4 ms·

I don't see where the disagreement is. I agree that the population is civically engaged, and it's not a surprise that a show that moves around the country with

I don't see where the disagreement is. I agree that the population is civically engaged, and it's not a surprise that a show that moves around the country with a remit amongst the audience planners to include everyone has 'Leave' voters (Leave voters being as they are predominantly concentrated outside London and large cities). My argument is that we are potentially no longer able to determine the arguments that are being used to influence people, which is significant when there has been a marked turn away from the EU in public opinion over the last five years.

throwanem 9y ago
Is it necessary to postulate a shadowy cabal of influencers at play here? Perhaps there's nothing there to identify, and the risk is instead of falling into the conspiracy theorist's trap of being so desperate to force legibility upon an illegible world that outright florid psychosis, a true break from reality, becomes preferable to simply accepting that too many things go on too often among too many people to ever be cohesively understood save in retrospect, and rarely enough even then.
- sprafa 9y ago
  Regarding your notion of "there's nothing there to identify" which I assume means there's nothing to the work of Cambridge Analytica. If that was true then Cambridge Analytica would not make any money. The fact that Cambridge, and facebook, make money, and a ton of it, can make you relatively certain that they can influence people.
  - throwanem 9y ago
    No, I'm referring to the idea that the Brexit vote wouldn't have come out as it did absent, essentially, a conspiracy. That said, plenty of firms make money despite not actually doing as they purport to do. Perhaps Cambridge Analytica and Facebook and the like simply have yet to be exposed as charlatans.
    - yorwba 9y ago
      > No, I'm referring to the idea that the Brexit vote wouldn't have come out as it did absent, essentially, a conspiracy. Nobody upthread has disagreed with you on that. So why are you arguing?
      - throwanem 9y ago
        In that case, it doesn't matter what Cambridge Analytica did or didn't do. So why are you?
        yorwba 9y ago
        Even if Cambridge Analytica was not necessary for the vote to come out as it did, what they are trying to do still does matter. Because they or someone else is definitely working on improving their techniques, and they will be used in any number of elections to come.
  - zigzigzag 9y ago
    Facebook makes money through simple commercial advertising - nothing sinister there. Cambridge Analytica might just make money by convincing fools that they have some secret insight or power, when they actually don't. Psychics and mediums have in the past made a ton of money, as did quack doctors. Coca-Cola started out as a quack cure-all and it still makes a ton of money today. The basic narrative you're pursuing here is one that has cropped up a lot in the past 18 months: voters are, by and large, easily manipulated putty who don't have real reasons or analysis behind their decisions. Instead they simply do whatever shadowy Russian conspirators make them do through subtle manipulation of Facebook, the press, or whatever. Simple, obvious explanations for what's happening in politics are staring us all straight in the face. Occam's Razor guys ... there is no need to go full chemtrails and pin responsibility on some invisible evidence-free conspiracy of random firms, people and countries. Just assume voters are on average, of average intelligence, and thus probably have reasonably straightforward reasons for doing what they do.
- kristianc 9y ago
  Again, my post made clear that I don't necessarily buy the thesis that Cambridge Analytica swung the election. So I don't see where the florid break from reality comes into it either. My preference is strongly however to attempt to understand (and have visibility over) the factors that are influencing people rather than retreat behind a veil of 'we can't possibly understand it' ignorance.
  - zigzigzag 9y ago
    I note that your profile says you are a strategist & speaker on "digital, UX and branding". I would hope that a branding specialist would have no trouble understanding the Brexit result. It doesn't require deep analysis. Remain mounted a campaign that was defeatist and based on fear: "ok, our attempt to negotiate resulted in nothing at all, but we must still remain and obey Brussels because if we don't our friends and allies will destroy our economy." As a logical consequence, they were effectively arguing that there was no future for British democracy, because the trend over time has always been for the EU to take more powers out of the hands of democratic local government and take it for itself. That's a terrible brand. Leave campaigned on a better future with "take back control" as their byline. You don't need conspiracy theories about corporations with mind-control machines to explain what happened next.
    - jimnotgym 9y ago
      Yes the remain campaign was very negative. However it is also true to say that a lot of people voted leave on the promise of £350 million a week extra for the NHS (as painted on the Brexit Bus). Many people feel this is a straight-forward lie because a) The number is wrong (the governments own figure is £199m). The number of 350m is something like the gross contribution and could only be acheived with widespread cuts to services currently funded by the EU. b) The money was never going to get govern to the NHS. I think this alone serves to demonstrate 1) your assertion about what caused the Brexit vote is a gross oversimplification 2) Why many people still won't accept the result.
      - zigzigzag 9y ago
- TheOtherHobbes 9y ago
  You don't need to postulate a shadowy cabal because it's not shadowy. Does it not bother you that David Cameron's first press officer was Murdoch-stooge Andy Coulson, who had already resigned as Editor as News of the World, and who was subsequently imprisoned for his role in phone hacking? We're talking about someone who would attempt to hack the phone of anyone with a public profile - including politicians - and who was then employed to run the official government press office. Meanwhile Rupert Murdoch's attitude to Europe is public knowledge: https://www.indy100.com/article/this-terrifying-rupert-murdoch-quote-is-possibly-the-best-reason-to-stay-in-the-eu-yet--WyMaFTE890x https://www.indy100.com/article/this-terrifying-rupert-murdo... So. It's not shadowy at all. It's not mysterious. No joining of dots is needed. It's completely overt and out in the open. And it should never have been allowed this level of influence over British politics without being challenged.
  - zigzigzag 9y ago
    David Cameron led the campaign to remain, as did the government. Coulson, the press officer whom Cameron picked, and who you're trying to finger as part of some "overt" and "out in the open" conspiracy, also campaigned for Remain and frequently attacked people campaigning to Leave: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/david-camerons-ex-staff-war-8080733 http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/david-camerons-ex-staff... How does this conspiracy theory even work? That Cameron's staff were secretly trying to lose whilst they were out campaigning to win? Because of an ex-employer? That's not just illogical, it's completely incoherent. Think about what you're trying to argue there for a moment.
  - Worksheet 9y ago
    Yeah, influential Tories are likely to get jobs when a Tory government is in power. Much like how Seamus Milne will become the Corbyn's press officer come a labour win in June. And that quote has always just been a standard issue made up internet quote. Murdoch was literally in the Guardian letter pages denying he ever said such a thing. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/dec/19/rupert-murdoch-ive-never-asked-any-prime-minister-for-anything https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/dec/19/rupert-murdoch... And why would he say it? "When I go into Downing Street they do as I say" would be a bizarre utterance from a newspaper editor.

throwanem 9y ago

Is it necessary to postulate a shadowy cabal of influencers at play here? Perhaps there's nothing there to identify, and the risk is instead of falling into the conspiracy theorist's trap of being so desperate to force legibility upon an illegible world that outright florid psychosis, a true break from reality, becomes preferable to simply accepting that too many things go on too often among too many people to ever be cohesively understood save in retrospect, and rarely enough even then.

sprafa 9y ago
Regarding your notion of "there's nothing there to identify" which I assume means there's nothing to the work of Cambridge Analytica. If that was true then Cambridge Analytica would not make any money. The fact that Cambridge, and facebook, make money, and a ton of it, can make you relatively certain that they can influence people.
- throwanem 9y ago
  No, I'm referring to the idea that the Brexit vote wouldn't have come out as it did absent, essentially, a conspiracy. That said, plenty of firms make money despite not actually doing as they purport to do. Perhaps Cambridge Analytica and Facebook and the like simply have yet to be exposed as charlatans.
  - yorwba 9y ago
    > No, I'm referring to the idea that the Brexit vote wouldn't have come out as it did absent, essentially, a conspiracy. Nobody upthread has disagreed with you on that. So why are you arguing?
    - throwanem 9y ago
      In that case, it doesn't matter what Cambridge Analytica did or didn't do. So why are you?
      - yorwba 9y ago
        Even if Cambridge Analytica was not necessary for the vote to come out as it did, what they are trying to do still does matter. Because they or someone else is definitely working on improving their techniques, and they will be used in any number of elections to come.
- zigzigzag 9y ago
  Facebook makes money through simple commercial advertising - nothing sinister there. Cambridge Analytica might just make money by convincing fools that they have some secret insight or power, when they actually don't. Psychics and mediums have in the past made a ton of money, as did quack doctors. Coca-Cola started out as a quack cure-all and it still makes a ton of money today. The basic narrative you're pursuing here is one that has cropped up a lot in the past 18 months: voters are, by and large, easily manipulated putty who don't have real reasons or analysis behind their decisions. Instead they simply do whatever shadowy Russian conspirators make them do through subtle manipulation of Facebook, the press, or whatever. Simple, obvious explanations for what's happening in politics are staring us all straight in the face. Occam's Razor guys ... there is no need to go full chemtrails and pin responsibility on some invisible evidence-free conspiracy of random firms, people and countries. Just assume voters are on average, of average intelligence, and thus probably have reasonably straightforward reasons for doing what they do.
kristianc 9y ago
Again, my post made clear that I don't necessarily buy the thesis that Cambridge Analytica swung the election. So I don't see where the florid break from reality comes into it either. My preference is strongly however to attempt to understand (and have visibility over) the factors that are influencing people rather than retreat behind a veil of 'we can't possibly understand it' ignorance.
- zigzigzag 9y ago
  I note that your profile says you are a strategist & speaker on "digital, UX and branding". I would hope that a branding specialist would have no trouble understanding the Brexit result. It doesn't require deep analysis. Remain mounted a campaign that was defeatist and based on fear: "ok, our attempt to negotiate resulted in nothing at all, but we must still remain and obey Brussels because if we don't our friends and allies will destroy our economy." As a logical consequence, they were effectively arguing that there was no future for British democracy, because the trend over time has always been for the EU to take more powers out of the hands of democratic local government and take it for itself. That's a terrible brand. Leave campaigned on a better future with "take back control" as their byline. You don't need conspiracy theories about corporations with mind-control machines to explain what happened next.
  - jimnotgym 9y ago
    Yes the remain campaign was very negative. However it is also true to say that a lot of people voted leave on the promise of £350 million a week extra for the NHS (as painted on the Brexit Bus). Many people feel this is a straight-forward lie because a) The number is wrong (the governments own figure is £199m). The number of 350m is something like the gross contribution and could only be acheived with widespread cuts to services currently funded by the EU. b) The money was never going to get govern to the NHS. I think this alone serves to demonstrate 1) your assertion about what caused the Brexit vote is a gross oversimplification 2) Why many people still won't accept the result.
    - zigzigzag 9y ago
TheOtherHobbes 9y ago
You don't need to postulate a shadowy cabal because it's not shadowy. Does it not bother you that David Cameron's first press officer was Murdoch-stooge Andy Coulson, who had already resigned as Editor as News of the World, and who was subsequently imprisoned for his role in phone hacking? We're talking about someone who would attempt to hack the phone of anyone with a public profile - including politicians - and who was then employed to run the official government press office. Meanwhile Rupert Murdoch's attitude to Europe is public knowledge: https://www.indy100.com/article/this-terrifying-rupert-murdoch-quote-is-possibly-the-best-reason-to-stay-in-the-eu-yet--WyMaFTE890x https://www.indy100.com/article/this-terrifying-rupert-murdo... So. It's not shadowy at all. It's not mysterious. No joining of dots is needed. It's completely overt and out in the open. And it should never have been allowed this level of influence over British politics without being challenged.
- zigzigzag 9y ago
  David Cameron led the campaign to remain, as did the government. Coulson, the press officer whom Cameron picked, and who you're trying to finger as part of some "overt" and "out in the open" conspiracy, also campaigned for Remain and frequently attacked people campaigning to Leave: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/david-camerons-ex-staff-war-8080733 http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/david-camerons-ex-staff... How does this conspiracy theory even work? That Cameron's staff were secretly trying to lose whilst they were out campaigning to win? Because of an ex-employer? That's not just illogical, it's completely incoherent. Think about what you're trying to argue there for a moment.
- Worksheet 9y ago
  Yeah, influential Tories are likely to get jobs when a Tory government is in power. Much like how Seamus Milne will become the Corbyn's press officer come a labour win in June. And that quote has always just been a standard issue made up internet quote. Murdoch was literally in the Guardian letter pages denying he ever said such a thing. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/dec/19/rupert-murdoch-ive-never-asked-any-prime-minister-for-anything https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/dec/19/rupert-murdoch... And why would he say it? "When I go into Downing Street they do as I say" would be a bizarre utterance from a newspaper editor.