petitefrancaise

The Data That Turned the World Upside Down | Motherboard

https://cambridgeanalytica.org/

In a nutshell - our FB data has been used to micro-target ads on behalf of Brexit and The Republican party.

I'm still too angry to talk about it. Even daughter who is about to work at FB is shaken but not surprised by it.

tom169

I'm surprised you didn't know this happened already.

It's Facebook's, Google's and many other internet business's model.

If the Republican party has managed to make it work for them then good on them. Their marketeers are actually earning their keep!

scrubbedexpat091

Not surprising at all.

petitefrancaise

Did you read the article??

This, after Zuckerberg went and said that FB did not sway the vote. Of course they did, they sold the micro-targetted ads using information based on what we write/share/like on FB. Every time anyone filled in any of those stupid "what colour suits you" type of pathetic questionnaire you gave Big Data more information and the right to use that information.
From Cambridge Analytica news page https://cambridgeanalytica.org/news/press/1453
Political revolution: How big data won the US presidency for Donald Trump

I think it was at best disingenuous of Zuckerberg to write that FB newsfeed algorithm did not sway the vote. We were all so busy looking and complaining about it that they got away with making millions and millions from the Republican party. Not to mention that Steve Bannon is one of the major shareholders of cambridge analytica.

There will be hell to pay over this. I am about ready to delete my FB account and there will be many, many others doing this. How the hell do you think FB funds the great FB machine and still make billions?

petitefrancaise

Alright, so I think I'm not explaining clearly enough. I was hoping that reading the articles would allow you to see the nuances.

I don't have any problem with other people having a different political leaning to me. I think this keeps all parties in check and I quite like a good heated discussion. What I am objecting to is that Big Data was able to gather all this information on us and with FB create specific ads targeting very specific people. Ads designed to manipulate and change minds about voting. Fair game? I think not. It's similar to the manipulation used to get parents buying crap stuff for their kids or targetting kids in ads placed on kids programs. All of which has the general public baying for blood.

It also explains why Trump seemed unable to keep to a straight message. If you read the articles linked to from Cambridge analytica site you will see that they say he was able to "tailor" his message based on the feedback from big data..... So whilst it made no sense when trying to build a broader picture (which is what most educated people try to do ) it meant that he was able to get those not paying much attention to "prick up their ears" for a short message aimed directly at them.

steveq

I'm staggered you've only just had it explained how the big players on line operate. Your data is the product they sell ! I run script blockers on all my internet browsing which carefully and specifically, as far as I am able, stops them from watching what I do.

kodokan

Tony Blair was doing this back in the 90s; running constant focus groups and tweaking his message/ tailoring it to certain audiences. Bill Clinton's campaign team thought it was a great idea and pioneered its use over here. The only new thing here is the technology involved, and the degree of micro-targeting.

tom169

I think you need to start reading terms and conditions of the websites you join. I'm baffled to how you're surprised by this.

If you remember back to Obama 1st time round, he went huge on social media. It's how he managed to rally so many supporters.

This isn't a new thing.

moneypenny20

This. It seems a trifle naive to not realise what's been happening since FB et al started. If you (general) don't like social media don't use it, if you do, use it carefully. If signing up for a supermarket loyalty card gives them your lifestyle choices, the likes of FB are going to be going that one or 10 steps further.

md95065

While most of this is old news, I do think that the targeting of political ads in this way is a real cause for concern.

It's one thing to attempt to target ads for products and services to people who are most likely to be interested in them, but doing this as part of an election campaign seems a bit dubious.

In the old days, a party had to decide on its platform and figure out how best to communicate it to the voters. Since almost all of this was done through radio, tv and print media everybody got to see essentially the same thing. Micro targeted ads allow you to target specific groups, or even individuals much more directly. Put bluntly, it makes it much easier to tell different lies to different people to get them to vote for you with much less chance that the public at large will be aware of the duplicity involved.

robin1234

Very good article, thanks for posting this.

At one point, the guy from Cambridge Analytica, Nix, boasts that they've profiled all adults in America, 220 million people. This has to be an exaggeration; there are a significant number of US adults who don't participate in Facebook, don't have a smartphone, and don't have store loyalty cards (for instance.) So they have more granular and precise info about some people than others.

In terms of marketing, this may not matter, since the younger, wired people are the ones who spend money on tat (are easier to fleece.) But in terms of voting, a 70 year old is just as valuable as a 30 year old!

ian-mstm

It sounds as though you're more angry with Zuckerberg than you are about the micro-targeted ads. It's their business model... and it works well.


No, there won't! It's in the EULA.


There are currently almost 1.8 billion regular FB users. And while people may be angry, there simply aren't enough people ready to close their accounts to make any impact at all on FB revenue. Besides, people will still want to use FB so are unlikely to actually delete their accounts anyway!

Ian

Nutek

Just like Google and the rest... You are not their customer. You are their product.

petitefrancaise

Perhaps.
But as MD9065 writes "In the old days, a party had to decide on its platform and figure out how best to communicate it to the voters. Since almost all of this was done through radio, tv and print media everybody got to see essentially the same thing. Micro targeted ads allow you to target specific groups, or even individuals much more directly. Put bluntly, it makes it much easier to tell different lies to different people to get them to vote for you with much less chance that the public at large will be aware of the duplicity involved."

So 2 issues. First off, apparently we are told that a vast majority of middle class women voted for Trump that were expected to vote for Hillary. All kinds of reasons given but let's not forget that in the USA, this demographic (me) uses FB a lot. We were at one time FB's main user demographic and this may still be true. Ads were targeted at these women and they had no idea that everybody else wasn't seeing them. If I am naiive then I'm guessing that most of these others are and not realising that we were all manipulated in a very cynical fashion.

Secondly, remember the old days in the UK when all political parties had to be given equal air-time? It is seen as a mistake on the part of the democratic party not to have employed the same FB tactics as the republicans. FB users were not given opposing views to balance out the Trump rhetoric. I wonder how they would have done this? Cambridge Analytica seem to have cornered the market to do this to this extent. I doubt they would have taken on the opposing party with the consent of their clients.

FB knew exactly what was going on. They took millions and millions of dollars and allowed the election and Brexit information to be skewed giving us election results totally not expected by anyone, not even the candidates concerned.

If what is written on this page, doesn't concern you then you are living in cloud cuckoo land.
https://cambridgeanalytica.org/news/press/1453

"The polls showed Hillary Clinton was winning. The media thought the same. Billionaire property mogul and reality TV star Donald Trump was considered to be the least likely person to become US president – and yet, despite the controversial comments, the threat of lawsuits and lukewarm support from the Republican party, somehow he did it. But how?

As the US gears up for a new reign under possibly its least popular president in history, slowly more details emerge from the hard-fought election in November 2016 that show it wasn’t won due to Trump promising to support questionable, possibly alt-right policies – it was due to an innate understanding of what the American people wanted. And that comes from data."

No checks and no balance.

It is time people woke up to the power that FB has. After being called a few things in this thread, including naiive, I'd really appreciate it if you could pm or something to let me know if you are also surprised at the extent of this if you can't bring yourself to post publicly. I'm betting I'm not the only one.

tom169

How do you know that the Democrats didn't at least attempt to create targeted ads on social media?

Have the party made a statement on this?

After all, you wouldn't have been the one seeing the advertising. It would have been people on the fence or Republicans!

All kinds of businesses do this each day. Have you ever been to a website to look at a produxt, only to find that product now being advertised to you all over the place?

Microtargetting, remarketing, etc. aren't new technologies. They were also around when Obama won.

Facebook are just selling the space on their website just like a farmer owning a billboard at the side of an interstate.

It simply goes to the highest bidder.

Given that Hilary had so much more cash than Trump, from reading into this, her team (tech especially) must have sucked!