I would say that the Cambridge Analytica had been happening since the dawn of Social Media. To think that we weren't targeted by ads would be a bit naive, and politics and elections are nothing more, but selling a product. Or, if I was more correct, selling the perception of the product.
Honestly, I don't think it will change much, really. Maybe a law here or there about "data protection" will be passed and eventually everybody will just get on with their lives.
It is true that it definitely was unethical, but, agree with it or not, it worked. For better of worse.
P. S., I am a new blogger and I blog about Politics, Economics and Society. I would greatly appreciate if you checked out my blog: http://www.kyleknox.co.uk
Not really.
This is supercharged, supernew, and superdirty. We didn’t have the technology for this until the last few years. Not for civilian usage, anyway.
The fact they thought Nix was a route to get to Trump is relevant.
It seems pretty sensible to me to talk to somebody who worked closely with a lot of team trump if you know you have to deal with his administration after you weren’t expecting him to win.
When Obama got elected all this back office people became hot property that everybody wanted to talk to.
To my mind, the biggest "scandal" about the Cambridge Analytica / Trump affair was the use of fake adverts for the other campaign.
So, if you were a white person in a swing state who'd shared or liked an anti-Islam post, then you'd get what looked like an advert from the Hillary campaign with a "Muslims for Clinton" logo. It would have all the logo and trappings of a genuine Clinton advert, except it's purpose would be to get you to vote for Trump.
These dirty trick adverts are nothing new in us politics. I guess the difference is they are better targete
The whole super PAC systems just screams dodgy.
I don't think that's true.
There have been "attack adverts" in the past. But they always ended with "My name is Candidate Here, and I support this message." You couldn't have a TV advert that purported to be from Donald Trump, when it was actually from Hillary Clinton.
Voters take attack adverts with a pinch of salt. They know they are getting Candidate A's take on Candidate B. When they see something in Candidate B's name, then all their defences are down: they take it very seriously because they believe it is put out by the candidate.
Can you imagine if - in the UK - the Labour Party distributed leaflets that claimed to be from the Conservatives? It would an outrage. This is the same thing.
Boris comparing Putin with Hitler in regard to this year's world cup and 1936 Olympic games.Is that the FO position ?
Is Putin's treatment of gay people now any better than Germany's treatment of Jewish people in 1936?
There are 70 nations where being gay is punishable by imprisonment and a further 7 where you are legally subject to the death penalty. Russia is not one of them.
No it is not the most enlightened nation in this area - but I think some perspective is needed. These Nazi Germany comparisons really are silly hyperbole.
The point being made was that Putin will use the World Cup to strut around in front of a global audience and promote himself as a result. Which is what Hitler did with Berlin 1936. It is not about drawing an equivalence between their policies but rather their desire to court the media and promote their personality cult.
It is almost never, never, never appropriate to draw Hitler / Nazi analogies.
In this instance, it makes the government look hysterical. In turn, the hyperbole plays into those who seek to diminish Russia’s culpability.
21 million Russians died because of the Nazis/Hitler.
Something we sadly forget which is why this comparison will play very badly with Russians whether pro or anti Putin.
America may have provided the equipment and money - but the Russians did the heavy lifting in tears of deaths in World War II. Without Russia/the USSR we may well have ended up under Nazi rule ourselves as they diverted German resources for a long time before the US joined the fight proper.
Doesn't absolve Stalin of his wicked crimes but we owe the Russian people.
Indeed. The Russians won the peace with the blood of an entire generation. We should never forget.
I don't think we have, and I don't think an extreme analogy from even a foreign minister changes that or really gets that much sincere reaction from states - the Russians seem to be fond of making extreme analogies, if not that one - and how much does general russian public reaction matter? And if it is the sort of thing that will actually anger the russian government, rather than its sarcastic faux outrage displayed so far, then even as someone who does not think it was a sensible thing to say, perhaps it was unintentionally one of the few things that does ruffle them.
To my mind, the biggest "scandal" about the Cambridge Analytica / Trump affair was the use of fake adverts for the other campaign.
So, if you were a white person in a swing state who'd shared or liked an anti-Islam post, then you'd get what looked like an advert from the Hillary campaign with a "Muslims for Clinton" logo. It would have all the logo and trappings of a genuine Clinton advert, except it's purpose would be to get you to vote for Trump.
These dirty trick adverts are nothing new in us politics. I guess the difference is they are better targete
The whole super PAC systems just screams dodgy.
I don't think that's true.
There have been "attack adverts" in the past. But they always ended with "My name is Candidate Here, and I support this message." You couldn't have a TV advert that purported to be from Donald Trump, when it was actually from Hillary Clinton.
Voters take attack adverts with a pinch of salt. They know they are getting Candidate A's take on Candidate B. When they see something in Candidate B's name, then all their defences are down: they take it very seriously because they believe it is put out by the candidate.
Can you imagine if - in the UK - the Labour Party distributed leaflets that claimed to be from the Conservatives? It would an outrage. This is the same thing.
And distributed it in a hyper-personalised way, at scale?
To my mind, the biggest "scandal" about the Cambridge Analytica / Trump affair was the use of fake adverts for the other campaign.
So, if you were a white person in a swing state who'd shared or liked an anti-Islam post, then you'd get what looked like an advert from the Hillary campaign with a "Muslims for Clinton" logo. It would have all the logo and trappings of a genuine Clinton advert, except it's purpose would be to get you to vote for Trump.
These dirty trick adverts are nothing new in us politics. I guess the difference is they are better targete
The whole super PAC systems just screams dodgy.
I don't think that's true.
There have been "attack adverts" in the past. But they always ended with "My name is Candidate Here, and I support this message." You couldn't have a TV advert that purported to be from Donald Trump, when it was actually from Hillary Clinton.
Voters take attack adverts with a pinch of salt. They know they are getting Candidate A's take on Candidate B. When they see something in Candidate B's name, then all their defences are down: they take it very seriously because they believe it is put out by the candidate.
Can you imagine if - in the UK - the Labour Party distributed leaflets that claimed to be from the Conservatives? It would an outrage. This is the same thing.
And distributed it in a hyper-personalised way, at scale?
It's the fake I have a problem with, rather than the hyper-personalised.
It's totally OK, as far as I'm concerned, for a campaign to personalise as much as they like. (What is a conversation with a candidate but the ultimate in a personalised message?) But I don't think it's acceptable to have adverts that look like they're from another candidate.
Boris comparing Putin with Hitler in regard to this year's world cup and 1936 Olympic games.Is that the FO position ?
Is Putin's treatment of gay people now any better than Germany's treatment of Jewish people in 1936?
There are 70 nations where being gay is punishable by imprisonment and a further 7 where you are legally subject to the death penalty. Russia is not one of them.
No it is not the most enlightened nation in this area - but I think some perspective is needed. These Nazi Germany comparisons really are silly hyperbole.
The point being made was that Putin will use the World Cup to strut around in front of a global audience and promote himself as a result. Which is what Hitler did with Berlin 1936. It is not about drawing an equivalence between their policies but rather their desire to court the media and promote their personality cult.
It is almost never, never, never appropriate to draw Hitler / Nazi analogies.
In this instance, it makes the government look hysterical. In turn, the hyperbole plays into those who seek to diminish Russia’s culpability.
21 million Russians died because of the Nazis/Hitler.
Something we sadly forget which is why this comparison will play very badly with Russians whether pro or anti Putin.
America may have provided the equipment and money - but the Russians did the heavy lifting in tears of deaths in World War II. Without Russia/the USSR we may well have ended up under Nazi rule ourselves as they diverted German resources for a long time before the US joined the fight proper.
Doesn't absolve Stalin of his wicked crimes but we owe the Russian people.
Yes and no.
The best short summation I know is the following: "Britain provided the time American provided the money Russia provided the blood"
Whilst it is false: the war bankrupted us, and America lost many people; IMO it does highlight the most important role each of us played. Without the UK from 1940-1941, the Axis may have won. We provided the time. Without American money and resources, the Axis may have won. And without Russian manpower (freely given by Stalin), the Axis may have won,
To my mind, the biggest "scandal" about the Cambridge Analytica / Trump affair was the use of fake adverts for the other campaign.
So, if you were a white person in a swing state who'd shared or liked an anti-Islam post, then you'd get what looked like an advert from the Hillary campaign with a "Muslims for Clinton" logo. It would have all the logo and trappings of a genuine Clinton advert, except it's purpose would be to get you to vote for Trump.
These dirty trick adverts are nothing new in us politics. I guess the difference is they are better targete
The whole super PAC systems just screams dodgy.
I don't think that's true.
There have been "attack adverts" in the past. But they always ended with "My name is Candidate Here, and I support this message." You couldn't have a TV advert that purported to be from Donald Trump, when it was actually from Hillary Clinton.
Voters take attack adverts with a pinch of salt. They know they are getting Candidate A's take on Candidate B. When they see something in Candidate B's name, then all their defences are down: they take it very seriously because they believe it is put out by the candidate.
Can you imagine if - in the UK - the Labour Party distributed leaflets that claimed to be from the Conservatives? It would an outrage. This is the same thing.
And distributed it in a hyper-personalised way, at scale?
It's the fake I have a problem with, rather than the hyper-personalised.
It's totally OK, as far as I'm concerned, for a campaign to personalise as much as they like. (What is a conversation with a candidate but the ultimate in a personalised message?) But I don't think it's acceptable to have adverts that look like they're from another candidate.
To my mind, the biggest "scandal" about the Cambridge Analytica / Trump affair was the use of fake adverts for the other campaign.
So, if you were a white person in a swing state who'd shared or liked an anti-Islam post, then you'd get what looked like an advert from the Hillary campaign with a "Muslims for Clinton" logo. It would have all the logo and trappings of a genuine Clinton advert, except it's purpose would be to get you to vote for Trump.
These dirty trick adverts are nothing new in us politics. I guess the difference is they are better targete
The whole super PAC systems just screams dodgy.
I don't think that's true.
There have been "attack adverts" in the past. But they always ended with "My name is Candidate Here, and I support this message." You couldn't have a TV advert that purported to be from Donald Trump, when it was actually from Hillary Clinton.
Voters take attack adverts with a pinch of salt. They know they are getting Candidate A's take on Candidate B. When they see something in Candidate B's name, then all their defences are down: they take it very seriously because they believe it is put out by the candidate.
Can you imagine if - in the UK - the Labour Party distributed leaflets that claimed to be from the Conservatives? It would an outrage. This is the same thing.
And distributed it in a hyper-personalised way, at scale?
It's the fake I have a problem with, rather than the hyper-personalised.
It's totally OK, as far as I'm concerned, for a campaign to personalise as much as they like. (What is a conversation with a candidate but the ultimate in a personalised message?) But I don't think it's acceptable to have adverts that look like they're from another candidate.
Yes, but it’s the combination of the three that make it lethal, as well as leveraging the proliferation of fake news.
Just five years ago, who had heard of Breitbart, InfoWars, Squawkbox etc?
Boris comparing Putin with Hitler in regard to this year's world cup and 1936 Olympic games.Is that the FO position ?
Is Putin's treatment of gay people now any better than Germany's treatment of Jewish people in 1936?
There are 70 nations where being gay is punishable by imprisonment and a further 7 where you are legally subject to the death penalty. Russia is not one of them.
No it is not the most enlightened nation in this area - but I think some perspective is needed. These Nazi Germany comparisons really are silly hyperbole.
The point being made was that Putin will use the World Cup to strut around in front of a global audience and promote himself as a result. Which is what Hitler did with Berlin 1936. It is not about drawing an equivalence between their policies but rather their desire to court the media and promote their personality cult.
It is almost never, never, never appropriate to draw Hitler / Nazi analogies.
In this instance, it makes the government look hysterical. In turn, the hyperbole plays into those who seek to diminish Russia’s culpability.
21 million Russians died because of the Nazis/Hitler.
Something w
Doesn't absolve Stalin of his wicked crimes but we owe the Russian people.
Yes and no.
The best short summation I know is the following: "Britain provided the time American provided the money Russia provided the blood"
Whilst it is false: the war bankrupted us, and America lost many people; IMO it does highlight the most important role each of us played. Without the UK from 1940-1941, the Axis may have won. We provided the time. Without American money and resources, the Axis may have won. And without Russian manpower (freely given by Stalin), the Axis may have won,
We all played a pivotal part.
There's also the fact that generals in democratic States can't waste soldiers. Yes, you can send men to their deaths, but you're always going to have to answer for it. That means you have to justify your actions to your political masters and the wider public.
In a dictatorship, you can be as profligate as you like with your soldiers' lives, so long as you keep on the right side of the dictator.
To my mind, the biggest "scandal" about the Cambridge Analytica / Trump affair was the use of fake adverts for the other campaign.
So, if you were a white person in a swing state who'd shared or liked an anti-Islam post, then you'd get what looked like an advert from the Hillary campaign with a "Muslims for Clinton" logo. It would have all the logo and trappings of a genuine Clinton advert, except it's purpose would be to get you to vote for Trump.
These dirty trick adverts are nothing new in us politics. I guess the difference is they are better targete
The whole super PAC systems just screams dodgy.
I don't think that's true.
There have been "attack adverts" in the past. But they always ended with "My name is Candidate Here, and I support this message." You couldn't have a TV advert that purported to be from Donald Trump, when it was actually from Hillary Clinton.
Voters take attack adverts with a pinch of salt. They know they are getting Candidate A's take on Candidate B. When they see something in Candidate B's name, then all their defences are down: they take it very seriously because they believe it is put out by the candidate.
Can you imagine if - in the UK - the Labour Party distributed leaflets that claimed to be from the Conservatives? It would an outrage. This is the same thing.
And distributed it in a hyper-personalised way, at scale?
It's the fake I have a problem with, rather than the hyper-personalised.
It's totally OK, as far as I'm concerned, for a campaign to personalise as much as they like. (What is a conversation with a candidate but the ultimate in a personalised message?) But I don't think it's acceptable to have adverts that look like they're from another candidate.
Kenya looks to me the most troubling of the CA projects; if they fermented street violence as implied by the C4 reports then they have much to answer for.
To my mind, the biggest "scandal" about the Cambridge Analytica / Trump affair was the use of fake adverts for the other campaign.
So, if you were a white person in a swing state who'd shared or liked an anti-Islam post, then you'd get what looked like an advert from the Hillary campaign with a "Muslims for Clinton" logo. It would have all the logo and trappings of a genuine Clinton advert, except it's purpose would be to get you to vote for Trump.
These dirty trick adverts are nothing new in us politics. I guess the difference is they are better targete
The whole super PAC systems just screams dodgy.
I don't think that's true.
There have been "attack adverts" in the past. But they always ended with "My name is Candidate Here, and I support this message." You couldn't have a TV advert that purported to be from Donald Trump, when it was actually from Hillary Clinton.
Voters take attack adverts with a pinch of salt. They know they are getting Candidate A's take on Candidate B. When they see something in Candidate B's name, then all their defences are down: they take it very seriously because they believe it is put out by the candidate.
Can you imagine if - in the UK - the Labour Party distributed leaflets that claimed to be from the Conservatives? It would an outrage. This is the same thing.
And distributed it in a hyper-personalised way, at scale?
It's the fake I have a problem with, rather than the hyper-personalised.
It's totally OK, as far as I'm concerned, for a campaign to personalise as much as they like. (What is a conversation with a candidate but the ultimate in a personalised message?) But I don't think it's acceptable to have adverts that look like they're from another candidate.
Yes, but it’s the combination of the three that make it lethal, as well as leveraging the proliferation of fake news.
Just five years ago, who had heard of Breitbart, InfoWars, Squawkbox etc?
Interesting: do you think there should be a "campaign libel" offence, where a campaign publicises something they know to be false?
The Observer has obtained an astonishing and disturbing video that Cambridge Analytica used in the campaign.
“Coming to Nigeria on February 15th, 2015,” the voiceover says in the manner of a trailer for a Hollywood movie.
“Dark. Scary. And very uncertain. Sharia for all.” And then it poses the question: “What would Nigeria look like if sharia were imposed by Buhari?”
Its answer to that question is certainly dark. And scary. It’s also graphically, brutally, violent. One minute and 19 seconds of archive news footage from Nigeria’s troubled past set to a horror movie soundtrack.
There are scenes of people being macheted to death. Their legs hacked off. Their skulls caved in. A former contractor said: “It was voter suppression of the most crude and basic kind. It was targeted at Buhari voters in Buhari regions to basically scare the shit out of them and stop them from voting.”
Interesting: do you think there should be a "campaign libel" offence, where a campaign publicises something they know to be false?
In the UK there already is. It is what got Phil Woolas into trouble.
Section 106 of the Representation of the People Act 1983,which makes it illegal to make false statements of fact about a candidate. Watkins claimed that leaflets issued by Woolas falsely portrayed him as taking unlawful foreign donations, and linked him to Muslim extremists.
To my mind, the biggest "scandal" about the Cambridge Analytica / Trump affair was the use of fake adverts for the other campaign.
So, if you were a white person in a swing state who'd shared or liked an anti-Islam post, then you'd get what looked like an advert from the Hillary campaign with a "Muslims for Clinton" logo. It would have all the logo and trappings of a genuine Clinton advert, except it's purpose would be to get you to vote for Trump.
These dirty trick adverts are nothing new in us politics. I guess the difference is they are better targete
The whole super PAC systems just screams dodgy.
I don't think that's true.
There have been "attack adverts" in the past. But they always ended with "My name is Candidate Here, and I support this message." You couldn't have a TV advert that purported to be from Donald Trump, when it was actually from Hillary Clinton.
Voters take attack adverts with a pinch of salt. They know they are getting Candidate A's take on Candidate B. When they see something in Candidate B's name, then all their defences are down: they take it very seriously because they believe it is put out by the candidate.
Can you imagine if - in the UK - the Labour Party distributed leaflets that claimed to be from the Conservatives? It would an outrage. This is the same thing.
And distributed it in a hyper-personalised way, at scale?
It's the fake I have a problem with, rather than the hyper-personalised.
It's totally OK, as far as I'm concerned, for a campaign to personalise as much as they like. (What is a conversation with a candidate but the ultimate in a personalised message?) But I don't think it's acceptable to have adverts that look like they're from another candidate.
It's a grey area, the literature wasn't officially branded, it was "Muslims for Hillary", not "Hillary for Muslims". They weren't putting words into her mouth, and I'm sure there were Muslims in the US that were in favour of Hillary.
It's a grey area, the literature wasn't officially branded, it was "Muslims for Hillary", not "Hillary for Muslims". They weren't putting words into her mouth, and I'm sure there were Muslims in the US that were in favour of Hillary.
Perhaps the Remain campaign should have put out "Indians for Brexit" adverts targeted at white working-class areas talking about how Brexit would enable a fairer immigration policy.
I would say that the Cambridge Analytica had been happening since the dawn of Social Media. To think that we weren't targeted by ads would be a bit naive, and politics and elections are nothing more, but selling a product. Or, if I was more correct, selling the perception of the product.
Honestly, I don't think it will change much, really. Maybe a law here or there about "data protection" will be passed and eventually everybody will just get on with their lives.
It is true that it definitely was unethical, but, agree with it or not, it worked. For better of worse.
P. S., I am a new blogger and I blog about Politics, Economics and Society. I would greatly appreciate if you checked out my blog: http://www.kyleknox.co.uk
Not really.
This is supercharged, supernew, and superdirty. We didn’t have the technology for this until the last few years. Not for civilian usage, anyway.
Not true, deep dive data analytics have been going on for at least 10 years. It's just that the tools and techniques have got better.
Facebook etc users are all totally naïve to think it's really free. They all ignored the IPO valuations based upon users.
It's a grey area, the literature wasn't officially branded, it was "Muslims for Hillary", not "Hillary for Muslims". They weren't putting words into her mouth, and I'm sure there were Muslims in the US that were in favour of Hillary.
Perhaps the Remain campaign should have put out "Indians for Brexit" adverts targeted at white working-class areas talking about how Brexit would enable a fairer immigration policy.
They could have, but I'm not sure it would have helped their underlying theme of "Leavers are all racist thickos".
The problem have now is not just the campaigns but all these dodgy outriders like infowars. The big problem is the hyper partisan sites that to different extents put out bollocks eg guido and political scrapbook are partisan and stories have a spin on but the sites they aren’t “fake news”, the way infowars is or some of these new maomentumer sites that for eg have claimed stuff about Grenfell tower that was just made up.
It's a grey area, the literature wasn't officially branded, it was "Muslims for Hillary", not "Hillary for Muslims". They weren't putting words into her mouth, and I'm sure there were Muslims in the US that were in favour of Hillary.
Perhaps the Remain campaign should have put out "Indians for Brexit" adverts targeted at white working-class areas talking about how Brexit would enable a fairer immigration policy.
Well the Gay Donkey Raped My Horse Kipper wants to pay British Indians to leave the UK to reduce the unnecessary population in the UK
To my mind, the biggest "scandal" about the Cambridge Analytica / Trump affair was the use of fake adverts for the other campaign.
So, if you were a white person in a swing state who'd shared or liked an anti-Islam post, then you'd get what looked like an advert from the Hillary campaign with a "Muslims for Clinton" logo. It would have all the logo and trappings of a genuine Clinton advert, except it's purpose would be to get you to vote for Trump.
These dirty trick adverts are nothing new in us politics. I guess the difference is they are better targete
The whole super PAC systems just screams dodgy.
I don't think that's true.
There have been "attack adverts" in the past. But they always ended with "My name is Candidate Here, and I support this message." You couldn't have a TV advert that purported to be from Donald Trump, when it was actually from Hillary Clinton.
Voters take attack adverts with a pinch of salt. They know they are getting Candidate A's take on Candidate B. When they see something in Candidate B's name, then all their defences are down: they take it very seriously because they believe it is put out by the candidate.
Can you imagine if - in the UK - the Labour Party distributed leaflets that claimed to be from the Conservatives? It would an outrage. This is the same thing.
And distributed it in a hyper-personalised way, at scale?
It's the fake I have a problem with, rather than the hyper-personalised.
It's totally OK, as far as I'm concerned, for a campaign to personalise as much as they like. (What is a conversation with a candidate but the ultimate in a personalised message?) But I don't think it's acceptable to have adverts that look like they're from another candidate.
Yes, but it’s the combination of the three that make it lethal, as well as leveraging the proliferation of fake news.
Just five years ago, who had heard of Breitbart, InfoWars, Squawkbox etc?
The other problem is, what's alleged or at least eminently possible is not a personal conversation between a candidate, positive or negative, but deliberate microtargeting on another level entirely.. Third party messages to suppress turnout etc. In theory, with the right data you could target poor voters leaning towards your opponent with adverts telling them to sell their car. Thus making it difficult to get to the polls. Momentum, Breitbart st al are probably a different problem.
The Observer has obtained an astonishing and disturbing video that Cambridge Analytica used in the campaign.
“Coming to Nigeria on February 15th, 2015,” the voiceover says in the manner of a trailer for a Hollywood movie.
“Dark. Scary. And very uncertain. Sharia for all.” And then it poses the question: “What would Nigeria look like if sharia were imposed by Buhari?”
Its answer to that question is certainly dark. And scary. It’s also graphically, brutally, violent. One minute and 19 seconds of archive news footage from Nigeria’s troubled past set to a horror movie soundtrack.
To my mind, the biggest "scandal" about the Cambridge Analytica / Trump affair was the use of fake adverts for the other campaign.
So, if you were a white person in a swing state who'd shared or liked an anti-Islam post, then you'd get what looked like an advert from the Hillary campaign with a "Muslims for Clinton" logo. It would have all the logo and trappings of a genuine Clinton advert, except it's purpose would be to get you to vote for Trump.
These dirty trick adverts are nothing new in us politics. I guess the difference is they are better targete
The whole super PAC systems just screams dodgy.
I don't think that's true.
There have been "attack adverts" in the past. But they always ended with "My name is Candidate Here, and I support this message." You couldn't have a TV advert that purported to be from Donald Trump, when it was actually from Hillary Clinton.
Voters take attack adverts with a pinch of salt. They know they are getting Candidate A's take on Candidate B. When they see something in Candidate B's name, then all their defences are down: they take it very seriously because they believe it is put out by the candidate.
Can you imagine if - in the UK - the Labour Party distributed leaflets that claimed to be from the Conservatives? It would an outrage. This is the same thing.
And distributed it in a hyper-personalised way, at scale?
It's the fake I have a problem with, rather than the hyper-personalised.
It's totally OK, as far as I'm concerned, for a campaign to personalise as much as they like. (What is a conversation with a candidate but the ultimate in a personalised message?) But I don't think it's acceptable to have adverts that look like they're from another candidate.
Yes, but it’s the combination of the three that make it lethal, as well as leveraging the proliferation of fake news.
Just five years ago, who had heard of Breitbart, InfoWars, Squawkbox etc?
Interesting: do you think there should be a "campaign libel" offence, where a campaign publicises something they know to be false?
That’s an interesting idea.
I don’t know. We are genuinely in new territory. This is the more criminal end of it, but even things like Corbyn’s hat make me think we are going to hell in a handcart.
I used to be a proud Millsian. I’d hate to sacrifice free speech, but we seem to have invented a way of weaponising it.
It's a grey area, the literature wasn't officially branded, it was "Muslims for Hillary", not "Hillary for Muslims". They weren't putting words into her mouth, and I'm sure there were Muslims in the US that were in favour of Hillary.
Perhaps the Remain campaign should have put out "Indians for Brexit" adverts targeted at white working-class areas talking about how Brexit would enable a fairer immigration policy.
They could have, but I'm not sure it would have helped their underlying theme of "Leavers are all racist thickos".
The whole point about "Pakistanis for Fairer Immigration - Vote Brexit" (Pakistanis are more emotive than Indians) is that you would assume that Brexit would mean more Pakistanis in the UK.
I would say that the Cambridge Analytica had been happening since the dawn of Social Media. To think that we weren't targeted by ads would be a bit naive, and politics and elections are nothing more, but selling a product. Or, if I was more correct, selling the perception of the product.
Honestly, I don't think it will change much, really. Maybe a law here or there about "data protection" will be passed and eventually everybody will just get on with their lives.
It is true that it definitely was unethical, but, agree with it or not, it worked. For better of worse.
P. S., I am a new blogger and I blog about Politics, Economics and Society. I would greatly appreciate if you checked out my blog: http://www.kyleknox.co.uk
Not really.
This is supercharged, supernew, and superdirty. We didn’t have the technology for this until the last few years. Not for civilian usage, anyway.
Not true, deep dive data analytics have been going on for at least 10 years. It's just that the tools and techniques have got better.
Facebook etc users are all totally naïve to think it's really free. They all ignored the IPO valuations based upon users.
It’s the convergence of AI Cloud (scale) Abundance of psychometric data Deep dive analytics And social media.
It's a grey area, the literature wasn't officially branded, it was "Muslims for Hillary", not "Hillary for Muslims". They weren't putting words into her mouth, and I'm sure there were Muslims in the US that were in favour of Hillary.
Perhaps the Remain campaign should have put out "Indians for Brexit" adverts targeted at white working-class areas talking about how Brexit would enable a fairer immigration policy.
They could have, but I'm not sure it would have helped their underlying theme of "Leavers are all racist thickos".
The whole point about "Pakistanis for Fairer Immigration - Vote Brexit" (Pakistanis are more emotive than Indians) is that you would assume that Brexit would mean more Pakistanis in the UK.
It's a real minefield.
Yeah, I agree. As I said it's a real grey area. I'm really not sure what can be done about it either.
Should we stop the Tory party from pointing out that Corbyn draws supporters from IRA or ISIS terrorists?
It's a grey area, the literature wasn't officially branded, it was "Muslims for Hillary", not "Hillary for Muslims". They weren't putting words into her mouth, and I'm sure there were Muslims in the US that were in favour of Hillary.
Perhaps the Remain campaign should have put out "Indians for Brexit" adverts targeted at white working-class areas talking about how Brexit would enable a fairer immigration policy.
They could have, but I'm not sure it would have helped their underlying theme of "Leavers are all racist thickos".
The whole point about "Pakistanis for Fairer Immigration - Vote Brexit" (Pakistanis are more emotive than Indians) is that you would assume that Brexit would mean more Pakistanis in the UK.
It's a real minefield.
Yeah, I agree. As I said it's a real grey area. I'm really not sure what can be done about it either.
Should we stop the Tory party from pointing out that Corbyn draws supporters from IRA or ISIS terrorists?
I think that's fine.
But it's not OK for the Conservative Party to create an organisation called "Irish Republicans for Corbyn" and use that to post ostensibly pro-Corbyn messages.
It's a grey area, the literature wasn't officially branded, it was "Muslims for Hillary", not "Hillary for Muslims". They weren't putting words into her mouth, and I'm sure there were Muslims in the US that were in favour of Hillary.
Perhaps the Remain campaign should have put out "Indians for Brexit" adverts targeted at white working-class areas talking about how Brexit would enable a fairer immigration policy.
They could have, but I'm not sure it would have helped their underlying theme of "Leavers are all racist thickos".
The whole point about "Pakistanis for Fairer Immigration - Vote Brexit" (Pakistanis are more emotive than Indians) is that you would assume that Brexit would mean more Pakistanis in the UK.
It's a real minefield.
Yeah, I agree. As I said it's a real grey area. I'm really not sure what can be done about it either.
Should we stop the Tory party from pointing out that Corbyn draws supporters from IRA or ISIS terrorists?
I think that's fine.
But it's not OK for the Conservative Party to create an organisation called "Irish Republicans for Corbyn" and use that to post ostensibly pro-Corbyn messages.
Didn't Nick Palmer ex-mp once have a group called Tories for Nick Palmer?
I think Carole Cadwalladr should win a Pulitzer Prize, especially after the intimidation she suffered early on in her campaign to expose all of this.
Indeed. She has had to run the full gauntlet. I think ordinary people (us?) underestimate how toxic it is out there.
Pulitzer Prize - for journalism needs to appear in a US newspaper or magazine.
The Guardian get very sniffy about being called a British site by the New York Times. I think she would qualify in any case as she has a byline in the NYT version of the story.
It's a grey area, the literature wasn't officially branded, it was "Muslims for Hillary", not "Hillary for Muslims". They weren't putting words into her mouth, and I'm sure there were Muslims in the US that were in favour of Hillary.
Perhaps the Remain campaign should have put out "Indians for Brexit" adverts targeted at white working-class areas talking about how Brexit would enable a fairer immigration policy.
They could have, but I'm not sure it would have helped their underlying theme of "Leavers are all racist thickos".
The whole point about "Pakistanis for Fairer Immigration - Vote Brexit" (Pakistanis are more emotive than Indians) is that you would assume that Brexit would mean more Pakistanis in the UK.
It's a real minefield.
Yeah, I agree. As I said it's a real grey area. I'm really not sure what can be done about it either.
Should we stop the Tory party from pointing out that Corbyn draws supporters from IRA or ISIS terrorists?
I think that's fine.
But it's not OK for the Conservative Party to create an organisation called "Irish Republicans for Corbyn" and use that to post ostensibly pro-Corbyn messages.
Didn't Nick Palmer ex-mp once have a group called Tories for Nick Palmer?
I'm sure that was a totally disinterested, grass roots, organisation that sprang up organically, and had nothing to do with Nick Palmer.
When the blue passport were announced wasn't it quoted from memory that it would be £600 million? Until it was revealed to be fake news and that was the cost of providing the passports for the life of the contract and the colour didn't affect the price?
Now the news is that its a £490 million tender that's gone to the French.
Sounds like the French firm are saving us £110 million unless I've got my facts wrong. In which case so be it!
I would say that the Cambridge Analytica had been happening since the dawn of Social Media. To think that we weren't targeted by ads would be a bit naive, and politics and elections are nothing more, but selling a product. Or, if I was more correct, selling the perception of the product.
Honestly, I don't think it will change much, really. Maybe a law here or there about "data protection" will be passed and eventually everybody will just get on with their lives.
It is true that it definitely was unethical, but, agree with it or not, it worked. For better of worse.
P. S., I am a new blogger and I blog about Politics, Economics and Society. I would greatly appreciate if you checked out my blog: http://www.kyleknox.co.uk
Not really.
This is supercharged, supernew, and superdirty. We didn’t have the technology for this until the last few years. Not for civilian usage, anyway.
Not true, deep dive data analytics have been going on for at least 10 years. It's just that the tools and techniques have got better.
Facebook etc users are all totally naïve to think it's really free. They all ignored the IPO valuations based upon users.
It’s the convergence of AI Cloud (scale) Abundance of psychometric data Deep dive analytics And social media.
It's not AI.
These companies talk sh*t about their progress in AI. Yet when it comes to their real bread-and-butter, placing ads in the correct places, they fail.
Take a recent example I had on FB, Below an article from NewStatesman.com entitled: "Why should you give money directly and unconditionally to homeless people..." their ever-so-clever AI placed an ad for ...
Strongbow.
Yet placing ads in the correct places is massively important to them, and it fails time and time again, in ways anyone with an IQ higher than 20 would not.
(In case anyone doesn't believe me, I've got a screenshot).
When the blue passport were announced wasn't it quoted from memory that it would be £600 million? Until it was revealed to be fake news and that was the cost of providing the passports for the life of the contract and the colour didn't affect the price?
Now the news is that its a £490 million tender that's gone to the French.
Sounds like the French firm are saving us £110 million unless I've got my facts wrong. In which case so be it!
You’re not really entering into the spirit of it. The whole point of getting rid of EU public procurement rules is so we can funnel money to well-connected British people by paying over the odds.
I would say that the Cambridge Analytica had been happening since the dawn of Social Media. To think that we weren't targeted by ads would be a bit naive, and politics and elections are nothing more, but selling a product. Or, if I was more correct, selling the perception of the product.
Honestly, I don't think it will change much, really. Maybe a law here or there about "data protection" will be passed and eventually everybody will just get on with their lives.
It is true that it definitely was unethical, but, agree with it or not, it worked. For better of worse.
P. S., I am a new blogger and I blog about Politics, Economics and Society. I would greatly appreciate if you checked out my blog: http://www.kyleknox.co.uk
Not really.
This is supercharged, supernew, and superdirty. We didn’t have the technology for this until the last few years. Not for civilian usage, anyway.
Not true, deep dive data analytics have been going on for at least 10 years. It's just that the tools and techniques have got better.
Facebook etc users are all totally naïve to think it's really free. They all ignored the IPO valuations based upon users.
It’s the convergence of AI Cloud (scale) Abundance of psychometric data Deep dive analytics And social media.
It's not AI.
These companies talk sh*t about their progress in AI. Yet when it comes to their real bread-and-butter, placing ads in the correct places, they fail.
Take a recent example I had on FB, Below an article from NewStatesman.com entitled: "Why should you give money directly and unconditionally to homeless people..." their ever-so-clever AI placed an ad for ...
Strongbow.
Yet placing ads in the correct places is massively important to them, and it fails time and time again, in ways anyone with an IQ higher than 20 would not.
(In case anyone doesn't believe me, I've got a screenshot).
Amazon provides me with utterly fatuous choices, it’s true. But I think the AI part is in very clever political segmentation - at scale.
So, able to identify everyone in a postcode in Milwaukee who is likes pineapple on pizza, who support capital punishment, but are in the closet.
Or better, simply identifying that as a potential segment worth communicating to, then discarding it automatically if tailored messaging does not attract interest.
I would say that the Cambridge Analytica had been happening since the dawn of Social Media. To think that we weren't targeted by ads would be a bit naive, and politics and elections are nothing more, but selling a product. Or, if I was more correct, selling the perception of the product.
Honestly, I don't think it will change much, really. Maybe a law here or there about "data protection" will be passed and eventually everybody will just get on with their lives.
It is true that it definitely was unethical, but, agree with it or not, it worked. For better of worse.
P. S., I am a new blogger and I blog about Politics, Economics and Society. I would greatly appreciate if you checked out my blog: http://www.kyleknox.co.uk
Not really.
This is supercharged, supernew, and superdirty. We didn’t have the technology for this until the last few years. Not for civilian usage, anyway.
Not true, deep dive data analytics have been going on for at least 10 years. It's just that the tools and techniques have got better.
Facebook etc users are all totally naïve to think it's really free. They all ignored the IPO valuations based upon users.
It’s the convergence of AI Cloud (scale) Abundance of psychometric data Deep dive analytics And social media.
When you sign up for any free app, you effectively sign away all data that sits on your device. CA just doing what they are allowed to do.
Of course the w@nkers who write for the Guardian don't want to understand the facts.
When I was driving to Edinburgh this morning Facebook was being debated on R5. An 18 year old pretty much said “I can use the platform of Facebook for whatever I like and they can use the data I put on it for whatever they like. That’s the deal and why it’s free.”
She and pretty much everyone else under about 35 seemed totally unconcerned.
When I was driving to Edinburgh this morning Facebook was being debated on R5. An 18 year old pretty much said “I can use the platform of Facebook for whatever I like and they can use the data I put on it for whatever they like. That’s the deal and why it’s free.”
She and pretty much everyone else under about 35 seemed totally unconcerned.
Not entirely the case, since she is still (just) living in the EU who take a different view of citizen's data protection, whatever the individual has signed up to via terms and conditions.
Boris comparing Putin with Hitler in regard to this year's world cup and 1936 Olympic games.Is that the FO position ?
Is Putin's treatment of gay people now any better than Germany's treatment of Jewish people in 1936?
There are 70 nations where being gay is punishable by imprisonment and a further 7 where you are legally subject to the death penalty. Russia is not one of them.
No it is not the most enlightened nation in this area - but I think some perspective is needed. These Nazi Germany comparisons really are silly hyperbole.
The point being made was that Putin will use the World Cup to strut around in front of a global audience and promote himself as a result. Which is what Hitler did with Berlin 1936. It is not about drawing an equivalence between their policies but rather their desire to court the media and promote their personality cult.
It is almost never, never, never appropriate to draw Hitler / Nazi analogies.
In this instance, it makes the government look hysterical. In turn, the hyperbole plays into those who seek to diminish Russia’s culpability.
21 million Russians died because of the Nazis/Hitler.
Something we sadly forget which is why this comparison will play very badly with Russians whether pro or anti Putin.
America may have provided the equipment and money - but the Russians did the heavy lifting in tears of deaths in World War II. Without Russia/the USSR we may well have ended up under Nazi rule ourselves as they diverted German resources for a long time before the US joined the fight proper.
Doesn't absolve Stalin of his wicked crimes but we owe the Russian people.
Indeed. The Russians won the peace with the blood of an entire generation. We should never forget.
Russia fought because they were invaded.
They actually carved up Poland with Germany and annexed the Baltic states.
They killed how many polish officers and intellectuals?
And of course their acts at the tail end and after world war two to take over Eastern Europe.
When I was driving to Edinburgh this morning Facebook was being debated on R5. An 18 year old pretty much said “I can use the platform of Facebook for whatever I like and they can use the data I put on it for whatever they like. That’s the deal and why it’s free.”
She and pretty much everyone else under about 35 seemed totally unconcerned.
Not entirely the case, since she is still (just) living in the EU who take a different view of citizen's data protection, whatever the individual has signed up to via terms and conditions.
I agree and the GDPR will apply afterwards too. It is more her attitude. The young don’t expect to have any privacy for what is online and are not concerned.
Boris comparing Putin with Hitler in regard to this year's world cup and 1936 Olympic games.Is that the FO position ?
Is Putin's treatment of gay people now any better than Germany's treatment of Jewish people in 1936?
There are 70 nations where being gay is punishable by imprisonment and a further 7 where you are legally subject to the death penalty. Russia is not one of them.
No it is not the most enlightened nation in this area - but I think some perspective is needed. These Nazi Germany comparisons really are silly hyperbole.
The point being made was that Putin will use the World Cup to strut around in front of a global audience and promote himself as a result. Which is what Hitler did with Berlin 1936. It is not about drawing an equivalence between their policies but rather their desire to court the media and promote their personality cult.
I would say that the Cambridge Analytica had been happening since the dawn of Social Media. To think that we weren't targeted by ads would be a bit naive, and politics and elections are nothing more, but selling a product. Or, if I was more correct, selling the perception of the product.
Honestly, I don't think it will change much, really. Maybe a law here or there about "data protection" will be passed and eventually everybody will just get on with their lives.
It is true that it definitely was unethical, but, agree with it or not, it worked. For better of worse.
P. S., I am a new blogger and I blog about Politics, Economics and Society. I would greatly appreciate if you checked out my blog: http://www.kyleknox.co.uk
Not really.
This is supercharged, supernew, and superdirty. We didn’t have the technology for this until the last few years. Not for civilian usage, anyway.
Not true, deep dive data analytics have been going on for at least 10 years. It's just that the tools and techniques have got better.
Facebook etc users are all totally naïve to think it's really free. They all ignored the IPO valuations based upon users.
It’s the convergence of AI Cloud (scale) Abundance of psychometric data Deep dive analytics And social media.
When you sign up for any free app, you effectively sign away all data that sits on your device. CA just doing what they are allowed to do.
Of course the w@nkers who write for the Guardian don't want to understand the facts.
Ignoring the fact that it has taken an inordinate amount of time to get to this stage in her complaint (which is scandalous enough), to ask the victim to respond to questions submitted by their abuser is beyond unacceptable.
Jess Phillips is absolutely right to go ballistic over this. However the tweet doesn't seem to match the detail of the ES article on the matter. The tweet makes it seem as if it would be a face to face session - but the article says that they won't meet.
Not sure I believe her that she will quit Labour though.
When the blue passport were announced wasn't it quoted from memory that it would be £600 million? Until it was revealed to be fake news and that was the cost of providing the passports for the life of the contract and the colour didn't affect the price?
Now the news is that its a £490 million tender that's gone to the French.
Sounds like the French firm are saving us £110 million unless I've got my facts wrong. In which case so be it!
Well, yes. That's the benefit of trading within the single market.
When I was driving to Edinburgh this morning Facebook was being debated on R5. An 18 year old pretty much said “I can use the platform of Facebook for whatever I like and they can use the data I put on it for whatever they like. That’s the deal and why it’s free.”
She and pretty much everyone else under about 35 seemed totally unconcerned.
If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear.
These companies talk sh*t about their progress in AI. Yet when it comes to their real bread-and-butter, placing ads in the correct places, they fail.
Take a recent example I had on FB, Below an article from NewStatesman.com entitled: "Why should you give money directly and unconditionally to homeless people..." their ever-so-clever AI placed an ad for ...
Strongbow.
Yet placing ads in the correct places is massively important to them, and it fails time and time again, in ways anyone with an IQ higher than 20 would not.
(In case anyone doesn't believe me, I've got a screenshot).
Amazon provides me with utterly fatuous choices, it’s true. But I think the AI part is in very clever political segmentation - at scale.
So, able to identify everyone in a postcode in Milwaukee who is likes pineapple on pizza, who support capital punishment, but are in the closet.
Or better, simply identifying that as a potential segment worth communicating to, then discarding it automatically if tailored messaging does not attract interest.
It may not even be AI. It may be someone in an office defining rules from the dataset (as you have above). "Let's target people who shop at Asda and who have liked credit score services with an ad saying how our opponents want to make credit harder to get."
Besides, it doesn't have to be accurate. They can afford 95% of people to ignore it, as the point of advertising is not to get you to run out of the door and buy something ("Oh, I've seen a Jaguar ad, I must run out and by a £50k car", but brand awareness. It's subliminal. Add in the friends connection ("Jeff liked this, and hes a good bloke who knows his onions") and it's pernicious.
When I was driving to Edinburgh this morning Facebook was being debated on R5. An 18 year old pretty much said “I can use the platform of Facebook for whatever I like and they can use the data I put on it for whatever they like. That’s the deal and why it’s free.”
She and pretty much everyone else under about 35 seemed totally unconcerned.
Not entirely the case, since she is still (just) living in the EU who take a different view of citizen's data protection, whatever the individual has signed up to via terms and conditions.
I agree and the GDPR will apply afterwards too. It is more her attitude. The young don’t expect to have any privacy for what is online and are not concerned.
To quote Scott McNealy, the former CEO of Sun Microsystems:
Boris comparing Putin with Hitler in regard to this year's world cup and 1936 Olympic games.Is that the FO position ?
Is Putin's treatment of gay people now any better than Germany's treatment of Jewish people in 1936?
There are 70 nations where being gay is punishable by imprisonment and a further 7 where you are legally subject to the death penalty. Russia is not one of them.
No it is not the most enlightened nation in this area - but I think some perspective is needed. These Nazi Germany comparisons really are silly hyperbole.
The point being made was that Putin will use the World Cup to strut around in front of a global audience and promote himself as a result. Which is what Hitler did with Berlin 1936. It is not about drawing an equivalence between their policies but rather their desire to court the media and promote their personality cult.
It is almost never, never, never appropriate to draw Hitler / Nazi analogies.
In this instance, it makes the government look hysterical. In turn, the hyperbole plays into those who seek to diminish Russia’s culpability.
21 million Russians died because of the Nazis/Hitler.
Doesn't absolve Stalin of his wicked crimes but we owe the Russian people.
Indeed. The Russians won the peace with the blood of an entire generation. We should never forget.
Russia fought because they were invaded.
They actually carved up Poland with Germany and annexed the Baltic states.
They killed how many polish officers and intellectuals?
And of course their acts at the tail end and after world war two to take over Eastern Europe.
Hungary 56 etc etc etc
Lets not romanticise them too much
Surprising response to this one. Trust me, I’m not a Russian apologist. My point is that likening them to the Nazis in this instance is hyperbolic and inflammatory.
Modern Russia is in part built on the legend of the sacrifice its people made during WWII. Not dissimilar in some ways to the relationship the U.K. has to the same war.
It’s just another blunder from the blundering blancmange. We would be better to take the piss out of Putin; he’d hate it.
When the blue passport were announced wasn't it quoted from memory that it would be £600 million? Until it was revealed to be fake news and that was the cost of providing the passports for the life of the contract and the colour didn't affect the price?
Now the news is that its a £490 million tender that's gone to the French.
Sounds like the French firm are saving us £110 million unless I've got my facts wrong. In which case so be it!
Well, yes. That's the benefit of trading within the single market.
And of course their acts at the tail end and after world war two to take over Eastern Europe.
It was because of Hitler's Barbarossa folly that Communism was able to take over Central and Eastern Europe in 1944/5, as Beevor suggests, something that all the revolutions of 1917-1921 failed to do.
When the blue passport were announced wasn't it quoted from memory that it would be £600 million? Until it was revealed to be fake news and that was the cost of providing the passports for the life of the contract and the colour didn't affect the price?
Now the news is that its a £490 million tender that's gone to the French.
Sounds like the French firm are saving us £110 million unless I've got my facts wrong. In which case so be it!
Well, yes. That's the benefit of trading within the single market.
Err no - nothing to do with a single market
Err yes.
From the article
Under strict civil service procurement rules, the government is also not able to discriminate by excluding other EU nations from bidding
Well in news that I am sure will shock everyone Jess was completely outraged and tweeted her anger at how the evil Labour leader was doing something bad...
Then half hour later after actually reading the article a couple of links into her tweet she pulls back.
You might think no surely not, an elected representative would check these kind of things out before they go shouting their outrage about it...
Well in news that I am sure will shock everyone Jess was completely outraged and tweeted her anger at how the evil Labour leader was doing something bad...
Then half hour later after actually reading the article a couple of links into her tweet she pulls back.
You might think no surely not, an elected representative would check these kind of things out before they go shouting their outrage about it...
So no Jess Phillips will not be quitting Labour.
Well I spotted it - but it is so easy to jump on the outrage bus.
It is still outrageous that these investigations have yet to be resolved. It is not as if there is a vast witness list or mountains of evidence to plough through.
It shows a significant lack of urgency on the part of Labour to deal with harassment - the same lack of urgency that they have shown with all the anti-semitism investigations. Not to mention the complete lack of investigation into the misogyny and violent language used by senior members on the record.
Having said that, the Tory Party is not really able to show that they are any quicker. Charlie Elphicke and others are still waiting for their cases to be resolved.
And, of course, you have the LibDems who let Rennard back in.
It's a grey area, the literature wasn't officially branded, it was "Muslims for Hillary", not "Hillary for Muslims". They weren't putting words into her mouth, and I'm sure there were Muslims in the US that were in favour of Hillary.
Perhaps the Remain campaign should have put out "Indians for Brexit" adverts targeted at white working-class areas talking about how Brexit would enable a fairer immigration policy.
They could have, but I'm not sure it would have helped their underlying theme of "Leavers are all racist thickos".
The whole point about "Pakistanis for Fairer Immigration - Vote Brexit" (Pakistanis are more emotive than Indians) is that you would assume that Brexit would mean more Pakistanis in the UK.
It's a real minefield.
Yeah, I agree. As I said it's a real grey area. I'm really not sure what can be done about it either.
Should we stop the Tory party from pointing out that Corbyn draws supporters from IRA or ISIS terrorists?
I think that's fine.
But it's not OK for the Conservative Party to create an organisation called "Irish Republicans for Corbyn" and use that to post ostensibly pro-Corbyn messages.
Comments
This is supercharged, supernew, and superdirty.
We didn’t have the technology for this until the last few years. Not for civilian usage, anyway.
When Obama got elected all this back office people became hot property that everybody wanted to talk to.
There have been "attack adverts" in the past. But they always ended with "My name is Candidate Here, and I support this message." You couldn't have a TV advert that purported to be from Donald Trump, when it was actually from Hillary Clinton.
Voters take attack adverts with a pinch of salt. They know they are getting Candidate A's take on Candidate B. When they see something in Candidate B's name, then all their defences are down: they take it very seriously because they believe it is put out by the candidate.
Can you imagine if - in the UK - the Labour Party distributed leaflets that claimed to be from the Conservatives? It would an outrage. This is the same thing.
It's totally OK, as far as I'm concerned, for a campaign to personalise as much as they like. (What is a conversation with a candidate but the ultimate in a personalised message?) But I don't think it's acceptable to have adverts that look like they're from another candidate.
The best short summation I know is the following:
"Britain provided the time
American provided the money
Russia provided the blood"
Whilst it is false: the war bankrupted us, and America lost many people; IMO it does highlight the most important role each of us played. Without the UK from 1940-1941, the Axis may have won. We provided the time. Without American money and resources, the Axis may have won. And without Russian manpower (freely given by Stalin), the Axis may have won,
We all played a pivotal part.
Just five years ago, who had heard of Breitbart, InfoWars, Squawkbox etc?
In a dictatorship, you can be as profligate as you like with your soldiers' lives, so long as you keep on the right side of the dictator.
“Coming to Nigeria on February 15th, 2015,” the voiceover says in the manner of a trailer for a Hollywood movie.
“Dark. Scary. And very uncertain. Sharia for all.” And then it poses the question: “What would Nigeria look like if sharia were imposed by Buhari?”
Its answer to that question is certainly dark. And scary. It’s also graphically, brutally, violent. One minute and 19 seconds of archive news footage from Nigeria’s troubled past set to a horror movie soundtrack.
There are scenes of people being macheted to death. Their legs hacked off. Their skulls caved in. A former contractor said: “It was voter suppression of the most crude and basic kind. It was targeted at Buhari voters in Buhari regions to basically scare the shit out of them and stop them from voting.”
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/mar/21/cambridge-analyticas-ruthless-bid-to-sway-the-vote-in-nigeria
Section 106 of the Representation of the People Act 1983,which makes it illegal to make false statements of fact about a candidate. Watkins claimed that leaflets issued by Woolas falsely portrayed him as taking unlawful foreign donations, and linked him to Muslim extremists.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Woolas#Election_court_case
Facebook etc users are all totally naïve to think it's really free. They all ignored the IPO valuations based upon users.
I don’t know. We are genuinely in new territory. This is the more criminal end of it, but even things like Corbyn’s hat make me think we are going to hell in a handcart.
I used to be a proud Millsian. I’d hate to sacrifice free speech, but we seem to have invented a way of weaponising it.
It's a real minefield.
AI
Cloud (scale)
Abundance of psychometric data
Deep dive analytics
And social media.
She has had to run the full gauntlet.
I think ordinary people (us?) underestimate how toxic it is out there.
Should we stop the Tory party from pointing out that Corbyn draws supporters from IRA or ISIS terrorists?
But it's not OK for the Conservative Party to create an organisation called "Irish Republicans for Corbyn" and use that to post ostensibly pro-Corbyn messages.
Now the news is that its a £490 million tender that's gone to the French.
Sounds like the French firm are saving us £110 million unless I've got my facts wrong. In which case so be it!
These companies talk sh*t about their progress in AI. Yet when it comes to their real bread-and-butter, placing ads in the correct places, they fail.
Take a recent example I had on FB, Below an article from NewStatesman.com entitled: "Why should you give money directly and unconditionally to homeless people..." their ever-so-clever AI placed an ad for ...
Strongbow.
Yet placing ads in the correct places is massively important to them, and it fails time and time again, in ways anyone with an IQ higher than 20 would not.
(In case anyone doesn't believe me, I've got a screenshot).
This week we've betrayed the fishermen and today we're favouring a French company over a British company.
We might as well call this the Vichy Government.
https://twitter.com/DavidCoburnUKip/status/976490080218107904
So, able to identify everyone in a postcode in Milwaukee who is likes pineapple on pizza, who support capital punishment, but are in the closet.
Or better, simply identifying that as a potential segment worth communicating to, then discarding it automatically if tailored messaging does not attract interest.
Of course the w@nkers who write for the Guardian don't want to understand the facts.
She and pretty much everyone else under about 35 seemed totally unconcerned.
https://twitter.com/jessphillips/status/976559918454132737
They actually carved up Poland with Germany and annexed the Baltic states.
They killed how many polish officers and intellectuals?
And of course their acts at the tail end and after world war two to take over Eastern Europe.
Hungary 56 etc etc etc
Lets not romanticise them too much
Jess Phillips is absolutely right to go ballistic over this. However the tweet doesn't seem to match the detail of the ES article on the matter. The tweet makes it seem as if it would be a face to face session - but the article says that they won't meet.
Not sure I believe her that she will quit Labour though.
Besides, it doesn't have to be accurate. They can afford 95% of people to ignore it, as the point of advertising is not to get you to run out of the door and buy something ("Oh, I've seen a Jaguar ad, I must run out and by a £50k car", but brand awareness. It's subliminal. Add in the friends connection ("Jeff liked this, and hes a good bloke who knows his onions") and it's pernicious.
"You have no privacy. Get over it."
Trust me, I’m not a Russian apologist.
My point is that likening them to the Nazis in this instance is hyperbolic and inflammatory.
Modern Russia is in part built on the legend of the sacrifice its people made during WWII.
Not dissimilar in some ways to the relationship the U.K. has to the same war.
It’s just another blunder from the blundering blancmange. We would be better to take the piss out of Putin; he’d hate it.
From the article
Under strict civil service procurement rules, the government is also not able to discriminate by excluding other EU nations from bidding
The rules
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/public-sector-procurement-policy
Then half hour later after actually reading the article a couple of links into her tweet she pulls back.
You might think no surely not, an elected representative would check these kind of things out before they go shouting their outrage about it...
So no Jess Phillips will not be quitting Labour.
It is still outrageous that these investigations have yet to be resolved. It is not as if there is a vast witness list or mountains of evidence to plough through.
It shows a significant lack of urgency on the part of Labour to deal with harassment - the same lack of urgency that they have shown with all the anti-semitism investigations. Not to mention the complete lack of investigation into the misogyny and violent language used by senior members on the record.
Having said that, the Tory Party is not really able to show that they are any quicker. Charlie Elphicke and others are still waiting for their cases to be resolved.
And, of course, you have the LibDems who let Rennard back in.
"Adams backs Jeremy Corbyn as next PM"
NEW THREAD