Let me quote what voluntarily handing over personal information means at the university level:
"Obtaining written informed consent from a potential participant is more than just a signature on a form.
The consent document is to be used as a guide for the verbal explanation of the study.
The consent document should be the basis for a meaningful exchange between the researcher and the participant.
The participant's signature provides documentation of agreement to participate in a study, but is only one part of the consent process.
The consent document must not serve as a substitute for discussion."
Seems phrased fairly differently from the typical "terms of use" document we get when signing up for an online service. So I ask. Should these be vastly different things?
If it said up-front "this data will be collated and eventually used to emotionally manipulate you", I'd agree with you that people give the information up of their own will.
Because I have yet to be convinced that knowing how open, agreeable, etc. someone translates into manipulation and the article did not even attempt to explain that, it just said this has some vague relation to Trump & Brexit and left us to assume it was a magic X factor.
"Mr. Trump’s digital team used [individually targeted] posts to serve different ads to different potential voters, aiming to push the exact right buttons. [...] A pro-gun voter whose Ocean score ranks him high on neuroticism could see storm clouds and a threat: The Democrat wants to take his guns away. A separate pro-gun voter deemed agreeable and introverted might see an ad emphasizing tradition and community values, a father and son hunting together."
I don't know if there is danger, but I find the idea very scary that there is an organization that collects very intimate data on me without my knowledge and uses that to manipulate me. They are not really trying to find points that people agree on with Trump. They are trying to create a strong emotional image that works with the person in question and connect it to Trump.
That's advertising in a nutshell, though. You can (and should) limit the information you put out. You can (and should) learn to recognize emotional manipulation of all kinds from all sources.
a) This degree of personalization is completely unheard of.
b) No one except the most paranoid expects that when they fill in a quiz that information will be recorded and stored.
c) Normally with personalized advertising (or advertising in general) the worst that can happen is that the person advertised to will buy something they don't need. In this case it can have implications for many other people.
A) Not really, Google knows way more about us.
B) That sounds like a problem with education.
C) This is by no means the only targeted political advertising. They have systems to track what you respond to and have done so for quite some time now. Calls, letters, even people visiting at the door don't happen by accident.
That's incredibly rare. Most peopled don't understand the type and amount of data being collected or the power of modern analysis methods. This kind of data collection needs to have the informed consent of those involved. That is a significantly higher standard than getting someone to click "I Agree" or pretending they read and understood the ToS.
Even among the minority that do understand at least the general shape of what will be done with their data, most people - correctly or incorrect -believe they don't have any choice (no alternatives).
> Sounds much different when its phrase properly and not accusatory.
Yes. It sounds like a cheap excuse that doesn't reflect reality. It may reduce conative dissonance and/or guilt to pretend that people are participating in a voluntary transaction, but it's still an attempt to manipulate and scam people... or worse.
I think it's very hard to conceptualize just how valuable and/or powerfull that data can be. Especially when it's given away in small pieces; Knowing my birthday by itself is useless, and so when some webform asks for it I all too easily think it's fine to give away without a second thought.
The same can be said for someone wanting to keep their location private; It's harmless to let the public know you live next to a park, and it was relevant to the story you wanted to tell that day. A month later you complain about the noise, and someone links that you may be near a highway. A week later you complain about a storm, even going so far as to live tweet it from the comfort of your own home, at one point tweeting "wow the rain got real loud for a moment there. Glad to have a nice house :D".
And now Mr. Dedicated Bad Guy has a list of three locations your house could be, all from seemingly innocuous information.
"Why do we allow people to voluntarily hand over their own information at their own will?"
Sounds much different when its phrase properly and not accusatory.