[TV] Recommended: "The Great Hack" : Netflix documentary on the Cambridge Analytica Scandal

[Garry Nelson's teacher]

Way back in 1957 a Vance Packard wrote a book called The Hidden Persuaders, a critique of the psychological techniques used by marketers. So this sort of manipulation isn't new but the technology (and the sinister political motivations) are.

 

[marlowe]

I was a little disappointed to be honest. Firstly, the title is misleading as there was no hack - CA misused the data that they had permission to gather (though they should have deleted it). The documentary then focused on how the right wing took advantage, but actually they didn’t do anything illegal themselves - it was CA that did the illegal stuff.

There was a hack in a sense in that they accessed all the data of the "Friends" of all those Facebook users who had filled out the personality quiz.

Furthermore who gave them permission to gather that data? Certainly not the people from whom that data was harvested. When they filled out that personality quiz they thought it was just a bit of fun. They were not informed that all the information they were giving for each question would then be sold and used in the way it was.

And their Friends who didn't even take part in the quiz and therefore didn't give out any information still had their data harvested regardless.

The only people who gave permission was Facebook who abused the trust of their users.

 

[Steve in Japan]

Aaron Banks keeps threatening Carole with legal action, but doesn't follow it up. She's been subjected to horrendous abuse from some on Twitter for her determination to get to the truth.
An amazing woman.

Err...... he IS suing her for libel.... or this crowdfunding is fraudulent.

https://www.crowdfunder.co.uk/i-support-carole-cadwalladr

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Err...... he IS suing her for libel.... or this crowdfunding is fraudulent.

https://www.crowdfunder.co.uk/i-support-carole-cadwalladr

There is crowdfunding but as yet she hasn't received the writ. Crowdfunding is entirely voluntary so people want to give in advance, it's up to them.

 

[Steve in Japan]

There is crowdfunding but as yet she hasn't received the writ. Crowdfunding is entirely voluntary so people want to give in advance, it's up to them.

https://www.pressgazette.co.uk/caro...-about-brexiteer-aaron-banks-in-libel-battle/

 

[Steve in Japan]

A little less emotion, a few more facts. That's the way forward. In my opinion.

 

[beorhthelm]

There was a hack in a sense in that they accessed all the data of the "Friends" of all those Facebook users who had filled out the personality quiz.

Furthermore who gave them permission to gather that data? Certainly not the people from whom that data was harvested. When they filled out that personality quiz they thought it was just a bit of fun. They were not informed that all the information they were giving for each question would then be sold and used in the way it was.

And their Friends who didn't even take part in the quiz and therefore didn't give out any information still had their data harvested regardless.

The only people who gave permission was Facebook who abused the trust of their users.

think you'll find the users did give their permission, and probably were inform information would be shared. people just tick "yes". did they get large print red text to say their data would be used for profiling? no. would that have made much difference? probably not. people share their data all the time very willing, social media is built on this.

 

[Stumpy Tim]

There was a hack in a sense in that they accessed all the data of the "Friends" of all those Facebook users who had filled out the personality quiz.

Furthermore who gave them permission to gather that data? Certainly not the people from whom that data was harvested. When they filled out that personality quiz they thought it was just a bit of fun. They were not informed that all the information they were giving for each question would then be sold and used in the way it was.

And their Friends who didn't even take part in the quiz and therefore didn't give out any information still had their data harvested regardless.

The only people who gave permission was Facebook who abused the trust of their users.

So it wasn't a hack then. The permissions in the app gave them the right to do it, however immoral that was. CA acted immorally but not illegally - until they kept the data after saying it was deleted. Everything else you say is agreeing with me

 

[Tory Boy]

Interesting to see people assume that many more people are so thick they vote for who they are told to vote for, by adverts it would seem.

I take the old fashioned view that people vote for who they want to vote for.

TB

 

[BadFish]

Interesting to see people assume that many more people are so thick they vote for who they are told to vote for, by adverts it would seem.

I take the old fashioned view that people vote for who they want to vote for.

TB

Quite right, luckily the presidential candidates know this and don't bother to spend fortunes of election campaigns.

The same can be said for companies not wasting fortunes on advertising campaigns trying to persuade people to buy stuff.

Thankfully we can make up our own minds.(well not thankful for the poor buggers trying to scratch a living in advertising and marketing).

 

[Klaas]

Quite right, luckily the presidential candidates know this and don't bother to spend fortunes of election campaigns.

The same can be said for companies not wasting fortunes on advertising campaigns trying to persuade people to buy stuff.

Thankfully we can make up our own minds.(well not thankful for the poor buggers trying to scratch a living in advertising and marketing).

Yes. The old 'I can make my own mind up' argument does seem a bit odd in the face of the amount of money campaigns are willing to pay to the likes of CA. Still, they know best.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

https://www.pressgazette.co.uk/caro...-about-brexiteer-aaron-banks-in-libel-battle/

I missed that writ arriving, thanks. I hope she wins her case.

 

[Creaky]

Interesting to see people assume that many more people are so thick they vote for who they are told to vote for, by adverts it would seem.

I take the old fashioned view that people vote for who they want to vote for.

TB

Of course people “vote for who they want to” or as the “Great Hack” showed don’t vote at all.

The point is though how do people decide who they want to vote for or whether or not they’re going to vote. What influences your decisions in such matters?

It can’t be purely a matter of direct experience but rather based on information you read, hear or see. If individuals can be recognised as “persuadable” from data being held about them, then they can be targeted with literature, sound bites and videos in various ways. Those ‘bits’ of ‘news’ are often then passed on by the original recipients and as can be seen many become viral.

When most elections are won by relatively small numbers then data on who is “persuadable” becomes very valuable - not just to politicians but also advertisers.