3 ms·
If the options are: 1. Public (online) discourse is vulnerable to manipulation by bad-faith actors (and this manipulation is impactful on a geopolitical scale)
by AbrahamParangi 10y ago
If the options are:
1. Public (online) discourse is vulnerable to manipulation by bad-faith actors (and this manipulation is impactful on a geopolitical scale).
2. The events of the US election and Brexit were symptomatic of unrecognized problems and unheard voices.
These ideas can both be true. Frankly, I find the notion that (1) isn't true too far-fetched to believe. It sounds like far too good of a business opportunity.
Running ads is a valuable activity not because every person who sees the ad becomes a customer, but because in aggregate x% of viewers will consider a purchase and y% will become good customers. Cambridge Analytica sounds to me like they're just applying the standard techniques of digital content marketing to a relatively unsophisticated realm (political advertisement).
- flukus 10y ago1 has been true for a very long time, long before the internet existed, it's commonly known as astro turfing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing), the wikipedia articles cites Shakespeare is the first known (albeit fictional) example. The approach was instrumental in preventing action on climate change.
- leereeves 10y ago> Public (online) discourse is vulnerable to manipulation by bad-faith actors (and this manipulation is impactful on a geopolitical scale). This is true, but it's not limited to the right. Just one example, the Washington Post and other liberal papers reported that a Muslim-American Olympian was detained by customs. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/early-lead/wp/2017/02/09/muslim-american-olympian-ibtihaj-muhammad-says-she-was-detained-by-u-s-customs/#comments https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/early-lead/wp/2017/02/09... The fake part? They never mentioned that it happened in December.