8 ms·

This is a scandal, and we should not blur lines here. Facebook engages in surveillance capitalism. Cambridge Analytica engages in Orwellian practices of delibe

by fny 9y ago

This is a scandal, and we should not blur lines here. Facebook engages in surveillance capitalism. Cambridge Analytica engages in Orwellian practices of deliberate and targeted mass manipulation, actively deceiving users from the outset about it's intentions, and using lies as a means to an end. From the Facebook report on the reason CA was suspended: > Like all app developers, Kogan requested and gained access to information from people after they chose to download his app. His app, “thisisyourdigitallife,” offered a personality prediction, and billed itself on Facebook as “a research app used by psychologists.” [0] Cambridge Analytica's CEO also espouses complete deceit as a strategy core strategy for using data to manipulate outcomes and advocates for using "behaviorally targeted language" to create an outcome. Like say you have a "private beach." If you really want to keep people out, why not say "sharks sighted" instead? His example, not mine: https://imgur.com/a/q1zYP https://imgur.com/a/q1zYP, https://youtu.be/n8Dd5aVXLCc https://youtu.be/n8Dd5aVXLCc, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bG5ps5KdDo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bG5ps5KdDo The scandals for me are two fold. First, we have a data repository (Facebook) that's powerful enough to assist in this type of weaponized manipulation that's entirely unprotected. Even if you think Facebook is some type of benevolent overlord that you trust with your data, it's a scandal that nothing has stopped any number of third-parties from doing what Cambridge Analytica did. Second, we have a sitting president who actively made use of these "targeted information strategies" during his election in a blatantly unethical fashion. (For the record, so did Ted Cruz.) I for a long time laughed off the Antifa crowd as being an overreaction to Trump, but it's now blatantly clear to me that he deliberately used authoritarian tactics to win the election.

debt 9y ago
"Facebook engages in surveillance capitalism." I agree. It seems like the 360-degree camera work they've done in addition to all their work in VR seems more surveillance-related than people are willing to admit but whatever.
moolcool 9y ago
Apps and services not being forthright about what they do with your data is (unfortunately) the status quo. Facebook is the broker for this data in this case, and you'd be a fool to allot them any trust with it given their history. The Cambridge Analytica "scandal" is the system working as intended, but now with unpopular consequences. Who could have imagined that a suite of tools used to manipulate and target users through commercial advertising and spam could also be used for political means.
- andrepd 9y ago
  Being the status quo doesn't make it any less scandalous.
HenryBemis 9y ago
It will be really interesting (and pleasant) to see all these companies go out of business when GDPR kicks in.
- garmaine 9y ago
  Maybe these businesses will leave markets with GDPR. But they're not going out of business and they're influence is not going to significantly wane.
AndyMcConachie 9y ago
CA sound like a bunch of scumbags and I'm glad people are shining light on these kinds of activities. However, I'm not convinced what they did was really all that new or interesting. This is our modern world and it's terrifying. Call it marketing, propaganda, fake news or disinformation, we're being manipulated constantly by numerous unattributable actors. The more interesting question to me is why is CA being called out for it? I'm sure there are numerous groups doing this now both privately and funded directly by states. That doesn't make it right, but it changes the question to; What's special about CA? I've been reading a biography of Allen Dulles called the Devil's Chessboard. Dulles founded the CIA and setup the agency as a prime purveyor of disinformation campaigns. These kinds of Machiavellian tactics likely go back further than The Prince himself. The only thing new here is the level of amplification modern data technology provides, but this is not limited to CA.
- enraged_camel 9y ago
  >>However, I'm not convinced what they did was really all that new or interesting. You say that as someone who frequents HN. Collectively we are probably the top 0.2% of the population in terms of technology awareness and know-how, to the point where we probably easily recognize this type of propaganda (then again, maybe not!) and understand how it works. The same cannot be said for the overwhelming majority of the population though. In fact, I'd go so far as to claim that the majority of Facebook users don't even understand how Facebook makes money (even though the answer is so obvious to us).
  - noir_lord 9y ago
    I get that feeling a lot. I was around on the internet back in the 90's and the stuff that came out in the Snowden revelations wasn't that suprising (Echelon was widely known back then but unconfirmed), We (meaning techies) have had the suspicion that they where doing this shit under the "just because they could, they would" approach. Where Snowden was incredibly useful was that it confirmed it in a way that was hard to deny since it was straight from the horses mouth. We might suspect that CA was doing shady shit but stuff like the C4 investigation confirms it and the confirmation is a valuable thing.
canjobear 9y ago
Is there any evidence that Cambridge Analytica's targeted manipulation techniques were effective?
- rimliu 9y ago
  Trump and Brexit?
  - useryournoggin 9y ago
    Cambridge Analytica didn't conduct marketing campaigns for Brexit.
- andrepd 9y ago
  The Trump election and the Brexit campaign are often named as the two most high profile successes of CA-backed campaigns. Since they both won by such small margins, one could wonder if it wasn't thst that gave them the final edge...
lulmerchant 9y ago
>but it's now blatantly clear to me that he deliberately used authoritarian tactics to win the election. How on earth is such a baseless comment voted to the top of this thread? The truth is that this is a scandal, only because it involves Trump. Pretty much all of what you've described is run-of-the-mill marketing, that has been used by all political parties for years. You also described some astroturfing, which is also widely used by all political parties (though perhaps some more than others). How is any of that authoritarianism? >favouring or enforcing strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom.
username223 9y ago
> Facebook engages in surveillance capitalism. They're well beyond that. Once upon a time, there was no "news feed." Then they made one, and people were not happy, but at least it was strictly chronological. Then they made it subject to an opaque and ever-changing "news feed algorithm," which makes it possible to control what you see. Those creepy studies a few years ago about emotional manipulation weren't an accident. Facebook is in the Skinner Box business now.
lopmotr 9y ago
Just because it's new technology doesn't make it bad. Hitler used PA speakers and radio advertisements to win the election. Politicians since then have all done the same. Then there was TV advertising, then Obama's targeted intelligent internet advertising, now this. Are you opposed to all political advertising? In that case, this is not the moment that it became bad. It started, well, with the beginning of human politics.
- fny 9y ago
  Of course, technology doesn't kill people. I never said it did. Right now I'm pointing fingers at people for what they're doing, not the underlying technology. A wise man once said, "Drain the swamp." It's my civic duty to point out swampiness unabashedly and impartially. Since CAs behavior, and by extension CAs customers, is inexcusable, swampy human behavior, I will stand against it. In the same way the DNCs actions against Bernie Sanders was inexcusable, the way the DNCs actions against Bernie Sanders was inexcusable, union corruption is inexcusable, corporate negligence is inexcusable, product misrepresentation is inexcusable, bullshit ICOs are inexcusable, authoritarian communism is inexcusable, the same way that history has been full of lying and deceitful politicians, priests, businessmen, lawyers, activists, messiahs I will stand against it.
  - TheOtherHobbes 9y ago
    Yes. "Everyone does it and always has" is a very weak excuse.
lucideer 9y ago
I'm not sure whether the statement "Facebook engages in surveillance capitalism" is intended as a defense of Facebook in this context or something else. The rest of your post makes it sound like the former, so I'll assume that's what you meant. In that case, I think you're giving Facebook far too much credit. What you describe in your post re: CA is accurate and scandalous, but I think it's naïve to think Facebook was not only aware and complicit, but rather that they actively encouraged and have essentially based their business on this exact system. Their decision to suspend CA is topical PR spin, an opportunity for them to be momentarily seen as enforcers amongst so many other negative headlines related to Facebook, data and voter manipulation.
lstroud 9y ago
“practices of deliberate and targeted mass manipulation, actively deceiving users from the outset about it's intentions, and using lies as a means to an end” Isn’t this the modern definition of politics?
- mhneu 9y ago
  Which needs fixing. We need to restore truth to public debate, and to politics. Cynicism is destroying Western liberal democracy.
  - sbg123 9y ago
    Restore?
madeofpalk 9y ago
Okay so one thing I'm interested in is why is CA so evil, and is the role they played any different to what Obama used in his midterms campaign? > The Obama 2012 campaign used data analytics and the experimental method to assemble a winning coalition vote by vote. In doing so, it overturned the long dominance of TV advertising in U.S. politics and created something new in the world: a national campaign run like a local ward election, where the interests of individual voters were known and addressed. https://www.technologyreview.com/s/509026/how-obamas-team-used-big-data-to-rally-voters/ https://www.technologyreview.com/s/509026/how-obamas-team-us... Obama's campaign was famously one that was 'won by data', but there was no outrage back then, in fact the opposite. What's different here?
- dingoonline 9y ago
  Cambridge Analytica got their data through a paid quiz that didn't fully disclose to the user what their friends and own data were going to be used for. It almost certainly broke EU data laws, and CA referred to their data operations as 'propaganda' when speaking to clients. https://www.engadget.com/2018/03/19/cambridge-analytica-channel4-investigation-facebook/ https://www.engadget.com/2018/03/19/cambridge-analytica-chan...
- bushin 9y ago
  > What's different Disclosure and funding.
- strawcomb 9y ago
  Why is CA so evil? There's just been an expose: https://www.channel4.com/news/cambridge-analytica-revealed-trumps-election-consultants-filmed-saying-they-use-bribes-and-sex-workers-to-entrap-politicians-investigation https://www.channel4.com/news/cambridge-analytica-revealed-t...
  - madeofpalk 9y ago
    I asked my question after I read these articles and watched both the 16+ minute reports.

by fny 9y ago

debt 9y ago

"Facebook engages in surveillance capitalism." I agree. It seems like the 360-degree camera work they've done in addition to all their work in VR seems more surveillance-related than people are willing to admit but whatever.

moolcool 9y ago

Apps and services not being forthright about what they do with your data is (unfortunately) the status quo. Facebook is the broker for this data in this case, and you'd be a fool to allot them any trust with it given their history. The Cambridge Analytica "scandal" is the system working as intended, but now with unpopular consequences. Who could have imagined that a suite of tools used to manipulate and target users through commercial advertising and spam could also be used for political means.

andrepd 9y ago
Being the status quo doesn't make it any less scandalous.

HenryBemis 9y ago

It will be really interesting (and pleasant) to see all these companies go out of business when GDPR kicks in.

garmaine 9y ago
Maybe these businesses will leave markets with GDPR. But they're not going out of business and they're influence is not going to significantly wane.

AndyMcConachie 9y ago

CA sound like a bunch of scumbags and I'm glad people are shining light on these kinds of activities. However, I'm not convinced what they did was really all that new or interesting. This is our modern world and it's terrifying. Call it marketing, propaganda, fake news or disinformation, we're being manipulated constantly by numerous unattributable actors. The more interesting question to me is why is CA being called out for it? I'm sure there are numerous groups doing this now both privately and funded directly by states. That doesn't make it right, but it changes the question to; What's special about CA? I've been reading a biography of Allen Dulles called the Devil's Chessboard. Dulles founded the CIA and setup the agency as a prime purveyor of disinformation campaigns. These kinds of Machiavellian tactics likely go back further than The Prince himself. The only thing new here is the level of amplification modern data technology provides, but this is not limited to CA.

enraged_camel 9y ago
>>However, I'm not convinced what they did was really all that new or interesting. You say that as someone who frequents HN. Collectively we are probably the top 0.2% of the population in terms of technology awareness and know-how, to the point where we probably easily recognize this type of propaganda (then again, maybe not!) and understand how it works. The same cannot be said for the overwhelming majority of the population though. In fact, I'd go so far as to claim that the majority of Facebook users don't even understand how Facebook makes money (even though the answer is so obvious to us).
- noir_lord 9y ago
  I get that feeling a lot. I was around on the internet back in the 90's and the stuff that came out in the Snowden revelations wasn't that suprising (Echelon was widely known back then but unconfirmed), We (meaning techies) have had the suspicion that they where doing this shit under the "just because they could, they would" approach. Where Snowden was incredibly useful was that it confirmed it in a way that was hard to deny since it was straight from the horses mouth. We might suspect that CA was doing shady shit but stuff like the C4 investigation confirms it and the confirmation is a valuable thing.

canjobear 9y ago

Is there any evidence that Cambridge Analytica's targeted manipulation techniques were effective?

rimliu 9y ago
Trump and Brexit?
- useryournoggin 9y ago
  Cambridge Analytica didn't conduct marketing campaigns for Brexit.
andrepd 9y ago
The Trump election and the Brexit campaign are often named as the two most high profile successes of CA-backed campaigns. Since they both won by such small margins, one could wonder if it wasn't thst that gave them the final edge...

lulmerchant 9y ago

>but it's now blatantly clear to me that he deliberately used authoritarian tactics to win the election. How on earth is such a baseless comment voted to the top of this thread? The truth is that this is a scandal, only because it involves Trump. Pretty much all of what you've described is run-of-the-mill marketing, that has been used by all political parties for years. You also described some astroturfing, which is also widely used by all political parties (though perhaps some more than others). How is any of that authoritarianism? >favouring or enforcing strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom.

username223 9y ago

> Facebook engages in surveillance capitalism. They're well beyond that. Once upon a time, there was no "news feed." Then they made one, and people were not happy, but at least it was strictly chronological. Then they made it subject to an opaque and ever-changing "news feed algorithm," which makes it possible to control what you see. Those creepy studies a few years ago about emotional manipulation weren't an accident. Facebook is in the Skinner Box business now.

lopmotr 9y ago

Just because it's new technology doesn't make it bad. Hitler used PA speakers and radio advertisements to win the election. Politicians since then have all done the same. Then there was TV advertising, then Obama's targeted intelligent internet advertising, now this. Are you opposed to all political advertising? In that case, this is not the moment that it became bad. It started, well, with the beginning of human politics.

fny 9y ago
Of course, technology doesn't kill people. I never said it did. Right now I'm pointing fingers at people for what they're doing, not the underlying technology. A wise man once said, "Drain the swamp." It's my civic duty to point out swampiness unabashedly and impartially. Since CAs behavior, and by extension CAs customers, is inexcusable, swampy human behavior, I will stand against it. In the same way the DNCs actions against Bernie Sanders was inexcusable, the way the DNCs actions against Bernie Sanders was inexcusable, union corruption is inexcusable, corporate negligence is inexcusable, product misrepresentation is inexcusable, bullshit ICOs are inexcusable, authoritarian communism is inexcusable, the same way that history has been full of lying and deceitful politicians, priests, businessmen, lawyers, activists, messiahs I will stand against it.
- TheOtherHobbes 9y ago
  Yes. "Everyone does it and always has" is a very weak excuse.

lucideer 9y ago

I'm not sure whether the statement "Facebook engages in surveillance capitalism" is intended as a defense of Facebook in this context or something else. The rest of your post makes it sound like the former, so I'll assume that's what you meant. In that case, I think you're giving Facebook far too much credit. What you describe in your post re: CA is accurate and scandalous, but I think it's naïve to think Facebook was not only aware and complicit, but rather that they actively encouraged and have essentially based their business on this exact system. Their decision to suspend CA is topical PR spin, an opportunity for them to be momentarily seen as enforcers amongst so many other negative headlines related to Facebook, data and voter manipulation.

lstroud 9y ago

“practices of deliberate and targeted mass manipulation, actively deceiving users from the outset about it's intentions, and using lies as a means to an end” Isn’t this the modern definition of politics?

mhneu 9y ago
Which needs fixing. We need to restore truth to public debate, and to politics. Cynicism is destroying Western liberal democracy.
- sbg123 9y ago
  Restore?

madeofpalk 9y ago

Okay so one thing I'm interested in is why is CA so evil, and is the role they played any different to what Obama used in his midterms campaign? > The Obama 2012 campaign used data analytics and the experimental method to assemble a winning coalition vote by vote. In doing so, it overturned the long dominance of TV advertising in U.S. politics and created something new in the world: a national campaign run like a local ward election, where the interests of individual voters were known and addressed. https://www.technologyreview.com/s/509026/how-obamas-team-used-big-data-to-rally-voters/ https://www.technologyreview.com/s/509026/how-obamas-team-us... Obama's campaign was famously one that was 'won by data', but there was no outrage back then, in fact the opposite. What's different here?

dingoonline 9y ago
Cambridge Analytica got their data through a paid quiz that didn't fully disclose to the user what their friends and own data were going to be used for. It almost certainly broke EU data laws, and CA referred to their data operations as 'propaganda' when speaking to clients. https://www.engadget.com/2018/03/19/cambridge-analytica-channel4-investigation-facebook/ https://www.engadget.com/2018/03/19/cambridge-analytica-chan...
bushin 9y ago
> What's different Disclosure and funding.
strawcomb 9y ago
Why is CA so evil? There's just been an expose: https://www.channel4.com/news/cambridge-analytica-revealed-trumps-election-consultants-filmed-saying-they-use-bribes-and-sex-workers-to-entrap-politicians-investigation https://www.channel4.com/news/cambridge-analytica-revealed-t...
- madeofpalk 9y ago
  I asked my question after I read these articles and watched both the 16+ minute reports.