that they use
the Big 5 scores to predict behavior, chances are that you would have
correlations near zero. The opportunity here is in creating models directly
from Facebook characteristics to the behavior of interest. The Big 5 theory
may help guide which FB characteristics to test, but then you need to set it
aside to create working models.

------
doctorstupid
It's clear that Facebook and its ilk are becoming the gatekeepers to elections
and social movements. China must have foreseen this long ago when it blocked
them. The means are now in place to steer the governments of the democratic
world in the directions preferred by those able to pay Facebook. As an
increasingly political group of corporations, perhaps these new social
gatekeepers will one day like to do a bit of steering towards their own goals.
After all, cybernetics is the art of steering.

~~~
averagewall
It's just the new and more powerful advertising medium. In the old days
television filled that role, and it still does. Presidential elections in the
US are always and only won by the candidates who spend the most money.

~~~
rudrigu
> Presidential elections in the US are always and only won by the candidates
> who spend the most money.

Did Trump outspend Rodham?

~~~
6d65
She won the popular vote though. Which partially proves his point. That being
said, correlation doesn't mean causation.

~~~
ntelson1s
Debatable. Take these sites with grains of salt, but leave with the idea that
the results of each in combination taken with salt still skew the results
ALOT.

Potentially millions of Illegals voted. (potentially)
[http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/trump-is-
right-...](http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/trump-is-right-
millions-of-illegals-probably-did-vote-in-2016/)

Here's one illegal that voted FIVE times.
[http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Trial-Begins-in-Alleged-
Ill...](http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Trial-Begins-in-Alleged-Illegal-
Voting-in-Tarrant-County-413091043.html)

AND the DHS supposedly under Obama administration tried to hack electronic
voting polls for six states.
[http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-08/georgia-accuses-
hom...](http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-08/georgia-accuses-homeland-
security-attempting-hack-states-election-database)

EDIT: I only said supposedly on the third because SIX is the supposed number,
but the Georgia one DID happen.

~~~
snsr
Illegal voting had nothing to do with Trump's unprecedented loss of the
popular vote.

~~~
paulddraper
Don't forget that Clinton lost the popular vote too; most voters did not vote
for her.

~~~
grzm
Would you expand on this? By most voters do you mean registered voters? Or
that Clinton didn't win a majority? From the popular vote results I've seen,
Clinton won a plurality of the votes. Not that the popular vote determines the
outcome of the election.

~~~
paulddraper
I mean that she gained only a plutority.

The winner of the US presidential election must be elected by majority vote.

Of course, as long as we're hypothesizing the election to be by popular vote,
we could make it by plutority too...

~~~
grzm
From the point of view of how electoral votes are decided (excluding faithless
electors), it _is_ determined by plurality, not majority. A state's electoral
votes go to the candidate who receives the most votes (a plurality), not the
one who receives more than half (a majority).

~~~
paulddraper
It's a majority of electoral college.

It's up to each state to choose their electors (plutority of popular vote, as
you said being the most common, though not the only method).

------
coldtea
So? From Soros to Gates, many US billionaires also helped to back Bremain.

[https://www.forbes.com/sites/derekxiao/2016/06/22/from-
disas...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/derekxiao/2016/06/22/from-disaster-to-
cobblers-billionaires-weigh-in-on-brexit/#3ce2d3867fb3)

Including most of the mainstream media, tv personalities, actors, etc.

~~~
ascorbic
There's a big difference between expressing support for a campaign and
secretly providing hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of donated services
to a foreign political campaign, and the campaign not declaring the donation
as required by law.

~~~
coldtea
Whereas Bremain supporters and politicians didn't get such covert donations?

Not to mention that they had the full cooperation and support of the state,
that was supposed to be neutral.

Plus thinly veiled (or open) threats from all kinds of businesses, heads of
foreign states, etc against a Brexit.

~~~
rbg246
There has been no evidence of any secret donations but who knows there could
have been but they probably didn't need the resources as much as the leave
campaign so less likely.

Giving advice as a foreign leader to other countries is what politicians do
and besides it usually has the opposite intended effect which was why every
European leader had their mouths tightly clamped during the campaign with a
few minor slips from memory.

Finally, the state was against brexit, that was their stated position they
were never neutral except they promised to keep quiet during the official
campaign as per normal election rules

Secondly, they merely stated the facts as the civil service saw it regarding
exit providing the frank and fearless advice that is their job.

~~~
coldtea
> _which was why every European leader had their mouths tightly clamped during
> the campaign_

On the contrary. To the point that, if I was British, I would be gravely
insulted, whether I was for brexit or bremain.

> _Secondly, they merely stated the facts as the civil service saw it
> regarding exit providing the frank and fearless advice that is their job._

They oversold their version of the "facts". And the sky hasn't fall, and is
not really likely to fall after the process is completed either.

On the contrary, the Euro experiment hasn't been going that well, not just the
monetary part, but even its more basic starting premise (as openly stated by
the politicians that kickstarted the European union process in the 50s: to
keep Germany from getting power over Europe again).

~~~
rbg246
Ai take your points both are arguable which I guess I'd the nature of
politics.

I think you take my second point as saying whether are right or wrong merely i
was saying that it was fairly well indicated that the state apparatus' advice
was stay in.

And the effects? Well it was only ever going to be a couple point difference
in GDP compounded over thirty years. Not the sky falling in. But that adds up
to serious difference in gdp. The thing with these binary decisions is the
road forks at that moment and we will never see where the other road goes.
Although I am surprised with the resiliency of the economy this far, could it
be that it takes time to move capital out without panic, I am not sure I'm not
an expert.

As is probably clear I would have preferred staying in, without going into
details I think being together with Europe has a lot of benefits which
counterweigh the negatives.

------
mike_hearn
This is just one of a constant stream of stories from the Guardian that boil
down to "people are sheep and their opinions are formed by a sinister
conspiracy to manipulate them". It is a fundamental part of their worldview,
which is why they're so against referendums to begin with.

Indeed, the entire premise of this article is that people make up their mind
based on what they see on Facebook, although Leave voters trend old (i.e. the
people least likely to heavily use Facebook). The idea that it's sinister and
scary comes from an academic "expert". This way of thinking has been pushed so
hard by the left wing and pro-EU segment of media and society:

• Trust experts, not yourself.

• People who disagree with us are merely influenced by lies.

• It should be (pro-EU) MPs, not a referendum result, that decides what
happens.

• When courts overrule referendums, that's democracy.

• Referendums are a bad idea because the outcome is pre-determined by whoever
lies the most/spends the most money/is best at manipulation/etc.

It's a worldview that dehumanises anyone who disagrees and makes fools of
anyone who adopts it, as the endless shrill cries of "what about the £350
million for the NHS" make clear - as if no lies were told by the Remain
campaign! Emergency budgets that never happened, an insta-recession that never
happened, Cameron saying he'd stay on and then immediately resigning, Obama
saying the USA would shun the UK, the £4300/yr figure that was dropped the
moment the Treasury produced it because it was clear this "expert prediction"
was nonsense, the "we can stay in a reformed EU" despite the actual leaders of
the EU saying that wasn't going to happen, etc etc.

But despite all that, only one side constantly harps on the idea that the vote
wasn't reliable because of nonsense said by politicians: the side that never
believed in voting to begin with.

~~~
js8
I didn't downvote you, but I disagree strongly. I am leftist and my experience
with other people on the left is that they overwhelmingly disagree with the
points you ascribe to them. (Except perhaps the first one, I think it's quite
sane to trust experts.)

It's perhaps because you listen to "left-wing" politicians and people in
power, and you're out of touch with people who have actual leftist opinions,
that you get this impression. But it has nothing to do with being left-wing as
it has it with being in power.

So, I think you should stop labeling those things as leftist (they are not -
democracy is in fact very much a leftist idea), you're only hurting your own
cause, by seeing enemies where you could have allies.

~~~
xd
" _by seeing enemies where you could have allies._ " Ironically that's what we
are seeing from the left, they see anyone that doesn't share their narrative
as the enemy, in need of reeducating, and use the most abhorrent language to
describe them, even going as far as comparing people to Hitler.

And these " _experts_ " you talk of, they're just as politically motivated as
you are, think about that.

~~~
js8
I have a hard time to understand your comment, in particular, what you mean by
"narrative" and "we"?

Could you give an actual example (quote) of what you consider to be bad from
"the left"?

Let me give you an opposite example, so that the discussion is not so
abstract: Yanis Varoufakis disagrees with all those 4 points (see DiEM25) and
he is a leftist.

Experts are politically motivated, like everybody, yes. But that doesn't mean
they don't give useful advice. I mean, your doctor is politically motivated,
are you going not to trust him? Do you agree with: "Don't trust your doctor,
only yourself"? In general, _not_ trusting experts by default is a bad idea
(maybe better would be to say: not trusting experts blindly is worse than
trusting them blindly).

~~~
xd
If you don't understand my use of the word "we" as in the opposition/Right, or
"narrative" as in political narrative; we are off to a bad start.

A quick example of bad left would be their reaction to Brexit and anyone that
voted in favor of it, which to them meant, overnight half the country became
racist.

Now, comparing a doctor, whom don't base their care on political opinions -
to, say, financial experts that have something to gain from their "expert
opinions" are two very different types of expert. But again, this is what we
see coming from the left all the time, everything is black and white, there is
no middle ground, you are either with us or a whole host of 'ism words.

Funny thing is, doctors actually have to make shitty calls i.e. triage, and
sometimes society can be so broken, that to fix things, shitty calls need to
be made; something the left are utterly incapable of doing.

~~~
js8
I don't really know how to reply, I offered a productive discussion but you
seem to refuse it.

Since I obviously disagree what is "left" (and since I identify on the left, I
would dare to say I have a better idea what it actually is), clearly I don't
understand who you mean by "we" and "them". (Which is funny especially since
you accuse the left from seeing things in binary.)

See, I offer to educate you, what actually left is about, maybe you would find
that you actually agree with it (which wouldn't be surprising for me). But
unless you give me an example of person you think is leftist and has those
opinions, I cannot proceed - I don't know what exactly is your misconception
about left.

Your remark about Brexit is funny - I do consider Jeremy Corbyn to be leftist,
even though I disagree with him on Brexit. So does he call himself racist?

Give me a specific example (aka quote), then we can discuss if the statement
or the person is leftist and how much.

The left is actually pretty wide, diverse set of people, with many opinions
(that's why I asked what the "narrative" means in this context, there is no
one). You certainly cannot categorize it as "them" and "us". (And you are the
one giving blank statements like "the left are utterly incapable of doing".)

About the experts - it's not really about the profession either. I mean, if
you were given the choice to trust the same expert person, 1-year into their
career versus 20-years into their career, you would probably choose the latter
one, who is probably the bigger expert of the two.

I think the key thing with "experts" is actually not whether to trust experts
or not, that's a false dichotomy. The real issue is: How to choose an expert?
Which is tricky (although I know some tricks), but beyond my interest in this
discussion.

------
tomp
Here is a fascinating (yet very long) account from one of the leaders of Vote
Leave campaign, he details the use of Big Data as well.

[https://dominiccummings.wordpress.com/2017/01/09/on-the-
refe...](https://dominiccummings.wordpress.com/2017/01/09/on-the-
referendum-21-branching-histories-of-the-2016-referendum-and-the-frogs-before-
the-storm-2/)

[https://dominiccummings.wordpress.com/2016/10/29/on-the-
refe...](https://dominiccummings.wordpress.com/2016/10/29/on-the-
referendum-20-the-campaign-physics-and-data-science-vote-leaves-voter-
intention-collection-system-vics-now-available-for-all/)

------
BillyParadise
Extraterritorial corporate interests manipulating a decision arguably more
important than a single election?

Please, help me explore how this is significantly different than the Russia vs
US election issue on the other side of the pond.

~~~
jdoliner
Well, one obvious difference is that it's a private entity rather than a
government. But you don't have to look very hard to find instances of the
american government interfering in foreign elections. It's one of their
favorite pastimes.

~~~
carlob
Arguably the Marshall Plan is one of the best examples of this

~~~
mike_hearn
Arguably given the context, Obama visiting the UK to tell the British that the
USA would ignore them if they voted out (send them to the "back of the queue")
would be the best example of this: direct intervention by a foreign leader
into a national referendum.

------
davidf18
Mercer does have a point about the bias of MSM: I read NY Times, Washington
Post, The Guardian, The Atlantic, WSJ while NY Times, WaPo came out against
Steve Bannon for being anti-semitic when he decidedly is very pro-Israel and
very against anti-Semitism and yet, didn't say a word about Keith Ellison who
was running for DNC chair. MSM criticized Trump for not being strong enough on
anti-Semitism but where silent about Ellison. Among other things, Ellison was
one of only 8 members of Congress to vote against funding Israel's Iron Dome
missile system -- a system which protected Israeli civilians from Hamas
rockets [1].

The Anti-Defimation League whose reason d'être is to combat anti-Semitism came
out with a statement against Ellison on Dec 1, 2016,[2] but you won't see MSM
mention the ADL condemnation of Ellison.

[1] [http://jpupdates.com/2014/08/03/rep-ellison-explains-anti-
ir...](http://jpupdates.com/2014/08/03/rep-ellison-explains-anti-iron-dome-
funding-vote-need-cease-fire/)

[2] [http://www.adl.org/press-center/press-releases/israel-
middle...](http://www.adl.org/press-center/press-releases/israel-middle-
east/speech-raises-new-doubts-about-Rep-Ellisons-ability.html)

[3] [http://dailycaller.com/2016/11/17/democrats-must-
scrutinize-...](http://dailycaller.com/2016/11/17/democrats-must-scrutinize-
keith-ellisons-anti-semitic-past-and-ties-to-radical-islam/)

Of course choosing Ellison as a candidate to lead them was truly a lack of
judgment on the part of the DNC but for some reason, NY Times, Washington
Post, etc. failed to report Ellison's views and the ADL statement.

EDIT: The Wall Street Journal, unlike NYTimes and Washington Post does bring
up Ellison's anti-Semitism, but only _after the fact_ , not before the
election:

"Mr. Ellison, who is an African-American Muslim, also faced complaints about
his past associations with the Nation of Islam and statements he has made that
were perceived as criticizing Israel. Haim Saban, an Israeli-American donor
who funded the construction of the DNC’s Washington headquarters, in December
publicly called Mr. Ellison “clearly an anti-Semite.”" [4]

[4] [https://www.wsj.com/articles/democrats-elect-tom-perez-
party...](https://www.wsj.com/articles/democrats-elect-tom-perez-party-
chairman-1488054192)

~~~
huac
There's a huge difference between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism. There's no
real way to engage with somebody who willfully tries to remove that distance.

It is also very much possible to be anti-Semitic and pro-Israel, but I won't
go into those mental gymnastics here.

Edit: the mental gymnastics that have been offered elsewhere basically boil
down to, "we hate Jews, but are fine giving them their own country if it means
they leave America." White supremacists are also pro-Israel because they think
having a Jewish homeland justifies having a white homeland (America, Europe,
etc).

~~~
reitanqild
_There 's a huge difference between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism._

Practically speaking I'd say it is less than you think.

Anti-Zionism is often just a proxy for hating jews who live in Israel.

 _There 's no real way to engage with somebody who willfully tries to remove
that distance._

I could say something similar the other way but that would be to accept your
invitation to a framing competition.

Actually this whole: there is no way to engage with x is a problem IMO.

~~~
huac
> Anti-Zionism is often just a proxy for hating jews who live in Israel.

I mean, do you include Israeli settlers within 'jews who live in Israel'?

When people argue that any criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic, and must be a
priori excluded, then debate and engagement is impossible. There is a
difference between criticizing Jews and criticizing Israel, and erasing that
difference necessarily forecloses on conversation.

~~~
reitanqild
_When people argue that any criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic_

Just FTR, I'm not trying to argue that.

Criticising Israel (or for that matter, Jews) should be totally ok.

------
owebmaster
A lot of them (and the secretary of state) also planned and executed the
overthrow of an elected brazillian government past year. The spread of
american corruption over other countries polítics is absurd. Even more absurd
is to see americans attack Trump as if the previous Administration wasn't one
of the worst for global security.

------
kkleindev
What makes a person like Steve Mercer, being extremely well educated and
highly successful take part in such dubious procedures? Will a personal
experience drive one into being involved in Breitbart and such or is clinical
financial calculation fueling such decisions?

~~~
mdekkers
Personally, my thinking is that people like this person already exists on a
different "plane of existence" due to their money - the politics of mere
mortals like us, in the way it is practiced and experienced by us - simply
doesn't feature into things. In terms of getting involved, it is no secret
that the same patterns repeat over and over - push people to their limit
economically, and they will flock to populist politicians such as Farage and
Trump - witness the rise of the alt-right globally. People like Mercer
understand this, and have the means to support those players, thus buying a
seat at the table.

~~~
SideburnsOfDoom
> push people to their limit economically, and they will flock to populist
> politicians ... have the means to support those players, thus buying a seat
> at the table.

So, one part Machiavelli, one part sociopath?

------
bhouston
Astroturfing things like reddit, twitter, facbook and other forums using AI is
likely going to be very effective if it isn't already.

~~~
FeatureRush
[https://xkcd.com/810/](https://xkcd.com/810/) Can't wait!

~~~
FeatureRush
It may seem as a joke, but I really think that manipulating pseudo-anonymous
Internet forums like reddit for political and marketing reasons will prove to
be huge driving force for bot development in the coming decade. Right now it's
super cheap to just hire some students or task interns with the posting, but
remember bots don't leak, don't quit the job and while they do not understand
reality you just can't teach human to consider 5000 data points for every
comment! And the story about vote manipulation, as shady as it is, still
proves that machine that does not understand emotions still uses them in a way
that trained humans just couldn't.

------
chiefalchemist
This is the second article I've read on this firm. Neither provides proof
their means are effective. The only claims made about effectiveness are made
by the firm itself. So of course, as a for profit venture, it's going to say
it's worth the money. Of course.

As for the rest of the article and the graph of influence. I wish some SC wiz
kid would build a "revenue Big Brother" DB so we can see and track all these
often nefarious connections. We have video games out the ass but no way of
knowing and seeing a graph of relationshios that for all practical purposes
paints a picture of corruption. When will we finally get something that
useful?

------
woodpanel
> Martin Moore, of King’s College London, said that “undisclosed support-in-
> kind is extremely troubling."

In all fairness: Isn't "extremely troubling undisclosed support-in-kind"
exactly what Bannon and Mercer are charging the "mainstream media" with?

(Disclosure: No Trump supporter, nor Ukip. Not a citizen in both countries)

------
NPMaxwell
In terms of how this is done, the Big 5 personality theory is like a squirrel
in the movie, Up. The powerful tool is testing how individual level data
predicts the incremental impact on behavior of actions (ads etc.) that the
campaign promoters can take. The behavior you care about ultimately is voting,
and you can't train models on voting, but you can train models on campaign
donations, Facebook liking, sharing, and copying-and-pasting. These are
behaviors that are likely to correlate with voting later. The role of a theory
like Big 5 is to help guide the selection of what to test, and is ideally
balanced with what is easy to test.

------
vixen99
Just out of interest, how many nameless or otherwise, billionaires backed
Remain?

~~~
ionwake
Sorry for the ignorance, I do not know much about politics. But why would a
billionaire want to even back something like Brexit? Is there a potential
business type benefit for it?

------
dredmorbius
Media and information systems fundamentally change societies and their power
structures and dynamics. They always have. They always will. Often the
changes, or at least the immediate periods of change, are highly disruptive,
often painful or deadly, sometimes to tens of millions. The dream of uniting
humanity through better communications is at best exceedingly incomplete.

That idea occurred to me a few months ago. I've been researching it in some
depth, and like most good ideas, I'm hardly the first to stumble accross it.
In recent memory, Elizabeth Eisenstein has pursued the idea to a greater
extent than nearly anyone else, in particular in her 1980 book _The Printing
Press as an Agent of Change_. Review here (full text available via
[https://sci-hub.cc](https://sci-hub.cc)):

[https://www.jstor.org/stable/2779560?seq=1#page_scan_tab_con...](https://www.jstor.org/stable/2779560?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents)

I'm aware of a number of those transitions, and there's good evidence for
nearly all of the corresponding changes.

1\. Speach and language itself: increased intra- and inter-tribal
communications. Strong evidence of rapidly advancing toolmaking, including
stone tools, and weapons.

2\. Writing. Co-incident with the start of civilisation itself, cities, and
agriculture. Spread like wildfire from regions in which it first developed
over a period of a few centuries for the most part.

3\. Printing. Moveable type, in Europe, corresponded with thhe Reformation,
schism of the Catholic Church, and a continent-wide 30 Years War.

4\. Incremental improvements in literacy, papermaking, and printing: the
American and French revolutions.

5\. Steam-powered, iron-framed prresses, greatly increased literacy, and much
cheaper paper: the Revolutions of 1848, in which 50 nations in Europe and
Latin America experienced revolutionary uprisings.

6\. Mass media, especially radio, public address systems, cinema, audio tape
recording, grammaphone, and ever cheaper and faster presses: the rise of
Fascism in Italy and Germany, demagogues in the United States (Huey Long,
Father Coughlin, Joseph McCarthy).

7\. In the 1950s - 2010s, mass social movements piggy-backing on radio, mobile
PA systems (bullhorns), mass music, television, CB radio, call-in radio,
telephones, mimeographs, Xerox machines, Fanzines, dial-up, broadband, and
mobile Internet, Web-based apps, social media.

Profiling, targeted messaging, and other elements operate similarly.

The overall dynamics are complex, and I've omitted other elements, but the
overall concept seems quite strong. Many authors have commented on elements of
this, though few look to the darker side. Le Bon, Mackay, Bernays, McLuhan,
Chomsky, Mander, Shirky, and boyd are among those who have.

------
brad0
It's depressing to see how our opinions are collectively shaped to further
someone's agenda.

~~~
edejong
I think it's depressing that, despite abundant warnings from experts, we
cannot convince ourselves to stop using massively centralized social media
services.

~~~
yunolisten
> we cannot convince ourselves to stop using massively centralized social
> media services.

some of us were smart enough never to start using them in the first place

~~~
edejong
I meant 'ourselves' as in the collective, not the individuals.

~~~
kaoD
Then I don't understand the mention of experts since most people don't even
know that their data is being sold.

------
zakk
Rich people backing political causes? Is it something new?

------
guilhas
Some backed brexit, some backed remain. Bohoo..

------
gaius
I am pretty sure that no-one's vote was swayed in either direction by either
campaign and that every penny spent by both sides was wasted. Whether you are
Leave or Remain, that is driven by underlying fundamentals, not by abstract
arguments about balances of trade...

~~~
DanBC
> not by abstract arguments about balances of trade...

People were not swayed by abstract arguments of balances of trade, but about
lies told about paying £350m per week to the NHS rather than Europe.

~~~
gaius
Or lies about immediate economic collapse followed by WW3?

Both sides engaged in hyperbole but no amount of rhetoric would change what
people saw around them with their own eyes. Some saw a thriving metropolis
that benefited massively from the EU; others saw factory towns decimated by
the switch in trade away from the Commonwealth and towards the EU. It just so
happens there were more of the latter than the former.

~~~
tankenmate
I think to say that the switch of trade to the EU vs the Commonwealth caused
the decimation of industrial towns is drawing a long bow. The IMF as long as
20 years ago highlighted that deindustrialisation is primarily caused by trade
and technology advancement[0]; even places such as Japan and China, places
hailed as manufacturing giants, have or are going through this. One of the
main reasons that manufacturing took off in the 80s and 90s in south east Asia
was that the wages there were lower than automation; this is no longer the
case. In the next decade or two south east Asia will face a reduced middle
class as well, unless drastic changes are made to the capital / labour balance
of income and wealth growth.

Both sides were given to hyperbole true, but that is largely driven by the UK
(and most of the population of the western world) being distracted to death.
Most people think the issues are too complex to worry about; they just know
that the system isn't working and they will listen to people making emotive
arguments who suggest they can fix everything by going back to the way it was.
Of course the technology and efficiency changes genie can't be put back into
the bottle; what company would voluntarily put themselves at an unnecessary
disadvantage?

Trying to turn back the clock is a waste of energy.

[0]
[https://www.imf.org/EXTERNAL/PUBS/FT/ISSUES10/issue10.pdf](https://www.imf.org/EXTERNAL/PUBS/FT/ISSUES10/issue10.pdf)

