Does it not bother you that David Cameron's first press officer was Murdoch-stooge Andy Coulson, who had already resigned as Editor as News of the World, and who was subsequently imprisoned for his role in phone hacking?
We're talking about someone who would attempt to hack the phone of anyone with a public profile - including politicians - and who was then employed to run the official government press office.
Meanwhile Rupert Murdoch's attitude to Europe is public knowledge:
https://www.indy100.com/article/this-terrifying-rupert-murdo...
So. It's not shadowy at all. It's not mysterious. No joining of dots is needed.
It's completely overt and out in the open. And it should never have been allowed this level of influence over British politics without being challenged.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/david-camerons-ex-staff...
How does this conspiracy theory even work? That Cameron's staff were secretly trying to lose whilst they were out campaigning to win? Because of an ex-employer?
That's not just illogical, it's completely incoherent. Think about what you're trying to argue there for a moment.
And that quote has always just been a standard issue made up internet quote. Murdoch was literally in the Guardian letter pages denying he ever said such a thing. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/dec/19/rupert-murdoch...
And why would he say it? "When I go into Downing Street they do as I say" would be a bizarre utterance from a newspaper editor.
My preference is strongly however to attempt to understand (and have visibility over) the factors that are influencing people rather than retreat behind a veil of 'we can't possibly understand it' ignorance.
I would hope that a branding specialist would have no trouble understanding the Brexit result. It doesn't require deep analysis. Remain mounted a campaign that was defeatist and based on fear: "ok, our attempt to negotiate resulted in nothing at all, but we must still remain and obey Brussels because if we don't our friends and allies will destroy our economy."
As a logical consequence, they were effectively arguing that there was no future for British democracy, because the trend over time has always been for the EU to take more powers out of the hands of democratic local government and take it for itself.
That's a terrible brand. Leave campaigned on a better future with "take back control" as their byline.
You don't need conspiracy theories about corporations with mind-control machines to explain what happened next.
I think this alone serves to demonstrate 1) your assertion about what caused the Brexit vote is a gross oversimplification 2) Why many people still won't accept the result.
No it's not. Can you show that with any sort of data at all? Or do you define "a lot" as simply "more than a few"?
The Remain obsession with a single bus is really sad. There's no evidence that this was a major factor in the vote. Immigration and sovereignty were the top two issues as shown by repeated polls, vox pops, the views of campaigners themselves, etc.
It's an especially weak point to bring up because it appears to have been wrong in the wrong direction: nobody campaigning for the EU mentioned an £80 billion exit fee, and if that had been known about or incorporated, the true cost of membership would have been much higher, perhaps more like £500 million a week.
Additionally there were lots of lies told by the Remain campaign that were far more impactful and serious. For example, Cameron saying he'd stay on to negotiate with the EU in the case of an out vote (despite having failed to achieve anything before), which turned out to be a colossal lie. And a very important one because it made Osborne's threat of a "punishment budget" credible. Yet he resigned immediately, clearly he didn't decide that on the spot, he knew he wouldn't continue if he lost the vote.
If that was true then Cambridge Analytica would not make any money. The fact that Cambridge, and facebook, make money, and a ton of it, can make you relatively certain that they can influence people.
That said, plenty of firms make money despite not actually doing as they purport to do. Perhaps Cambridge Analytica and Facebook and the like simply have yet to be exposed as charlatans.
Nobody upthread has disagreed with you on that. So why are you arguing?
Cambridge Analytica might just make money by convincing fools that they have some secret insight or power, when they actually don't. Psychics and mediums have in the past made a ton of money, as did quack doctors. Coca-Cola started out as a quack cure-all and it still makes a ton of money today.
The basic narrative you're pursuing here is one that has cropped up a lot in the past 18 months: voters are, by and large, easily manipulated putty who don't have real reasons or analysis behind their decisions. Instead they simply do whatever shadowy Russian conspirators make them do through subtle manipulation of Facebook, the press, or whatever.
Simple, obvious explanations for what's happening in politics are staring us all straight in the face. Occam's Razor guys ... there is no need to go full chemtrails and pin responsibility on some invisible evidence-free conspiracy of random firms, people and countries. Just assume voters are on average, of average intelligence, and thus probably have reasonably straightforward reasons for doing what they do.