4 ms·

Cambridge Analytica style targeted political messaging, and retailoring of political formulae to personality/moral-foundations/IQ profiles, in order to create c

Cambridge Analytica style targeted political messaging, and retailoring of political formulae to personality/moral-foundations/IQ profiles, in order to create coalitions is the future of political messaging and activism. In many ways, now that the gameboard has changed so drastically, it's unavoidable. This is how politics works now. It's not (just) Russia, or China, it's every political activism group or lobby that wants to achieve anything. Welcome to the new age.

engineer_22 5y ago
no different than it used to be, just more sophisticated.
- Gollapalli 5y ago
  I think there is a qualitative difference. Previous means of influencing politics involved NGO's and political parties actively working different demographics in order to get them to vote in the organization's interest. These organizations may loosely be considered managerial bureaucracies, whether they are labor unions, or activist NGO's, or political parties. Even large scale media campaigns conducted via mass psychology are essentially managerial or bureaucratic in nature, using mass organizations at a large scale. The new means of manufacturing consent are not in this character. Rather than acting directly on mass groups using mass organizations, they operate by directly targeting individuals and niche groups leveraging algorithms and digital means. It's different paradigm: mass vs niche, mass media vs targeted media, mass psychology vs individual psychological profiling, large bureaucratic organizations vs smaller technologically enabled teams, the management of people vs the management of algorithms. It's two different approaches to power, and hence, two different elite groups. And when you have two different elite groups, you have conflict. It's a new world, a revolution in the making.
  - Apocryphon 5y ago
    Atomized power.

4 ms·

Cambridge Analytica style targeted political messaging, and retailoring of political formulae to personality/moral-foundations/IQ profiles, in order to create c

by Gollapalli 5y ago

engineer_22 5y ago
no different than it used to be, just more sophisticated.
- Gollapalli 5y ago
  I think there is a qualitative difference. Previous means of influencing politics involved NGO's and political parties actively working different demographics in order to get them to vote in the organization's interest. These organizations may loosely be considered managerial bureaucracies, whether they are labor unions, or activist NGO's, or political parties. Even large scale media campaigns conducted via mass psychology are essentially managerial or bureaucratic in nature, using mass organizations at a large scale. The new means of manufacturing consent are not in this character. Rather than acting directly on mass groups using mass organizations, they operate by directly targeting individuals and niche groups leveraging algorithms and digital means. It's different paradigm: mass vs niche, mass media vs targeted media, mass psychology vs individual psychological profiling, large bureaucratic organizations vs smaller technologically enabled teams, the management of people vs the management of algorithms. It's two different approaches to power, and hence, two different elite groups. And when you have two different elite groups, you have conflict. It's a new world, a revolution in the making.
  - Apocryphon 5y ago
    Atomized power.