Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » To election junkies like me the Cambridge Analytica stuff is f
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » To election junkies like me the Cambridge Analytica stuff is fascinating but where is it going to lead?
Given the amount of publicity the Cambridge Analytica story has had over the past few days both in the UK and in the US the big question is where is this all going to lead politically?
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
when I read the threader title, my first thought was: "jail!"
Sadly, I don't know law well enough (or at all) to even guess what laws might have been broken.
Apropos of nothing
Somebody has just reminded me of the following
During the 2015 general election campaign here's how much the Tories and Labour spent on Facebook ads.
Labour £16.5k
Tories £1.2 million.
https://twitter.com/adamfleming/status/976495980408377344
https://spectator-usa.com/2018/03/the-great-cambridge-analytica-conspiracy-theory/
It was down to the awesome of Dave and George.
Jim Messina/Facebook played an inconsequential role.
The Tory general election strategy for years was based based on
1) Dave's leadership/Ed M never looking Prime Ministerial
2) The long term economic plan
The third campaign line came at the very last moment (Ed Miliband would stab the country in the back like he did with his brother so he'll go into coalition with the SNP)
Whatever happened to Tom?
Think it was a useful one this time as well. Next time I'm not so sure....
https://twitter.com/Fitcho_/status/976283657076858881
Had there been another hung parliament with the Tories largest party and the LDs holding a few more of their West Country seats in 2015 there would have been no EU referendum and Cameron would likely still be PM and Osborne would still be Chancellor
To get a second referendum, you need an Act of Parliament. That cannot simply be rammed through in a few days, not least because the Lords, where the government doesn't have a majority, almost certainly wouldn't allow it but also because there are important battles to be fought as part of the parliamentary process which will tip the scales one way or the other in a future campaign. Tim Shipman's All out War has a good chapter on four key victories that Leave won during the passage of the Act that provided for the 2016 vote. In reality, you can expect a bill to take at least a month to be passed.
The electoral Commission will then need to give official designations to the 'Yes' and 'No' cmapaigns - or whatever the answers on the ballot are - for which the campaigns will need to exist and have reasonable time to form and put their case for designation. give it at least another month.
On top of that, you'd have a minimum of a month for the campaign and also a reasonable lead-in time. You'd also need time on the far side of the referendum to deal with the fall out of whatever the decision was.
In theory, that means a bill could be introduced this Autumn but that's cutting every stage to the bone, as well as assuming that there's something in place to hold a referendum on. In reality, a referendum bill would probably have to be introduced well before the Summer recess, which would not only conflict with the negotiations but which is a deadline rapidly looming.
Short of an extension to A50 being agreed in advance, I don't see the timetable as viable.
but the biggest political problem for those who want a 2nd referendum is that neither the Tory nor labour leadership wants one now. By the time that either might, it'll be too late.
Long before Facebook and Instagram took over the world, there was another social network that hooked millions of teenagers around the world – Myspace! And avid users of the site will have fond memories of their very first friend, Myspace Tom, whose profile appeared in everyone's top eight.
Tom Anderson was the co-founder of the social networking site, but sold the business to News Corp for a huge $580million (around £408million) in 2005, before retiring in 2009. But what has he been up to since?
Well, the 47-year-old lives in Hawaii and appears to be leading an amazing life as a travel photographer, exploring the world and sharing his beautiful snaps from exotic destinations such as Thailand, Bhutan and the Maldives on his Instagram and Twitter accounts.
Named @myspacetom, the entrepreneur doesn't have quite as many followers as he did in his Myspace days, but does have an impressive 617,000 fans admiring his impressive photography.
https://www.hellomagazine.com/travel/2018012645793/tom-myspace-founder-travel-photographer/
This story has not, as of yet, attracted any comments at all from any of my Facebook friends either (and a lot of them do comment frequently on other political stories)... it's not a very representative sample, I admit, I'm only talking about 79 people including myself... Still, I find it fascinating that people are getting whipped up into a frenzy here yet I've not seen even a ripple of concern in my Facebook feed where people might actually be affected.
They should compromise. Brundle doesn't do the pause for a lap, and Croft doesn't speak for the entire race weekend.
I think it's one of those things like calling an election in the middle of a parliament under the FTPA that sounds prohibitively difficult on paper, but in practice, once a decision has been made, the momentum carries it through in no time.
If Facebook does tall then it will take years to get many of those people back onto social media.
https://twitter.com/JewishChron/status/976498101941915648
So I think Mike is right: there's no obvious 'gotcha' here, for now at least, and he's also right that there is a large dose of anti-Trump and possibly anti-Brexit motivation in this.
What is more likely to be significant is tightening up of regulations both in the US and here, so that the use of advanced techniques using Facebook data in future elections is likely to be much more difficult. At the moment, in the UK, Momentum probably has harvested the most data, along with Aaron Banks. The legal status of that data could be interesting.
https://www.instagram.com/myspacetom
https://www.architecturaldigest.com/story/myspace-tom-now-taking-stunning-photos-around-the-globe
Basically he has become like lots of people want to be, an Instagram star :-)
The big problem is that, if people were voting against the Conservatives in the Referendum - which I think they were - who knows which fragment of the Conservative Party they were voting against?
They have clearly developed an effective tool for electioneering.
But it isn't a magic wand.
The candidates still matter.
Brexit, the gap was wider and across the whole nation. You can't have the same effect. What it may do, however, is add to the bad smell around the leave campaign that's grown since the referendum. Then, if/when we end up in a bad place on the deal, it will provide an additional justification for arguing we should be allowed to have a rethink, as the campaign bore no relation to the reality. But no more, really, than it was a stupid idea by Cameron to frame the referendum in a way that allowed different groups of leavers to promise contradictory and impossible things, while others reassured waverers nothing would change.
More an anti-Hilary bias...
https://www.duedil.com/company/gb/09655767/jeremy-for-labour-limited
Formerly Momentum Campaign Ltd
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/momentum_uk_578e4b4ee4b019ee5fd89ee0
One director, Jon Lansman.
This is bread and butter stuff for the ICO...
A stain on our political system
And by the time any data breach has happened, the damage is done. So rogue elements will always exploit data.
If they pick Warren or Harris maybe
Admittedly enforcement happens after the breach, but no political actor is going to want to buy data which is going to see them compared to CA in a heartbeat.
FWIW, I’m not sure I particularly like Cambridge Analytica or its CEO but I suspect this is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to shady data mining.
Lord Haw Haw strikes again.
I probably should - but I can't. We are in a new age where we put so much of our life online. People will notice and use that information. It is up to us whether we choose to let them influence us. We have to take responsibility for our own choices.
Now, you could argue that if the LDs had been in a second coalition with the Tories in Government then there might have been a bit less frustration in the left-wing base but, personally, I don’t see it. Corbyn got over 50% of the vote and from people who despised the LDs almost as much as the Tories.
I think they would have turned out regardless.
1. Those under 40 have spent much of their lives online, and are much more comfortable with sharing their data, after all everyone else is doing it. But - that doesn’t mean they are fair game.
2. The ability to personalise messaging is now weapons-grade. This ain’t the advertising you grew up with.
The problem here is manifold:
- the improper use of data; against Facebook guidelines
- the lack of real consent from those whose data was used (especially those whose data was sucked up because they were friends with someone who decided to do a personality survey).
- the *weaponising* of data to provide precision-targeted communications, often to deliver fake news and messaging well outside standars political discourse
- the unethical nature and intent of the data use, for eg discouraging turnout by minorities
- the possible collusion with Russian social media astroturfers.
The problem is largely CA, who seem to be thoroughly disreputable. But Facebook seem to have turned a blind eye and been totally cavalier about the whole business, and additionally seem to spend most of their time covering things up.
Clean the stables now.
Short-term there is the issue of whether CA acted illegally in collecting personal data, possibly under false pretences, and whether Facebook was negligent in any way. Time will tell.
A bigger long-term issue is the coming together of:
a) availability of social media data (combined with other data)
b) powerful data-mining technology including neural networks to pick up patterns
c) penetrating psychological insights into the cognitive weaknesses and biases of the human mind
d) the ability to direct personalised messages to individuals
e) the willingness of powerful political forces to use these developments, together with a willingness to create completely false but vivid stories, to achieve their political ends.
In a sense, none of this is new.
a) we've collected canvass data
b) we've done basic statistical analysis
c) we've read "The Hidden Persuaders"
d) we've used target letters
e) we've used dodgy bar charts.
What is new is the power and scale and covertness of these developments.
Our minds are weak and susceptible enough, but we are generally able to evaluate Daily Mail headlines and LibDem bar charts, and postings on PB for what they are, without being subverted.
The danger is we will, as a whole, lose that control and ability to unseen actors - either very wealthy individuals with an agenda or unfriendly nations.
You simply defend whatever any EU apparatik says or does any of the time, often with a back-handed sneer at the UK, and argue it’s the way of the enlightened.
A TV televangelist would be embarrassed by the level of uncensored zeal you preach on the EU.
The second scandal, which has been highlighted by CA is that Facebook was either unwilling or unable to enforce its supposed safeguards on who got their hands on it and what they did with it. Whistleblowers have said the worst companies got was a warning not to misbehave - with little or no enforcement to stop them not doing asvasked. Potentially disastrous as no one could police who a company like CA allowed access to it. That's potentially a huge breach of data laws, and I'd expect lawsuits - and the repercussions could badly undermine its business model.
https://twitter.com/JimMFelton/status/975839711943151616
http://a65.tinypic.com/s1htlc.jpg
I'd rather vote for Mark Reckless than Daniel Kawczynski.
I simply cannot get exercised by this
Without being disrespectful, there may be a generation gap here.
1. Those under 40 have spent much of their lives online, and are much more comfortable with sharing their data, after all everyone else is doing it. But - that doesn’t mean they are fair game.
2. The ability to personalise messaging is now weapons-grade. This ain’t the advertising you grew up with.
The problem here is manifold:
- the improper use of data; against Facebook guidelines
- the lack of real consent from those whose data was used (especially those whose data was sucked up because they were friends with someone who decided to do a personality survey).
- the *weaponising* of data to provide precision-targeted communications, often to deliver fake news and messaging well outside standars political discourse
- the unethical nature and intent of the data use, for eg discouraging turnout by minorities
- the possible collusion with Russian social media astroturfers.
The problem is largely CA, who seem to be thoroughly disreputable. But Facebook seem to have turned a blind eye and been totally cavalier about the whole business, and additionally seem to spend most of their time covering things up.
Clean the stables now.
You are not being disrespectful and your analysis may well be right but normal everyday facebook users will not see the conspiracy nature of this and probably care less.
We use it to keep in touch with our family and friends but disregard ever advert, survey or anything else that is not relevant.
I would suggest that Amazon, Asda, Tesco, Vodafone, Marks and Spencers and tens of thousand companies have masses of information on you and it is a fact of life in 2018.
If there is evidence of anything illegal it needs dealing with but again this is a story for the bubble and the those who look for a conspiracy in every corner
Seems a fair price.
https://twitter.com/DanielBoffey/status/976516824329261057