Fresh Cambridge Analytica leak ‘shows global manipulation is out of control’ • Hacker News Board

Re: Fresh Cambridge Analytica leak ‘shows global manipulation is out of control’

#61

Post by ianai » Sun, Jan 05, 2020, 2:03 AM UTC

spookybones wrote: post #56

ianai wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep, that’s what keeps me up at night. I’ve had family express their individual preference for sources with zero credibility or authority over sources from medical doctors/phds/other reputable sources. They’re predisposed to believe manipulative stuff and prefer it!

There is also the phenomenon that conspiracies tend to be more interesting, and sources without credibility deal in these. And, they can pump out a lot quickly, since they do not fact check. So, more exposure overall. I know a lot of people who start out entertained by them, but soon believe them wholesale. Why read counterpoints to pizzagate when I can read even more theories about how it takes place?

Solipsism, man, it’s all solipsism. You’re right too.

(On an unrelated note, that’s also what made Star Trek much more interesting to me than Wars. Until pretty recently there weren’t any or only one tv show to really watch in the Wars universe. But lots of Trek.)

Re: Fresh Cambridge Analytica leak ‘shows global manipulation is out of control’

#62

Post by ultrarunner » Sun, Jan 05, 2020, 5:24 AM UTC

franky47 wrote: post #52

betenoire wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where is the line drawn, in your opinion? How do we objectively tell the difference?

If it tries to sell you something (item, product, experience) where the paid message's intent is to generate revenue, it's not free speech, it's marketing.

I genuinely love ultramarathons. I encourage people to do them for various self-improving reasons (and because they can be super fun, etc). I also work for a race company that produces ultra marathon focused events.

Do I get free speech, or does my potential to continue making a living preclude me from that right?

Re: Fresh Cambridge Analytica leak ‘shows global manipulation is out of control’

#63

Post by anovikov » Sun, Jan 05, 2020, 6:52 AM UTC

bradleyankrom wrote: post #17

anovikov wrote: post #15

See, in the present world, the majority of voters have no good prospects - for purely objective, technologically-driven reasons. Therefore, there are only two ways to make society workable - shut down popular democracy, or manipulate. Meaning, there is no way an average American, or even European, would vote for anything which won't be a blatant lie: because it is too grim. Alternatives as i see them are either "demo…

“democracy with prequalification” is not democracy at all

But this is how democracy worked from the very beginning. Only free men, property owners voted. The Greeks would call "democracies" of today, ochlocracies, which they deemed to be the worst form of government. Voting of largely irresponsible people with nothing to lose.

It's either prequalification, or manipulations to make those voters irrelevant, reduce them to just noise. And of course, in today's world of lies, manipulations are the way to go.

Re: Fresh Cambridge Analytica leak ‘shows global manipulation is out of control’

#64

Post by DyslexicAtheist » Sun, Jan 05, 2020, 8:36 AM UTC

ourcat wrote: post #18

From early posts in the @HindsightFiles feed Malaysia: http://repo.hindsightfiles.com/01012020/malaysia.zip Kenya: http://repo.hindsightfiles.com/01012020/kenya.zip Brazil: http://repo.hindsightfiles.com/01012020/brazil.zip

Iran: (2014-2016) https://repo.hindsightfiles.com/01042020/iran.zip

Re: Fresh Cambridge Analytica leak ‘shows global manipulation is out of control’

#65

Post by natecavanaugh » Sun, Jan 05, 2020, 8:52 AM UTC

ultrarunner wrote: post #62

franky47 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it tries to sell you something (item, product, experience) where the paid message's intent is to generate revenue, it's not free speech, it's marketing.

I genuinely love ultramarathons. I encourage people to do them for various self-improving reasons (and because they can be super fun, etc). I also work for a race company that produces ultra marathon focused events. Do I get free speech, or does my potential to continue making a living preclude me from that right?

Likewise, I love Apple products, and wish for them to generate more revenue (ostensibly, more resources for them to improve said products and create new ones). I neither work for Apple nor have any vested financial interest in saying so (no stock in the company, no relatives that work for them, and zero way that their increased revenues in any way impacts my bank account or the bank account of anyone I know). Is my promotion of them, which in some ways feeds my ego (for making such wise purchasing decisions) and makes my life easier via a larger user base to compare notes with, find support, etc, considered free speech, or advertising?

Also, related to ultrarunner's point, is it not possible to freely promote something that is both in my interest financially and in the best interest of my audience? Isn't that in fact the ideal scenario, mutually beneficial arrangements where everyone benefits via aligned incentives?

Re: Fresh Cambridge Analytica leak ‘shows global manipulation is out of control’

#66

Post by natecavanaugh » Sun, Jan 05, 2020, 9:09 AM UTC

Red_Leaves_Flyy wrote: post #57

CptFribble wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As long as free speech is considered important, ads aren't going anywhere (note: I consider free speech important). Even if you ban directives from ads (Buy Product Now!) ads can be reduced to simple voicing of opinions on a media channel ("I love product X, you'd love it too, I'm sure!"), which is what most ads are anyways - emotional persuasion, not the old style "Johnny's Canned Beans are the most nutritious!" fro…

Advertising is not free speech. If someone is paid to say or do anything publicly for a company then said people are not exercising free speech. They are providing a service with the intent to coerce people into using a companies services, in many cases, without an actual need for them. Advertising should be regulated more harshly than drug testing on unborn children. Every advertisement should come with warning labe…

As an abstract concept, a company is a collection of individuals who have formed an agreement to perform certain actions with the intention of profit (profit may or may not be the core purpose of company though; eg the quote "Profit is like oxygen. You need it to survive, but if you think that oxygen is the purpose of your life then you’re missing something").

A sole proprietor pushing his services is the simplest example of being paid for advertising that is also clearly free speech. Where would you draw this line?

Re: Fresh Cambridge Analytica leak ‘shows global manipulation is out of control’

#67

Post by buboard » Sun, Jan 05, 2020, 3:33 PM UTC

StuffedParrot wrote: post #31

buboard wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The documents reveal a much clearer idea of what actually happened in the 2016 US presidential election, which has a huge bearing on what will happen in 2020. It’s the same people involved who we know are building on these same techniques,” she said I m confused, were the Democrats being accused of using manipulative social media ad campaigns in 2016?

Do you accuse people of the obvious a lot? Because manipulative ads seem to be the lingua franca of us politics.

Not accusing anyone

Re: Fresh Cambridge Analytica leak ‘shows global manipulation is out of control’

#68

Post by mnm1 » Sun, Jan 05, 2020, 8:14 PM UTC

caseysoftware wrote: post #59

mnm1 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about banning donations, bribes, and money in all lobbying. No money, no ads. No ads, no manipulation. At this point, it would literally require the Supreme Court to reverse its own decision just to start so I don't think it'll happen, but it's good to know there is a simple, implementable solution that would fix our problems but that we will ignore so the interests of a few can be placed ahead of the many. Hardl…

Because "banning donations" sounds like a great idea to reduce corruption, it's irrelevant. If you want to "entice" an official, you don't offer them cash. You offer someone in their family a great job. You buy the plot of land next to their house and keep it open and undeveloped. You back away from that deal that you're competing for against the major company in their district. You reach out to friends, colleagues,…

Why would a politician do any of these things for you if you can't transfer any money to them? They won't. Not for your single, measly vote.

Re: Fresh Cambridge Analytica leak ‘shows global manipulation is out of control’

#69

Post by mnm1 » Sun, Jan 05, 2020, 8:18 PM UTC

Larrikin wrote: post #43

mnm1 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about banning donations, bribes, and money in all lobbying. No money, no ads. No ads, no manipulation. At this point, it would literally require the Supreme Court to reverse its own decision just to start so I don't think it'll happen, but it's good to know there is a simple, implementable solution that would fix our problems but that we will ignore so the interests of a few can be placed ahead of the many. Hardl…

Then only billionaires will win office. The old rule of a low monetary cap per house hold was the start of a good system. I'd say extend that further into a slightly higher cap overall but make it all political donations and not just per candidate. Allowing unlimited dark money into super pacs is where it fell apart.

The cap would also apply to how much one can donate to one's own campaign and it would be extremely limited, close to zero (or zero), and the same for every candidate.

Re: Fresh Cambridge Analytica leak ‘shows global manipulation is out of control’

#70

Post by Red_Leaves_Flyy » Tue, Jan 07, 2020, 9:55 AM UTC

natecavanaugh wrote: post #66

Red_Leaves_Flyy wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Advertising is not free speech. If someone is paid to say or do anything publicly for a company then said people are not exercising free speech. They are providing a service with the intent to coerce people into using a companies services, in many cases, without an actual need for them. Advertising should be regulated more harshly than drug testing on unborn children. Every advertisement should come with warning labe…

As an abstract concept, a company is a collection of individuals who have formed an agreement to perform certain actions with the intention of profit (profit may or may not be the core purpose of company though; eg the quote "Profit is like oxygen. You need it to survive, but if you think that oxygen is the purpose of your life then you’re missing something"). A sole proprietor pushing his services is the simplest ex…

A person shouting about their wares at a market (iow a sole propietor advertising their products through direct to customer advertising in a shopping area) is different than a multi-million ad designed and produced by dozens of people including professional social engineers that have studied psychology at the worlds top universities all so widget Co. can sell more widgets.

I don't have a problem with people barking about their products when I'm at a market. But I do have problems with just about everything about modern corporate advertising. Merely listing every individual aspect I take offense too would take hours.

I draw the line at the point where anything is exchanged, given, or recieved, tangible or otherwise, to allow someone/something/some co, to display, demonstrate, brand, or otherwise make known anything through an intermediary.

To clarify. Having generic, unobtrusive signs pointing to food courts around a sports Arena where one can purchase food, that may or may not be served in branded containers is acceptable. Neon signs, or banners, or full advertisements on big screens, etc advertising some company that is not doing any business directly with the attendants at said Arena is unpalatable to me. Likewise, selling refreshments with branding foranything besides the establishment selling the item, or the company that manufactured the item is ridiculous.