4 ms·

The issue for me is that it was personalized propaganda and that there is no record of who was shown what message.

by rjsw 9y ago

qeternity 9y ago
What constitutes propaganda? And why does it matter that its personalized?
- lmkg 9y ago
  Accountability. When someone sends false or misleading information through a broadcast medium like TV, they can be called out and corrected (up to and including criminal penalties). When each person receives their own unique messaging, there's no way to find out what lies might be spread and therefore there's no way for anyone to take corrective action.
  - herbst 9y ago
    So you are suggesting that we regulate the Internet and make people who spread 'lies' (or in other words things they might actually believe) liable for their actions? How about conspiracies that turned out to be true? What about current conspiracies that will turn out to be true. Should we ban all these 'missinformations' just because people are to stupid to build their own perception?
    - lmkg 9y ago
      > So you are suggesting that we regulate Nope. I'm answering a question about the practical difference between targeted and non-targeted propaganda. I was only pointing out the problem, not suggesting any specific of general solution. > Should we ban We don't ban such things on broadcast media, either. As I said above, in broadcast the problem is self-correcting because other parties have a chance to make countering claims (legal solutions are available but that's an extreme that doesn't happen often). The only thing I would consider trying to implement is visibility into targeted-message mediums. I also don't have a detailed proposal for how to do this, it's just wishful thinking. > just because people are to stupid We can't lay 100% the blame onto the people being misled if there are significant resources being spent by sophisticated actors trying to mislead them. And regardless, if a voter is misled they are not the only person impacted by that. Their failing is an externality to society as a whole, which justifies the consideration of safeguards.
  - qeternity 9y ago
    Slander and libel are only applicable to knowingly false and damaging information. Opinions fall squarely within the first amendment. If CA et al really manipulated the general populace to the degree suggested, I am far more concerned that people went out and voted based on whatever manipulation came across their Facebook, without doing any research or critical thinking.
    - herbst 9y ago
      This really is what media should actually focus on. But critical thinking is so outdated these days...
    - m00g00 9y ago
      I've seen some nasty political TV ads aired between shows, especially for local elections. The issue of critical thinking and not just buying into whatever hitpiece/campaign sign one last saw transcends facebook and social media.
  - m00g00 9y ago
    False and especially misleading information is sent through broadcast TV all the time, both through advertisements and aired content. Political content is egregiously bad in this regard. There's no accountability for hit piece TV advertisements routinely aired by and against local politicians; where facts, if they are even present, are twisted and stripped of context and surrounded by scary voice overs and graphics. To say nothing of TV "news" shows liberally salted with opinion, or just general product ads. It's propaganda all the way down.
- 3pt14159 9y ago
  Propaganda has nothing to do with accountability. It has to do with the fact that a state wants to influence a populace in a methodical, measurable way. That's it. It can be full of falsehoods and come from shadowy sources, like most black propaganda, or it can come directly from the US government and be full of truth, like Voice of America. BBC / CBC kinda blur the edges here since they're arms length and the content creators aren't monitoring the effectiveness of their work via public opinion polling, etc. But in practice they coordinate with a lot of the think tanks that coordinate with the federal governments and there's a bit of a cozy relationship most times that can be exploited and if a relationship / topic is important (like the US Canadian NAFTA talks) you'll see some pretty positive coverage coming out of the CBC. There is a short 60s book called "Propaganda" that covers all this, and if you read it with a programmers background you'll be able to fully extrapolate to what today looks like.

The issue for me is that it was personalized propaganda and that there is no record of who was shown what message.

by rjsw 9y ago

The issue for me is that it was personalized propaganda and that there is no record of who was shown what message.

qeternity 9y ago

What constitutes propaganda? And why does it matter that its personalized?

lmkg 9y ago
Accountability. When someone sends false or misleading information through a broadcast medium like TV, they can be called out and corrected (up to and including criminal penalties). When each person receives their own unique messaging, there's no way to find out what lies might be spread and therefore there's no way for anyone to take corrective action.
- herbst 9y ago
  So you are suggesting that we regulate the Internet and make people who spread 'lies' (or in other words things they might actually believe) liable for their actions? How about conspiracies that turned out to be true? What about current conspiracies that will turn out to be true. Should we ban all these 'missinformations' just because people are to stupid to build their own perception?
  - lmkg 9y ago
    > So you are suggesting that we regulate Nope. I'm answering a question about the practical difference between targeted and non-targeted propaganda. I was only pointing out the problem, not suggesting any specific of general solution. > Should we ban We don't ban such things on broadcast media, either. As I said above, in broadcast the problem is self-correcting because other parties have a chance to make countering claims (legal solutions are available but that's an extreme that doesn't happen often). The only thing I would consider trying to implement is visibility into targeted-message mediums. I also don't have a detailed proposal for how to do this, it's just wishful thinking. > just because people are to stupid We can't lay 100% the blame onto the people being misled if there are significant resources being spent by sophisticated actors trying to mislead them. And regardless, if a voter is misled they are not the only person impacted by that. Their failing is an externality to society as a whole, which justifies the consideration of safeguards.
- qeternity 9y ago
  Slander and libel are only applicable to knowingly false and damaging information. Opinions fall squarely within the first amendment. If CA et al really manipulated the general populace to the degree suggested, I am far more concerned that people went out and voted based on whatever manipulation came across their Facebook, without doing any research or critical thinking.
  - herbst 9y ago
    This really is what media should actually focus on. But critical thinking is so outdated these days...
  - m00g00 9y ago
    I've seen some nasty political TV ads aired between shows, especially for local elections. The issue of critical thinking and not just buying into whatever hitpiece/campaign sign one last saw transcends facebook and social media.
- m00g00 9y ago
  False and especially misleading information is sent through broadcast TV all the time, both through advertisements and aired content. Political content is egregiously bad in this regard. There's no accountability for hit piece TV advertisements routinely aired by and against local politicians; where facts, if they are even present, are twisted and stripped of context and surrounded by scary voice overs and graphics. To say nothing of TV "news" shows liberally salted with opinion, or just general product ads. It's propaganda all the way down.
3pt14159 9y ago
Propaganda has nothing to do with accountability. It has to do with the fact that a state wants to influence a populace in a methodical, measurable way. That's it. It can be full of falsehoods and come from shadowy sources, like most black propaganda, or it can come directly from the US government and be full of truth, like Voice of America. BBC / CBC kinda blur the edges here since they're arms length and the content creators aren't monitoring the effectiveness of their work via public opinion polling, etc. But in practice they coordinate with a lot of the think tanks that coordinate with the federal governments and there's a bit of a cozy relationship most times that can be exploited and if a relationship / topic is important (like the US Canadian NAFTA talks) you'll see some pretty positive coverage coming out of the CBC. There is a short 60s book called "Propaganda" that covers all this, and if you read it with a programmers background you'll be able to fully extrapolate to what today looks like.