This is kind of a thin post linking to someone's larger project/company, but it does almost touch on something of substance, that there's (what I call) a "Blackwater Problem" with statistical-targeting companies. This is when one company out of many (manymany) emerges as the whipping boy for a problematic (if not inherently criminal) industry or profession. We see the same kinds of company name shuffling, same maintenance of primary leadership, who is essentially that industry's lobbyist over the long term.
Yes, easily. Microtargeting and related campaigns can be distinguished entirely by the content of they present. Microtargeting is just a technique that can be used for good or bad. In the case of Obama's campaign, nobody has accused them of misleading or false information. Brexit and the the US 2016 election was almost defined by misleading or false information (as you can see by lingering Pizzagate, QAnon, and Bengazi conspiracy theories).
Amused at the downvotes. It is true. You can not like Clinton and not vote for her, or Obama. I don't judge and people can disagree. But the amount of false content in those campaigns (which came to be known as "fake news" after the fact) was unprecedent, was aided/spreaded by foreign sources, and was largely on partisan lines. Evidence includes https://news.stanford.edu/2017/01/18/stanford-study-examines... among countless others). It would be just as wrong if, say, the Sander campaign did the same thing.
I do agree that Obama's campaign used this much "more ethically" but I didn't then and still don't approve of micotargeting or campaign advertising in general. I really want to see the US get to publicly funded elections because full public funding would cost not even a sliver of what elections current run and provide a more even playing field for candidates.
> I really want to see the US get to publicly funded elections because full public funding would cost not even a sliver of what elections current run and provide a more even playing field for candidates.
I would be in favor of that if we also blocked media coverage of the election other than strictly objective dates and times style coverage. No opinion sections in newspapers, no “John Oliver” type shows talking about politics, no Fox and Friends, etc.
Otherwise, you give tremendous power to the owners of media companies and then all the previous funds that were raised will go towards buying or starting media companies so they can give your candidate favorable coverage.
While true—the USA does indeed need election media reforms—these seem like a minute problems next to other issues that the US election system has, including voter suppression/exclusion, non-participation, gerrymandering, as well as all the problems that follows first past the post, single preferential voting with nth degree representation.
If we only fixed the media coverage of the election while still not allowing Puerto Ricans to vote in the Primaries, and still allow super governmental agencies (like the DNC) to conspire with candidates, I don’t think a lot would change.
But it’s been widely accepted since West Wing first aired that corruption in America’s electoral system (and politics generally) can be traced back to campaign finance reform as patient-0.
Representatives are constantly campaigning and raising money for the next election and the rest follows from freeing them to actually do their job.
So your saying that any attempt to reform the election system in America is futile?
Edit: I’m not sure which reforms you are referring to, but I bet that corruption existed in American politics before that, even before election financing was a thing. Corruption is a serious problem in democracies that have serious and strict regulations on campaign financing. A prime example here is Israel.
I will have to educate myself on the specifics of corruption in Israeli politics, but we're dealing with a particularly virulent freewheeling kind of graft in American politics where pretty much any curb would be significant.
Right now it is literally all graft and no progress at all to the point that we can barely pass the same bloated terrible budget we pass every year.
No opinion sections in newspapers would be directly against freedom of the press, and I feel like going after cable is just as bad. All of it would be ripe for abuse by the party in power to suppress tthe other too.
While I don’t doubt it would be ruled unconstitutional in the US, election day media bans are enforced in many functioning democracies (including Iceland, Israel and the UK). However, it can be debated how effective these bans are in the wake of social media. Also repercussion for braking this ban is also quite often minimal (two parties were found guilty of violating it in the last Icelandic parliamentary election, and no punishment was given).
Sure, microtargeting is bad and should be illegal, but that is not what the parent is asking about. Microtargeting is a fact, and it is immensely powerful. If you don’t use it for your campaign in 2020 you will loose. So you should understand why well meaning candidates use it.
That said there is still a world of difference using it to spread your agenda, vs. using it to spread false information in order to spread your agenda.
While microtargeting is a fact and not forbidden by national law, we need to understand why people use it and universally condemn it when people use it to spread lies.
Aside from data collection questions, yes. I think it's distasteful, but I think it's inevitable. The same techniques are used by grocery stores to send people coupons. This isn't cutting edge.
Depends on how the data was acquired, wouldn't you say? Wasn't there some problems in the news about how CA acquired their FB metadata that was confirmed by one of their contractors in Canada? I think the better question is "is paying Facebook to generate models and run advertising campaigns on those identified by those models right?"
... and Facebook thinks that's a problem because it's using Facebook to compete with Facebook, not for other moral reasons. They were breaking the part of the TOS where app developers were banned from trying to reconstitute the social network dataset outside of Facebook via secondary signal.
Is there any evidence Obama campaign made people install apps in the pretext of a poll and harvested FB data?
Don't confuse using "FB advertising platform" with "stealing FB data outside of their terms and selling it"
If CA was not involved and Trump campaign merely used FB advertising, we wouldn't be arguing about this particular point. Still bad on FB, but that is a different matter.
No, everyone is going to use these techniques. But using arms commercial entities to spread libel (so close to the election it cannot be acted upon, or from sources outside of jurisdiction) or using information obtained illegally crosses a line. I don't care what country or what party. Beyond specific candidates and policies, this is more important because it undermines the integrity of the process. I think the number of people in jail as a result of the 2016 elections is a pretty good indication of how far from normal this all was.
I have no interest in accusing anyone of anything but will point to timelines of documented activity that are hosted on a website widely considered to be a reliable source of information. I think those accusations are distinct from "Pizzagate" in ways that are obvious.
The amount of false and misleading information spread about Trump has been staggering though. Trying to pretend this only goes one way is a joke.
Is there even any proof that these micro-targeting campaigns swayed the election in anyway? Has anyone stopped to consider that maybe enough people just preferred Trump over Hillary and the election outcome was not the result of a some facebook ads?
People have written about it from that standpoint, sure. Summary: The Democratic Party in the days of Bill Clinton started building bridges to the rich classes, and betraying the working classes, and it snowballed from there. Now millions of people are repaying that fickleness and can be seduced to either side at will without so much as a platform, because they've learned platforms as presented aren't to be trusted anyway; and there's nothing to counteract any of that cynicism, no tangible concrete argument to be made, nothing in reality you can point to, that either party actually did for them. So all you have are ideas floating around with no basis in reality; pick one.
Even if it was 100% ineffective (and I think it's pretty obvious that it had a non-zero effect), that wouldn't even matter. They still tried to win by spreading lies.
I'm trying to interpret your comment in a charitable manner, but no matter what angle I come at it from it seems disingenuous ("whataboutism" comes to mind, for starters). No one in this thread has pretended that disinformation is mono-directional in the political arena; what has been stated is that there is a disproportionate amount of disinformation emanating from the conservative end of the media spectrum and that said misinformation has been coupled to the process of micro-targeting.
With the premise that advertisements are information streams that are designed to modify a person's behavior, I have few questions for you:
1. Do you believe that advertising is effective?
2. Do you believe that targeted advertising is more effective than non-targeting advertising?
3. Do you believe that misrepresenting information in an advertisement is acceptable?
>there is a disproportionate amount of disinformation emanating from the conservative end of the media spectrum
There is no evidence of this though. Have you considered that whatever you have read to suggest that a "disproportionate" amount of disinformation is from the right is itself a disinformation campaign by the left?
Maybe another way to look at it would be: Nobody would give a shit if "micro-targeting" had been used against Trump. The hand wringing over all of this is solely the result of a humiliated establishment trying to save face by pretending some Facebook ads cost them the election rather than their own hubris.
I'll ask again, what evidence is there that these micro-targeted ads swayed a single vote, much less the entire election? At what granularity is it "okay" to target an advertisement?
I only have circumstantial evidence of seeing vulnerable family members slide into rabid fanaticism, rambling (nonsensically so) off obviously fake news stories as if they even understood the context. Falling pray to this type of propaganda is not a particularly conservative vs liberal thing from my perspective, it's just that the Conservatives have weaponized misinformation in an organized manner.
I think this came up after Sacha Baron Cohen gave his famous speech at the ADL[1]. What makes social media political campaign so much more dangerous then traditional campaigns is that the investigative journalists don’t have the same access to the campaign claims as the targets, and hence cannot scrutinize, contextualize and compare them.
You are not alone in not seeing any evidence. Professional journalists with years of experience have the same problem.
But until we either learn how to overcome this limitation with new investigative techniques, or—better yet—regulate political campaigns with national laws, I suggest we remember the fact that: “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”[2]
This doesn't seem like misinformation to me. Certainly there are people who believe Trump is somehow directly controlled by Russia, but it doesn't seem to be an organized effort. Whereas there is plenty of evidence that Trump was aided by Russia and has many financial ties to Russian oligarchs. This credibly opens up a wealth of possible ways that he could be compromised. It's one of the reason politicians attempt to avoid the appearance of impropriety.
Nice way to show the content. Really brings home the fact that nothing much has changed for 2020, only getting worse.
> When CA was closed down many employees simply moved to new companies doing the exact same thing. One of the more well known of these is Emerdata, not just sharing some of the same workers from CA but also funded by the same family.
> Not everyone is aware, but CA was just a small part of a parent organisation called SCL. Pretty much all of the companies shown (in blue) on the left are/were part of this group.
Basically we've seen this kind of cultural manipulation on a massive scale before more than once. The last time it happened the manipulators were people like Joseph Goebbels. Remember the first thing the Nazi's did when they annexed a territory was to seize all forms of mass communication. Radios were replaced with new radios that could only be tuned to Nazi stations.
But I heard from a talk given by a Hungarian Jew, Robert Holczer, who was secretly working for the Antifa in the city of Prague that was under control of the Nazis in the 40s. Even when listening to Nazi radio with their propaganda, he could tell when the tide had turned against Germany. There are always clues, he said; He figured out that the Normandy Invasion was successful by listening to Nazi Propaganda, for example.
Eventually the culture-hacking turns against the hackers.
>> When CA was closed down many employees simply moved to new companies doing the exact same thing.
I'm not really sure why this is such a surprise. Think about the dot com boom. People were hopping all over the place. I remember one friend who was a developer and chased the money from company to company to company. All the companies wanted to be the next "future of the internet backbone" technology companies.
I would imagine its the same here. You have a specific set of skills, when one company gets shut down, you hop to the next company doing the same thing where you can continue utilizing the skills you were using at the last company.
To me, this is just standard career trajectory. The fact the work they're doing is morally questionable obviously doesn't concern them when they're making fat money doing it.
Wow, this is amazing content. I'm not sure anyone has exposed the reach of SCL similarly.
edit: in case anyone here is just reading the headline, be sure to go through to the end. Seeing Parscale connected to this is concerning (though it may be a tenuous connection).
Friendly reminder that Barack Obama's campaign didn't hire an external firm to manipulate Google and Facebook - they had direct access to the companies, with Google even providing a team of engineers to work with the campaign in Washington.
FB and Google also provided teams to work with campaigns, as they would for any such huge advertiser. What they did not do is they did not provide the entire goddamn social graph like they did for Obama in 2012. Or at least they did not provide it to Trump. Hillary's campaign was so sure of itself, they did not utilize the help Google and FB provided them. I'm sure such things could be arranged under the table for the anointed candidate.
It is plainly foolish to believe that only right wing groups are targeted by this kind of manipulation.
Particularly when the goal of KGB like entity is not necessarily to prop up one particular candidate or policy, but to generally sow discord. The fact that propaganda aligns with your views does not mean it isn't propaganda. We are not only particularly vulnerable, but playing right into these actors' hands when we pretend that only one side of our bipolar politics is subject to nefarious influence.
How sure are you that those performing these analyses are operating without bias? Also everything I've seen in this style begins with an explicitly right wing group and then looks for connections - but performing the analysis in such a style is unlikely to uncover left leaning efforts because the graph is probably nearly or totally disjoint.
It's very easy to conclusively show only one side of the story if no one reputable is looking into the other.
Not an exhaustive study, but Jestin Coler got in the fake news clickbait game in 2013. He said that liberal targeted stories never gained viral traction like conservative stories.
I wasn't "absolutely humiliated" by that election, but I was shocked and saddened. And when people try to tell me how humiliated and indignant I am in a "you mad bro?" sort of way, I just find it annoying. Why does the internet revel in being annoying in their taunts of the other side? What exactly do you enjoy about it? Genuine question, although obviously a bit confrontationally.
You do understand I can refer to "the left" and not mean each and every individual who comprises the left, right? Providing such qualifiers shouldn't be necessary.
The point is, Trump's election was extremely humiliating to the left as a whole (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4nh2oO93ts) and the 3+ years of hand-wringing over some Facebook ads (which nobody can prove swayed the election either way) is a bit of a clown show.
> You do understand I can refer to "the left" and not mean each and every individual who comprises the left, right? Providing such qualifiers shouldn't be necessary.
Sure, but in this case I guess you meant a subset (probably a large one I admit) of the "mainstream" media, plus some liberal talk show hosts/comedians. I'd be wary of judging the "left" through that lens, since TV is a product with its own priorities which only align with political ideologies when they're trying to tap into that market. I'll admit that I only have a handful of close friends and family members of the opposing party, but I try to use them as my barometer if I can instead of TV/online media/internet commenters (obviously polling is different and valid when relevant).
