Fresh Cambridge Analytica leak ‘shows global manipulation is out of control’(theguardian.com)
theguardian.com
Fresh Cambridge Analytica leak ‘shows global manipulation is out of control’
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jan/04/cambridge-analytica-data-leak-global-election-manipulation
72 comments
As long as free speech is considered important, ads aren't going anywhere (note: I consider free speech important).
Even if you ban directives from ads (Buy Product Now!) ads can be reduced to simple voicing of opinions on a media channel ("I love product X, you'd love it too, I'm sure!"), which is what most ads are anyways - emotional persuasion, not the old style "Johnny's Canned Beans are the most nutritious!" from the early days of TV.
And if you're talking about banning all paid endorsements, I guarantee there will be 10,000 loopholes that look like Citizens United/SuperPAC behavior, where a person performs the advertising speech in public for free, and then is later given gifts and trips and other things for "unrelated reasons" from an "industry interest group."
In short, we need to incorporate critical thinking/mental and emotional resilience/manipulation resistance into the educational system, which I'm pretty sure will never ever happen since the Powers That Be are all there precisely because, as you said, they all use the media channels of the day to manipulate.
Even if you ban directives from ads (Buy Product Now!) ads can be reduced to simple voicing of opinions on a media channel ("I love product X, you'd love it too, I'm sure!"), which is what most ads are anyways - emotional persuasion, not the old style "Johnny's Canned Beans are the most nutritious!" from the early days of TV.
And if you're talking about banning all paid endorsements, I guarantee there will be 10,000 loopholes that look like Citizens United/SuperPAC behavior, where a person performs the advertising speech in public for free, and then is later given gifts and trips and other things for "unrelated reasons" from an "industry interest group."
In short, we need to incorporate critical thinking/mental and emotional resilience/manipulation resistance into the educational system, which I'm pretty sure will never ever happen since the Powers That Be are all there precisely because, as you said, they all use the media channels of the day to manipulate.
> we need to incorporate critical thinking/mental and emotional resilience/manipulation resistance into the educational system
It's not practical. Even if people were taught and learned that, you can't expect them to stand on their own against an entire industry, which pays top dollar for the best and brightest in psychology and cognitive science to work full-time on manipulating people. The arms race favors the attacking side very strongly here.
It'd be hard to eradicate advertising with legal means, but I'm confident the most egregious forms could be made not worth the money. Advertising will be a problem for as long as malice exists, but so will theft and murder, and somehow we manage to prevent the latter two from disrupting society too much.
It's not practical. Even if people were taught and learned that, you can't expect them to stand on their own against an entire industry, which pays top dollar for the best and brightest in psychology and cognitive science to work full-time on manipulating people. The arms race favors the attacking side very strongly here.
It'd be hard to eradicate advertising with legal means, but I'm confident the most egregious forms could be made not worth the money. Advertising will be a problem for as long as malice exists, but so will theft and murder, and somehow we manage to prevent the latter two from disrupting society too much.
Adverts are not free speech. Public service announcements on billboards might be, like the band trying to promote their underground concert in town, or an association promoting a cultural event. But you can't put those in the same basket as big corporations paying multiple k$ for premium attention-grabbing spots with fancy graphics to make you dream of things you don't need.
Where is the line drawn, in your opinion? How do we objectively tell the difference?
If it tries to sell you something (item, product, experience) where the paid message's intent is to generate revenue, it's not free speech, it's marketing.
I genuinely love ultramarathons. I encourage people to do them for various self-improving reasons (and because they can be super fun, etc). I also work for a race company that produces ultra marathon focused events.
Do I get free speech, or does my potential to continue making a living preclude me from that right?
Do I get free speech, or does my potential to continue making a living preclude me from that right?
Likewise, I love Apple products, and wish for them to generate more revenue (ostensibly, more resources for them to improve said products and create new ones). I neither work for Apple nor have any vested financial interest in saying so (no stock in the company, no relatives that work for them, and zero way that their increased revenues in any way impacts my bank account or the bank account of anyone I know). Is my promotion of them, which in some ways feeds my ego (for making such wise purchasing decisions) and makes my life easier via a larger user base to compare notes with, find support, etc, considered free speech, or advertising?
Also, related to ultrarunner's point, is it not possible to freely promote something that is both in my interest financially and in the best interest of my audience? Isn't that in fact the ideal scenario, mutually beneficial arrangements where everyone benefits via aligned incentives?
Also, related to ultrarunner's point, is it not possible to freely promote something that is both in my interest financially and in the best interest of my audience? Isn't that in fact the ideal scenario, mutually beneficial arrangements where everyone benefits via aligned incentives?
The Guardian considers their free speech very important, too. For example, almost all of the UK press is regulated by IPSO which (amongst other things) enforces accuracy standards. Except the Guardian. They've consistently refused to join because they think those restrictions on the press should only apply to the other lying publications who just so happen to have political views that don't agree with theirs.
I discovered this after they published a really astounding partisan whopper about a London terror attack right before the UK election - one which was not only completely untrue and debunked all over the place, but was something being spread by their preferred party as part of an explicit attempt to politicise the attack against the ruling Tories. They didn't care to correct this, and given their position that independent regulation was only for the other papers there was nothing that could be done about this.
I discovered this after they published a really astounding partisan whopper about a London terror attack right before the UK election - one which was not only completely untrue and debunked all over the place, but was something being spread by their preferred party as part of an explicit attempt to politicise the attack against the ruling Tories. They didn't care to correct this, and given their position that independent regulation was only for the other papers there was nothing that could be done about this.
I agree that it's likely impossible in a system where free expression is the bedrock of our society - to the point where advertising is a massive portion of our economy.
I still feel strongly that advertising should not exist and think it's on par with CO2 as an externality.
I still feel strongly that advertising should not exist and think it's on par with CO2 as an externality.
> ads can be reduced to simple voicing of opinions on a media channel ("I love product X, you'd love it too, I'm sure!"),
We already have rules about this, https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=701066299822530421...
We already have rules about this, https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=701066299822530421...
Is democracy important enough?
Btw, the issue here isn't ads, but the data and usage of data.
Btw, the issue here isn't ads, but the data and usage of data.
Advertising is not free speech. If someone is paid to say or do anything publicly for a company then said people are not exercising free speech. They are providing a service with the intent to coerce people into using a companies services, in many cases, without an actual need for them. Advertising should be regulated more harshly than drug testing on unborn children. Every advertisement should come with warning labels at least as significant as cigarette warning labels.
As an abstract concept, a company is a collection of individuals who have formed an agreement to perform certain actions with the intention of profit (profit may or may not be the core purpose of company though; eg the quote "Profit is like oxygen. You need it to survive, but if you think that oxygen is the purpose of your life then you’re missing something").
A sole proprietor pushing his services is the simplest example of being paid for advertising that is also clearly free speech. Where would you draw this line?
A sole proprietor pushing his services is the simplest example of being paid for advertising that is also clearly free speech. Where would you draw this line?
A person shouting about their wares at a market (iow a sole propietor advertising their products through direct to customer advertising in a shopping area) is different than a multi-million ad designed and produced by dozens of people including professional social engineers that have studied psychology at the worlds top universities all so widget Co. can sell more widgets.
I don't have a problem with people barking about their products when I'm at a market. But I do have problems with just about everything about modern corporate advertising. Merely listing every individual aspect I take offense too would take hours.
I draw the line at the point where anything is exchanged, given, or recieved, tangible or otherwise, to allow someone/something/some co, to display, demonstrate, brand, or otherwise make known anything through an intermediary.
To clarify. Having generic, unobtrusive signs pointing to food courts around a sports Arena where one can purchase food, that may or may not be served in branded containers is acceptable. Neon signs, or banners, or full advertisements on big screens, etc advertising some company that is not doing any business directly with the attendants at said Arena is unpalatable to me. Likewise, selling refreshments with branding foranything besides the establishment selling the item, or the company that manufactured the item is ridiculous.
I don't have a problem with people barking about their products when I'm at a market. But I do have problems with just about everything about modern corporate advertising. Merely listing every individual aspect I take offense too would take hours.
I draw the line at the point where anything is exchanged, given, or recieved, tangible or otherwise, to allow someone/something/some co, to display, demonstrate, brand, or otherwise make known anything through an intermediary.
To clarify. Having generic, unobtrusive signs pointing to food courts around a sports Arena where one can purchase food, that may or may not be served in branded containers is acceptable. Neon signs, or banners, or full advertisements on big screens, etc advertising some company that is not doing any business directly with the attendants at said Arena is unpalatable to me. Likewise, selling refreshments with branding foranything besides the establishment selling the item, or the company that manufactured the item is ridiculous.
I still think there are some problems with your definition, and I'm thinking strictly from a legal point of view.
There's so much manipulation that can happen from a sole proprietorship that wouldn't be allowed by your definition, simply based upon the quantity of sales (which is fine, if you think that's an acceptable demarcation line, but it will still lead to lots of cases where large companies are legally treated differently, which, in and of itself does happen, but any new text added to a given law will simply pad the lining of lawyers pockets whose job it is to argue over the minutae of each word).
But if I pepper a market crowd with my family members all randomly talking about how amazing the food/widgets/whatever over at Bob's Widget Stand are, so that over hearing bystanders can hear is a form a psychological manipulation that may fall into a gray area.
Ultimately, each time you say "this is fine, this isn't", you're adding an exception and branching logic that will be argued about ad infinitum.
Laws, like lines of code, have a technical debt to them, except the lines of law are likely to impact more people generally, enough so to ruin lives and industries (which can happen with code, of course, but code doesn't have the same global application to every member of society backed up with the use of force).
I'm not saying that reaching an acceptable compromise is unachievable, but conceptually, it's a lot more involved than simply laying out the broad strokes, with tons of ramifications, implicit and otherwise, that have to be considered.
But if I pepper a market crowd with my family members all randomly talking about how amazing the food/widgets/whatever over at Bob's Widget Stand are, so that over hearing bystanders can hear is a form a psychological manipulation that may fall into a gray area.
Ultimately, each time you say "this is fine, this isn't", you're adding an exception and branching logic that will be argued about ad infinitum.
Laws, like lines of code, have a technical debt to them, except the lines of law are likely to impact more people generally, enough so to ruin lives and industries (which can happen with code, of course, but code doesn't have the same global application to every member of society backed up with the use of force).
I'm not saying that reaching an acceptable compromise is unachievable, but conceptually, it's a lot more involved than simply laying out the broad strokes, with tons of ramifications, implicit and otherwise, that have to be considered.
Large companies should have a harder time advertising than smaller ones. The truly great companies will spread by word of mouth alone. Unscrupulous and destructive companies will find it much harder to get a footing when they can't manipulate people into buying their trash.
In re to your example. If you were to pay your family members (in any way) that would be wrong in my book. If your family does this out of the goodness of their hearts then so be it. It's their unpaid labor. I fully realize that no solution will stop every avenue of abuse. However, seeding crowds with people up selling your widgets only works for so long. you'll never be able to reach scale with those methods because eventually the irs will audit you or your family members and even though you wouldn't go down for illegal advertising you would go down for not paying taxes. Or you'd find that having enough family family members to seed every crowd is getting you unwanted attention, or is just too darn expensive.
By banning all advertisements except advertising in person, at the location of sale and for only items sold at that location there would be very little room for manipulation. Obviously the time share/used car methods would still work, but I haven't ever seen a way to make that profitable with low margin items, where many consumers get fleeced by huge ad budgets.
Basically, I think everything but shouting about your products from your shop should be illegal. I can see concessions made for websites that don't sell anything, and charge transparent/flat fees for listing their info in a web directory that is intentionally bland. However, writing legislation for that would be a whole lot harder to draft than what I've already stated.
I realize my desires are unrealistic. That being said, advertisings days of doing whatever creepy crap they want to without punishment are numbered. Either the industry will reform itself (unlikely, it's too easy to delude oneself when pulling $500k for selling fidget spinners) or, eventually, some people are going to be nailed to the walls of Congress as examples.
In re to your example. If you were to pay your family members (in any way) that would be wrong in my book. If your family does this out of the goodness of their hearts then so be it. It's their unpaid labor. I fully realize that no solution will stop every avenue of abuse. However, seeding crowds with people up selling your widgets only works for so long. you'll never be able to reach scale with those methods because eventually the irs will audit you or your family members and even though you wouldn't go down for illegal advertising you would go down for not paying taxes. Or you'd find that having enough family family members to seed every crowd is getting you unwanted attention, or is just too darn expensive.
By banning all advertisements except advertising in person, at the location of sale and for only items sold at that location there would be very little room for manipulation. Obviously the time share/used car methods would still work, but I haven't ever seen a way to make that profitable with low margin items, where many consumers get fleeced by huge ad budgets.
Basically, I think everything but shouting about your products from your shop should be illegal. I can see concessions made for websites that don't sell anything, and charge transparent/flat fees for listing their info in a web directory that is intentionally bland. However, writing legislation for that would be a whole lot harder to draft than what I've already stated.
I realize my desires are unrealistic. That being said, advertisings days of doing whatever creepy crap they want to without punishment are numbered. Either the industry will reform itself (unlikely, it's too easy to delude oneself when pulling $500k for selling fidget spinners) or, eventually, some people are going to be nailed to the walls of Congress as examples.
Okay, I can see your point about wanting to curb the abuses, but how do you accomplish that without removing the positives?
For instance, I find that the advertising done by Facebook and Instagram very effective for me. The advertising tends to cater to niche things I have actually gotten real use from (in my case, it's soundkits containing midi files, and/or software musical instruments).
I've purchased many of these and have been quite happy with both the offerings and the purchases.
Sometimes these are by small companies (one to two man shops, or 10 people companies), and sometimes well known large companies.
Under your thinking, and correct me if I'm wrong, but this sort of thing would be illegal.
Word of mouth wouldn't work for me in cases like this, since it's particularly directed towards things I like, but I don't have very many friends in the music producer community (learning it for less than a year), and it seems in my case, I've really only been "scammed" once, which was easily disputed and rectified via PayPal.
Now, I've been scammed before, online and off, with shady advertising, but this current model greatly benefits me.
If I'm correct in assuming that you're against this sort of advertising, is there a substitute that would work, while still bringing the benefits to both sides?
Because it appears to me that anything will have it's abuses and negative forms, but it really comes down to, is the advertising to blame, or the malignant folks who abuse it?
For instance, I find that the advertising done by Facebook and Instagram very effective for me. The advertising tends to cater to niche things I have actually gotten real use from (in my case, it's soundkits containing midi files, and/or software musical instruments).
I've purchased many of these and have been quite happy with both the offerings and the purchases.
Sometimes these are by small companies (one to two man shops, or 10 people companies), and sometimes well known large companies.
Under your thinking, and correct me if I'm wrong, but this sort of thing would be illegal.
Word of mouth wouldn't work for me in cases like this, since it's particularly directed towards things I like, but I don't have very many friends in the music producer community (learning it for less than a year), and it seems in my case, I've really only been "scammed" once, which was easily disputed and rectified via PayPal.
Now, I've been scammed before, online and off, with shady advertising, but this current model greatly benefits me.
If I'm correct in assuming that you're against this sort of advertising, is there a substitute that would work, while still bringing the benefits to both sides?
Because it appears to me that anything will have it's abuses and negative forms, but it really comes down to, is the advertising to blame, or the malignant folks who abuse it?
How about banning donations, bribes, and money in all lobbying. No money, no ads. No ads, no manipulation. At this point, it would literally require the Supreme Court to reverse its own decision just to start so I don't think it'll happen, but it's good to know there is a simple, implementable solution that would fix our problems but that we will ignore so the interests of a few can be placed ahead of the many. Hardly an unusual situation as most of our problems have similar solutions.
Because "banning donations" sounds like a great idea to reduce corruption, it's irrelevant.
If you want to "entice" an official, you don't offer them cash. You offer someone in their family a great job. You buy the plot of land next to their house and keep it open and undeveloped. You back away from that deal that you're competing for against the major company in their district. You reach out to friends, colleagues, and vendors in their district and encourage them to support the other guy. You let them know you have a job open for someone exactly like them that opens up whenever they need. You get them a home loan at a fantastic rate not available on the open market. You make a call to your alma mater and recommend their kid or niece get into that amazing university with a great scholarship.
* Those are all real situations in the last ~10-15 years. None of them involved donating to a politician.
If you want to "entice" an official, you don't offer them cash. You offer someone in their family a great job. You buy the plot of land next to their house and keep it open and undeveloped. You back away from that deal that you're competing for against the major company in their district. You reach out to friends, colleagues, and vendors in their district and encourage them to support the other guy. You let them know you have a job open for someone exactly like them that opens up whenever they need. You get them a home loan at a fantastic rate not available on the open market. You make a call to your alma mater and recommend their kid or niece get into that amazing university with a great scholarship.
* Those are all real situations in the last ~10-15 years. None of them involved donating to a politician.
Why would a politician do any of these things for you if you can't transfer any money to them? They won't. Not for your single, measly vote.
Then only billionaires will win office. The old rule of a low monetary cap per house hold was the start of a good system. I'd say extend that further into a slightly higher cap overall but make it all political donations and not just per candidate.
Allowing unlimited dark money into super pacs is where it fell apart.
Allowing unlimited dark money into super pacs is where it fell apart.
The cap would also apply to how much one can donate to one's own campaign and it would be extremely limited, close to zero (or zero), and the same for every candidate.
I agree with this answer.
Fear has been used for a very long time to control Americans...
From early posts in the @HindsightFiles feed
Malaysia: http://repo.hindsightfiles.com/01012020/malaysia.zip
Kenya: http://repo.hindsightfiles.com/01012020/kenya.zip
Brazil: http://repo.hindsightfiles.com/01012020/brazil.zip
Malaysia: http://repo.hindsightfiles.com/01012020/malaysia.zip
Kenya: http://repo.hindsightfiles.com/01012020/kenya.zip
Brazil: http://repo.hindsightfiles.com/01012020/brazil.zip
Iran: (2014-2016) https://repo.hindsightfiles.com/01042020/iran.zip
The problem with targeted advertising in free elections is that voters need to know what the candidates are saying everywhere. Transparency is not the enemy of free speech, at least with respect to elections. Either voters need access to all campaign ads (and to whom they are targeted), or targeted campaign messages need to be eliminated, or some combination.
Or maybe there's a better solution, but at least let's agree on the transparency problem.
Or maybe there's a better solution, but at least let's agree on the transparency problem.
> There’s evidence of really quite disturbing experiments on American voters, manipulating them with fear-based messaging, targeting the most vulnerable, that seems to be continuing.
Ironically, it's not clear which party they re referring to
Ironically, it's not clear which party they re referring to
Isn't she explicitly not referring to only one party? If she is, why is it ironic that it's not clear which?
> The documents reveal a much clearer idea of what actually happened in the 2016 US presidential election, which has a huge bearing on what will happen in 2020. It’s the same people involved who we know are building on these same techniques,” she said
I m confused, were the Democrats being accused of using manipulative social media ad campaigns in 2016?
I m confused, were the Democrats being accused of using manipulative social media ad campaigns in 2016?
Not sure, but they definitely did it in 2012, back when it was considered cool and forward-looking, to the point of bragging about it in interviews[0].
I don’t blame them for doing it at all, but i definitely feel uneasy about a lot of democrats blaming 2016 elections on cambridge analytica and acting like their party didn’t do it themselves, while also bragging about it publicly.
Note: I neither support nor am affiliated with the republican party whatsoever. I also don’t think that cambridge analytica scandal affected the 2016 election outcome in any significant way.
0. https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/facebook-data-...
I don’t blame them for doing it at all, but i definitely feel uneasy about a lot of democrats blaming 2016 elections on cambridge analytica and acting like their party didn’t do it themselves, while also bragging about it publicly.
Note: I neither support nor am affiliated with the republican party whatsoever. I also don’t think that cambridge analytica scandal affected the 2016 election outcome in any significant way.
0. https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/facebook-data-...
Do you accuse people of the obvious a lot? Because manipulative ads seem to be the lingua franca of us politics.
Not accusing anyone
Nothing ironic about everyone doing it.
Actually at this point the game theoretic best move for all parties is to be as manipulative as possible. To change back to a pre-manipulation equilibrium requires overriding effort against these tactics from all players. I’m treating the hostile sources/interests as outside the game in that examination.
Not ironic at all! If I were a foreign entity pushing for bilateral agreements I would seed paranoia and doubt everywhere I could. The degree of explicit control that comes out of this manipulation is miniscule compared to its destabilizing effects on political focus.
Fear based political messaging has always been the norm.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=riDypP1KfOU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=riDypP1KfOU
This reminds me of the HyperNormalisation documentary. You're instinct is to verify the information by reading about it elsewhere but it's hard to verify something so obscure.
It would seem as though people don't care. Time after time people are told to their face "you have been manipulated" and rather than resolving to be more vigilant they shrug their shoulders and go about business as usual. People of older generations seem particularly indiscriminate, accepting the "credibility" of any source that has a website. I'm not sure if it's a kind of desensitization or if people don't believe it / don't care but it strikes me as tacit acceptance of massive-scale manipulation which saddens me.
I'm a professional ad manager.
These lists have 0 value. At scale, it's always better to use algorithmic targeting than uploading lists to target. This is true on any ad network, but especially on Facebook.
These lists have 0 value. At scale, it's always better to use algorithmic targeting than uploading lists to target. This is true on any ad network, but especially on Facebook.
Why? And dont you sort of know the population skews a certain way given the platform you choose (guessing quora differs from bing which differs from coupons in the mail)?
Restated, and this might be so off base and tangential that maybe it's not worth answering, but if you were say....something reasonable like a dentist. And you were fairly far along in your practice and had tenure. Let's say in that case your "list" represents a fairly not insignificant amount of the people around you. Say 5%? 10%? Whatever is reasonable.
Even in that case the algorithm is better?
Restated, and this might be so off base and tangential that maybe it's not worth answering, but if you were say....something reasonable like a dentist. And you were fairly far along in your practice and had tenure. Let's say in that case your "list" represents a fairly not insignificant amount of the people around you. Say 5%? 10%? Whatever is reasonable.
Even in that case the algorithm is better?
I actually have a subspecialty in targeting narrow business verticals, and yeah, the algorithm is better 95% of the time.
Oh cool. Interesting!
Is there anyone seeing people reflect increased skepticism of internet sourced information following this stuff? Like, I learned in HS to discount the validity and value of “stuff I read on the internet” to 0 until I could verify if through alternate sources.
I saw people express skepticism before this stuff, that is part of why this is effective. It partly depends upon there being low trust in "sources of truth". Want to know the funny thing? The people that eroded the trust are now the ones complaining the loudest about the results.
Also, why does sex sell? Because people desire sex.
Also, why does sex sell? Because people desire sex.
Yep, that’s what keeps me up at night. I’ve had family express their individual preference for sources with zero credibility or authority over sources from medical doctors/phds/other reputable sources. They’re predisposed to believe manipulative stuff and prefer it!
This came up recently in a podcast I listen to. One point was that people start off open-minded, but if you receive only confirmatory feedback, then you not only gain a belief, but switch mode to become less curious — Without curiosity, evidence that should persuade you no longer does.
https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/twiml-ai-podcast-forme...
https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/twiml-ai-podcast-forme...
There is also the phenomenon that conspiracies tend to be more interesting, and sources without credibility deal in these. And, they can pump out a lot quickly, since they do not fact check. So, more exposure overall. I know a lot of people who start out entertained by them, but soon believe them wholesale. Why read counterpoints to pizzagate when I can read even more theories about how it takes place?
Solipsism, man, it’s all solipsism. You’re right too.
(On an unrelated note, that’s also what made Star Trek much more interesting to me than Wars. Until pretty recently there weren’t any or only one tv show to really watch in the Wars universe. But lots of Trek.)
(On an unrelated note, that’s also what made Star Trek much more interesting to me than Wars. Until pretty recently there weren’t any or only one tv show to really watch in the Wars universe. But lots of Trek.)
Yes - but generally only of information that contradicts their pre-existing views. This whole thing is, after all, basically a way of helping to reassure Guardian readers who've seen their political side lose with the help of those they expected to support them that their views were right all along, and that it's all the fault of global manipulation by big tech brainwashing the other people into voting against their own interests. I've never seen any of the people bemoaning this consider that maybe their side suffers from a systematic disinformation problem, not even after being caught out time and time again by false information spread on social media, often by journalists.
What kind of false information? I don't trust a single media outlet on Earth, but curious to see your examples.
How can anyone communicate believable information to you if you already don’t trust anyone?
Regardless, I’d suggest reading Descartes or some philosophy of logic. You can’t trust everybody, but there are high value sources out there. The media are largely ok.
Regardless, I’d suggest reading Descartes or some philosophy of logic. You can’t trust everybody, but there are high value sources out there. The media are largely ok.
I didn't articulate my view on that fully; I do spend a lot of time thinking about epistemology and logic, and I trust a lot of people (though I'm not very trustful of most large corporations).
I was just setting that up to make it clear I was asking for evidence out of curiosity rather than passive aggressive skepticism. Generally if a media outlet reports something as a hard fact, I do believe it.
I was just setting that up to make it clear I was asking for evidence out of curiosity rather than passive aggressive skepticism. Generally if a media outlet reports something as a hard fact, I do believe it.
Nonetheless your comment made me realize the current propaganda problem has many people acting and in a state of disbelief not dissimilar to being solipsists. I remember reading about that POV quite often in philosophy. So maybe a relevant piece of work exists for just our current problem.
But this is also a means to attack people. For example, what alternative sources. Are they also compromised? This falls under the Bullshit Asymmetry attack.
If you do enough research through multiple, reputable sources trends do emerge. If someone says something radical like the president is a lizard person and every news outlet is pretty convinced he was born in the US to human parents then it’s safe to work with the understanding that he’s a human-as a silly example to illustrate the concept.
As a counter example, I thought roughly 25% of Americans thought Obama was not born in America, despite the birth certificate? And that a similar percentage believe the Bible is the literal truth of God?
While I am aware that he was born in the US (Hawaii), i can see where the confusion might come from (aside from willful ignorance and hatred for him as a person), considering that he was the first president born outside of the continental US (Hawaii; and we all know how many continental americans still don’t realize that Puerto Rico is a US territory) and lived in Indonesia between ages 6 and 20.
And the conspiracy theories propagated by Donald Trump from 2011 onward (and others since 2008) when he tried to run in the 2012 election.
Oh yeah, agreed. It definitely didn't help the case that some prominent public figures fell for this as well (or did it intentionally knowing that was false, who knows), which helped propagate the misinformation even further.
Maybe even more ? Not to pat my own back but I haven't waited for this to distrust information veracity (whether online or not).
The biggest problem is that you risk to distrust any new information, in particular any information that does not align with your worldview is easier to discard if you just scream "fake news" and get it out of your head without a thought.
The biggest problem is that you risk to distrust any new information, in particular any information that does not align with your worldview is easier to discard if you just scream "fake news" and get it out of your head without a thought.
Having used online media for well over three decades, much the opposite.
The "don't trust what you read online" meme is a persistent one, but it's also long been reactionary and incomplete.
1. Yes, there's disinformation on the Internet. Shocking, but true. And yes, the ease, scale, scope, and speed of online disinformation dwarfs all previous media. And while I frequently argue that scale matters, we can at least point to the fact that the mechanism isn't a new one: rumour and disinformation networks predate mobile, the Web, Internet, electronic, and print communications technologies.
2. From early days, the Internet was very often where both disinformation and rebuttals were most available. Two specific incidents I can recall by memory: the Pons-Fleischmann "cold fusion" paper, in 1989, and Intel's Pentium F00F bug (Spectre/Meltdown aren't their first on-die rodeo) (1997).
Each was distributed widely online, though largely via non-Web protocols. I received a copy of the Pons-Fleishmann paper two days after its release (stunningly quick for the time) via FTP. The F00F bug was circulated on mailing lists, particularly those concerning any kind of numeric programming, several days ahead of general news release.
3. "Online" is simply a channel, and use of the term conceals more than it reveals. Harold Lasswell's five-questions approach to content analysis is useful: "Who says what, to whom, why, to what extent and with what effect?"
That is, in online comms, known and reputable sources, speaking on known and reputable channels, tend to be more trustworthy than unknown and unreputable sources speaking on unknown and unreputable channels. The risks of impersonation and mimickry are real and actual, yes, but also the general notion that if someone is claimed to have said something but denies it, you might want to check assumptions. Similarly, the message itself ("says what"), audience ("to whom"), and actual or apparent intended outcome ("with what effect") are also relevant.
(See generally: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content_analysis)
The simple fact that a thing is said online doesn't of itself make it more or less credible. The elements of content analysis are a far more useful guide.
Verification of information acquired online is often also going to involve online sources. Though offline may also come into use.[1]
4. Reality is that the Internet (increasingly apps) and Web are now where most communications happen. Both legitimate and valid, and illegitimate and invalid, messages are propagated. As my friend Woozle put it a few years ago:
[B]ecause of a high percentage of the population being present, there is now substantial power to be had by influencing the discussions that take place.
That's now true of the Internet, though it's true of any medium. Cable TV, talk radio, Citizens Band, television, radio, magazines, books, pamphlets, church sermons, theses nailed to parrish doors, and the like, have been used through the ages. Art and music likewise: Michelangelo operated a propagandistic arts factory for the Medici, and liturgical music and classical art were an arm of Church propaganda (in both the original and contemporary meanings of the word).
The three most published books in history are all propaganda, again, in original and contemporary meaning: the Bible, the Koran, and Chairman Mao's "Little Red Book" (The Sayings of Chairman Mao), each with billions of copies printed.
Facebook more messages to more people than that, every few days. It is the largest propaganda engine ever created.
Oh: and some of the earliest online abuse was organised around political and cultural conflict and genocide.
See Dorothy Demming, "Activism, Hacktivism, and Cyberterrorism: The Internet as a Tool for Influencing Foreign Policy", ~1998:
http://www.iwar.org.uk/cyberterror/resources/denning.htm
Documented as well by Howard Rhiengold in 1993:
http://dlc.dlib.indiana.edu/dlc/bitstream/handle/10535/18/Th...
An account is also included in John Quarterman's proto-history of the Net, The Matrix (1990):
The most striking use of the Matrix [Quarterman's term for online communications networks, Ed.] occurred to late to be described elswhere in this book. When the Chinese govenrment cleared Tianamen Square on the morning of 4 June 1989, reports of eyewitnesses were sent out by Chinese students by telephone and facismile within hours of the actual events, typed in by Chinese students abroad, and immediately broadcast throughout the world on dozens of networks and maling lists....
Though cautions of excessive credulity over online communications are valid, I strongly suspect that at least some of the impetus for that particular caution comes from powers and institutions which are challenged by a communications channel they can not directly control. This can, at least at times, have benefits, though the rise of the Net itself as a locus of surveillance, control, and manipulation is to my mind among the biggest stories of the past decade.
________________________________
1. For an example of a meme debunking, there's a case of a now 127-year-old hoax which still has legs. Some 18 years after its initial appearance, the hoax was being re-publicised by a US congressman, and I believe entered into the Congressional Record -- just to show that even well-known and highly-institutionalised sources can get things Very Very wrong. All this for a bit of political fluff tossed out to encourage attendence at a party meeting. The "Banker's Manifesto of 1892" hoax:
https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/39w8u4/jp_morg...
The "don't trust what you read online" meme is a persistent one, but it's also long been reactionary and incomplete.
1. Yes, there's disinformation on the Internet. Shocking, but true. And yes, the ease, scale, scope, and speed of online disinformation dwarfs all previous media. And while I frequently argue that scale matters, we can at least point to the fact that the mechanism isn't a new one: rumour and disinformation networks predate mobile, the Web, Internet, electronic, and print communications technologies.
2. From early days, the Internet was very often where both disinformation and rebuttals were most available. Two specific incidents I can recall by memory: the Pons-Fleischmann "cold fusion" paper, in 1989, and Intel's Pentium F00F bug (Spectre/Meltdown aren't their first on-die rodeo) (1997).
Each was distributed widely online, though largely via non-Web protocols. I received a copy of the Pons-Fleishmann paper two days after its release (stunningly quick for the time) via FTP. The F00F bug was circulated on mailing lists, particularly those concerning any kind of numeric programming, several days ahead of general news release.
3. "Online" is simply a channel, and use of the term conceals more than it reveals. Harold Lasswell's five-questions approach to content analysis is useful: "Who says what, to whom, why, to what extent and with what effect?"
That is, in online comms, known and reputable sources, speaking on known and reputable channels, tend to be more trustworthy than unknown and unreputable sources speaking on unknown and unreputable channels. The risks of impersonation and mimickry are real and actual, yes, but also the general notion that if someone is claimed to have said something but denies it, you might want to check assumptions. Similarly, the message itself ("says what"), audience ("to whom"), and actual or apparent intended outcome ("with what effect") are also relevant.
(See generally: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content_analysis)
The simple fact that a thing is said online doesn't of itself make it more or less credible. The elements of content analysis are a far more useful guide.
Verification of information acquired online is often also going to involve online sources. Though offline may also come into use.[1]
4. Reality is that the Internet (increasingly apps) and Web are now where most communications happen. Both legitimate and valid, and illegitimate and invalid, messages are propagated. As my friend Woozle put it a few years ago:
[B]ecause of a high percentage of the population being present, there is now substantial power to be had by influencing the discussions that take place.
That's now true of the Internet, though it's true of any medium. Cable TV, talk radio, Citizens Band, television, radio, magazines, books, pamphlets, church sermons, theses nailed to parrish doors, and the like, have been used through the ages. Art and music likewise: Michelangelo operated a propagandistic arts factory for the Medici, and liturgical music and classical art were an arm of Church propaganda (in both the original and contemporary meanings of the word).
The three most published books in history are all propaganda, again, in original and contemporary meaning: the Bible, the Koran, and Chairman Mao's "Little Red Book" (The Sayings of Chairman Mao), each with billions of copies printed.
Facebook more messages to more people than that, every few days. It is the largest propaganda engine ever created.
Oh: and some of the earliest online abuse was organised around political and cultural conflict and genocide.
See Dorothy Demming, "Activism, Hacktivism, and Cyberterrorism: The Internet as a Tool for Influencing Foreign Policy", ~1998:
http://www.iwar.org.uk/cyberterror/resources/denning.htm
Documented as well by Howard Rhiengold in 1993:
http://dlc.dlib.indiana.edu/dlc/bitstream/handle/10535/18/Th...
An account is also included in John Quarterman's proto-history of the Net, The Matrix (1990):
The most striking use of the Matrix [Quarterman's term for online communications networks, Ed.] occurred to late to be described elswhere in this book. When the Chinese govenrment cleared Tianamen Square on the morning of 4 June 1989, reports of eyewitnesses were sent out by Chinese students by telephone and facismile within hours of the actual events, typed in by Chinese students abroad, and immediately broadcast throughout the world on dozens of networks and maling lists....
Though cautions of excessive credulity over online communications are valid, I strongly suspect that at least some of the impetus for that particular caution comes from powers and institutions which are challenged by a communications channel they can not directly control. This can, at least at times, have benefits, though the rise of the Net itself as a locus of surveillance, control, and manipulation is to my mind among the biggest stories of the past decade.
________________________________
1. For an example of a meme debunking, there's a case of a now 127-year-old hoax which still has legs. Some 18 years after its initial appearance, the hoax was being re-publicised by a US congressman, and I believe entered into the Congressional Record -- just to show that even well-known and highly-institutionalised sources can get things Very Very wrong. All this for a bit of political fluff tossed out to encourage attendence at a party meeting. The "Banker's Manifesto of 1892" hoax:
https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/39w8u4/jp_morg...
"intelligence expert behind the so-called “Steele dossier” into Trump’s relationship with Russia"
A political opponent (with the help of a political party..and possibly a president) worked with a foreign government to dig up dirt on an opponent and affect the 2016 election. It didn't work, but the deed has been done.
It's scary that a political party can get away with this with impunity.
If it would have worked, would we even be seeing anything about it?
A political opponent (with the help of a political party..and possibly a president) worked with a foreign government to dig up dirt on an opponent and affect the 2016 election. It didn't work, but the deed has been done.
It's scary that a political party can get away with this with impunity.
If it would have worked, would we even be seeing anything about it?
Alternate title: "the guardian discovers marketing is used"
See, in the present world, the majority of voters have no good prospects - for purely objective, technologically-driven reasons. Therefore, there are only two ways to make society workable - shut down popular democracy, or manipulate. Meaning, there is no way an average American, or even European, would vote for anything which won't be a blatant lie: because it is too grim.
Alternatives as i see them are either "democracy with prequalification", limiting voters pool to 1-10% of population (back to good old days, basically), or outright dictatorship (which is unstable). If i were to pick, i'd probably prefer the manipulations route.
Alternatives as i see them are either "democracy with prequalification", limiting voters pool to 1-10% of population (back to good old days, basically), or outright dictatorship (which is unstable). If i were to pick, i'd probably prefer the manipulations route.
“democracy with prequalification” is not democracy at all
But this is how democracy worked from the very beginning. Only free men, property owners voted. The Greeks would call "democracies" of today, ochlocracies, which they deemed to be the worst form of government. Voting of largely irresponsible people with nothing to lose.
It's either prequalification, or manipulations to make those voters irrelevant, reduce them to just noise. And of course, in today's world of lies, manipulations are the way to go.
It's either prequalification, or manipulations to make those voters irrelevant, reduce them to just noise. And of course, in today's world of lies, manipulations are the way to go.
Why not? Just build rules about who gets to vote. It may include certain minimum level of education and/or income and/or property. So that people who are able to decide for themselves, and have a stake in the game, get to vote.
As grim as this may sound: it is in fact the original meaning of the word.
The words we are more likely to associate with the setup would be "oligarchy" or "plutocracy".
The words we are more likely to associate with the setup would be "oligarchy" or "plutocracy".
it’s almost every democracy that has ever existed. this is like the ‘not real communism’ position
Lets be clear this is the explicit purpose of the advertising and public relations industry.
1. Create Art (writing, multimedia etc...) intended to influence viewer
2. Distribute Art via Large Scale Channels
3. Hope that people exposed to it take the action you want them to
For Coca-cola they want you to "Buy Coke"
For AirBnB they want you to book a stay
For Politicians they want you to vote for them
Politicians have always used the media channels of the day to advertise themselves. So it's extremely unclear what is news here aside from the fact that Politicians are following Corporate levels of sophistication for advertising.
I think what it really shows is that Advertising in total is a toxic and corrupting business and should be banned outright for all things.