
Fresh Cambridge Analytica leak ‘shows global manipulation is out of control’ - hhs
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jan/04/cambridge-analytica-data-leak-global-election-manipulation
======
AndrewKemendo
"There’s evidence of really quite disturbing experiments on American voters,
manipulating them with fear-based messaging, targeting the most vulnerable,
that seems to be continuing. This is an entire global industry that’s out of
control"

Lets be clear this is the explicit purpose of the advertising and public
relations industry.

1\. Create Art (writing, multimedia etc...) intended to influence viewer

2\. Distribute Art via Large Scale Channels

3\. Hope that people exposed to it take the action you want them to

For Coca-cola they want you to "Buy Coke"

For AirBnB they want you to book a stay

For Politicians they want you to vote for them

Politicians have always used the media channels of the day to advertise
themselves. So it's extremely unclear what is news here aside from the fact
that Politicians are following Corporate levels of sophistication for
advertising.

I think what it really shows is that Advertising in total is a toxic and
corrupting business and should be banned outright for all things.

~~~
CptFribble
As long as free speech is considered important, ads aren't going anywhere
(note: I consider free speech important).

Even if you ban directives from ads (Buy Product Now!) ads can be reduced to
simple voicing of opinions on a media channel ("I love product X, you'd love
it too, I'm sure!"), which is what most ads are anyways - emotional
persuasion, not the old style "Johnny's Canned Beans are the most nutritious!"
from the early days of TV.

And if you're talking about banning all paid endorsements, I guarantee there
will be 10,000 loopholes that look like Citizens United/SuperPAC behavior,
where a person performs the advertising speech in public for free, and then is
later given gifts and trips and other things for "unrelated reasons" from an
"industry interest group."

In short, we need to incorporate critical thinking/mental and emotional
resilience/manipulation resistance into the educational system, which I'm
pretty sure will never ever happen since the Powers That Be are all there
precisely because, as you said, they all use the media channels of the day to
manipulate.

~~~
franky47
Adverts are not free speech. Public service announcements on billboards might
be, like the band trying to promote their underground concert in town, or an
association promoting a cultural event. But you can't put those in the same
basket as big corporations paying multiple k$ for premium attention-grabbing
spots with fancy graphics to make you dream of things you don't need.

~~~
betenoire
Where is the line drawn, in your opinion? How do we objectively tell the
difference?

~~~
franky47
If it tries to sell you something (item, product, experience) where the paid
message's intent is to generate revenue, it's not free speech, it's marketing.

~~~
ultrarunner
I genuinely love ultramarathons. I encourage people to do them for various
self-improving reasons (and because they can be super fun, etc). I also work
for a race company that produces ultra marathon focused events.

Do I get free speech, or does my potential to continue making a living
preclude me from that right?

~~~
natecavanaugh
Likewise, I love Apple products, and wish for them to generate more revenue
(ostensibly, more resources for them to improve said products and create new
ones). I neither work for Apple nor have any vested financial interest in
saying so (no stock in the company, no relatives that work for them, and zero
way that their increased revenues in any way impacts my bank account or the
bank account of anyone I know). Is my promotion of them, which in some ways
feeds my ego (for making such wise purchasing decisions) and makes my life
easier via a larger user base to compare notes with, find support, etc,
considered free speech, or advertising?

Also, related to ultrarunner's point, is it not possible to freely promote
something that is both in my interest financially and in the best interest of
my audience? Isn't that in fact the ideal scenario, mutually beneficial
arrangements where everyone benefits via aligned incentives?

------
ourcat
From early posts in the @HindsightFiles feed

Malaysia:
[http://repo.hindsightfiles.com/01012020/malaysia.zip](http://repo.hindsightfiles.com/01012020/malaysia.zip)

Kenya:
[http://repo.hindsightfiles.com/01012020/kenya.zip](http://repo.hindsightfiles.com/01012020/kenya.zip)

Brazil:
[http://repo.hindsightfiles.com/01012020/brazil.zip](http://repo.hindsightfiles.com/01012020/brazil.zip)

~~~
DyslexicAtheist
Iran: (2014-2016)
[https://repo.hindsightfiles.com/01042020/iran.zip](https://repo.hindsightfiles.com/01042020/iran.zip)

------
wrinklz
The problem with targeted advertising in free elections is that voters need to
know what the candidates are saying everywhere. Transparency is not the enemy
of free speech, at least with respect to elections. Either voters need access
to all campaign ads (and to whom they are targeted), or targeted campaign
messages need to be eliminated, or some combination.

Or maybe there's a better solution, but at least let's agree on the
transparency problem.

------
buboard
> There’s evidence of really quite disturbing experiments on American voters,
> manipulating them with fear-based messaging, targeting the most vulnerable,
> that seems to be continuing.

Ironically, it's not clear which party they re referring to

~~~
happytoexplain
Isn't she explicitly not referring to only one party? If she is, why is it
ironic that it's not clear which?

~~~
buboard
> The documents reveal a much clearer idea of what actually happened in the
> 2016 US presidential election, which has a huge bearing on what will happen
> in 2020. It’s the same people involved who we know are building on these
> same techniques,” she said

I m confused, were the Democrats being accused of using manipulative social
media ad campaigns in 2016?

~~~
StuffedParrot
Do you accuse people of the obvious a lot? Because manipulative ads seem to be
the lingua franca of us politics.

~~~
buboard
Not accusing anyone

------
dghughes
This reminds me of the HyperNormalisation documentary. You're instinct is to
verify the information by reading about it elsewhere but it's hard to verify
something so obscure.

------
chopchopgoodbye
It would seem as though people don't care. Time after time people are told to
their face "you have been manipulated" and rather than resolving to be more
vigilant they shrug their shoulders and go about business as usual. People of
older generations seem particularly indiscriminate, accepting the
"credibility" of any source that has a website. I'm not sure if it's a kind of
desensitization or if people don't believe it / don't care but it strikes me
as tacit acceptance of massive-scale manipulation which saddens me.

------
cm2012
I'm a professional ad manager.

These lists have 0 value. At scale, it's always better to use algorithmic
targeting than uploading lists to target. This is true on any ad network, but
especially on Facebook.

~~~
texasbigdata
Why? And dont you sort of know the population skews a certain way given the
platform you choose (guessing quora differs from bing which differs from
coupons in the mail)?

Restated, and this might be so off base and tangential that maybe it's not
worth answering, but if you were say....something reasonable like a dentist.
And you were fairly far along in your practice and had tenure. Let's say in
that case your "list" represents a fairly not insignificant amount of the
people around you. Say 5%? 10%? Whatever is reasonable.

Even in that case the algorithm is better?

~~~
cm2012
I actually have a subspecialty in targeting narrow business verticals, and
yeah, the algorithm is better 95% of the time.

~~~
texasbigdata
Oh cool. Interesting!

------
ianai
Is there anyone seeing people reflect increased skepticism of internet sourced
information following this stuff? Like, I learned in HS to discount the
validity and value of “stuff I read on the internet” to 0 until I could verify
if through alternate sources.

~~~
alamaslah
I saw people express skepticism before this stuff, that is part of why this is
effective. It partly depends upon there being low trust in "sources of truth".
Want to know the funny thing? The people that eroded the trust are now the
ones complaining the loudest about the results.

Also, why does sex sell? Because people desire sex.

~~~
ianai
Yep, that’s what keeps me up at night. I’ve had family express their
individual preference for sources with zero credibility or authority over
sources from medical doctors/phds/other reputable sources. They’re predisposed
to believe manipulative stuff and prefer it!

~~~
spookybones
There is also the phenomenon that conspiracies tend to be more interesting,
and sources without credibility deal in these. And, they can pump out a lot
quickly, since they do not fact check. So, more exposure overall. I know a lot
of people who start out entertained by them, but soon believe them wholesale.
Why read counterpoints to pizzagate when I can read even more theories about
how it takes place?

~~~
ianai
Solipsism, man, it’s all solipsism. You’re right too.

(On an unrelated note, that’s also what made Star Trek much more interesting
to me than Wars. Until pretty recently there weren’t any or only one tv show
to really watch in the Wars universe. But lots of Trek.)

------
slick50
"intelligence expert behind the so-called “Steele dossier” into Trump’s
relationship with Russia"

A political opponent (with the help of a political party..and possibly a
president) worked with a foreign government to dig up dirt on an opponent and
affect the 2016 election. It didn't work, but the deed has been done.

It's scary that a political party can get away with this with impunity.

If it would have worked, would we even be seeing anything about it?

------
scottlocklin
Alternate title: "the guardian discovers marketing is used"

------
anovikov
See, in the present world, the majority of voters have no good prospects - for
purely objective, technologically-driven reasons. Therefore, there are only
two ways to make society workable - shut down popular democracy, or
manipulate. Meaning, there is no way an average American, or even European,
would vote for anything which won't be a blatant lie: because it is too grim.

Alternatives as i see them are either "democracy with prequalification",
limiting voters pool to 1-10% of population (back to good old days,
basically), or outright dictatorship (which is unstable). If i were to pick,
i'd probably prefer the manipulations route.

~~~
bradleyankrom
“democracy with prequalification” is not democracy at all

~~~
anovikov
But this is how democracy worked from the very beginning. Only free men,
property owners voted. The Greeks would call "democracies" of today,
ochlocracies, which they deemed to be the worst form of government. Voting of
largely irresponsible people with nothing to lose.

It's either prequalification, or manipulations to make those voters
irrelevant, reduce them to just noise. And of course, in today's world of
lies, manipulations are the way to go.

