4 ms·

Plenty that's extremely bad is already happening as a result of privacy violations. Probably affecting most of us. Trouble is they're invisible. For one exampl

Plenty that's extremely bad is already happening as a result of privacy violations. Probably affecting most of us. Trouble is they're invisible. For one example, we saw with Cambridge Analytica that political advertising can be tuned to your personal hot button issues. Those worried by immigration can be sent an outright (and outrageous) lie that remaining in the EU will result in all of Turkey moving to the UK. Those with different interests/concerns got different ads. Turns out many of them were illegal too. No one knew until too late because it was invisible to all except the advertiser, Facebook (in this case) and recipient. Until it becomes visible - it's really hard to make people care, or realise. Perhaps a few on the receiving end of the brexit/CA issue realised, if they remember the ads they saw, and read one of the many follow up stories. Like anything algorithmic, unless you a-b test how do you know what you saw that others didn't, what you aren't seeing, or where it discriminates? Keep this up and we could easily lose most of the progress of the 20th century, invisibly.

abledon 8y ago
So I see ads that other people don’t see? — I think you failed to convince 90% of people it’s “extremely bad”,( id say something like ww2 is “extremely bad” )
- nitrogen 8y ago
  Death and destruction are absolutely terrible. They are not the only way to reshape or destroy a society. Like the parent comment said, the tools of mass manipulation that can be created with the data and platforms available today can have just as broad of an effect over time, if not moreso because it's invisible. How would you convince someone of that?
  - eastendguy 8y ago
    Targeted ads/messages beyond very broad categories such as "business owner" or "looking for a vacation" should be made illegal. This time the law needs to safe us from technology.
- NeedMoreTea 8y ago
  If that's really your marker, nothing but another war or the other horsemen will meet it. We can probably repeal all the laws on the books without hitting it. The issue is not seeing something someone else may not - that's but a symptom that allows the burying of much illegal and discriminatory activity. There's been plenty of examples of both in recent years - Cambridge Analytica is just one.
  - snaky 8y ago
    You may have a look at all the most common fears and find how many of them could be connected to privacy at all, in any meaningful way. From irrational (clowns) to semi-rational (immigrants and robots) and rational (shootings) ones.
- SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago
  > id say something like ww2 is “extremely bad” WW2 was a result of a far right government and its rapid rise to power, mainly as a result of propaganda and misinformation. So...
  - whenchamenia 8y ago
    National Socialism is 'right' now? From what I can tell, despotic dictators will fly any flag if it give them power. Painting this as a partisian issue, while comparing the modern right with 'literal hitler' is just holding back rational discussion.
yason 8y ago
political advertising can be tuned to your personal hot button issues And is this not what happens traditionally as well? Politicians give different speeches to different audiences. Candidates before election talk very differently to various groups of demographies. Candidates who meet individual voters on market squares and public places obviously try to find out which of the voter's wires are hot and try to deliberately connect on those levels that are meaningful to the potential voter. The structure and interpretation of politicians predates internet and digital surveillance. "If you have to say it, it's not true" applies very well to politicians and especially to political advertisement no matter if it's targetted or general.
- NeedMoreTea 8y ago
  The difference is traditionally it's a) visible, b) legal, and c) only targets in the most broad-brush terms the major groups in society - broadly in line with the manifesto. breaching regulations in an advert, speech or leaflet has resulted in consequences up to and including prosecuting or throwing out the whole result. I believe the Swiss voided a referendum result only the other week because the electorate didn't have enough or accurate information. There's good reason many nations have laws severely restricting political advertising including spending limits and extra restrictions near voting time, or banning custom pricing and other forms of discrimination. Saying whatever bullshit it takes to get the vote/sale must continue to come with serious consequences or we're right back where we were in the 17th and 18th centuries. And yes, the regulatory systems do seem to be failing to cope with the new way of things.
  - guscost 8y ago
    > I believe the Swiss voided a referendum result only the other week because the electorate didn't have enough or accurate information. Wait, what? If the electorate had a vote, who are “the Swiss” who overturned it?
    - NeedMoreTea 8y ago
      The checks and balances they put in place to prevent irregularities - in this case their supreme court. "the supreme court has now voided the result on the grounds that voters were not given full information, and the vote must be re-run." If only British referendums were similarly protected... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-47879777 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-47879777
baud147258 8y ago
> all of Turkey moving to the UK It wouldn't have happened either, way, all of Turkey would have gone to Germany. > political advertising can be tuned to your personal hot button issues But it was always already the case with newspapers and TV news, you wouldn't target the same population with Fox news vs CNN or the Sun vs the Guardian. And people wouldn't have seen ads for the "other side" since they wouldn't have opened the other newspaper or switched to the other channel
- NeedMoreTea 8y ago
  > would have gone to Germany Probably true - the whole Cambridge campaign seemed to be built on outright lies. > with newspapers and TV That was always highly visible - so errors or breach of process was instantly caught. Nor could it break down beyond Sun readers or Fox viewers - which covers an awful lot of ground ranging from centre ground moderates to extremists on the fringes. You end up catching a fraction. Now you can pick off just those thought susceptible, or false promises to those wanting and those not wanting $thing. Which starts to make a mockery of countries with funding or campaign restrictions. It was always a fine game trying to promise all things to all voters, but remained within the bounds of legality and common sense. Now we seem firmly outside and we need a thorough refresh of oversight. Or I suppose we could believe Cambridge was a one-off.

abledon 8y ago

So I see ads that other people don’t see? — I think you failed to convince 90% of people it’s “extremely bad”,( id say something like ww2 is “extremely bad” )

nitrogen 8y ago
Death and destruction are absolutely terrible. They are not the only way to reshape or destroy a society. Like the parent comment said, the tools of mass manipulation that can be created with the data and platforms available today can have just as broad of an effect over time, if not moreso because it's invisible. How would you convince someone of that?
- eastendguy 8y ago
  Targeted ads/messages beyond very broad categories such as "business owner" or "looking for a vacation" should be made illegal. This time the law needs to safe us from technology.
NeedMoreTea 8y ago
If that's really your marker, nothing but another war or the other horsemen will meet it. We can probably repeal all the laws on the books without hitting it. The issue is not seeing something someone else may not - that's but a symptom that allows the burying of much illegal and discriminatory activity. There's been plenty of examples of both in recent years - Cambridge Analytica is just one.
- snaky 8y ago
  You may have a look at all the most common fears and find how many of them could be connected to privacy at all, in any meaningful way. From irrational (clowns) to semi-rational (immigrants and robots) and rational (shootings) ones.
SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago
> id say something like ww2 is “extremely bad” WW2 was a result of a far right government and its rapid rise to power, mainly as a result of propaganda and misinformation. So...
- whenchamenia 8y ago
  National Socialism is 'right' now? From what I can tell, despotic dictators will fly any flag if it give them power. Painting this as a partisian issue, while comparing the modern right with 'literal hitler' is just holding back rational discussion.

yason 8y ago

political advertising can be tuned to your personal hot button issues And is this not what happens traditionally as well? Politicians give different speeches to different audiences. Candidates before election talk very differently to various groups of demographies. Candidates who meet individual voters on market squares and public places obviously try to find out which of the voter's wires are hot and try to deliberately connect on those levels that are meaningful to the potential voter. The structure and interpretation of politicians predates internet and digital surveillance. "If you have to say it, it's not true" applies very well to politicians and especially to political advertisement no matter if it's targetted or general.

NeedMoreTea 8y ago
The difference is traditionally it's a) visible, b) legal, and c) only targets in the most broad-brush terms the major groups in society - broadly in line with the manifesto. breaching regulations in an advert, speech or leaflet has resulted in consequences up to and including prosecuting or throwing out the whole result. I believe the Swiss voided a referendum result only the other week because the electorate didn't have enough or accurate information. There's good reason many nations have laws severely restricting political advertising including spending limits and extra restrictions near voting time, or banning custom pricing and other forms of discrimination. Saying whatever bullshit it takes to get the vote/sale must continue to come with serious consequences or we're right back where we were in the 17th and 18th centuries. And yes, the regulatory systems do seem to be failing to cope with the new way of things.
- guscost 8y ago
  > I believe the Swiss voided a referendum result only the other week because the electorate didn't have enough or accurate information. Wait, what? If the electorate had a vote, who are “the Swiss” who overturned it?
  - NeedMoreTea 8y ago
    The checks and balances they put in place to prevent irregularities - in this case their supreme court. "the supreme court has now voided the result on the grounds that voters were not given full information, and the vote must be re-run." If only British referendums were similarly protected... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-47879777 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-47879777

baud147258 8y ago

> all of Turkey moving to the UK It wouldn't have happened either, way, all of Turkey would have gone to Germany. > political advertising can be tuned to your personal hot button issues But it was always already the case with newspapers and TV news, you wouldn't target the same population with Fox news vs CNN or the Sun vs the Guardian. And people wouldn't have seen ads for the "other side" since they wouldn't have opened the other newspaper or switched to the other channel

NeedMoreTea 8y ago
> would have gone to Germany Probably true - the whole Cambridge campaign seemed to be built on outright lies. > with newspapers and TV That was always highly visible - so errors or breach of process was instantly caught. Nor could it break down beyond Sun readers or Fox viewers - which covers an awful lot of ground ranging from centre ground moderates to extremists on the fringes. You end up catching a fraction. Now you can pick off just those thought susceptible, or false promises to those wanting and those not wanting $thing. Which starts to make a mockery of countries with funding or campaign restrictions. It was always a fine game trying to promise all things to all voters, but remained within the bounds of legality and common sense. Now we seem firmly outside and we need a thorough refresh of oversight. Or I suppose we could believe Cambridge was a one-off.