141–150 of 156 posts
Wow. We've seen people microtarget leaders and CEOs with ads on Facebook to get a job. http://twicsy-blog.tumblr.com/post/174063770074/how-i-target... This is a case where microtargeting the boss hopefully cost them their job. This is completely unethical.
Just another example on why marketing and advertisement is a scourge upon society, it is far to easy to manipulate from the background without oversight or any ethical or moral considerations and is known to be highly effective at making people act against even their own self interests.
Advertisement is also a way to buy support in the media. For example, in the aftermath of the oil spill on the Gulf of Mexico, BP showered money on TV and magazines. The real reason they did that was to tone down the coverage, especially in a moment where TV was deeply in need of advertisement money due to the big depression of 2008.
Wow, a left-of-center party more worried about change from within than they are about losing the election to the right. What a bizarre and unprecedented thing. Thankfully that could never happen in my home country, the USA.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So, as an example, I just got an ad for a "personalized women's fashion" retailer (I'm male, and Facebook knows that for certain), that stated "You're seeing this ad because eShakti wants to reach people aged 23 to 56 who live or have recently been in the United States. This is information based on your Facebook profile and where you've connected to the Internet." Now, I'm fairly certain that they're not casting that…
looking again, you're right. i think they nerfed the tool.
So they ran ultra left wing ads micro targeted at Corbyn and similar supporters so these people thought everyone was seeing them. I really wonder if micro targeting should just be switched off for everyone during political campaigns. It allows political parties to do exactly this, be literally all things to all people rather than genuine in their messaging. How can we educate people this is happening? I’m certain it’…
That might be pushing it a bit. We're talking Jeremy Corbyn here, not Amadeo Bordiga https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-leftism
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think anyone has managed to pull this off, simply because social media is also a very effective way of broadcasting the fact that someone is trying to do so. People get pissed off when they think someone is trying to pull a fast one on them, and they feel smart when they think they've outwitted them, and both of those things make for effective viral content. This even happens when the claim isn't true; for in…
TFA is about abusing micro targeting to convince a group (in this case the Labour Leadership) of something that wasn’t true. I don’t see how you could have a more direct example of something you’re saying doesn’t exist.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is also something that lends itself to regulation. You can determine/define a minimum group size, and regulation that prohibits finer-grained targeting. This is something that happens in many other fields, for example to prevent insurance policies from becoming individualized cost-spreading (with front-loading) plus profit-margin. (Or, should be happening. And this is one of the battles around regulation. When p…
> This is also something that lends itself to regulation. That may be the case in many countries, but in the US, the idea of restricting political speech is nearly universally prohibited. Looking at the history of related Supreme Court cases, I sincerely doubt a law like that would stand.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a deep threat to the founding values of representative government, worthy of reflection. Problem: Politicians thrive on buying votes by targeting individual voters with tailored promises of government money spent in personally attractive ways. Solution: Abolish the Welfare State, so there is nothing left to feed such promises. Short of that, we shall have to accept the stench of special-interest politics rott…
Well, yes, a government that doesn't actually do anything for its citizens is likely to have less corruption. It's not much of a government, though.
My point is not that government is corrupt; it is that politicians under a Welfare State have increasingly corrupt and manipulative designs, and that the further these designs are enabled by information technology the closer we get to a totalitarian society.
Btw, for all those who like to step in other aritcles about the concerns with social media, to tell us how it's just like TV was a few decades ago, this article shows why it absolutely is not. The persoinal targeting provided by FB and the like makes it an entirely different beast from past experiences.
It's not like TV, it's like mail advertising, which was starting to get attention for its lack of transparency before the 2016 cycle got everyone hyper attuned to Facebook's issues.