Facebook's role in Brexit — and the threat to democracy

[bobiana]

Why is nobody talking about this, still? Is it too horrible to contemplate, or do people just not get it?

Until the algorithmic targeting of swing voters using illegally obtained data, unlimited spending, and zero oversight is stopped, it’s game, set, and match.

www.ted.com/talks/carole_cadwalladr_facebook_s_role_in_brexit_and_the_threat_to_democracy/up-next

There’s absolutely nothing to stop this from happening again during an election period.

I raised this with my MP in an email. He didn't bother responding to the point I was making about it. Sigh.

I've not seen anybody really bring this up - and keep hammering it home - as an issue.

@nowordforfluffy

I email my MP every time something else comes out around this.

He responds and thanks me every time but, honestly, I don’t think he understands it at all, or the implications.

I read that Tom Watson says the only way to beat Farage is to support a second referendum.

Pretty naive.

There’s nothing to stop the same financial forces dumping another load of propaganda on Facebook again, laundering their cash through different leave groups again and hugely overspending.

And that’s before we even consider the influence of YouTube (another festering tumour).

It’s Goebbels on steroids, and the only way to win is to play the same game, or legislate against these cancerous social media companies.

OP
You have of course got close to the original problem and as far as I can see there is no way that a second referendum wouldn't be similarly blighted.
Perhaps with the particular religious time 'doubting Thomases' add to the mix. Nothing catastrophic has actually happened yet, principally because the relationship with the EU hasn't changed yet. The closest thing has been the French customs control working to rule. Had they actually treated cargo and passengers with full 'due diligence' it would have been more spectacular.
Everyone expects a 'quick fix' and the fact that there will be a minimum of 3 or 4 years of negotiations, even in a 'no deal' situation hasn't registered with the general public.
The fact that Mrs May has not investigated the original SM lies and distortions suggests it will never happen, certainly not until it is way too late.

I think people either:

1. Don't believe it at all.
2. Think they are personally resistant to being influenced by FB material.

If you try to say that is worrying that the US billionaires like Mercer or the Russians are trying to influence our politics you just sound like a weirdo conspiracy theorist. Except it is true!

This report gets me- few seem to believe it or care!
publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmcumeds/1791/179109.htm

I admit I don't understand this. I am the classic swing voter in every election and wavered on Brexit till the last minute.

In the run-up to the referendum my Facebook was wall to wall Remain stuff, pro EU info and never-ending fear about leaving. I had to go and Google to find information about Leave in order to understand both sides, formulate my thoughts and make a balanced decision that I could be certain I was happy with

I have just read a book about how highly addictive mobile phones and social media are. Couple this to the fact that electoral commission does not have the resources to investigate breaking of electoral laws and an unwillingness of the government to fully implement basic democracy (yes, just look TM). I truly believe that our democracy is being/will be manipulated in the future. And it will probably be by populist parties/politicians with the most money. And because everyone is so wrapped up in a bubble with their devices no-one will really know or understand that we are all receiving different information tailored to our beliefs. Pretty much like we are starting to pay different prices for the same goids/services based on our surfing and buying habits - but just a version that affects democracy.

Ps thanks for the ted link. I actually had a conversation at work about this with a colleague who said "I don't care about my privacy". A complete Facebook addict. What she didn't get is that it is the privacy of other people who are easily persuaded to make unsound decisions that we need to worry about (which of course is never us!). And I am talking about my cousin who voted for Brexit because she supports the England football team, while having a husband from a European country and is now horrified at the prospect of having to pay for him to remain in the UK.

I guess people are influenced by their own experience?

In the run-up to the referendum my Facebook didn't have much Remain or Leave stuff. I did Google my own information especially about Immigration as this seemed to be the main issue Leave kept coming back to again and again. I didn't understand what they were saying.

I found numerous proper research papers especially from
the LSE and Oxford publications that there was a huge net benefit from immigration and that the myths put out were just not supported by the facts.

So my own research which confirmed that Farage etc was lying. Then in the last days before the vote I actually wavered about my understanding as I was bombarded by stuff from BeLeave. I found it weird and although I felt I'd understood stuff from my research before, the BeLeave stuff did make me doubt myself. It felt like the BeLeave and Leave campaign were more vocal, dominant and powerful. It made me feel a bit isolated in the opposite conclusions I'd drawn. However I managed to go back and re-read the LSE stuff and ignored the propaganda.

@Kummerspeck

The ads were never intended to be seen by absolutely everyone. That’s not how Facebook advertising works.

The referendum was swung via 1% of the population; a minuscule slice of the Facebook pie.

Whether or not you or I personally saw them, is irrelevant. They were able to target enough swing voters with lies and propaganda to influence the vote.

Remember; Farage told Zuckerberg that leave would never have won the referendum without Facebook.

All the data on those ads, how much was spent, and who spent it is not a matter of public record. Facebook have refused to give up the evidence.

What we do know, is that the leave side laundered money through so called “grass roots” leave groups in order to overspend on campaigning.

That technique is still going on; most recently a spend of £1 million on “no deal” Facebook ads (again funnelled through so-called grass roots leave groups).

Perhaps you could watch the video I linked to, if you don’t get it? It’s very short and explains the situation quite well.

It's not just Facebook. Even YouTube.

I'm getting suggested videos that support the Tomme Waxy Lemon Robinson and I have never watched any of his content.

Scary how personal data can be manipulated. That's how people are radicalised

I dont really understand this either. At the time I was working nights so my life just consisted of work sleep and attempting to be a functioning parent in the gaps. I didn't see much at all on fb other than a family member harping on about Europe but I hid their stuff. Then again the only thing I've ever bought online is a travel cup so that's all I ever get adverts for.

I do find it scary how it is now changing so that people only tend to see stuff that they agree with or believe as it stops discussion and changes how people think. I have noticed that some are getting less tolerant of other peoples views and I think this may have something to do with it.

The Sri Lankan government has shut down Facebook and other social media sites following the terrorist attacks in order to prevent the spread of misinformation, until their investigations are concluded. There’s an article in the Guardian about how this is an acknowledgement of the dangers that SM poses, and a significant shift from the way we thought about such sites just three years ago:

www.theguardian.com/world/2019/apr/22/sri-lankas-social-media-blackout-reflects-sense-that-online-dangers-outweigh-benefits

I use a browser extension called Fluff Busting Purity - it allows you to customise Facebook's appearance and lets you remove ads amongst many other things. Wonderful! Since having that for the last couple of years I've seen no more of those annoying things. The developer is however constantly having to find more workarounds as FB is always changing. If you have FB and are interested then either search for that in the search bar or visit FBPurity dot com and you'll see what it's all about. Has made a huge difference to my 'FB experience'!

I've been getting the Waxy Lemon bloke videos on YouTube too, despite never expressing any interest in him, or anything like him, and being a staunch remain voter.

The weird thing is, I have two YouTube accounts, a personal one I use to watch amusing cat videos, and one linked to my academic email address which I use top watch lectures and related videos - lots of US universities upload theirs. It is the latter account that is getting the Waxy Lemon recommendations.

The only reason I can think that might be targeted is because I'm searching for a lot of European history related content and that fits with whatever terms they are targeting.

I think the reason the Government won’t do anything is because they and their sponsors plan to use the same techniques themselves.

I think the reason the Government won’t do anything is because they and their sponsors plan to use the same techniques themselves.

And the Liberal Democrats it would seem - link to their website...

www.libdems.org.uk/our-plan-to-stop-brexit

"Our plan to stop Brexit"

March 2019 - Over the next month, we are preparing to;

Reach half a million EU nationals to encourage them to register to vote in local elections.

•Deliver leaflets with our message to 1 million homes.

•Write to 100,000 key voters to encourage them to take action and support our campaign.

Target 2 million people with adverts online to add to our 250,000 campaign supporters.

We will drive our message home with the voters who need to hear it - by taking our campaign of online advertising and direct mail to the next level.

The genie is out of the bottle. There’s no way they’ll ban or suppress something that’s shown to be so successful.

Ten Arguments for Deleting Your Social Media by Jaron Lanier has quotes from the pioneers of Social Media that confirm the addictiveness of SM and the targeting of users.

Stopping it, even if the will was there, is impossible: it’s too late. We need to concentrate on countering the effects.

Reaching people using advertising on the internet including on social media isn't new.

What's new is disguising advertising as news, and hiding from viewers the identity of the organisation paying for it. There is no evidence that the LibDems intend to do either of those things.

@nuttynutjob

Oh yes, YouTube is another tumour on society.

Russia Today has been the most influential brand on YouTube (not sure if they still are) by manipulating the recommendation algorithm to position propaganda.

They buy up and promote innocuous viral clips which millions of people watch, and then the recommendation algorithm suggests their other (less innocuous) videos to the user.

YouTube is designed to do only one thing - keep you watching, keep you watching, keep you watching, and keep you watching.

Google couldn’t give a monkeys if what is being watched is damaging, manipulative, or lies. As long as it keeps you watching, that’s all they care about.

As it turns out right-wing and conspiracy theory videos do extremely well in this environment.

YouTube has done more than anything to perpetuate the post-fact society we now live in, in my opinion.

@Mistigri

Online advertising isn’t new. That’s correct.

However, the sophisticated data science used to train targeting algorithms, and the masses of personal data we’ve handed over to the companies that know how to do that is new.

It’s not just the data people hand over themselves; Facebook buy data about you from other sources too, on everything from income and education, to whether you subscribe to online services or if you’re just a one off online shopper.

They also know most websites their users visit, as most companies use Facebook tracking code on their site.

Also new is facial and image recognition. There’s a reason Facebook and Google want you to upload all your photos; they’re busy running them through AI to discover where you go, what you did while you were there, who you did it with, and what you ate.

You’re right, disguising advertising as news is new. But it’s also the new methods of tracking and targeting that make that so effective.

The leave campaign were able to target a very small sliver of swing voters very directly. Most of us weren’t aware it was happening, and it’s only the work of one journalist that brought it out. If t wasn’t for her, it would have flown under the radar completely undetected.

Sorry, but none of this should be shrugged off as nothing new. It is new, and evolving beyond your wildest nightmares very, very quickly.

{Sorry, but none of this should be shrugged off as nothing new. It is new, and evolving beyond your wildest nightmares very, very quickly.}

Well the whereabouts to the nearest few metres of everyone who has a mobile phone is 'known' to the mobile networks, even if the phones are only 'on', never mind what they are being used for.
The Stazi could have invested in armchairs as the data comes to them, rather than following people about.

However, the sophisticated data science used to train targeting algorithms, and the masses of personal data we’ve handed over to the companies that know how to do that is new.

I don't disagree; my point was really restricted to Clavinova's comment about the LibDems advertising, which sounds like pretty standard political communication to me. They aren't exactly trying to hide it.

I don't have a fundamental issue with using data to target potential customers, as long as data gathering is done legally and ethically, and advertising is (a) clearly designated as a marketing communication and (b) the identity of the person paying for the ad is clearly indicated.

But of course those two criteria often aren't met and I'm sufficiently concerned about my personal privacy that I have removed my Facebook a/c. The only other social media I use is twitter - where I am anonymous and mute 95% of the accounts which serve ads to me (I now get the weirdest mixture of ads for medical journals, technical/industrial products, and government agencies selling me the delights of visiting Japan and India ).

@mistigri

Ah I see, I didn’t realise you were replying to someone else.

I guess we’re going off on a bit of a tangent; it was the way this tech has been applied to defy electoral law with zero oversight that I originally posted about.

But I guess people not understanding the underlying tech and what’s possible, is perhaps why the scandal is getting no traction whatsoever.

To continue off down the tangent, something you might be interested in is that, soon, being selective about what you post might not even be enough to ensure your privacy.

AI is getting pretty reliable at inferring who you are, what you believe in, your sexual orientation and so on, even if you don’t post about religion, politics, or anything personal:

www.nytimes.com/2019/04/21/opinion/computational-inference.html

AI is getting pretty reliable at inferring who you are, what you believe in, your sexual orientation and so on, even if you don’t post about religion, politics, or anything personal:

Well, twitter's AI is terrible then. I had to mute about a hundred or so of its advertisers until it served me anything I was remotely interested in. It still serves me completely inappropriate ads most of the time (eg tonight the French blood bank to which as a Briton I cannot donate).

@mistigri

Ad supply... They can only show you what they have. Twitter’s ad inventory isn’t what Facebook’s is. It’s not a reliable gauge of the underlying tracking and data processing they have access to.

Twitter is the only one I’m still on as well (I have Google and Facebook domains completely blocked on all my devices). But it’s always subject to review - keep your eye on them.