The problem I have with this realisation, is that this kind of behaviour sets a precedent for 'acceptability' for all groups and individuals on lower rungs than government - which is everyone. No wonder governments have trouble legislating against bad corporate behaviour, because they have done, and likely are in the midst of doing, shady shit themselves of a greater scale. I feel I'm exposing a level of my own naivete, but I'm trying to convey the path from government 'bad-ness' to the current level of social and civil mistrust in government and also inward looking perspectives on any and all actions (ie. what's in it for me, fuck y'all) that's encouraged by every exposure of such government-approved actions.
You, Government, with all your power, cannot judge me, as a powerless individual member of the proletariat, as guilty and punishable for any crime lesser than that which you yourself has actively participated in and considered acceptable. The wind blows unhindered through your glass house.
I think it can be done if the country is small enough and the government itself is small enough. Even if such states do end up meddling in the affairs of neighbors they won't be able to concentrate as much wealth into these actions as larger countries can.
I'm also permanently intrigued as to whether it's possible to succeed as a government without being evil. The good of the many at the expense of the few means being evil to 'the few'. Hard decisions have to be made, and when they're made they need to be committed too lest inviting insanity from constant second-guessing.
Tough gig either way, but the setting of behavioural precedents for "your people" should be of utmost consideration.
It was just as bad before this
With WWI, how did the european powers manage to convince their civilians to go die in the trenches fighting a meaningless war? Or Vietnam in the US
The saying "if everyone jumped off the bridge..." is funny, because people will say it and forget what it means the moment everyone around them starts jumping off the bridge
In ancient Rome everyone in the elite had to serve a few years as an officer in a legion.
Surprisingly enough, the top US income quartile enlists at a higher rate than the bottom income quartile. There's a big list of things that disqualify recruits, not having basic literacy, no recent prison time, no high school dropouts, obesity standards, mental health standards, no marijuanas use, no children...
As for wall Street and conscription - they would find a way to get their sons out of this trouble I am sure.
But who conscripted them and dragged them off to war? Was it the politicians who decided to go to war? The "convincing" isn't necessary once it's reached critical mass
There were exemptions but it still seems a cruel form of gambling in a way.
There was a military draft in WW I:
>...By the end of World War I, some two million men volunteered for various branches of the armed services, and some 2.8 million had been drafted.
"It's a long way to tipperary"
Different medium, same outcome. Also a lot of yellow journalism.
CA 'scandal' was vastly misrepresented by most in the press, it was a bit of a problem, but completely over stated.
I worked at a company that received 'special access APIs' from Facebook (something indicated during this scandal) and it was not only benign but the mechanics were misrepresented.
That said - it's reasonable to wonder 'What Is Happening Now?'
Another question is ... is it rational and/or moral? That's a more difficult question to contemplate for younger people I think, who have less exposure to the mechanics of the world, which are materially relevant. My view on that has evolved so much over time, it's so hard to say.
CA abused the friend-of-a-friend feature of FB's API to create detailed profiles of millions of voters, which they then used to micro-target them with ads. Advertisers are quite aware of the psychological effect of ads, and their ability to influence decision making, even on a subconscious level. It's pretty clear, then, how this would be useful for pushing propaganda, and swaying voters one way or another.
The 2020 leaks[1] show that they've done this in 68 countries. Whether or not they were entirely responsible for election results is debatable, but you can't possibly call this "a bit of a problem" and "completely over stated".
This is a very real and dangerous weaponization of social media, and it's not difficult to see how it's a natural progression of propaganda efforts from past decades. It would be naive to think that CA was the only and last firm operating in this business. They're just the ones we happened to hear about.
> Another question is ... is it rational and/or moral?
How is that even a question? There's nothing moral about getting paid by politicians to manipulate voters into voting for them. It's the modern equivalent of outright buying votes. If you don't see how that undermines democracies[2], then we have completely different worldviews.
[1]: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jan/04/cambridge-an...
[2]: https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2020/08/kreps-social-media-...
The 'harm' caused by such information gathering, were it effective, is marginal.
So yes, we don't want people abusing people's APIs, but it's almost a nothing burger that people could 'target a few ads'.
More relevant to CA's case - their capabilities were rubbish. They completely overstated their ability to target people and to influence them.
This is the 'running scam' of the entire advertising, agency, ad-buying and consulting industry. Their claims were ridiculous.
All of that combined means that this was not some scary thing for civilization, the effects were marginal, and even then 'ad targeting' itself is not even a bad thing.
It's not 'harmful' that Toyota was able to get their ads in front of a few more truck buyers. More like 'annoying'.
'The Guardian' is a primary source for borderline fabrication at least to the extent that they vastly overstate both the kinds of abuse in the situation, and the power of the information garnered. In this case, misinformation by The Guardian is as bad as the case they are following.
"There's nothing moral about getting paid by politicians to manipulate voters into voting for them."
What Campus Bubble do you live in?
So you want to ban all public communications by 'Politicians'?
Are signs 'evil'? 'Pamplets'? 'TV Spots'? 'Radio spots'?
Did that 'pamphlet' you receive make you vote for ABC politician, and therefore the 50 cost of that was tantamount to 'vote buying'.
Does the same apply to industry? The iPhone ad should be illegal?
Please.
Ironically - targeted advertising is, on the whole, probably better for everyone than not. There is too much information out there, and we need better ways to access it. 'Targeting' is a form of market clearing, it's a form of efficiency.
The dynamics of it are screwed up in that some are much better able to leverage the system than others, and I don't like that our privacy is abused in many cases, but on the whole it's not bad.
Very little reason to believe they aren't, for the most part, as bunglingly ineffectual as they were then, especially when it comes to efforts tied to intelligence services or people trying to sell a service, like CA.
Really? I thought there was plenty of reason. There has been lots of reporting on Russian troll farms and concentrated Russian efforts for Brexit, Donald Trump. There was also quite good reporting against the propaganda war in the Central African Republic between the French and Russian armies/intelligence services.
Now imagine the level of sophistication propagandists have reached with the internet, where merely running ad campaigns on social media has the power to influence millions and directly control politics on a global scale.
Cambridge Analytica was merely the tip of the iceberg. It's scary to think about the magnitude of the operations we don't hear about.