I read about this company's antic:

- someone gathers data on facebook users who have consented (for "research")
- same person also gathers data on consented users friends (who have not consented)
- person sells data to a company
- company then uses data to manipulate elections and/or political situations

Kinda makes a mockery of democracy.

Good. They're dodgy as [LIFTED].

Can someone please explain how the data is used to manipulate an election?

An example I saw elsewhere:


It's more complex than that but there are associations eg people who like Nike and Kitkats are also more likely to agree with "I hate Israel".

And these days, it seems that your message based on psychology can be entirely false - once the impact is made, you can withdraw it, let papers print corrections, no one will really care. The Big Headline will stick, and what was blatantly a lie will in effect become “the truth” to the point that even if you show facts disproving it, you’ll be told that the lie is still correct.

Surely that is the same as always. Politicians (or their advisers) being economical with the truth and relying on voter stupidity.

I can't see anything new or different.

Except the company allows the politicos team to target adverts at very small groups.

Using the US elections as an example:

They'll target ads at gun owners saying that Clinton will ban firearms, while at the same time targeting a different ad at gun haters saying that Trump will support stricter restrictions on firearms.

This allows Facebook marketing to the macro level. Instead of pushing out a TV advert to millions, you can tailor adverts to groups of just a few people of Facebook and you know exactly how to tailor the ads for those people to play on their beliefs and fears.

i believe its called 'propaganda' even if targeted ...



been going on since the beginning of time, the act is not to take heed of it, but that is an art of a free thinking individual not the hive mind ...

Yes, but in the past, it was not practical to place adverts that only affected a very small number of people.

If you slap up a billboard on one side of the street saying that Clinton will ban arms and a billboard on the other side of the street saying that Trump will increase restrictions on arms, the message won't work. The same for TV, radio, newspapers (to a lesser degree). They all have a much broader audience.

If you can accurately target these two ads at the 5 or 500 people who this message talks to, then it is a different matter that your message is contradictory, because only the people who are susceptible to the message will ever hear it. That was the whole point behind what CA was offering.

Yes, it is still propaganda, but it hadn't been possible in the past to so accurately target different messages at different demographics at the same time, that you had thousands of contradictory messages going out nationwide to very small groups of people and only those people would ever see those messages.

I suppose because I'm not a big Facebook user I still don't get it.

I only look at stuff on there once a day a best. Very rarely post anything unless it's something about one of my band's gigs or recordings, and only follow a small number of friends and some companies that I do work for.

Also I tend to hide any of those "pages you might also like" posts as they are never for pages I might also like.

That's the thing though. Through this it wouldn't be a 'page you might like' that would have popped up on your timeline, it would have been something one or more of your circle of friends would have shared. All the tailored message has to do is to engage with a few of the target demographic, which as big_D says, is very highly targeted.
The message gets amplified by people sharing it and because of the way FB works the recipients are getting it coming at them from their 'friends' rather than just more general advertising. Contradictory messages can go out to the different small groups to engender support for Trump or Brexit or whatever tailored to the particular desires and prejudices of those groups - the messages may be very different from each other (and even completely contradictory) but they all reinforce support or voting for a particular point of view or candidate.

This also plays into the “echo chamber” idea of social media. This tells us that we surround ourselves with people who share the same opinions as our own. This means that you are more likely to see (and indeed share) messages that others in your own echo chamber will see and agree with. This is self-reinforcing. Your views, however hinky, will get stronger the more you see those posts.

The thing is that people don’t understand the whole “echo chamber” thing. Apparently, “the internet” agrees with them, and it is a HELL OF A SHOCK when things pop up that counter those views, so much so, that they can be seen as some form of conspiracy.

This will effect anyone of any political stripe. Left, right, communist, fascist. You want to know why people with opposing views to your own are so damn narky? That’s because your views have contradicted theirs, and it is a shock.

I kjeep explaining this to my mum, but she doesn’t seem to get it. She’s easily triggered too. Just the kind of person this kind of thing loves.

The search warrant has been obtained and the offices have been 'raided'.
https://gizmodo.com/uk-authorities-finally-raid-cambridge-analytica-after-o-1824048854

Mark

"raided" indeed. Yes, we'll just telegraph the fact that we plan to raid your offices DAYS before it can actually take place, but it's all good - I mean, it's not likely a company suspected of unethical practices will destroy any incriminating evidence, is it?