3 ms·
The loss of privacy is needed for the microtargeting used in misinformation campaigns. It is exactly FBs profiles that allowed targeted ads for fear mongering,
by rocqua 8y ago
The loss of privacy is needed for the microtargeting used in misinformation campaigns. It is exactly FBs profiles that allowed targeted ads for fear mongering, conspiracy theories, perhaps even school shooting victims.
Similarly, Google's profiles help push people to 'engaging' content on YouTube. It just so happens that extreme claims (anorexia is good, x was a conspiracy, group y is inferior) happen to be very engaging.
Our loss of privacy has a lot of responsibility here. It has allowed for a very subtle division of the public forum.
- intended 8y agoPlaying devils advocate here, i want to build my understanding out further. My question is: So what? If we have good privacy laws tomorrow (assume temporary magic), how does that do anything but change the modus operandi of manipulation? wait for a large event, and then flash your ads. Similar to pre internet behavior, true. But it’s still at internet scale, and you could target via groups right?
- rocqua 8y agoCurrently, you can split the discourse. I'd hope that the majority of people would be outraged if sandy hook denial was pushed to them for example. If you cannot target your message, you need to take into account everyone who will hear it. This requires a more palpable message, and almost forces the adoption of a universal framework of facts. Similarly, the profiling has lead to echo chambers. Having that fall away also helps create some universal discourse.