[Closed] Big data, 1984 and voter manipulation

Who owns the UK media, what is there agenda, ask yourself why they report the news they do.

As for the Data mining not surprised in the least, very very pissed off though. No one will go to jail for fraud, electoral malpractice etc. The general population will be shafted politics will fall further into contempt, etc.

I suspect Chewkw of this very forum to be a part of this 🙂

Makes you think, though... 😉

I don't buy it, essentially trying to reason off people why large swathes of society are gullible fools. You can show me as much advertising as you like, it's still my responsibility if i act on it.

Big bad facebook(progam on bbc the now btw), nah, engage yer brain.

I don't buy it, essentially trying to reason off people why large swathes of society are gullible fools. You can show me as much advertising as you like, it's still my responsibility if i act on it.

Right wing millionaires invest in data mining/analytics companies to target and filter potential manuipulatable voters and, eventually, get their own way.

Christ - its almost like these bastard tories think winning elections is important

I am assuming that data mining and analytics is something that left wing parties are legally banned from doing? I mean, Unite gave the Labour Party £19 million in the last parliament. plus all the donations and free office space to Momentum in order to get Corbyn elected.

Imagine if they actually started spending some of it on trying to win elections instead!

Chewkw is clearly a remainer bot created to produce such an outrageously pro-brexit stance that even brexiters look in the mirror and think "that's not me".

a lot of sub-chimp arseholes

You'd better hope none of them have African grandparents, Kelvin. 😉

This type of thing seems a lot more Brave New World-ish than Orwellian

You'd better hope none of them have African grandparents.

It's what the article is about, based on a couple of high profile examples. Nobody said the left don't do it.

If you read the article seosamh77 they talk about the ability to specifically target people who are easy to influence, and this is based on incredibly robust data. It might not be you, but if they can sway even a couple of percent of the population then it can easily be a deciding factor in an election.

The article claims that the companies involved were birthed from a combination of the ability to access Facebook's huge data stores and application via military manipulation techniques. There's a quote near the start that absolutely terrifies me:

“Totally. That’s what it is. Psyops. Psychological operations – the same methods the military use to effect mass sentiment change. It’s what they mean by winning ‘hearts and minds’. We were just doing it to win elections in the kind of developing countries that don’t have many rules.”

inflamma tory

Clever...! 🙂

fourbanger - Member
I suspect Chewkw of this very forum to be a part of this

Edukator - Reformed Troll
Chewkw is clearly a remainer bot created to produce such an outrageously pro-brexit stance that even brexiters look in the mirror and think "that's not me".

This type of thing seems a lot more Brave New World-ish than Orwellian

Combination I guess, surveillance and ignorant bliss in one cosy package 😀

As someone once said: it’s Orwell when it’s accurate and Kafka when it’s not.

Further reading for you all....

[url= https://medium.com/privacy-international/cambridge-analytica-explained-data-and-elections-6d4e06549491 ]So profiling is widespread. But did Cambridge Analytica influence the Brexit vote and the US election?
This is my favourite question because the answer is so simple: this is very unlikely.[/url]
From Privacy International.

If there's anything politicians have learned in recent years it's that lying through your teeth will win you votes from the great unwashed. And the great unwashed have exactly the same power as the minority who realise you're lying: one vote.

Using profiling to micro-target, manipulate, and persuade individuals is still dangerous and a threat to democracy. The entire point of building intimate profiles of individuals, including their interests, personalities, and emotions, is to change the way that people behave. This is the definition of marketing?—?political or commercial. When companies know that you are depressed or feeling lonely to sell you products you otherwise wouldn’t want, political campaigns and lobbyists around the world can do the same: target the vulnerable, and manipulate the masses.

. And the great unwashed have exactly the same power as the minority who realise you're lying: one vote

Your alternative system is?

How do you reconcile yourself with the fact that half of the electorate are of less than average intelligence?

And of course the fact that everyone who wants to influence are scrambling to use these "successful" companies who have "happened" to be disclosed as being good to influence the electorate in two first world countries

That's a good link CFH, slightly less sensationalist.

The alternative: educate the population and prosecute/bill the press/media for each barefaced lie transmitted. Politicians would also be forced to retract each lie or face prosecution. Same media, same space for corrections as lies.

Trump would have spent his time retracting the false statements he made.

I don't buy it, essentially trying to reason off people why large swathes of society are gullible fools.

You can see early variants of it in the new labour targeting of "mondeo man" and Obamas campaign. As more data becomes available people will be able to be targeted more precisely and sold the relevant lines.
Problem with that is any pretence of coming up with coherent policies beyond "strong and sun" disappears and all the effort is put into keeping the donors who pay for the campaigns happy.
Or you end up with an increasing number of people who feel disenfranchised since they are mostly ignored for the swing vote.

Who owns the UK media, what is there agenda, ask yourself why they report the news they do.

Thing is that the media use really vague terms such as 'might' 'could ' and' likely' and 'let's'.

Which gives them licence to basically say anything they want, they are not lying per se, but they frame it as fact to people who can't nessesarily make the distinction between conjecture and statement of fact.
It's very bad form as it's basically taking advantage of the less intelligent, one [i]could [/i] say it's abuse.

Exhibit A: the NHS Bus in the leave campaign.

That's why I can't read news papers any more, often you can't get past the opening sentence with out reading a 'get out of a libel case' word.

Thing is it a fundamental level how is it different from getting to know your locals electorate and persuading them you are the person / party for the job?

also you are subject to this kind of persuasion via big data everyday. Tesco have a huge dataset on most of the UK through their club card, but it didn't stop people going elsewhere to shop.

I don't buy it, essentially trying to reason off people why large swathes of society are gullible fools.

I'm not sure that's the case. Most people aren't 'duped' as such by this stuff. Most people vote the way they always vote, because of existing beliefs. Anything and everything you tell them will simply be re-interpreted or twisted to confirm what they already think.

The number of people who can be convinced is pretty small. And it could be considered a good thing that they can be convinced. After all, isn't that just listening to and understanding someone's point of view?

If tesco wants to farm my data, they can be open and honest about it and make me a cash offer.

2p off a tin of spam isn't good enough.

I don't do loyalty cards, if you hadn't guessed.

I don't think it's tin hatty at all. It's quite clear those with money to spend wish to influence the voting of us prolls in order to get the government they desire and can influence for their own ends.

People are easily manipulated.

Big business is not paying huge amounts of money to these companies because it will make peoples lives better.

Yet another money manipulates/corrupts elections .... more whining from the losers I say.

^^^^

bot

Got any insight to add? Or just trolling as usual?

Your name is [i]probably[/i] skankhunt42 and I claim my £5.

more whining from the losers I say.

Objectivity isn't your strong point so I'm hardly surprised by your comment.

If you truly had a genuine interest in politics you'd find the article alarming.

The shoe could very easily be on the other foot - then who'd be whining?....

#truecolours

I don't think it's tin hatty at all. It's quite clear those with money to spend wish to influence the voting of us prolls in order to get the government they desire and can influence for their own ends.

Indeed.

To ignore the implications is to truly act like an ostrich:

Most people vote the way they always vote, because of existing beliefs. Anything and everything you tell them will simply be re-interpreted or twisted to confirm what they already think.

Yesterday most French voters voted for a party that didn't even exit on 5/4/2016.

My God, it's even worse than I thought... he could be Theresa May! Ostrich extraordinaire!

Of course I'm referring to the withered and gangly legs of the bird that has a habit of burying it's head in the sand, and not our glorious leader. Just for clarity.

Thing is that the media use really vague terms such as 'might' 'could ' and' likely' and 'let's'.

Which gives them licence to basically say anything they want, they are not lying per se, but they frame it as fact to people who can't nessesarily make the distinction between conjecture and statement of fact.
It's very bad form as it's basically taking advantage of the less intelligent, one could say it's abuse.

Exhibit A: the NHS Bus in the leave campaign.

That's why I can't read news papers any more, often you can't get past the opening sentence with out reading a 'get out of a libel case' word.

Its not like non specific, impossible to measure promises are new though:

[img] [/img]

edited, I thought it was probably unfair dragging Blair into it, but originally posted up blairs '97 pledge card with clear, measurable pledges, then the 2005 one with impossible to measure ones)

Yet another money manipulates/corrupts elections .... more whining from the losers I say.

Its not like thats nw though - Remember the Labour party Pledge cards?

Yeah I wouldn't vote labour either for the reasons cited.

I'm going to have to vote liberal democrat. They are the only party I feel I can vote for.

Voter apathy is a big factor as well I'd say.

Convincing someone not to bother ding something is easier than trying to sway any political beliefs.

The idea of voting for the winning "side" or that voting for the "outsider" is a lost vote makes a mockery of policy.

Turnout has been so poor in most votes that it cannot really be called a democratic process.

If voting was mandatory the results are likely to be very different.

I'd certainly support mandatory voting. Would need a "none of the above" option, however.

It could but that can bring its own problems too, forcing a person to vote is fundamentally undemocratic, and unethical.

And it opens up the prospect of people buying or bullying votes, it's a bit of a can of worms.

'non of the above ' or a spoilt vote could be options, but the snoopers charter is now law, so you you could be labled a dissident, or enemy of the people for doing that.

you are forced to pay taxes to finance things you may disagree with so I fail to see why forcing people to vote should be a problem 😉

I've edited my post above to clarify.