ChatterBank4 mins ago
Cambridge Analytica And Brexit
Cambridge Analytica find themselves all over the news pages this morning for all the wrong reasons. A warrant has been issued to investigate their records
http://
Dodgy firm were hired by Leave.eu diring the run up to the EU referendum. The money went through a third party, a fashion student, to hide the money trail.
A donation of £625,000 from Leave.eu to a fashion student, Darren Grimes, who then funneled the money to Cambridge Analytica (which paid for their dodgy work.
// Cambridge Analytica had worked for Leave.eu, he said. It had taught them how to build profiles, how to target people and how to scoop up masses of data from people’s Facebook profiles. A video on YouTube shows one of Cambridge Analytica’s and SCL’s employees, Brittany Kaiser, sitting on the panel at Leave.EU’s launch event.
Facebook was the key to the entire campaign, Wigmore explained. A Facebook ‘like’, he said, was their most “potent weapon”. “Because using artificial intelligence, as we did, tells you all sorts of things about that individual and how to convince them with what sort of advert. And you knew there would also be other people in their network who liked what they liked, so you could spread. And then you follow them. The computer never stops learning and it never stops monitoring.” //
Pretty damning stuff?
http://
Dodgy firm were hired by Leave.eu diring the run up to the EU referendum. The money went through a third party, a fashion student, to hide the money trail.
A donation of £625,000 from Leave.eu to a fashion student, Darren Grimes, who then funneled the money to Cambridge Analytica (which paid for their dodgy work.
// Cambridge Analytica had worked for Leave.eu, he said. It had taught them how to build profiles, how to target people and how to scoop up masses of data from people’s Facebook profiles. A video on YouTube shows one of Cambridge Analytica’s and SCL’s employees, Brittany Kaiser, sitting on the panel at Leave.EU’s launch event.
Facebook was the key to the entire campaign, Wigmore explained. A Facebook ‘like’, he said, was their most “potent weapon”. “Because using artificial intelligence, as we did, tells you all sorts of things about that individual and how to convince them with what sort of advert. And you knew there would also be other people in their network who liked what they liked, so you could spread. And then you follow them. The computer never stops learning and it never stops monitoring.” //
Pretty damning stuff?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Gromit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I'm glad this has happened.
Information is harvested from all over the web - facebook twitter, and almost certainly this one - to construct "digital profiles" of their users. What kind of language they use, what kind of things they respond to (hint: angry stuff gets more clicks) is all used to make profiles of people and how to reach them. This is why you now need to be doubly careful whenever you feel a politician or public figure is "speaking your language" or "talking sense." This is exactly the kind of response they are trying to farm and there is not-insignificant chance you are being manipulated.
I do hope, however, that people realise that this is a bigger issue than just one company and is a serious problem with modern election campaigns. It is an effective means of manipulating the public that is extremy difficult to counter.
Information is harvested from all over the web - facebook twitter, and almost certainly this one - to construct "digital profiles" of their users. What kind of language they use, what kind of things they respond to (hint: angry stuff gets more clicks) is all used to make profiles of people and how to reach them. This is why you now need to be doubly careful whenever you feel a politician or public figure is "speaking your language" or "talking sense." This is exactly the kind of response they are trying to farm and there is not-insignificant chance you are being manipulated.
I do hope, however, that people realise that this is a bigger issue than just one company and is a serious problem with modern election campaigns. It is an effective means of manipulating the public that is extremy difficult to counter.
You'd have to be mad not to realise this about social media though, and people do it themselves on a much smaller scale. I monitor what people on my friends list like and share and if it's not in accordance with my own beliefs in an extreme way I delete them, so I've been shocked to find a couple of racists a few homophobes and a couple of just nasty gits on my friends list and that enabled me to dispatch them. If I want to promote something, I can spread it within a day, anyone can, why is this some great shock horror suddenly, both sides were doing this, because it made sense to.
This case highlights the fact that the information commissioner is toothless
It has to apply for a warrant to search cambridge analytica
In the meantime the company has valuable to clean any trail there might be , with respect to the allegation
It's like the police phoning up a suspect to say we are coming soon to search your house - make sure you're in on the 25th
It has to apply for a warrant to search cambridge analytica
In the meantime the company has valuable to clean any trail there might be , with respect to the allegation
It's like the police phoning up a suspect to say we are coming soon to search your house - make sure you're in on the 25th
It's not a good idea to frame this in terms along the lines of "Cambridge Analytica gave us Brexit", and I'd suggest that TTT is making this point deliberately to try and paint complaints over CA as coming from "sore losers". If you aren't, I apologise, but that's kind of what it looked like at first glance.
We can have all sorts of fun thinking about what would happen if it were true, but in the end it still kind of ignores the fact -- as I'm sure TTT himself would enjoy pointing out -- that the referendum was still a democratic exercise, and that the electorate are ultimately accountable for the way they voted. Trying a new variation of the "people didn't know what they were voting for" argument shouldn't be in itself enough to overturn the result. Not now that the government has decided to honour it.
The CA story is not about the consequences -- it's about the methods.
We can have all sorts of fun thinking about what would happen if it were true, but in the end it still kind of ignores the fact -- as I'm sure TTT himself would enjoy pointing out -- that the referendum was still a democratic exercise, and that the electorate are ultimately accountable for the way they voted. Trying a new variation of the "people didn't know what they were voting for" argument shouldn't be in itself enough to overturn the result. Not now that the government has decided to honour it.
The CA story is not about the consequences -- it's about the methods.
It probably did affect the outcome, yes. Whether it accounts for the 4% swing to Leave is unanswerable.
I don't think any of that means the referendum should be ignored. Dirty tricks are nothing new - we can't re-run every vote in which shady groups operate like this. All we can do is try to limit their success by encouraging the public to be responsible and critical about how they get their information. This is a very, very sophisticated new form of voter manipulation which can be countered relatively easily by making people aware of digital profiling, micro-targeting and when they are likely being affected by it.
I don't think any of that means the referendum should be ignored. Dirty tricks are nothing new - we can't re-run every vote in which shady groups operate like this. All we can do is try to limit their success by encouraging the public to be responsible and critical about how they get their information. This is a very, very sophisticated new form of voter manipulation which can be countered relatively easily by making people aware of digital profiling, micro-targeting and when they are likely being affected by it.
// It's like the police phoning up a suspect to say we are coming soon to search your house - make sure you're in on the 25th//
or the police saying when they are asked if they are doing anything about two Russians being poisoned in a park, replying - we are not sure if any crime has been committed (that was on the Tuesday following the Sunday event). Lightening reflexes our leaders and master have - they do.
anyway .....
cambridge analytica - that is more like .....Cambridge Analyti-kaka
the data protection act now undergoing changes as a result of those beloved EU dictats
can give order and find things
( " we find s.21 complaint upheld and direct an answer within 30 d)
bbut the act says that if they dont - - - the ICO has to go to court and get a judge to smack his gavel ....
This last occurred for the first time apparently with the black list case - black listing troublesome building workers. In that case the warrant was applied for secretly ( as it normally is)
we await events - it may be to check that they have deleted the 15m persons data.....
or the police saying when they are asked if they are doing anything about two Russians being poisoned in a park, replying - we are not sure if any crime has been committed (that was on the Tuesday following the Sunday event). Lightening reflexes our leaders and master have - they do.
anyway .....
cambridge analytica - that is more like .....Cambridge Analyti-kaka
the data protection act now undergoing changes as a result of those beloved EU dictats
can give order and find things
( " we find s.21 complaint upheld and direct an answer within 30 d)
bbut the act says that if they dont - - - the ICO has to go to court and get a judge to smack his gavel ....
This last occurred for the first time apparently with the black list case - black listing troublesome building workers. In that case the warrant was applied for secretly ( as it normally is)
we await events - it may be to check that they have deleted the 15m persons data.....
To me this story confirms that there are some very sinister "undemocratic" forces at work generally, that voters are even less knowledgeable than previously suggested and that the idea of the will of the public is a product with a price tag.
Mr.Nix gave a talk at an international conference in 2017, explaining what they can do and actually do in the way of entering and shaping opinions. I have seen a story of a reporter who attended the conference, wrote a piece on it and asked whether the next Bond film villain (referring to Mr.Nix) had stepped into the light.
Mr.Nix gave a talk at an international conference in 2017, explaining what they can do and actually do in the way of entering and shaping opinions. I have seen a story of a reporter who attended the conference, wrote a piece on it and asked whether the next Bond film villain (referring to Mr.Nix) had stepped into the light.
Surely it's like any other type marketing. You're just being sold a political product rather than a soap powder. Why is everyone so surprised? If something's been done to contravene the Data Protection laws then prosecutions need to happen.
http://
http://
As I understand it the basic principle is precisely-targeted advertising. So this means to me that CA identified people who were already likely to vote Brexit, or at least susceptible to the idea, and then helped to "push them over the edge", so to speak.
Like I was trying to say earlier, the point isn't to try and blame the result on an outside influence -- or at least shouldn't be -- but to emphasise that such influences exist and are getting increasingly sophisticated (and, perhaps, sinister) in their methods. Separately, perhaps it can help to highlight that no matter how free-thinking we *think* we are, there's still the problem that we can only think "freely" based on the information we are exposed to, or choose to expose ourselves to, and perhaps we all need to be aware where that information is coming from. This isn't a problem for one side or another in particular, either.
Like I was trying to say earlier, the point isn't to try and blame the result on an outside influence -- or at least shouldn't be -- but to emphasise that such influences exist and are getting increasingly sophisticated (and, perhaps, sinister) in their methods. Separately, perhaps it can help to highlight that no matter how free-thinking we *think* we are, there's still the problem that we can only think "freely" based on the information we are exposed to, or choose to expose ourselves to, and perhaps we all need to be aware where that information is coming from. This isn't a problem for one side or another in particular, either.
//Moral of the Story; dont use twitface or any other social media platform to display the intimate details of your life.//
Have you used the e-mail address you registered on here with for anything else?
Remember that anything you post on AB is public domain. So chances are that your posts on here - in addition to anything else which is public-facing and associated with that e-mail address - will be part of a digital profile of you that exists somewhere. If you have ever noticed that adverts on AB seem unusually relevant to you, this is certainly what has happened.
So the "moral of the story" (if there is one), is "don't exist on the internet or participate in modern society." Which would be a rather silly take-home.
Have you used the e-mail address you registered on here with for anything else?
Remember that anything you post on AB is public domain. So chances are that your posts on here - in addition to anything else which is public-facing and associated with that e-mail address - will be part of a digital profile of you that exists somewhere. If you have ever noticed that adverts on AB seem unusually relevant to you, this is certainly what has happened.
So the "moral of the story" (if there is one), is "don't exist on the internet or participate in modern society." Which would be a rather silly take-home.
“Because using artificial intelligence, as we did, tells you all sorts of things about that individual and how to convince them with what sort of advert. And you knew there would also be other people in their network who liked what they liked, so you could spread. And then you follow them. The computer never stops learning and it never stops monitoring.” //
Pretty damning stuff?
No not really. Simply a demonstration of the astonishing simple-mindedness of people who conduct their lives according to "Likes" on Facebook. If they are so easily manipulated by advertisng they deserve all they get.
Pretty damning stuff?
No not really. Simply a demonstration of the astonishing simple-mindedness of people who conduct their lives according to "Likes" on Facebook. If they are so easily manipulated by advertisng they deserve all they get.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.