View Full Version : Voter manipulation techniques
There is nothing simple about planned voter manipulation but it needs to be discussed
Voters need to be alert regardless of which country is voting for its leaders. I had heard rumours that such voter manipulation was possible but this is confirmation in terms that I understand better what is meant. Another reason for watching what you post online.
Source: http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/cambridge-analytica-facebook-review-data-users-1.4581847
Quotes:
"A Canadian data analytics expert says he wanted to expose a "problematic" invasion of privacy when he sounded the alarm and alleged a data company he helped found misused personal information from millions of Facebook users while working for Donald Trump's 2016 U.S. presidential campaign.
In an interview with The National's Adrienne Arsenault, Christopher Wylie said he was tasked with "psychological profiling" while working at Cambridge Analytica and was able to pull data from users through apps that required the use of Facebook.
"They would fill out psychological surveys and then that app would then go and pull all of of their Facebook data," said the 28-year-old from B.C.
Day 6
The data mining firm that helped elect Trump has built psychological profiles of nearly every American voter
LISTEN 00:00 09:07 [follow the CBC link above to hear this].
"From that, we were able to make inferences or predictions about people who we haven't yet spoken to," Wylie added.
"It allowed us to profile upwards of 50 million Americans over a span of a couple of months and understand not only their personality traits but how they think... and what exactly we need to do in order to pick at certain mental or emotional vulnerabilities so that those people would behave in a particular way that was conducive to [Trump campaign chief executive] Steve Bannon's objective."
Wylie said he decided to go the press with his story — first reported by The New York Times and The Observer of London — after seeing Trump become president and the rise of the alt-right.
"It really made me reflect on the impact that Cambridge Analytica has had," he said.
"I reflected on it... I said to myself that I need to speak out now because I have seen the impact that this company has had and I think people should know about how it works."
Data mining firm behind Trump election built psychological profiles of nearly every American voter
Wylie also said the company's practices were unethical and needed to be called out.
"I think that the algorithms that they have built... using that private data they acquired without consent, is problematic."
Facebook said a Cambridge University psychology professor had lied to the company and violated its policies by passing data to Cambridge Analytica from an app he had developed. It suspended the firm from Facebook.
'I am accepting my share of the responsibility'
Wylie said that it's "intimidating" to speak out, but believes it was the right thing to do..."
This is called "Big Data" and it's nothing new to me, making my living in market research.
Sounds like Cambridge Analytica earned their pay.
Should data-collectors be held to different standards if they are looking at voters vs consumers who are marketed to with the same type of data mining techniques? If I were running a political campaign, I would expect this level of research.
Now if Russia is paying for it or managing it, that's a different story, but if it's just data collection--why do you think people are flocking to shiplap or Patagonia or H&M? I know you guys don't believe me, but it's all in that cbc report. They profile us and then market to us in a way that hits our "hot buttons." That's Marketing 101.
In fact, I'm doing it right now--writing a report to advise my clients on behavioral and psychological profiles of people more likely to spend a lot of money on therapies with unique delivery systems (I'd be more specific, but it's confidential). But we didn't go to Facebook, so..
Andy Sachs: You know, it's just that both those belts look exactly the same to me. You know, I'm still learning about all this stuff and, uh...
Miranda Priestly: 'This... stuff'? Oh. Okay. I see. You think this has nothing to do with you. You go to your closet and you select... I don't know... that lumpy blue sweater, for instance because you're trying to tell the world that you take yourself too seriously to care about what you put on your back. But what you don't know is that that sweater is not just blue, it's not turquoise. It's not lapis. It's actually cerulean. And you're also blithely unaware of the fact that in 2002, Oscar de la Renta did a collection of cerulean gowns. And then I think it was Yves Saint Laurent... wasn't it who showed cerulean military jackets? I think we need a jacket here. And then cerulean quickly showed up in the collections of eight different designers. And then it, uh, filtered down through the department stores and then trickled on down into some tragic Casual Corner where you, no doubt, fished it out of some clearance bin. However, that blue represents millions of dollars and countless jobs and it's sort of comical how you think that you've made a choice that exempts you from the fashion industry when, in fact, you're wearing the sweater that was selected for you by the people in this room from a pile of stuff.
ApatheticNoMore
3-19-18, 2:02pm
Should data-collectors be held to different standards if they are looking at voters vs consumers who are marketed to with the same type of data mining techniques?
yea it should probably be banned as should much else (money in campaigns etc), although maybe it should be banned for marketing as well, but I could be convinced either way there (I could certainly be convinced advertising itself should be banned). But definitely for political campaigns.
I think the voter weakness they took full advantage of has to do with the fact that both parties ran REALLY BAD CANDIDATES, so people were voting against as much as for, which tends to be more irrational (oh grrr I really hate that Trump/Hillary!!! I'm going to vote AGAINST him/her!!). Yea this is going to tend to be way more irrational than voting for an actual decent platform. But good luck with the parties admitting they ran bad candidates as they are in on it.
If we had decent candidates with decent platforms to vote for and ways to enforce that candidates would do what they say then the whole thing would work better and be less subject to manipulation to begin with. And yes a parliamentary system might also work better.
Now if Russia is paying for it or managing it, that's a different story, but if it's just data collection--why do you think people are flocking to shiplap or Patagonia or H&M?
well this is the first I've even heard of the existence of something called shitlap, I've never bought from Patagonia or S&M (yea they all sound pornish). I guess Patagonia is supposed to be green or at last greenwashed and that is the selling point? I guess I might buy from them if I was convinced it really was greener and more socially responsible or something.
The ONLY thing that matters about the color of the sweater is how it works with one's complexion. Some colors work with one's complexion and some don't, it's not always a perfect process unfortunately, it might look better at the store than home - I guess that's what returns are for, but one can have some idea what works to begin with and so know what clothes to even bother trying on and which not to, and then try it on.
The difference here is that our democracy is based on people making informed choices.
Catherine, you are not a political lobbyist visiting peoples' homes with info aimed at their individual hot buttons issues, knowledge obtained without their consent. The lobbyist then reports back to the lobbying central. The results would trigger further marketing efforts to promote a Brexit vote or a candidate for Prime Minister or legislation that impacts a nation. It can destroy a Europe or an Oriental peace agreement.
Bannon knows all about this.
I knew that TV advertisers do this all the time. It hires neuroscientists who research how to trigger certain attention from the viewers and then how to appeal to them. That is not visiting their homes in person armed to address one's hot buttons obtained by devious means without their consent.
iris lilies
3-19-18, 2:09pm
Damn that Trump for “scooping up all kinds of juicy facts” on online posters with his Facebook app. Just pure manipulative evil!
oh, wait. This cnn article seems to be praising that activity. And look who it is praising:
https://www.cnn.com/2011/10/09/tech/innovation/obama-data-crunching-election/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2011/10/09/tech/innovation/obama-data-crunching-election/index.html)
tl;dr cnn gives hgh fives to the Obama campaign for the same thing.
Damn that Trump for “scooping up all kinds of juicy facts” on online posters with his Facebook app. Just pure manipulative evil.
oh, wait. This article seems to be praising that activity. And look who it is praising:
https://www.cnn.com/2011/10/09/tech/innovation/obama-data-crunching-election/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2011/10/09/tech/innovation/obama-data-crunching-election/index.html)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5T6umD9Z8HA
The difference here is that our democracy is based on people making informed choices.
Catherine, you are not a political lobbyist visiting peoples' homes with info aimed at their individual hot buttons issues, knowledge obtained without their consent. The lobbyist then reports back to the lobbying central. The results would trigger further marketing efforts to promote a Brexit vote or a candidate for Prime Minister or legislation that impacts a nation. It can destroy a Europe or an Oriental peace agreement.
Bannon knows all about this.
I knew that TV advertisers do this all the time. It hires neuroscientists who research how to trigger certain attention from the viewers and then how to appeal to them. That is not visiting their homes in person armed to address one's hot buttons obtained by devious means without their consent.
Honestly, I know political vs consumer marketing seems like a devious misapplication of research techniques, but marketing a politician is really no different than buying that cerulean sweater. Every time a politician kisses a baby, that's hitting a hot button. It's just a lot more sophisticated now. People can track Facebook likes, and eavesdrop on social media. I'm not sure at which point it becomes excessive manipulation over and above the manipulation that takes place in our culture every second.
And ANM, I know that we here on this forum feel more disconnected from this kind of manipulation and it's one of the reasons I'm here. I know a lot of us aren't aware that shiplap is a product of HGTV (bless you!), and, yes, Patagonia is an example of getting people to spend money because they feel good that they are supporting a "green" company. My point is, we are all under the spell, and it's hard to break away. I think we should all adopt a 12-step philosophy: We admit that we are powerless over advertising." That's better than, "Not me. I'm not influenced by the culture" because if you believe that, you are in denial.
The ONLY thing that matters about the color of the sweater is how it works with one's complexion.
I beg to differ. https://qz.com/532322/pantone-universe-pop-culture/
Even my DD's boyfriend, a designer at Reebok, has the inside scoop on the color that YOU may be buying in 2019.
iris lilies
3-19-18, 2:41pm
I beg to differ. https://qz.com/532322/pantone-universe-pop-culture/
Even my DIL's boyfriend, a designer at Reebok, has the inside scoop on the color that YOU may be buying in 2019.
Your daughter in laws boyfriend? Wouldnt that be your son?
Ok, help me out, today I cannot decipher “DIL.” Fog brain i guess.
Your daughter in laws boyfriend? Wouldnt that be your son?
Ok, help me out, today I cannot decipher “DIL.” Fog brain i guess.
I claim the brain fog.
I meant my daughter's boyfriend! I edited my post.
I bet you did great on your SAT's, IL!
Interesting reading! I am naive about data-mining. I wasn't damning Trump but the impact of the process on political decision-making. I also now have a better understanding of the importance of a Bannon on managing an election effort.
Interesting observation in this article how the Republicans completely missed the data-mining boat against Obama's efforts. Did any of other Republican candidates use this data-mining process leading up to their election in 2016 or just Trump?
Damn that Trump for “scooping up all kinds of juicy facts” on online posters with his Facebook app. Just pure manipulative evil!
oh, wait. This cnn article seems to be praising that activity. And look who it is praising:
https://www.cnn.com/2011/10/09/tech/innovation/obama-data-crunching-election/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2011/10/09/tech/innovation/obama-data-crunching-election/index.html)
tl;dr cnn gives hgh fives to the Obama campaign for the same thing.
Williamsmith
3-19-18, 2:59pm
I am a founding member of the S.I.D.I.S. Our goal is to befuddle market researchers, short circuit psychological profiles and otherwise sow seeds of disappointment among would be voter manipulators. The Society Of Intentionally Deceptive Internet Surfers is looking for new members with the proclivity to change ones mind back and forth about political, religious and moral ideologies and are willing to surf the Internet randomly. We are an organized group of unorganized surfers whose mission is to derail any organized attempt at organizing our thought patterns.
Need more info on this devious group.
I am a founding member of the S.I.D.I.S. Our goal is to befuddle market researchers, short circuit psychological profiles and otherwise sow seeds of disappointment among would be voter manipulators. The Society Of Intentionally Deceptive Internet Surfers is looking for new members with the proclivity to change ones mind back and forth about political, religious and moral ideologies and are willing to surf the Internet randomly. We are an organized group of unorganized surfers whose mission is to derail any organized attempt at organizing our thought patterns.
I am a founding member of the S.I.D.I.S. Our goal is to befuddle market researchers, short circuit psychological profiles and otherwise sow seeds of disappointment among would be voter manipulators. The Society Of Intentionally Deceptive Internet Surfers is looking for new members with the proclivity to change ones mind back and forth about political, religious and moral ideologies and are willing to surf the Internet randomly. We are an organized group of unorganized surfers whose mission is to derail any organized attempt at organizing our thought patterns.
Well, as a card-carrying member of a market research group I shall not name, I'll just have to create the A.S.I.D.I.S (the ANTI-Society of Intentionally Deceptive Internet Surfers). NO ONE will impede my deceptive internet marketing techniques! a-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!!! [CUE VISUAL OF HANDLEBAR MUSTACHE TWIST].
iris lilies
3-19-18, 3:13pm
Need more info on this devious group.
I know! I want to join it! All 7 of me.
If someone peddles data they have no right to peddle, I would say they should be prosecuted for intellectual property theft.
If someone tries using publicly available data to better cater to my political biases or consumerist whims, I have no particular problem with that. I like being catered to. When Demosthenes harangued the folks in the agora, wasn't he trying to hit their hot buttons? Or when Amazon suggests a book based on books I've bought in the past?
If we are so far gone that Big Data Svengalis can control our minds, no amount of regulation will save us. The best we can hope for is to be programmed by benevolent overlords.
Williamsmith
3-19-18, 5:50pm
If someone peddles data they have no right to peddle, I would say they should be prosecuted for intellectual property theft.
If someone tries using publicly available data to better cater to my political biases or consumerist whims, I have no particular problem with that. I like being catered to. When Demosthenes harangued the folks in the agora, wasn't he trying to hit their hot buttons? Or when Amazon suggests a book based on books I've bought in the past?
If we are so far gone that Big Data Svengalis can control our minds, no amount of regulation will save us. The best we can hope for is to be programmed by benevolent overlords.
In my world, “benevolent overlords” is an oxymoron. I learned after the two jet airliners hit the twin towers....pretty much anything can be justified with the right amount of Svengalism.
In my world, “benevolent overlords” is an oxymoron. I learned after the two jet airliners hit the twin towers....pretty much anything can be justified with the right amount of Svengalism.
If you line your hat with tin foil Mark Zuckerberg can't steal your soul.
Williamsmith
3-19-18, 8:33pm
“You spend your days and nights on social media.
The original vision is that it was going to open up a new paradise where information was shared freely.
But now the alogorithms are so strong and know so much about you that they only give you what they know you like.
You have become trapped in an echo chamber. But all you see and hear is you.”
Living in an Unreal World - Adam Curtis
Chicken lady
3-19-18, 9:43pm
Where is my echo chamber? I want to be catered to! I end up wearing the 99 cent sweater from goodwill clearance because it is “good enough” and nobody ever selects a “shade of blue” I like.
every time I complain about nobody caring what I want, one of my kids informs me “you are not a demographic. There aren’t enough of you.”
iris lilies
3-19-18, 9:51pm
Where is my echo chamber? I want to be catered to! I end up wearing the 99 cent sweater from goodwill clearance because it is “good enough” and nobody ever selects a “shade of blue” I like.
every time I complain about nobody caring what I want, one of my kids informs me “you are not a demographic. There aren’t enough of you.”
Oh I agree, when are the marketers going to actually market to my interests and concerns? I ask this often because the ads and info that come to my FB newsfeed are clumsily touching on inyerests I had, but no longer. Briefly, ebay seemed to show up on my newsfeed and that could be useful because that is where I do a lot of browsing, but also those products are one of a kind so not useful for marketers.
When will they pick up on the fact that I am interested in toile decor now? Show me some great cottage-y toile rooms, dammit!
ApatheticNoMore
3-19-18, 10:04pm
Oh I don't have a FB account, don't do social media (oh have a linkedin but it is really just a mini resume). Still they could profile by IP etc..
I don't think anyone ever expected social media to open up a world of information sharing, that's what the internet itself was supposed to do. How well the internet does at this I don't know, but clearly you can research anything on it. But as for just happening on random things on the internet, it was much better in the past. But social media has always been kind of an underwhelming "there's no there there" evil stepchild child of the internet thing (but maybe was moderately more amusing once).
Chicken lady
3-20-18, 5:53am
All the ads on my iPad are for women’s underwear because a local department store sent me a sale flyer back in January and I googled to see if they had my bra on sale (no). This is actually a problem, because I am a teacher and if I pull up information on my iPad in class- like the weather report!, there are now often pictures of bras and panties all around the edges.
i need to google a bunch of topics that I want my students exposed to related ads like...?
Chicken lady
3-20-18, 5:57am
Oh, as for the random things - have you tried “add a word”? This is safer with a net nanny, but at school when my kids are looking for ideas, I let them google “pottery” plus any random word they think of. Sometime they even generate the random word by hitting a few letters on their keyboard and choosing from the suggested words.
I have revised WS's quote:
“You spend your days and nights on social media.
The original vision is that it was going to open up a new paradise where information was shared freely.
But now the alogorithms are so strong and know so much about you that they only give you [what their governing bodies want viewers to see, hear and know based on what they know you like.
You have become trapped in an echo chamber. But all you see and hear is you.”
Living in an Unreal World - Adam Curtis
Williamsmith
3-20-18, 8:09am
So if I could insert just a brief tangential issue.....the search engine two headed monster called google. And of course, YouTube is the second head. I am on a mission to see what life would be without both these “resources” and how does this change what “information and suggestions” I am fed back.
I have used the search engine Bing for news related information and it is the runner up to google. However, if privacy is contemplated then what? Here are some alternatives I have either known about and ignored or just recently discovered.
This article can describe them more concisely than I can...... What do you think about Yandex? It is the Russian equivalent to Google. Haha! And for a substitute for YouTube......Vimeo.
https://searchenginewatch.com/2016/02/25/say-goodbye-to-google-14-alternative-search-engines/
iris lilies
3-20-18, 10:11am
Interesting reading! I am naive about data-mining. I wasn't damning Trump but the impact of the process on political decision-making. I also now have a better understanding of the importance of a Bannon on managing an election effort.
Interesting observation in this article how the Republicans completely missed the data-mining boat against Obama's efforts. Did any of other Republican candidates use this data-mining process leading up to their election in 2016 or just Trump?
I would imagine that all candidates who can afford it use some form of data mining of social media.
I would imagine that all candidate who can afford it use some form to data minimum of social media.
The difference is that when Democrats do it, they’re cooed over like some Hogwarts teacher’s pet for their cleverness. When a Republican does it, he’s a dark lord practicing unholy arts.
Although I will admit Bannon and Trump seem like they could be cast as YA fictional villains.
Not quite accurate, Ldahl. The Democrats did not use personal information that was given for an entirely different purpose.
I was objecting because FB users had given their personal info to assist a stated research project at Cambridge University. That information was then sold. There is and was no form of informed consent from the FB users to that sale of said personal info to a marketing agency for political purposes. That is the 'dark' part of the whole business.
I don't care if it is a Democrat or Republican who does it but in this case the Republicans did.
I am not that opposed to the use of algorithms because these same technical features catch fraudulent use of my credit card about which I was notified within a couple of hours of the incident by the credit card company. I am so predictable in my shopping that it was not hard to catch the deviance. At least, that is my current understanding of the use of such technology
The difference is that when Democrats do it, they’re cooed over like some Hogwarts teacher’s pet for their cleverness. When a Republican does it, he’s a dark lord practicing unholy arts.
Although I will admit Bannon and Trump seem like they could be cast as YA fictional villains.
This adds confirmation to my concerns about lack of consent to use info.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/cambridge-analytica-ceo-suspension-1.4584748
The board of U.K.-based political consulting company Cambridge Analytica says it has suspended CEO Alexander Nix pending a full independent investigation of his actions amid a scandal over the handling of the personal data of millions of Facebook users.
The board cited comments Nix made to an undercover reporter for Britain's Channel 4 News and other allegations of wrongdoing in taking action against Nix on Tuesday.
The board said in an announcement posted on the data mining company's website that the suspension was effective immediately.
Channel 4 News broadcast secretly recorded clips on Tuesday that show Nix saying his data mining firm played a major role in securing Donald Trump's victory in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, including "all the data, all the analytics, all the targeting."
Nix also said Cambridge Analytica used emails set with a "self-destruct timer" during the Trump campaign to make its role more difficult to trace.
He said: "There's no evidence, there's no paper trail, there's nothing."
Can the Democrat's use of data-mining for Obama's election compare? Was it as secretive? Or is it simply a greater development of the technology?
Williamsmith
3-20-18, 5:34pm
How do you know what is really going on? Everything we are told about the world we live in is like a cartoon. The Chief characters politicians.
ApatheticNoMore
3-20-18, 6:17pm
Although still people probably asked to be used in a sense by using Facebook, which doesn't mean the manipulation is good for democracy.
Facebook has been known to run psychological mood manipulation experiments on people and this is not new. Ok here's a link: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/01/facebook-mood-study-government_n_5550555.html
See I'm not just talking out of my (tinfoil) hat really! So these are known things, and you know what you get when you lie down with Facebook.
Noone should really expect privacy on Facebook. But isn't that the same thing as people asking to be spied on by the NSA for using the internet? Well yes and no. The internet is a lot more basic to modern life (as are cell phones really) than Facebook. It's easy to choose not to be spied on by Facebook: don't use Facebook. It's a private company you don't have to buy the, I mean BE THE, product. But evading the NSA is a lot harder to do.
Williamsmith
3-20-18, 6:49pm
Although still people probably asked to be used in a sense by using Facebook, which doesn't mean the manipulation is good for democracy.
Facebook has been known to run psychological mood manipulation experiments on people and this is not new. Ok here's a link: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/01/facebook-mood-study-government_n_5550555.html
See I'm not just talking out of my (tinfoil) hat really! So these are known things, and you know what you get when you lie down with Facebook.
Noone should really expect privacy on Facebook. But isn't that the same thing as people asking to be spied on by the NSA for using the internet? Well yes and no. The internet is a lot more basic to modern life (as are cell phones really) than Facebook. It's easy to choose not to be spied on by Facebook: don't use Facebook. It's a private company you don't have to buy the, I mean BE THE, product. But evading the NSA is a lot harder to do.
Facebook’s Mission Statement: “Give people the power to build community and bring the world closer together.”
Mark Zuckerberg’s Mission: Make billions of dollars by exploiting people.
To whom much is given, much will be required.
iris lilies
3-20-18, 11:22pm
This adds confirmation to my concerns about lack of consent to use info.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/cambridge-analytica-ceo-suspension-1.4584748
The board of U.K.-based political consulting company Cambridge Analytica says it has suspended CEO Alexander Nix pending a full independent investigation of his actions amid a scandal over the handling of the personal data of millions of Facebook users.
The board cited comments Nix made to an undercover reporter for Britain's Channel 4 News and other allegations of wrongdoing in taking action against Nix on Tuesday.
The board said in an announcement posted on the data mining company's website that the suspension was effective immediately.
Channel 4 News broadcast secretly recorded clips on Tuesday that show Nix saying his data mining firm played a major role in securing Donald Trump's victory in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, including "all the data, all the analytics, all the targeting."
Nix also said Cambridge Analytica used emails set with a "self-destruct timer" during the Trump campaign to make its role more difficult to trace.
He said: "There's no evidence, there's no paper trail, there's nothing."
Can the Democrat's use of data-mining for Obama's election compare? Was it as secretive? Or is it simply a greater development of the technology?
The ousting of the company President is to appease stockholders and help their plunging stock.
I dont see anything sinister at all in Nix’s braggadoccio that his “ data mining firm played a major role in securing Donald Trump’s victory...” because that is what his company is supposed to do, assist the candidate in winning. Nix spouted other stuff about prostitutes and bribes etc that I dont understand in relation to Facebook data.
I also dont understand exactly what your focus is when you say “ secret.” I heard yakking radio reports for much of the morning and they seemed to report over and over that none of the data we create on social media is private, and certainly not data on Facebook even though users of these social media sites may not realize it. I think it is possible that Cambridge breached FB agreements, but that is between Cambridge and Zuckerberg et al. Cambridge had no agreement with users of social media to keep their data private, that was Zukerberg’s role and FB allows many companies to hold FB data in the databases of those companies. That is hardly protective of personal data. Apparently these companies can use this data on all of us if they use it for educational purposes. This “ educational” requirement is Zuckerberg’s and he could change it any moment. It is Zuckerberg who holds the key to safe data.
At least that is my understanding of the players after reading a few articles today.
ApatheticNoMore
3-21-18, 1:17am
Yea, as far as I can tell these users had no agreement with Cambridge Analytica or Cambridge University at all (Cambridge Analytica isn't Cambridge University, although there seems to be some loose affiliation there, but Cambridge Analytica seems to be more affiliated with the Mercer's - Trumps billionaire backers plus Bannon). I'm not sure the users were at all conscious of participating in a social science experiment (well they may have been unwilling doing so). The users were just used by Facebook which honestly is a known bad actor. If I thought I was participating in academic research and it was misused, I admit that is pretty bad, but that FB will use one's date is no surprise.
Williamsmith
3-21-18, 3:38am
Does it seem like what some are saying is that it’s alright for managers of policy and seekers of political power to use the internet....FB and social media sites....to control the opinions and ideologies of enough people by exploitation and deception to maintain or gain political control of an entire government? Once determined what your tendencies are, they can manipulated you by directing content that reinforces the ideologies they want you to have and divert alternate ideologies away from you so that critical thinking is impossible. All this is okay because you choose to participate voluntarily? Is it alright to kill the mouse because he takes the cheese?
flowerseverywhere
3-21-18, 4:12am
The difference is that when Democrats do it, they’re cooed over like some Hogwarts teacher’s pet for their cleverness. When a Republican does it, he’s a dark lord practicing unholy arts.
Although I will admit Bannon and Trump seem like they could be cast as YA fictional villains.
hateful statements like this are why there is so much division in our country.
hateful statements like this are why there is so much division in our country.
I apologize for any aspersions I may have cast on Trump or Bannon.
Williamsmith
3-21-18, 8:03am
hateful statements like this are why there is so much division in our country.
While I agree that there is much polarization in the country ....hateful statements are just memes produced by media to reflect back prejudices to Internet clickers in order to enrich those with financial control over management of this country. Politicians have been engineered to be actors, not ideologs. Policy makers are behinds the scenes.
There might be a comparison to be made with the 1980s Soviet Union before the dissolution of the Communist country. Nobody believed what their leaders were saying about reality but they had no choice but to play along. Until the whole thing collapsed as a failed experiement. I’m not making any predictions as to our future but there are some similarities regarding our doubt in the veracity of politics and media’s biased “reporting” or propaganda.
You hear what they say and it doesn’t match what you see. Unless you accept their hatred and reflect it back.
Does it seem like what some are saying is that it’s alright for managers of policy and seekers of political power to use the internet....FB and social media sites....to control the opinions and ideologies of enough people by exploitation and deception to maintain or gain political control of an entire government? Once determined what your tendencies are, they can manipulated you by directing content that reinforces the ideologies they want you to have and divert alternate ideologies away from you so that critical thinking is impossible. All this is okay because you choose to participate voluntarily? Is it alright to kill the mouse because he takes the cheese?
Maybe it's the Chicago kid in me, but I have a hard time working up a panic over the internet as some kind of new existential threat. Malicious gossip, disinformation and political dirty tricks are hardly new things, and we seem to have survived. As far as controlling our opinions by controlling information we get, I think that's actually harder now than when we were limited to printing presses and broadcast media. If "Everything we hear about the world we live in is like a cartoon", would that include your posts? I'm only a click away from a polar opposite opinion.
I don't think you give people enough credit.
iris lilies
3-21-18, 9:30am
hateful statements like this are why there is so much division in our country.
I dont know, I thought it was funny. Not hateful.
flowerseverywhere
3-21-18, 9:46am
I apologize for any aspersions I may have cast on Trump or Bannon.
Not or what I meant. Statements that paint any race, political party, religion or gender bring up emotions in people and make more hate. I am guilty of it sometimes as a fallible and gullible human being. Think of all the statements we have heard and seen these past years that lump everyone in with a minority of thinkers
Some things that I think are good examples are:
all trump voters are sexist and racist. Something I can’t help but believe deep down but of course that is ridiculous.
All liberals just want to kill unborn babies.
Sluts want us to pay for their birth control (thanks Rush Limbaugh)
Our local high school has organized to rally for gun control of weapons used in the recent school massacres. Not on school grounds, not on school time, and not sanctioned by the school. They even got a permit. You would not believe the hateful comments when the story ran. Calling them snowflakes, crybabies, they need to go to their safe space. Even suggesting they had no concern about abortion because they were so liberal. How can that possible be inferred from one issue? They are sick and tired of the thoughts and prayers and scared. You know the good part of This? They are learning about the amendments, how to demonstrate and have a voice, what local laws they have to abide by, and articulate what they want. And they don’t want to take your precious guns away, just sensible gun control. We have failed them.
you catch my drift. In a race to dissolve “political correctness” we have unleashed monsters. And I believe deep down inside us all is a superiority that we believe in the only right religion, our views on immigration, death penalty, gun control, abortion, health care, welfare and so on are the right ones.
Williamsmith
3-21-18, 10:27am
Maybe it's the Chicago kid in me, but I have a hard time working up a panic over the internet as some kind of new existential threat. Malicious gossip, disinformation and political dirty tricks are hardly new things, and we seem to have survived. As far as controlling our opinions by controlling information we get, I think that's actually harder now than when we were limited to printing presses and broadcast media. If "Everything we hear about the world we live in is like a cartoon", would that include your posts? I'm only a click away from a polar opposite opinion.
I don't think you give people enough credit.
Not really knowing you...I can assume it’s your analytical approach to most things, which is being enhanced by storing and mining your interests. They don’t care what you are, as long as they know what you are and what they can expect from you. So the question is more rightly what personal information do they have the right to collect, store and use as a resource?
Big government is humanly corrupt. Not one single historic example can be cited to the contrary. Businesses who use big government as a proxy or partner are equally corrupt. People dont automatically get my credit, they earn it.
Yes. To the bold above. I am a cartoon of my self on this site. By choice. This is simple entertainment to me. That may be disconcerting to some, but for all you know I may be a sixteen year old in my mothers basement.
Oh yeah, like the saying goes...”It’s not paranoia if they really are out to get you.”
ApatheticNoMore
3-21-18, 10:34am
Does it seem like what some are saying is that it’s alright for managers of policy and seekers of political power to use the internet....FB and social media sites....to control the opinions and ideologies of enough people by exploitation and deception to maintain or gain political control of an entire government? Once determined what your tendencies are, they can manipulated you by directing content that reinforces the ideologies they want you to have and divert alternate ideologies away from you so that critical thinking is impossible. All this is okay because you choose to participate voluntarily? Is it alright to kill the mouse because he takes the cheese?
I don't know, I said it should probably be banned, just I don't know how one would get there from here (are there laws that would prohibit this elsewhere than the U.S.?). A fanciful side of me wonders if this is akin to involuntary human experimentation but i don't know if the laws are really there. And yes I think willing doing business with a manipulator like FB is asking for manipulation as well, although a mitigating factor might be that *some* of this data was collected before we knew of other things like the mood manipulation experiments, so before we knew all that Facebook was up to.
ApatheticNoMore
3-21-18, 10:39am
Yes. To the bold above. I am a cartoon of my self on this site. By choice. This is simple entertainment to me. That may be disconcerting to some, but for all you know I may be a sixteen year old in my mothers basement.
personally I think if one wants to be a cartoon of themselves they should at least be paid for it as it's a way to make a living (nah that's not a comment on life in corporate America or something, but on people who literally sell a persona). But maybe I think the same for participating in social science experiments - you know people usually get some petty cash for that ... everyone plays roles everwhere, but the persona thing is usually more advanced than that, it's deliberately crafted to get people to shell out cash. But since productive work that actually does anything is hard to find in the modern world, it's widespread (won't you watch my youtubes?).
Williamsmith
3-21-18, 10:42am
I don't know, I said it should probably be banned, just I don't know how one would get there from here (are there laws that would prohibit this elsewhere than the U.S.?). A fanciful side of me wonders if this is akin to involuntary human experimentation but i don't know if the laws are really there. And yes I think willing doing business with a manipulator like FB is asking for manipulation as well, although a mitigating factor might be that *some* of this data was collected before we knew of other things like the mood manipulation experiments, so before we knew all that Facebook was up to.
It is entertaining to see the “left” attacking Zuckerberg for this. Having apparently profited from selling valuable information as a resource to Trump (the enemy) he now becomes a traitor. And it undermines the fantasy of Russian meddling as an unintentioned consequence. What Trump did was use the nefarious nature of FB to his advantage, recognizing that he could galvanize people’s hatred, bias and or simply their lean toward him by reflecting back those memes in their social media. He created a motivated voting base enough to triumph over the underwhelming personality of Hillary Clinton who apparently was less social media savvy than a hermit living off grid. The story for me is the utter incompetence of the Democrat machine. Not their “righteousness.”
catherine
3-21-18, 10:49am
Big government is humanly corrupt. Not one single historic example can be cited to the contrary. Businesses who use big government as a proxy or partner are equally corrupt. People dont automatically get my credit, they earn it.
...
Oh yeah, like the saying goes...”It’s not paranoia if they really are out to get you.”
I agree.
As far as existential threats--there have been a ton of existential threats that we lived quite comfortably with for at least a while until their threat was exposed. Hitler. Agent Orange. Thalidomide. Smoking.
I do not trust business to "promote the general welfare." Unfortunately, the government too often turns a blind eye when it comes to that minor point in the Constitution's preamble, because our representatives are too busy taking legal bribes from self-interested parties.
When it comes to dealing in data, I have to backtrack a little, because I thought that this whole thing was JUST market research. When I do market research, we sign consents on both sides that our confidentiality will be protected and the data will only be used for research purposes. If that's not what Cambridge Analytica was doing, that's cheating.
It's easy to sit back and trust the Powers that Be. Who wants to risk one's armchair comfort with uncomfortable truths?
Williamsmith
3-21-18, 1:17pm
There is nothing simple about planned voter manipulation but it needs to be discussed
Voters need to be alert regardless of which country is voting for its leaders. I had heard rumours that such voter manipulation was possible but this is confirmation in terms that I understand better what is meant. Another reason for watching what you post online.
Source: http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/cambridge-analytica-facebook-review-data-users-1.4581847
Quotes:
"A Canadian data analytics expert says he wanted to expose a "problematic" invasion of privacy when he sounded the alarm and alleged a data company he helped found misused personal information from millions of Facebook users while working for Donald Trump's 2016 U.S. presidential campaign.
In an interview with The National's Adrienne Arsenault, Christopher Wylie said he was tasked with "psychological profiling" while working at Cambridge Analytica and was able to pull data from users through apps that required the use of Facebook.
"They would fill out psychological surveys and then that app would then go and pull all of of their Facebook data," said the 28-year-old from B.C.
Day 6
The data mining firm that helped elect Trump has built psychological profiles of nearly every American voter
LISTEN 00:00 09:07 [follow the CBC link above to hear this].
"From that, we were able to make inferences or predictions about people who we haven't yet spoken to," Wylie added.
"It allowed us to profile upwards of 50 million Americans over a span of a couple of months and understand not only their personality traits but how they think... and what exactly we need to do in order to pick at certain mental or emotional vulnerabilities so that those people would behave in a particular way that was conducive to [Trump campaign chief executive] Steve Bannon's objective."
Wylie said he decided to go the press with his story — first reported by The New York Times and The Observer of London — after seeing Trump become president and the rise of the alt-right.
"It really made me reflect on the impact that Cambridge Analytica has had," he said.
"I reflected on it... I said to myself that I need to speak out now because I have seen the impact that this company has had and I think people should know about how it works."
Data mining firm behind Trump election built psychological profiles of nearly every American voter
Wylie also said the company's practices were unethical and needed to be called out.
"I think that the algorithms that they have built... using that private data they acquired without consent, is problematic."
Facebook said a Cambridge University psychology professor had lied to the company and violated its policies by passing data to Cambridge Analytica from an app he had developed. It suspended the firm from Facebook.
'I am accepting my share of the responsibility'
Wylie said that it's "intimidating" to speak out, but believes it was the right thing to do..."
I wonder if Wylie was Russian, if he would have been a little more intimidated. Has anyone heard yet when the Grand Jury will be convened and when the indictments will be handed down for a foreign agent meddling in our elections? Is Mueller aware of the U.K. ‘s nefarious activities? Could Trump be impeached for colluding with the British? Could you imagine CNN heads exploding had the company been called Morozov Analytical? Fear the Evil Russians.
Recently, I read the results of a poll about Republicans vs Trump. It seems that the 'base' identify' themselves as Trump supporters in substantially higher number than identify themselves as Republican. Perhaps the data-mining contacts contributed to this.
Would it be possible for the Republican leadership to have a 'tiger by the tail'? Is it possible that they are helpless to control Trump who knows that the base will support him even if the Republicans will not?
I truly believed and stated on this site that the checks and balances of political power in the US would manage whatever leader is selected by whatever party. Am I wrong on this?
Williamsmith
3-22-18, 12:14am
Recently, I read the results of a poll about Republicans vs Trump. It seems that the 'base' identify' themselves as Trump supporters in substantially higher number than identify themselves as Republican. Perhaps the data-mining contacts contributed to this.
Would it be possible for the Republican leadership to have a 'tiger by the tail'? Is it possible that they are helpless to control Trump who knows that the base will support him even if the Republicans will not?
I truly believed and stated on this site that the checks and balances of political power in the US would manage whatever leader is selected by whatever party. Am I wrong on this?
The checks and balances you speak of were arranged by thinkers in a time when the voting citizen was for lack of better terms, “more human”. The control of democracy by control of the voter in more than just an appeal to rational thought is a recent invention of the last few decades. The refining of that control by the financal sector assisted by the technocrats and the pharmaceutical CEO’s is perhaps what has weakened the checks and balances through the narrowing of the humanness of the voter.
The average voter now is probably taking at least five prescription medications, at least one which mediates the mental health “defect” and places them in a condition that fits the idea psychiatrists have created for “normal”. That voter is much less likely to have a reflective moment based on an appeal to the moral obligations of a society. That voter can be relied upon to be consistent in his/her ideologies because they want to be free from anxiety, fear and worry. And the technology provided by constanly placing data about themselves onto the internet free for the technocrats to harvest is all the information that is needed to predict outcomes and even create strategies to influence outcomes.
It is a bleak view of the society make up of controlled serfs. But perhaps not so science fiction.
The average voter now is probably taking at least five prescription medications, at least one which mediates the mental health “defect” and places them in a condition that fits the idea psychiatrists have created for “normal”.
Can you link to where you are getting these figures? Thanks!
Williamsmith
3-22-18, 2:34pm
Can you link to where you are getting these figures? Thanks!
This is a summary of the CDC report. Link to the report attached. There is a distinct sense that the facts have not caught up with the trending due to a lag in reporting years. But I highlight what I think is interesting on the prescription drug front. Remember this has no bearing on the over the counter drugs we take and it does not try to address the disagreements among doctors and psychiatrists about some of the drugs that are not included as psychotropics or mind altering or management drugs. For instance, a drug that is used to address one chronic ailment might have a cross over effect on the brain.
Regardless of my exaggeration...which I suggest as science fiction, it is altogether accurate to say we are the most drugged society on the planet and trending toward more use not less. What is of concern is “polypharmacy.”
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus16.pdf
See page 25
Prescription drug use over the past 40 years has been affected by many factors, including medical need, prescription drug development, increased direct-to-consumer advertising,
and expansions in health insurance and prescription drug coverage (62–64). Even though Americans are now living longer lives, a greater fraction of older Americans are living with several chronic conditions that may require multiple medications. As prescription drug use increases, however,
so do concerns about polypharmacy. Polypharmacy— which is commonly defined as taking five or more drugs— increases the risk of drug interactions, adverse drug events, nonadherence, and reduced functional capacity.
The utilization chart shows an radical increase in the use of prescriptions drugs over the last twenty years. But all we need to do is watch television to know that. And how many anti depression drugs are pushed through advertising. As a culture we are being convinced, something is wrong with us. When you have your check up don’t forget to ask your doctor about ....”name a drug”.
This is a summary of the CDC report. Link to the report attached. There is a distinct sense that the facts have not caught up with the trending due to a lag in reporting years. But I highlight what I think is interesting on the prescription drug front. Remember this has no bearing on the over the counter drugs we take and it does not try to address the disagreements among doctors and psychiatrists about some of the drugs that are not included as psychotropics or mind altering or management drugs. For instance, a drug that is used to address one chronic ailment might have a cross over effect on the brain.
Regardless of my exaggeration...which I suggest as science fiction, it is altogether accurate to say we are the most drugged society on the planet and trending toward more use not less. What is of concern is “polypharmacy.”
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus16.pdf
See page 25
Prescription drug use over the past 40 years has been affected by many factors, including medical need, prescription drug development, increased direct-to-consumer advertising,
and expansions in health insurance and prescription drug coverage (62–64). Even though Americans are now living longer lives, a greater fraction of older Americans are living with several chronic conditions that may require multiple medications. As prescription drug use increases, however,
so do concerns about polypharmacy. Polypharmacy— which is commonly defined as taking five or more drugs— increases the risk of drug interactions, adverse drug events, nonadherence, and reduced functional capacity.
The utilization chart shows an radical increase in the use of prescriptions drugs over the last twenty years. But all we need to do is watch television to know that. And how many anti depression drugs are pushed through advertising. As a culture we are being convinced, something is wrong with us. When you have your check up don’t forget to ask your doctor about ....”name a drug”.
Thanks--I am looking at relevant part of p. 25 but I am not seeing a majority of people being on 5 or more drugs ("average voter")--
"Between 1988–1994 and 2013–2014, the percent of adultsreporting the use of five or more prescription drugs in thepast 30 days rose—by 2.7 percentage points for adults aged18–44, 12.8 percentage points for adults aged 45–64, and 28.4percentage points for adults aged 65 and over. In contrast,the percentage of adults reporting the use of one to fourprescription drugs between these two periods remainedstable for adults aged 18–44 and 45–64, while decreasing foradults aged 65 and over.Figure 15. Prescription drug use in the past 30 days among adults aged 18 and over, by age and number of drugs taken:United States, 1988–1994 through 2013–2014"
I can't get the chart to copy, but the 5 or more drug people in the middle are the ages 45 to 64. Use is lower in younger and higher in older. but in the middle group, number of people on 5 or more drugs is 20% of that population. Even in the oldest cohort, it is only 42%, and that is ages 65 and older.
I do not see where the psychotropic meds are separated out? Is that in the CDC report?
Williamsmith
3-22-18, 4:01pm
Thanks--I am looking at relevant part of p. 25 but I am not seeing a majority of people being on 5 or more drugs ("average voter")--
"Between 1988–1994 and 2013–2014, the percent of adultsreporting the use of five or more prescription drugs in thepast 30 days rose—by 2.7 percentage points for adults aged18–44, 12.8 percentage points for adults aged 45–64, and 28.4percentage points for adults aged 65 and over. In contrast,the percentage of adults reporting the use of one to fourprescription drugs between these two periods remainedstable for adults aged 18–44 and 45–64, while decreasing foradults aged 65 and over.Figure 15. Prescription drug use in the past 30 days among adults aged 18 and over, by age and number of drugs taken:United States, 1988–1994 through 2013–2014"
I can't get the chart to copy, but the 5 or more drug people in the middle are the ages 45 to 64. Use is lower in younger and higher in older. but in the middle group, number of people on 5 or more drugs is 20% of that population. Even in the oldest cohort, it is only 42%, and that is ages 65 and older.
I do not see where the psychotropic meds are separated out? Is that in the CDC report?
I have to admit some assumptions. One of them that the actual under reporting of the use of psychotropics.....is due to the social stigma and the prevelance of illegal substance use such as cocaine, methamphetamines, LSD, opioids, etc. all these create changes in the brain chemistry. And you can include alcohol, marijuana, and even nicotine and caffeine. Here is a CDC link to NCHS and a 2012 report on upward trends of use. Where this sits as we speak? Can only assume higher rates continuing.
Williamsmith
3-22-18, 4:04pm
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/ppt/nchs2012/ss-22_jonas.pdf
I noticed that white males are using psychotropics at a much higher rate.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/ppt/nchs2012/ss-22_jonas.pdf
I noticed that white males are using psychotropics at a much higher rate.
I'm still confused, as this is a study of 12-17 year olds, not voting adults?
Williamsmith
3-22-18, 5:37pm
I'm still confused, as this is a study of 12-17 year olds, not voting adults?
Are you confused or do you have an agenda.....come out and state your objections. You may have the last word.
Are you confused or do you have an agenda.....come out and state your objections. You may have the last word.
I was struck by the figures you quoted as they seemed really high to me .
I like to look at the data myself, to see if it looks like reliable data. No agenda, seeking
To understand what you are saying and what you were basing your statement on.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.