Britain's response to Russia

tangled_metal

I think CA basically took raw data (harvested by another company) and developed a psychological analysis of it in order to develop FB content that was highly targeted to its audience. It's like using stolen data to give you the exact piece of news (heavily biased to suit your mindset) that could tip you to act politically in one way. A lot of floating voters are probably right on the balance point of flipping either way. A marginal gain can do it.

The other aspect is FB works by sharing posts. What I see as a good news piece (actually a paid for political advert) then gets shared among my friends. How many of them are on the same tipping point? Influence me and your can influence potentially a lot more. It's how 270,000 ppl who gave permission to share information led to 50 million individuals forming part of the database of information.

I reckon the relevant sides in the referendum used databases of voter information / research to identify where to focus to get the most benefit. However these are from public domain information or information gleaned from permitted sources (ever failed to tick or de-ice the box in online forms?).

However the bus wasn't targeted or subtle. It was not likely to come from such databases.

Either way it wasn't an insidious way of putting out information aimed at changing views. Creating online ads to mimic news is distasteful IMHO. I think it's time for social media sites to be treated as publishers. In fact I'd put them on a similar footing as TV news media, that is more strict than even newspapers.

surrey_commuter

Slowmart wrote:

SC, you need to look harder if you can’t see a difference between advertising and fake news stories targeted at individuals with the insight of their behaviours with the intent and capability of polarising views.

Bizarrely there are rules on advertising being truthful and identifiable as advertising but they do use insight into behaviour with the intent of changing views.

FB will get hammered as they have been collecting data in some very devious ways.

The issue with the political messaging for me is who paid for it but frankly I don’t believe the political will exists to even look into it.

pblakeney

^^^^ The massive white elephant in the room they are scared to look at far less accuse.

robert88

PBlakeney wrote:

^^^^ The massive white elephant in the room they are scared to look at far less accuse.

..because FB et al have the dirt on them perhaps? :shock: As well as the rest of us.. :shock: :shock:

pblakeney

True.
But you don’t just go after the getaway driver after a fatal bank robbery.

rick_chasey

I do wonder if the whole CA thing has been a bit overblown.

I mean, what they do is targeted advertising based on analysis of facebook user preferences (Which they seem to be happy to express on the website), which they then correlate with poling data to identify marginal voters which then might just make a parties’ ad pounds a bit more effective.

Sure, they broke terms & conditions with FB, but that happens all the time, and all the honeytrap stuff is juicy for a headline, but ultimately it’s glorified targeted advertising.

And since when did we suddenly expect either adverts or political messages to be all truthful?

I mean, not so long ago people were writing articles all over the place, talking about visiting grim places to explain why they voted trump/Brexit. But now suddenly it’s the data puppet masters with their lies that are the big demon?

Surely these people who were persuaded by CA to vote Brexit or UKIP or whoever were already 95% of the way there at least?

rjsterry

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Slowmart wrote:

SC, you need to look harder if you can’t see a difference between advertising and fake news stories targeted at individuals with the insight of their behaviours with the intent and capability of polarising views.

Bizarrely there are rules on advertising being truthful and identifiable as advertising but they do use insight into behaviour with the intent of changing views.

FB will get hammered as they have been collecting data in some very devious ways.

The issue with the political messaging for me is who paid for it but frankly I don’t believe the political will exists to even look into it.

CA made a point of making their targeted advertising not look like advertising as people are more receptive making it difficult to identify the source. The primary reason for this is to get round the election/referendum campaign funding rules in the UK and US. In the US official campaign spending is limited, but provided there is no coordination with a candidate's official campaign, other sympathetic bodies such as PACs can spend as much as they like. What CA was doing allows enough distance from the official campaign to give the appearance of no coordination.

The other aspect is that the data that CA held allowed the Trump campaign to game the electoral college, focusing their advertising on the specific people they needed to get out and vote. One of the reasons Labour were so much more successful than expected at the last GE is that they were better at locating and targeting their 'dormant' potential voters than the Conservatives.

tailwindhome

I just wanted to know which Friends character I was.

bianchimoon

So Trump went against all national security advice not to congratulate Putin, even to the point of them putting notes in front of him with a statement in capitals saying "DO NOT CONGRATULATE' No mention of use of nerve agent attack on UK soil, dubious election practices, not allowing main opposition to run. Junckers congratulates him as well, Merkel and Macron 'wished him well' I think our allies have gone as far as they are prepared/able. Maybe that's just the way it is and it's better to let it just fizzle out and get on with life.

rick_chasey

TailWindHome wrote:

I just wanted to know which Friends character I was.

Fibi?

imposter2.0

Rick Chasey wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

I just wanted to know which Friends character I was.

Fibi?

or even Phoebe?

surrey_commuter

rjsterry wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Slowmart wrote:

SC, you need to look harder if you can’t see a difference between advertising and fake news stories targeted at individuals with the insight of their behaviours with the intent and capability of polarising views.

Bizarrely there are rules on advertising being truthful and identifiable as advertising but they do use insight into behaviour with the intent of changing views.

FB will get hammered as they have been collecting data in some very devious ways.

The issue with the political messaging for me is who paid for it but frankly I don’t believe the political will exists to even look into it.

CA made a point of making their targeted advertising not look like advertising as people are more receptive making it difficult to identify the source. The primary reason for this is to get round the election/referendum campaign funding rules in the UK and US. In the US official campaign spending is limited, but provided there is no coordination with a candidate's official campaign, other sympathetic bodies such as PACs can spend as much as they like. What CA was doing allows enough distance from the official campaign to give the appearance of no coordination.

The other aspect is that the data that CA held allowed the Trump campaign to game the electoral college, focusing their advertising on the specific people they needed to get out and vote. One of the reasons Labour were so much more successful than expected at the last GE is that they were better at locating and targeting their 'dormant' potential voters than the Conservatives.

but slebs are also criticised for "advertising" products they are paid to promote and product placement has long been a feature of films.

I never saw the difference between phone hacking and going through somebody's bins and in the same way I just think legislation needs to catch up with tech.

Maybe I am being naive but I see little difference between Boris writing £350m on the side of a bus and Russia paying to put FB ads with the same message. And if the stories about Aaron Banks are correct then there is a good chance that Russia paid for the bus.

Russians ive the Tories millions every year so there is a good chance they will be paying for the next bus.

orraloon

I hear de Pfeffel has invoked Godwin's Law already. Reassuring.

rick_chasey

Imposter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

I just wanted to know which Friends character I was.

Fibi?

or even Phoebe?

America innit.

surrey_commuter

Pinno wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Pinno wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Pinno wrote:

A manipulated database which multiplies across many users thereby reaching a huge 'audience' and having an influence with the primary aim to bias a referendum for the purposes of disruption or...
A banner on the side of a bus advertised with the intention to sway a vote for the purposes of winning a referendum by argument and democratic process (whether false or not).

so you would have no issue if Boris had used FB rather than the side of a bus?

Uh? Boris is only going to influence a hand full of twits (if he has any followers at all).

A programme that uses FB members and friends of members has an infinite multiplication. It implies real expression of opinion when in fact it is a manipulated bias, which given the narrow margin, may have had a significant impact on the result.
Anyone has a right to express their views and each person will carry more weight depending on that persons standing. However, that is quite different from a computer generated programme which fools thousands of readers into thinking that a, b or c is fact or is a relevant point and that point is the view or an expression of an individual.

Do you see my point?!

Not really. Boris’s bus must have been seen by everybody in the country multiple times.

The beauty of the FB campaign was that it cost chickenfeed.

You could also reasonably argue that only an idiot would believe that Turkey was going to join the EU and 70 million of them were heading our way. As far as I now they were only repeating rubbish spouted by official Leave campaigners.

The biggest impact here and in the States was probably scare the easily lead into bothering to vote.

Apparently the LibDems were offered the chance to use the kit and declined -would it have been wrong if they did?

Is the problem the message, the delivery system or the paymaster?

The latter two.
Anyway, i'm only expressing a concern about the use of media. Okay, peanuts but with potentially, a huge impact. Besides, I didn't vote leave.
Why can't you accept that the manner in which FB was used could be considered as manipulation of the masses for an ulterior motive that went beyond the advantages and disadvantages of leaving the EU.Behind it, an insidious move to weaken the UK?
If what you are arguing has any merit, why the spotlight on Cambridge Analytica

I remain 100% convinced there is no economic advantage to leaving the UK so see the whole thing as manipulation of the masses for an ulterior motive.

I suspect there was dodgy money funnelled through Aaron Banks and NI. Plus we know Russian money funds the Tories so yes outsiders are looking to weaken the UK.

The spotlight is on CA because of politics. Also MSM see FB as eating their lunch so it is a convenient stick to beat them with. There is reasonable evidence to suggest that FB is grabbing data in all manner of unsavoury ways. With demographics working against them I would not be buying shares

rjsterry

Surrey Commuter wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Slowmart wrote:

SC, you need to look harder if you can’t see a difference between advertising and fake news stories targeted at individuals with the insight of their behaviours with the intent and capability of polarising views.

Bizarrely there are rules on advertising being truthful and identifiable as advertising but they do use insight into behaviour with the intent of changing views.

FB will get hammered as they have been collecting data in some very devious ways.

The issue with the political messaging for me is who paid for it but frankly I don’t believe the political will exists to even look into it.

CA made a point of making their targeted advertising not look like advertising as people are more receptive making it difficult to identify the source. The primary reason for this is to get round the election/referendum campaign funding rules in the UK and US. In the US official campaign spending is limited, but provided there is no coordination with a candidate's official campaign, other sympathetic bodies such as PACs can spend as much as they like. What CA was doing allows enough distance from the official campaign to give the appearance of no coordination.

The other aspect is that the data that CA held allowed the Trump campaign to game the electoral college, focusing their advertising on the specific people they needed to get out and vote. One of the reasons Labour were so much more successful than expected at the last GE is that they were better at locating and targeting their 'dormant' potential voters than the Conservatives.

but slebs are also criticised for "advertising" products they are paid to promote and product placement has long been a feature of films.

I never saw the difference between phone hacking and going through somebody's bins and in the same way I just think legislation needs to catch up with tech.

Maybe I am being naive but I see little difference between Boris writing £350m on the side of a bus and Russia paying to put FB ads with the same message. And if the stories about Aaron Banks are correct then there is a good chance that Russia paid for the bus.

Russians ive the Tories millions every year so there is a good chance they will be paying for the next bus.

Firstly, going through someone's bins and phone hacking are both illegal.

On the nature of the advertising, everyone knows what's going on when Nicole Scherzinger flogs vitamin pills (I've been travelling by tube a lot recently) or James Bond wears a particular watch. Equally, that bus was very clearly marked with the Leave.EU branding. The stuff that CA was putting out deliberately omitted any mention of who was behind it and used other means to disguise it's origin. The more home-made and less like advertising it looked the better as it gave the impression that this was something coming from a friend of a friend.

Then there's the way FB have been whoring their users' data around with negligible oversight of what happens to the data once it leaves their servers. And very dubious means of gaining consent from users for their data to be used by third parties.

Finally, yes the thousands of people who felt left behind and ignored by mainstream politics are part of both Brexit and Trump. They are the raw materials that CA used FB to exploit.

And CA are just guns for hire so anyone with deep enough pockets looking to game the system for their personal benefit or destabilise a rival country by ensuring an idiot is elected now has a much more effective way of achieving their goal.

pinno

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Pinno wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Pinno wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Pinno wrote:

A manipulated database which multiplies across many users thereby reaching a huge 'audience' and having an influence with the primary aim to bias a referendum for the purposes of disruption or...
A banner on the side of a bus advertised with the intention to sway a vote for the purposes of winning a referendum by argument and democratic process (whether false or not).

so you would have no issue if Boris had used FB rather than the side of a bus?

Uh? Boris is only going to influence a hand full of twits (if he has any followers at all).

A programme that uses FB members and friends of members has an infinite multiplication. It implies real expression of opinion when in fact it is a manipulated bias, which given the narrow margin, may have had a significant impact on the result.
Anyone has a right to express their views and each person will carry more weight depending on that persons standing. However, that is quite different from a computer generated programme which fools thousands of readers into thinking that a, b or c is fact or is a relevant point and that point is the view or an expression of an individual.

Do you see my point?!

Not really. Boris’s bus must have been seen by everybody in the country multiple times.

The beauty of the FB campaign was that it cost chickenfeed.

You could also reasonably argue that only an idiot would believe that Turkey was going to join the EU and 70 million of them were heading our way. As far as I now they were only repeating rubbish spouted by official Leave campaigners.

The biggest impact here and in the States was probably scare the easily lead into bothering to vote.

Apparently the LibDems were offered the chance to use the kit and declined -would it have been wrong if they did?

Is the problem the message, the delivery system or the paymaster?

The latter two.
Anyway, i'm only expressing a concern about the use of media. Okay, peanuts but with potentially, a huge impact. Besides, I didn't vote leave.
Why can't you accept that the manner in which FB was used could be considered as manipulation of the masses for an ulterior motive that went beyond the advantages and disadvantages of leaving the EU.Behind it, an insidious move to weaken the UK?
If what you are arguing has any merit, why the spotlight on Cambridge Analytica

I remain 100% convinced there is no economic advantage to leaving the UK so see the whole thing as manipulation of the masses for an ulterior motive.

I suspect there was dodgy money funnelled through Aaron Banks and NI. Plus we know Russian money funds the Tories so yes outsiders are looking to weaken the UK.

The spotlight is on CA because of politics. Also MSM see FB as eating their lunch so it is a convenient stick to beat them with. There is reasonable evidence to suggest that FB is grabbing data in all manner of unsavoury ways. With demographics working against them I would not be buying shares

So basically, neither of us are disagreeing.

coopster_the_1st

orraloon wrote:

I hear de Pfeffel has invoked Godwin's Law already. Reassuring.

It's almost like you are coming out in support of the Russians with your bitterness!

The reason for Boris' popularity is that he says it how it is and he is 100% correct.

Putin does the same with the Russian F1 GP and used the Winter Olympics in the same way

pblakeney

Coopster the 1st wrote:

orraloon wrote:

I hear de Pfeffel has invoked Godwin's Law already. Reassuring.

It's almost like you are coming out in support of the Russians with your bitterness!

The reason for Boris' popularity is that he says it how it is and he is 100% correct.

Putin does the same with the Russian F1 GP and used the Winter Olympics in the same way

Politicians using sporting events to boost their profile?
Who'd have thunk it? :roll:

slowmart

Coopster the 1st wrote:

orraloon wrote:

I hear de Pfeffel has invoked Godwin's Law already. Reassuring.

It's almost like you are coming out in support of the Russians with your bitterness!

The reason for Boris' popularity is that he says it how it is and he is 100% correct.

Putin does the same with the Russian F1 GP and used the Winter Olympics in the same way

Mmmmmm, someone thinks Boris is 100 %correct and popular

I wonder what political circles you move in to conclude that? :roll:

Boris is a Cnut of the first order who puts himself first before his country. Any doubt and reference his comments about the British teacher jailed in Iran.

Matthewfalle

Rick Chasey wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

I just wanted to know which Friends character I was.

Fibi?

isn't that what your phone connects to to get the intrernet?

orraloon

Reckon de Pfeffel is a Russian double agent? After all, he chose to adopt Boris, Russian, 'nuff said, as his handle over the much more British Alexander, and he appears to be doing his best to diminish the standing of the UK in the world.

tangled_metal

orraloon wrote:

and he appears to be doing his best to diminish the standing of the UK in the world.

I think the UK population does that all by itself. If you doubt that then watch the world Cup, check out popular holiday destinations for brits and where have you been since Brexit referendum happened?! He might contribute more significantly as a person acting as the foreign secretary, in the public spotlight around the world but we're also adding to foreign perceptions of brits. There's more of us making the British look bad. You can write off one individual not the majority getting paralytic on the Costas!

surrey_commuter

Coopster the 1st wrote:

orraloon wrote:

I hear de Pfeffel has invoked Godwin's Law already. Reassuring.

It's almost like you are coming out in support of the Russians with your bitterness!

The reason for Boris' popularity is that he says it how it is and he is 100% correct.

Putin does the same with the Russian F1 GP and used the Winter Olympics in the same way

Coopski - you seem to have got confused. You need to ask for direction from your overseer.

Do you back Putin or do you make the UK less stable by promoting negative policies and bad leadership?

You should ask for a pay rise

coopster_the_1st

orraloon wrote:

Reckon de Pfeffel is a Russian double agent? After all, he chose to adopt Boris, Russian, 'nuff said, as his handle over the much more British Alexander, and he appears to be doing his best to diminish the standing of the UK in the world.

You are a traitor. Plain and simple.

You are so warped, bitter and twisted at losing a democratic vote that you have lost touch with reality and prefer to attack our government than our enemy.

kingstongraham

orraloon wrote:

Reckon de Pfeffel is a Russian double agent? After all, he chose to adopt Boris, Russian, 'nuff said, as his handle over the much more British Alexander, and he appears to be doing his best to diminish the standing of the UK in the world.

No, he's very much working solely for the benefit of Boris Johnson. No split loyalties at all.

surrey_commuter

Coopster the 1st wrote:

orraloon wrote:

Reckon de Pfeffel is a Russian double agent? After all, he chose to adopt Boris, Russian, 'nuff said, as his handle over the much more British Alexander, and he appears to be doing his best to diminish the standing of the UK in the world.

You are a traitor. Plain and simple.

You are so warped, bitter and twisted at losing a democratic vote that you have lost touch with reality and prefer to attack our government than our enemy.

But say the Govt is packed with traitors? who is the enemy?

Imagine you are called Pierre living in Paris in 1942 - who is the enemy?

Your own Govt?
The Germans ?
or those horrible Brits who sunk your fleet and keep bombing you?

surrey_commuter

KingstonGraham wrote:

orraloon wrote:

Reckon de Pfeffel is a Russian double agent? After all, he chose to adopt Boris, Russian, 'nuff said, as his handle over the much more British Alexander, and he appears to be doing his best to diminish the standing of the UK in the world.

No, he's very much working solely for the benefit of Boris Johnson. No split loyalties at all.

he undoubtedly thinks he is working for his own benefit but is such a clown that he is easily manipulated by others to serve their purpose.

orraloon

Coopster the 1st wrote:

orraloon wrote:

Reckon de Pfeffel is a Russian double agent? After all, he chose to adopt Boris, Russian, 'nuff said, as his handle over the much more British Alexander, and he appears to be doing his best to diminish the standing of the UK in the world.

You are a traitor. Plain and simple.

You are so warped, bitter and twisted at losing a democratic vote that you have lost touch with reality and prefer to attack our government than our enemy.

What an arris. This is too easy.

cycleclinic

Given Russia's economy is the size if Italy's and there defence budget one tenth of nato quite how we let Russia weld the power of displays I don't know.

5 EU countries including France (which given they are the other major military power in Europe is important) are going to expel diplomats is the start. Others may follow. Next all nato countries could pull out of the world cup and what be another snub. Russia only has the power it does because collectively the western nations let them. If there is a bully in the room you confront them. If you shy away hoping they reform they never do. It is the latter we have been doing for nearly 30 years. We learn slowly.

The odd thing is Putin seemed to have saved may. She's gone from being hapless to competant.