Leslie

I think not.

jeepster

The truth is out there

robin1234

Ah yes, the truth. Anyone genuinely seeking the truth just needs this book.

George Bush, Dark Prince of Love by Lydia Millet — Reviews, Discussion, Bookclubs, Lists

Leslie

Yes, and if certain people are granted immunity, we might actually get a chance to hear it.

mrken30

No more cute cat videos

petitefrancaise

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...m-social-media

"But a much more troubling narrative is emerging. The use of algorithms and artificial intelligence was probably a significant but invisible element in the campaigns. There is no evidence that Cambridge Analytica, the data analytics firm linked to the Leave.EU campaign, used botnets or any other illegal activity – it seeks to use the web to manipulate public opinion through legal means. Legal though such methods are, the sinister nature of this manipulation requires robust regulation.

Broadcast advertising is subject to strict controls in the interests of fair play, as it traditionally had a wide reach and great impact. Recent shifts have proved unfair advantages are now to be gained from targeted online activity.

An elite group is shaping world politics to suit their private beliefs, and their behaviour has untold and unquantifiable effects. While the plot reads like a comic book, this cyber-manipulation is no fiction and played a role in the EU referendum and Donald Trump’s election.

Exceptional investigative work by Carole Cadwalladr has exposed the wide-reaching implications of this issue. It’s not just the EU referendum. Billionaire Robert Mercer is Trump’s biggest donor. He is also reported to be an owner of Cambridge Analytica. Nigel Farage’s links with Mercer led to Cambridge Analytica’s involvement in the Leave.EU campaign. The company proved to be instrumental and taught the campaign how to build profiles, target people and gain data from Facebook profiles.

When interviewed by Cadwalladr, Leave.EU’s communications director admitted Facebook was the key to the entire campaign. A Facebook “like” was their most potent weapon. “Using artificial intelligence, as we did, tells you all sorts of things about that individual and how to convince them with what sort of advert. And you knew there would also be other people in their network who liked what they liked, so you could spread. And then you follow them. The computer never stops learning and it never stops monitoring.”


anyone still think I'm paranoid?

Pulaski

I still don't see what is "unfair", other than it led to an outcome you didn't like. Well two outcomes, actually!

Do you think that candidates should be forced to run identical ads on BET and CMT, and for the same amount of time?

As discussed previously, I can't see anything wrong with targeting the right ads at the right audience.

robin1234

I think in a way the "victims" of this type of manipulation are self-selecting.... people who, like lambs to the slaughter, un-ironically lay out their private lives, preferences, religious predilections etc. for everyone to see on Facebook and similar platforms.

One aspect of my FB, derived from work that interested me for many years as an academic librarian, was to "like" a lot of US military research outfits, Army War College, Strategic Studies Institute, and the like. So I get a lot of targeted material assuming I'm a gun nut, a civil war buff, etc. But I also follow a lot of tea rooms and cake shops and garden centres in England .... it's best to keep Bob Mercer and his cohorts guessing ...

Steerpike

I think one point she has been trying to make, rightly or wrongly, is that conventional ads (TV, magazines, etc) are to some extent regulated. That is, Kellogs can't run an ad on mainstream TV claiming Corn Flakes cures cancer. If they did so there would be complaints and the ad would get pulled (by whom - FCC?). Now, I have no idea if there are any similar rules about political ads. Is there a standard anywhere that governs what political ads can and cannot claim? If indeed there are such standards, then I guess her complaint is that these micro-targeted ads would never even come close to being 'reviewed for compliance' because there are so many of them and so many different flavors.

This is just a case of rules and regulations not keeping up with the fast pace of technology. There will be new and different challenges next election cycle.

Pulaski

Political ads are monitored for honesty and accuracy?

Steerpike

I think this is the essence of the problem. I'm still shocked by how people lay out their lives, in both a macro and a micro fashion, on FB for all to see (by that I mean, they advertise their birthday, where they live, where they work, etc, and they also advertise what they are doing at that very moment). Talk about opportunities for identity theft!


The OP insists that FB is a wonderful tool, but it is in fact an evil tool that has found a way to suck personal data out of people willingly.

Leslie

I don't think it's just a matter of political ads being misleading or manipulative. There were many cases of "political ads" being dressed up as news stories which were completely false.

Just off the top of my head, here are some things that came up on Facebook during and around the election and then conveniently disappeared:

• The Clinton Kill List --- News articles of the many people that Bill and Hillary have had murdered over the years.
• Denzel Washington endorses Donald Trump
• Hillary Clinton comes out in complete agreement with Trump policies (this happened a couple of times within different news cycles)
• Hillary Clinton supports late term abortion on demand.
• Pizza Gate

These weren't political ads. These were hit pieces, made to look like legit news stories, which Facebook accepted for ad $$.

Leslie

This may be true but these people are being intentionally picked off, mislead, and used successfully to tip the elections. We may feel like we're okay because we'd never be so dumb as to fall for that stuff but ultimately the practice ends up affecting us just as badly.

Steerpike

But isn't that essentially the same thing? While masquerading as 'news', they were in fact paid political ads and thus, if blatantly false, should have been disallowed? But as Pulaski mentioned - is there in fact any standard or set of rules currently that governs political advertising? Today on TV we have 'infomercials', which blur the lines between advertising and 'informative television' (for want of a better word). Are they subject to any review? (I have no idea).

I'm at a disadvantage here in that I didn't see any of these nasty things.

Pulaski

But the same sort of stories and clap-trap were appearing in the "paid content" box on cnn,com and other media Web sites. And some of those, such as pizzagate were viral stories that already had a life of their own, I suspect long before they were featured on Farcebook.