Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[leicsmac]

22 minutes ago, Strokes said:

I’m not sure how I can add to my explanation to add further to my point. If you don’t see how effective the use of personal data combined with fake news could be to subvert the democratic process, then I’m beaten. 

Oh it’s different to Britain’s first because they make sure you see it and make the message personal to you.

This.

 

The sophistication of the technique and the way that the message sender is anonymised is a real issue here. With your average media shouting you know where the message is coming from.

[CarbonVirtine]

38 minutes ago, Strokes said:

If you don’t see how effective the use of personal data combined with fake news could be to subvert the democratic process, then I’m beaten. 

(I'm only quoting you as a segue into my comment. I'm kind of inclined to agree with "subvert")

 

It does seem to be effective, almost impressively so from a psychological anthropology perspective not least

 

I've been thinking a bit of late (doesn't hurt too much) about the general assumption that what CA have supposedly done is a 'bad thing'. Let me clarify, tease it out a bit. Sure, there's a lot of clarification to be done about data sharing/mining/protection, a lot of understanding too. It's not actually new as a practice, it's been happening for the best part of a couple of decades (ever applied for a loan/credit card?)  It's this new use that CA et al have put it to that's kind of new. As a piece of research, I can see why people got excited about it (which is a lesson in itself)

 

Let's put aside for a moment the issue of how legitimately/ethically the data was obtained. Not because I think it's irrelevant, far from it, I think Facebook particularly have got to address their own principals and operations here as they were clearly were lax/didn't care. FWIW, I see they haven't proposed (in Zuckerburg's apology) to completely cease the practice either, so clearly data sharing and mining will continue albeit with new permissions.

 

So to the nub of my post; I was rather taken by something said by the CA bloke (not Nix, the other one, his name escapes me) in the C4 sting - 'people decide on emotion not facts' I think we can largely agree that this is demonstrably true to a greater or lesser extent; even if you decide on the least polluting car, you want the blue/red one. So CA market their strategy as deliberately influencing emotion. We see it in advertising day in, day out so it's not the process itself that we find disagreeable. Yet there is this kind of assumption that elections, unlike everyday purchases, should be decided on facts. I mean, that just makes sense, right? Doesn't it? We'd certainly like to think so but it could also be naive. People vote for who they vote for for a myriad of reasons - loyalty for instance. If you realise that presenting facts to (some?) people is pretty much a waste of time then why not attempt to influence the emotions involved. 

 

My gut reaction is to say it's wrong. It certainly feels wrong. It does feel like it's subverting the democratic process... but there's a niggle and I'm not 100% convinced. I may just not like it simply because it doesn't give me an outcome that I like, or it's not 'marquis of queensbury rules' or somesuch.  I really don't know... we're in a new area and I'm unsure what to think.

Edited 22 March 2018 by CarbonVirtine

[Strokes]

5 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

This.

 

The sophistication of the technique and the way that the message sender is anonymised is a real issue here. With your average media shouting you know where the message is coming from.

I’m finding it a bit frustrating that people don’t seem as concerned as they ought to be over this. This isn’t about winning or losing the last elections or referendums, we all lose if democracy is impeaded.

[leicsmac]

17 minutes ago, CarbonVirtine said:

(I'm only quoting you as a segue into my comment. I'm kind of inclined to agree with "subvert")

 

It does seem to be effective, almost impressively so from a psychological anthropology perspective not least

 

I've been thinking a bit of late (doesn't hurt too much) about the general assumption that what CA have supposedly done is a 'bad thing'. Let me clarify, tease it out a bit. Sure, there's a lot of clarification to be done about data sharing/mining/protection, a lot of understanding too. It's not actually new as a practice, it's been happening for the best part of a couple of decades (ever applied for a loan/credit card?)  It's this new use that CA et al have put it to that's kind of new. As a piece of research, I can see why people got excited about it (which is a lesson in itself)

 

Let's put aside for a moment the issue of how legitimately/ethically the data was obtained. Not because I think it's irrelevant, far from it, I think Facebook particularly have got to address their own principals and operations here as they were clearly were lax/didn't care. FWIW, I see they haven't proposed (in Zuckerburg's apology) to completely cease the practice either, so clearly data sharing and mining will continue albeit with new permissions.

 

So to the nub of my post; I was rather taken by something said by the CA bloke (not Nix, the other one, his name escapes me) in the C4 sting - 'people decide on emotion not facts' I think we can largely agree that this is demonstrably true to a greater or lesser extent; even if you decide on the least polluting car, you want the blue/red one. So CA market their strategy as deliberately influencing emotion. There is this kind of assumption that elections should be decided on facts. I mean, that just makes sense, right? Doesn't it? We'd certainly like to think so but it could also be naive. People vote for who they vote for for a myriad of reasons - loyalty for instance. If you realise that presenting facts to (some?) people is pretty much a waste of time then why not attempt to influence the emotional aspect.  

 

My gut reaction is to say it's wrong. It certainly feels wrong. It does feel like it's subverting the democratic process... but there's a niggle and I'm not 100% convinced. We see it in advertising day in, day out so it's not the process itself that we find disagreeable. I may just not like it simply because it doesn't give me an outcome that I like, or it's not 'marquis of queensbury rules' of somesuch.  I really don't know... we're in a new area I'm unsure what to think.

8

This is pretty key.

 

I can see why a company like CA would want to influence the emotional aspect in the way that they do, because it's pretty clear that it would work. However, naive as it is, the more that emotive issues are kept out of politics and political decisions, the better, quite frankly. You start on a road where facts aren't deciding elections and rather what people "believe"/feel, you get people getting elected who are simply telling the electorate what they want to hear and nothing more (that's an issue already but is being exacerbated IMO). Those people, as history shows, are usually the authoritarian "strongmen" - bad for the democratic process and bad for a country itself.

 

Emotive voting tends to lend itself to authoritarians because they are the simplest and most effective communicators emotively, and a lot of people like the idea of someone telling them how things are going to be with them rather than putting in the effort to make a better world themselves.

 

Edit: In short, what CA does subverts democracy by making it more likely that leaders will be elected who seek to subvert the democratic process.

Edited 22 March 2018 by leicsmac

[CarbonVirtine]

11 minutes ago, Strokes said:

I’m finding it a bit frustrating that people don’t seem as concerned as they ought to be over this. This isn’t about winning or losing the last elections or referendums, we all lose if democracy is impeaded.

 

Let me play devil's advocate and ask how democracy is being impeded? Is it being impeded or is the process by which we (whoever 'we' is/are) decide being influenced in ways we find worrying. 

 

I know I'm concerned by it but, as I said, the newness of this is catching me wrong footed.   

[Strokes]

1 minute ago, CarbonVirtine said:

 

Let me play devil's advocate and ask how democracy is being impeded? Is it being impeded or is the process by which we (whoever 'we' is/are) decide being influenced in ways we find worrying. 

 

I know I'm concerned by it but, as I said, the newness of this is catching me wrong footed.   

The idea to trash your opponents isn’t new of course but do we even know who is behind it and their motives, we were largely unaware it was happening and the using of personal information we believed they wouldn’t be aware of is very sinister imo.

[CarbonVirtine]

Just now, Strokes said:

do we even know who is behind it and their motives, we were largely unaware it was happening and the using of personal information we believed they wouldn’t be aware of is very sinister imo.

 

Sinister indeed. That I can certainly get behind 100%. Transparency is missing in CA's operations. One has to ask why. Clearly, they don't want people to know the who and the why. That, in itself, should sound alarm bells.

[Strokes]

3 minutes ago, CarbonVirtine said:

 

Sinister indeed. That I can certainly get behind 100%. Transparency is missing in CA's operations. One has to ask why. Clearly, they don't want people to know the who and the why. That, in itself, should sound alarm bells.

Yeah it’s it’s easy to assume that Donald Trump won the election therefore his team hired CA based on increased chance of victory but it may not be that simple.

[Fox Ulike]

31 minutes ago, Strokes said:

I’m finding it a bit frustrating that people don’t seem as concerned as they ought to be over this. This isn’t about winning or losing the last elections or referendums, we all lose if democracy is impeaded.

 

People are concerned about it.

 

However, all I can see is democracy being impeaded in a new way.

 

Democracy has long been impeded by Daily Mail propaganda; and democracy has been impeded by a big red bus. These things don’t seem to concern you. But the use of personal data to impede democracy does?

 

Sorry, but I still don’t see why it's a special case.

[Guest]

It's like I've landed in wonderland reading some off the Brexiteer bollocks.

 

[Fox Ulike]

Has anyone seen an example of the personalised false messaging that CA have been sending out to people?

 

This might help.

[Strokes]

2 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said:

 

People are concerned about it.

 

However, all I can see is democracy being impeaded in a new way.

 

Democracy has long been impeded by Daily Mail propaganda; and democracy has been impeded by a big red bus. These things don’t seem to concern you. But the use of personal data to impede democracy does?

 

Sorry, but I still don’t see why it's a special case.

If everybody can see it, it can be challenged this has been hidden, how can you not see the difference?

[CarbonVirtine]

11 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I can see why a company like CA would want to influence the emotional aspect in the way that they do, because it's pretty clear that it would work. However, naive as it is, the more that emotive issues are kept out of politics and political decisions, the better, quite frankly. You start on a road where facts aren't deciding elections and rather what people "believe"/feel, you get people getting elected who are simply telling the electorate what they want to hear and nothing more (that's an issue already but is being exacerbated IMO). Those people, as history shows, are usually the authoritarian "strongmen" - bad for the democratic process and bad for a country itself.

 

Emotive voting tends to lend itself to authoritarians because they are the simplest and most effective communicators emotively, and a lot of people like the idea of someone telling them how things are going to be with them rather than putting in the effort to make a better world themselves.

 

Edit: In short, what CA does subverts democracy by making it more likely that leaders will be elected who seek to subvert the democratic process.

I want to agree. My world view tells me too.

 

I think what niggles me is that I realise that my world view also suggests how elections should be decided. That is, with voters deciding on facts. It's an arrogance. I have no right to dictate how people make their decisions. Besides, as you suggest, facts can presented in such a manner as to be what people want to hear so my method isn't beyond being manipulated either.  

 

IF the democratic process is simply that 'the people' get to decide, and I accept (as I do) that people can decide by whatever means they like (despite what I may think), then I'm kind of stuck. I have to find a solid reason to believe that influencing people's emotions is not an acceptable campaigning tool.  The transparency issue definitely concerns me, as does 'fake news' (some of the targeted messages were pretty outrageous!) but the process itself...

 

    

[Alf Bentley]

46 minutes ago, Beechey said:

Why though? We're probably by far Europe's most open major economy. Companies here have to compete globally because the government won't snuggle them and give them contracts solely because they're British. If a competitor offers a better deal why should we pay over the odds for a service we could otherwise get for cheaper? The difference between passport makers and the automotive industry is how many they employ, and thus there's a national need to sustain that industry because of it. Some will disagree with government assurances to businesses, but the difference between between your points about passports and the automotive industry is that one is a direct government contract, the other is private enterprise with barely any government contracts beyond police forces/government agencies using certain car brands.

 

I think they're too different to compare.

 

Why is it a PR error, do you mean? Because although some Brexit supporters (maybe including you and Matt) might be happy to leave things to the global free market, others voted Brexit to see Britain "take back control" of issues they felt should be under national control: borders, laws, trade etc. You might not be very nationalistic in your politics (I don't know) and I'm certainly not, but a lot of Brexit voters prioritised greater national self-determination. In that context, it doesn't seem to sit well for the Govt to take a contract for something as nationally symbolic (if economically insignificant) as passport production from a British firm and give the new contract to a Franco-Dutch one, post-Brexit. It's obviously not just me who sees this as a potential issue for Brexit voters. Minister Hancock was frantically rowing back in his interview, saying that the decision wasn't final yet, although the British firm had been told they'd lost - and Priti Patel is quoted by the BBC as saying the decision is "disgraceful" and "perverse".

 

Of course, there's a genuine debate to be had over which industries should be kept "national" due to strategic importance, employment - or symbolic value. I suppose there's nothing to prevent us removing the production of British banknotes and coins from the Royal Mint and Bank of England and outsourcing them to China or India. No doubt China or India would be technically capable of doing the work and could do it for a lower price?

 

Like you (apparently), I have a pragmatic attitude to the protection of national firms/industries. Beyond a certain point, it becomes futile (I'd criticise some of both Corbyn's and Trump's attitudes in that regard). Once developing countries have the capacity to supply certain goods or services reliably, to good quality and for a much cheaper price than domestic firms, it's counter-productive for the UK Govt to subsidise uncompetitive British firms long-term - though there are arguments for short-term subsidies while firms diversify and employees retrain etc. That would be my main criticism of Thatcher - not that she refused to support loss-making industries forever, but that she pulled the plug on them without helping communities to develop alternative industries/employment, creating social problems that persist today. Once old industries become non-viable in the UK, it is then the Govt's job to help firms to move into new products or sectors where developing countries cannot yet compete - by funding education/skills/retraining, investing in infrastructure, using public funds/loans/tax-breaks to encourage innovation, venture capital, new investment etc.

 

There does seem to be a disparity, too, between the extent to which some neighbouring countries (e.g. France, Germany) intervene to help their domestic firms - and our more "leave it to the global free market" approach. Scottish Power, Eon & EDF are Spanish, German & French-owned, respectively (EDF is largely owned by the French state). Do British firms hold a similar dominant position in foreign markets? Similarly, most UK car makers are foreign-owned.......maybe not a problem while business is prospering and political relations with neighbours good, but could become more of an issue in difficult times, relying on foreign suppliers for essentials like power, food, jobs. There have to be compromises and risks, but where do you draw the line....

[CarbonVirtine]

5 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said:

Has anyone seen an example of the personalised false messaging that CA have been sending out to people?

I have indeed! As I said in my post above, outrageous stuff. Those supermarket tabloids (National Enquirer etc) would be envious.

[leicsmac]

14 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said:

 

People are concerned about it.

 

However, all I can see is democracy being impeaded in a new way.

 

Democracy has long been impeded by Daily Mail propaganda; and democracy has been impeded by a big red bus. These things don’t seem to concern you. But the use of personal data to impede democracy does?

 

Sorry, but I still don’t see why it's a special case.

I'll repeat what I said above.

 

The sophistication of the technique and the way that the message sender is anonymised is a real issue here. With your average media shouting you know where the message is coming from.

 

The thing that marks this as different is the lack of accountability and attributability. Political influence isn't a new thing, but the kind that is totally anonymised is a way that makes the average voter not know who is manipulating them is something new, and dangerous.

 

7 minutes ago, CarbonVirtine said:

I want to agree. My world view tells me too.

 

I think what niggles me is that I realise that my world view also suggests how elections should be decided. That is, with voters deciding on facts. It's an arrogance. I have no right to dictate how people make their decisions. Besides, as you suggest, facts can presented in such a manner as to be what people want to hear so my method isn't beyond being manipulated either.  

 

IF the democratic process is simply that 'the people' get to decide, and I accept (as I do) that people can decide by whatever means they like (despite what I may think), then I'm kind of stuck. I have to find a solid reason to believe that influencing people's emotions is not an acceptable campaigning tool.  The transparency issue definitely concerns me, as does 'fake news' (some of the targeted messages were pretty outrageous!) but the process itself...

 

    

3

It's an ethical dilemma to be sure: do you subvert the idea of free speech, freedom of conscience and open campaigning in a small way to ensure that only facts are given to the electorate rather than emotive arguments, or do you accept that people have the freedom to make decisions based on emotion and so accept the nonzero chance that the end result will be an authoritarian leader and the dismantling of the democratic process anyway?

 

I honestly don't know.

Edited 22 March 2018 by leicsmac

[Fox Ulike]

15 minutes ago, Strokes said:

If everybody can see it, it can be challenged this has been hidden, how can you not see the difference?

 

OK. To be clear. I can see the distinction that you’re making between the two things.

 

What I can’t see, is why you perceive one to be deeply concerning, but the others completely not.

 

I mean, it is fairly straight-forward to argue the other way around. I mean, the Daily Mail is a trusted source. As is Boris Johnson. Surely false messaging from an establishment that you know and trust is far worse that false messaging on Facebook whereby you have no idea of the source.

 

Example: What's worse: The below, or an anonymous message on your Facebook feed saying "Hi Strokes, those judges are out of touch. They are enemies of the people"...

 

How can you be deeply concerned by one of these, but not by the other?

 

Edited 22 March 2018 by Fox Ulike

[Fox Ulike]

8 minutes ago, CarbonVirtine said:

I have indeed! As I said in my post above, outrageous stuff. Those supermarket tabloids (National Enquirer etc) would be envious.

Is there anything you can post or share?

[CarbonVirtine]

4 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

It's an ethical dilemma to be sure: do you subvert the idea of free speech, freedom of conscience and open campaigning in a small way to ensure that only facts are given to the electorate rather than emotive arguments, or do you accept that people have the freedom to make decisions based on emotion and so accept the nonzero chance that the result will be the dismantling of the democratic process anyway?

 

I honestly don't know.

 

No, me neither.

 

I wonder, is there an assumption as to what the democratic process is? Perhaps if we can clarify that one, we can make some head way into the ethical dilemma.

[Fox Ulike]

14 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I'll repeat what I said above.

 

The sophistication of the technique and the way that the message sender is anonymised is a real issue here. With your average media shouting you know where the message is coming from.

 

The thing that marks this as different is the lack of accountability and attributability. Political influence isn't a new thing, but the kind that is totally anonymised is a way that makes the average voter not know who is manipulating them is something new, and dangerous.

 

It's an ethical dilemma to be sure: do you subvert the idea of free speech, freedom of conscience and open campaigning in a small way to ensure that only facts are given to the electorate rather than emotive arguments, or do you accept that people have the freedom to make decisions based on emotion and so accept the nonzero chance that the end result will be an authoritarian leader and the dismantling of the democratic process anyway?

 

I honestly don't know.

 

I do see what you’re saying, but I think your focus is on the wrong thing.

 

OK there’s no accountability cos you don’t know who sends these messages. But is that any different to media outlets owned by individuals with an agenda to push? Lord Rothermere has no accountability for what is published in his newspapers. Rupert Murdoch isn’t accountable for Fake news on his Fox channel. No-one is accountable for the “£350m to the NHS” message.  This sort of subversion is probably much worse. The problem is that we’ve all just become normalised to it. T

 

The CA stuff shocks us only because it’s new, not because it’s any worse than how elections are already subverted.

Edited 22 March 2018 by Fox Ulike

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, CarbonVirtine said:

 

No, me neither.

 

I wonder, is there an assumption as to what the democratic process is? Perhaps if we can clarify that one, we can make some head way into the ethical dilemma.

For me, that process is everyone of age having one free and fair vote in a system to elect a representative for them. That's what it comes down to.

 

Authoritarianism in all its forms places either subtle or blatant limitations on that process.

 

1 minute ago, Fox Ulike said:

 

I do see what you’re saying, but I think your focus is on the wrong thing.

 

OK there’s no accountability cos you don’t know who sends these messages. But is that any different to media outlets owned by individuals with an agenda to push? Lord Rothermere has no accountability for what is published in his newspapers. Rupert Murdoch isn’t accountable for Fake news on his Fox channel. No-one is accountable for the “£350m to the NHS” message.

 

As I said before, this sort of subversion is probably much worse. The problem is that we’ve all just become normalised to it. This shocks us only because it’s new, not because it’s any worse than how elections are already subverted.

There's something in that - I've always been leery of Murdoch in particular for the exact reasons you say here, he has considerable political power without ever having stood in an election in his life.

 

I think that it is the increasingly sophisticated methods of manipulation that worry me the most.

[CarbonVirtine]

Just now, Fox Ulike said:

Is there anything you can post or share?

Not without web searching for it.

 

Channel 4 news showed some examples, claims about 'crooked Hilary' etc. 

[Strokes]

13 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said:

 

OK. To be clear. I can see the distinction that you’re making between the two things.

 

What I can’t see, is why you perceive one to be deeply concerning, but the others completely not.

 

I mean, it is fairly straight-forward to argue the other way around. I mean, the Daily Mail is a trusted source. As is Boris Johnson. Surely false messaging from an establishment that you know and trust is far worse that false messaging on Facebook whereby you have no idea of the source.

 

Example: What's worse: The below, or an anonymous message on your Facebook feed saying "Hi Strokes, those judges are out of touch. They are enemies of the people"...

 

How can you be deeply concerned by one of these, but not by the other?

 

Yeah the difference is the daily mail are accountable, we know who they are and what they do. We know the message they are delivering and can (if wrong/fake/unethical) put a case forward to challenge it. How can you do that with a secret message?

[Strokes]

7 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said:

 

I do see what you’re saying, but I think your focus is on the wrong thing.

 

OK there’s no accountability cos you don’t know who sends these messages. But is that any different to media outlets owned by individuals with an agenda to push? Lord Rothermere has no accountability for what is published in his newspapers. Rupert Murdoch isn’t accountable for Fake news on his Fox channel. No-one is accountable for the “£350m to the NHS” message.  This sort of subversion is probably much worse. The problem is that we’ve all just become normalised to it. T

 

The CA stuff shocks us only because it’s new, not because it’s any worse than how elections are already subverted.

They are accountable because we are arguing about the message and debating it. You’ve just said what are these CA messages, that’s the point just there.

[CarbonVirtine]

3 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

For me, that process is everyone of age having one free and fair vote in a system to elect a representative for them. That's what it comes down to.

<snip>

I think that it is the increasingly sophisticated methods of manipulation that worry me the most.

 

So if someone wishes to elect someone because they have the nicest hair, for example, then we have to accept it. I'd agree with that, and all its logical inferences. People are allowed to vote for whoever they wish, for whatever reason, by whatever decision making process they might use. That is democracy. I guess the challenge for those us who want people to be more fact based is to be aware of what's going on and and to challenge it as necessary, by presenting another view.

 

Key to that however is transparency; knowing where the message is coming from and the motivation behind it so that it can be tackled. So, yes, I agree. Finally! I'll side my ethical dilemma for the present. The more concerning aspect is the use of targeted 'fake news' deliberately intended to manipulate and produce an outcome.