6 ms·

What is scary is the unregulated way in which massive amounts of data can be used to sway public opinion so easily. What is even scarier than this is the way i

by sykh 9y ago

What is scary is the unregulated way in which massive amounts of data can be used to sway public opinion so easily. What is even scarier than this is the way in which those in power can use massive amounts of data to sway public opinion without oversight. The very notion of a republican form of government may end up needing to be reanalyzed. Forget concentrating on Google or Facebook. There is a larger concern. If multi-national company A collects massive amounts of data and sells it to company B to use to influence elections in country C then in what way are C's people in control of their government? Especially if A and B are based in another country.

delbel 9y ago
I was trying to come up with a solution. Something like retroactively classify companies that are taking money or are involved in this type of stuff register as a Political Action Committee. Because this is regulated by the FEC. Make Google, CNN, Facebook, Fox, whatever, disclose they are working for hire to politicize your experience. Then, make it so that every 5 years a company can appeal this retro-active PAC status. When they appeal they have to show, in full transparency, that they are no longer participating in these schemes by showing internal procedures, logs, their appeal process, and comments from the public. Somebody make this idea better and help promote it. It's a start
- taurath 9y ago
  I’ve always thought that a way to get this passed would be to tell the public that you’d be effecting whichever the other sides media is. For conservatives that’d be restricting cnn, msnbc, etc and for liberals that’d be Fox News brietbart etc. People hate the other side more than they love their side I find.
  - TaylorAlexander 9y ago
    But those news agencies would be committing suicide if they supported this, so none of them would promote that message.
  - droidist2 9y ago
    > People hate the other side more than they love their side I find. I think that's true, especially because often their views aren't very well reflected by "their side's" pundits, it's just the lesser of two evils.
  - jessaustin 9y ago
    This message would not appeal to conservatives, mostly because they would not believe it. All of the narratives about the speech restrictions that replay over and over in their "bubble": Fairness Doctrine, Citizens United, campus speech codes, etc., are about limitations to conservative speech.
ivanhoe 9y ago
Tools used to exercise political influences are getting more sophisticated and powerful, but the gameplay was always the same. Before it was Radio London, then radio Free Europe, and in countries where it was possible local TVs and radios financed directly or indirectly from US or Russia to promote their views. Now it's social medias. Superpowers were always doing this to others and the only new thing here is that this is the first time it was successfully used against one of them. For the rest of the world, especially developing countries, this is the state of affairs for last 50+ years.
- sykh 9y ago
  Yes. The swaying of public opinion is thousands of years old. But now it's far easier, much cheaper, and can be done at a much greater scale. This is especially so when only a few companies are really able to do this. In the U.S there has a been a consolidation of media control. Too few players have the control and so what is happening now is more dangerous.
- l33tbro 9y ago
  Sure, but all of the examples you give are of bad actors trying to influence the opinion of the general public. In 2018, the same bad actors are using private information to change the opinions of fragments of individuals in certain electorates, who each share a certain set of beliefs/biases. The difference is huge. Why? Because when propaganda is crafted from the unique kinks of an individual and then secretly projected back at them with button-pushing messaging, it forgoes any chance of call-out from public scrutiny.
SamReidHughes 9y ago
Clinton only won the popular vote by a few million, so I don't think she was able to sway public opinion very much. What might have been 46% is now 48%, at worst. That's hardly mass mind control.
- robotresearcher 9y ago
  How many millions of people do you need before it’s mass?
  - SamReidHughes 9y ago
    Depends on the total population, I'd say on the order of 30% would be getting there.
joe_the_user 9y ago
The framing of the situation is kind of twisted imo. If we talking about politics, it seems entirely reasonable that a politician would want know what their constituents were thinking about, would tell their constituents what the constituents wanted to here and go to Washington and do what they promised. That's democracy - obviously, this democracy isn't in very good shape. But it's hard claim to that having a very fined-grained understanding of a constituency's wants is the thing that is destroying American democracy. I would lie it's more simply "lies and demagoguery". Now, it seems like Trump undoubtedly used data to fine-tune his demagoguery but I think we have to look elsewhere that data-access to explain the problem. Or - the problem with American democracy isn't groups have fragmented to many, many sub-constituencies but that significant portion of these have palpably irrational views (anti-vaxers, pizza-gate, etc). That's problem for our democratic system. That degredation of education might be to blame. The destruction of the safety net might be to blame. Or the willingness of mainstream media to engage in propagandistic approaches equally as manipulative as the extreme right might be to blame - and that bring the point that complaints about Cambridge Analytica in a broader context seem entirely in this propagandistic stream, shifting the focus of attention and packaging a vague threat rather than giving any coherent analysis.
- sykh 9y ago
  I'd agree with the degradation of education system you brought up but even well educated people are prone to being nudged. In the past there was a diversity of competing news reporting. In the U.S. there has been massive consolidation in ownership of media. The sources of information are becoming fewer and the targeting of information is causing people to exist in news bubbles. As you point out we have anit-vaxers, pizza-gate, etc. and I think this is the result of people existing in news bubbles. Curated content designed to maximize dopamine, anger, fear, etc. This makes it easier to manipulate. Think of all the people who got angry, fearful when Obama suggested having talks with Kim Jon Un and who now are happy that Trump has suggested holding talks with Kim Jon Un. People are prone to this sort of hypocrisy. They most likely aren't even aware of it. I'm not opposed to gaining a fine-grained understanding of constituent needs as such. What I do oppose is a fine grained understanding of constituent needs so that a message can be crafted to increase the chance that a policy gets enacted when that policy has nothing to do with constituent needs. The information does not appear to being used for the good but rather for the enrichment, empowerment of well connected people. The public at large is an informational battleground in which the victor achieves power. We are pawns in a game and the purpose is not the public good. This is dangerous if people don't realize this.
caseysoftware 9y ago
I just submitted one of my favorite articles on the subject: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16668805 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16668805 Basically, it walks through how something as simple and subtle as search results can sway public opinion. It wouldn't get a pro-Hillary person to vote Trump but can nudge the middle one way or the other.. and with your social info, it's easy to tell who's in the middle.
mudil 9y ago
I agree. Blatant invasion of privacy by Google and FB is a national security issue, as recent events with Cambridge Analytica have shown. This snooping by mega corporations runs contrary to basic principles of the free society.

by sykh 9y ago

delbel 9y ago

I was trying to come up with a solution. Something like retroactively classify companies that are taking money or are involved in this type of stuff register as a Political Action Committee. Because this is regulated by the FEC. Make Google, CNN, Facebook, Fox, whatever, disclose they are working for hire to politicize your experience. Then, make it so that every 5 years a company can appeal this retro-active PAC status. When they appeal they have to show, in full transparency, that they are no longer participating in these schemes by showing internal procedures, logs, their appeal process, and comments from the public. Somebody make this idea better and help promote it. It's a start

taurath 9y ago
I’ve always thought that a way to get this passed would be to tell the public that you’d be effecting whichever the other sides media is. For conservatives that’d be restricting cnn, msnbc, etc and for liberals that’d be Fox News brietbart etc. People hate the other side more than they love their side I find.
- TaylorAlexander 9y ago
  But those news agencies would be committing suicide if they supported this, so none of them would promote that message.
- droidist2 9y ago
  > People hate the other side more than they love their side I find. I think that's true, especially because often their views aren't very well reflected by "their side's" pundits, it's just the lesser of two evils.
- jessaustin 9y ago
  This message would not appeal to conservatives, mostly because they would not believe it. All of the narratives about the speech restrictions that replay over and over in their "bubble": Fairness Doctrine, Citizens United, campus speech codes, etc., are about limitations to conservative speech.

ivanhoe 9y ago

Tools used to exercise political influences are getting more sophisticated and powerful, but the gameplay was always the same. Before it was Radio London, then radio Free Europe, and in countries where it was possible local TVs and radios financed directly or indirectly from US or Russia to promote their views. Now it's social medias. Superpowers were always doing this to others and the only new thing here is that this is the first time it was successfully used against one of them. For the rest of the world, especially developing countries, this is the state of affairs for last 50+ years.

sykh 9y ago
Yes. The swaying of public opinion is thousands of years old. But now it's far easier, much cheaper, and can be done at a much greater scale. This is especially so when only a few companies are really able to do this. In the U.S there has a been a consolidation of media control. Too few players have the control and so what is happening now is more dangerous.
l33tbro 9y ago
Sure, but all of the examples you give are of bad actors trying to influence the opinion of the general public. In 2018, the same bad actors are using private information to change the opinions of fragments of individuals in certain electorates, who each share a certain set of beliefs/biases. The difference is huge. Why? Because when propaganda is crafted from the unique kinks of an individual and then secretly projected back at them with button-pushing messaging, it forgoes any chance of call-out from public scrutiny.

SamReidHughes 9y ago

Clinton only won the popular vote by a few million, so I don't think she was able to sway public opinion very much. What might have been 46% is now 48%, at worst. That's hardly mass mind control.

robotresearcher 9y ago
How many millions of people do you need before it’s mass?
- SamReidHughes 9y ago
  Depends on the total population, I'd say on the order of 30% would be getting there.

joe_the_user 9y ago

The framing of the situation is kind of twisted imo. If we talking about politics, it seems entirely reasonable that a politician would want know what their constituents were thinking about, would tell their constituents what the constituents wanted to here and go to Washington and do what they promised. That's democracy - obviously, this democracy isn't in very good shape. But it's hard claim to that having a very fined-grained understanding of a constituency's wants is the thing that is destroying American democracy. I would lie it's more simply "lies and demagoguery". Now, it seems like Trump undoubtedly used data to fine-tune his demagoguery but I think we have to look elsewhere that data-access to explain the problem. Or - the problem with American democracy isn't groups have fragmented to many, many sub-constituencies but that significant portion of these have palpably irrational views (anti-vaxers, pizza-gate, etc). That's problem for our democratic system. That degredation of education might be to blame. The destruction of the safety net might be to blame. Or the willingness of mainstream media to engage in propagandistic approaches equally as manipulative as the extreme right might be to blame - and that bring the point that complaints about Cambridge Analytica in a broader context seem entirely in this propagandistic stream, shifting the focus of attention and packaging a vague threat rather than giving any coherent analysis.

sykh 9y ago
I'd agree with the degradation of education system you brought up but even well educated people are prone to being nudged. In the past there was a diversity of competing news reporting. In the U.S. there has been massive consolidation in ownership of media. The sources of information are becoming fewer and the targeting of information is causing people to exist in news bubbles. As you point out we have anit-vaxers, pizza-gate, etc. and I think this is the result of people existing in news bubbles. Curated content designed to maximize dopamine, anger, fear, etc. This makes it easier to manipulate. Think of all the people who got angry, fearful when Obama suggested having talks with Kim Jon Un and who now are happy that Trump has suggested holding talks with Kim Jon Un. People are prone to this sort of hypocrisy. They most likely aren't even aware of it. I'm not opposed to gaining a fine-grained understanding of constituent needs as such. What I do oppose is a fine grained understanding of constituent needs so that a message can be crafted to increase the chance that a policy gets enacted when that policy has nothing to do with constituent needs. The information does not appear to being used for the good but rather for the enrichment, empowerment of well connected people. The public at large is an informational battleground in which the victor achieves power. We are pawns in a game and the purpose is not the public good. This is dangerous if people don't realize this.

caseysoftware 9y ago

I just submitted one of my favorite articles on the subject: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16668805 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16668805 Basically, it walks through how something as simple and subtle as search results can sway public opinion. It wouldn't get a pro-Hillary person to vote Trump but can nudge the middle one way or the other.. and with your social info, it's easy to tell who's in the middle.

mudil 9y ago

I agree. Blatant invasion of privacy by Google and FB is a national security issue, as recent events with Cambridge Analytica have shown. This snooping by mega corporations runs contrary to basic principles of the free society.