This whole fiasco reminds me of that James Bond movie with Pierce Brosnan in it. The one where a worldwide media conglomerate made a play for world domination. Damn ... what was the name of that one?
What part was I not clear on? You've toed right up to that line. Go no further.
Don't mistake my statement for an invitation for discussion.
Okay and I agree with keeping this site and these forums politics free.
However this is a political story. Everything about it was by political agens acting for political reasons, to benefit or harm political actors. What made you think this would stay non political?
With all due rspect to the work you do policing these forums, perhaps the mistake was posting it on AppleInsider. It relates to FaceBook which true a lot of people use, but it really is not an Apple related story.
Do you see a political slant in the story?
There is a difference between a story about politics and how tech relates, and when it turns into a partisan bicker-fest. I will not tolerate the latter.
No the story was very neutral. Quite well done. But you can't expect the comments about a story that elicits such strong partisan fever to not descend into partisan bickering any more than you can wrestle with pigs and not expect to get muddy. It kinda' goes with the territory.
What part was I not clear on? You've toed right up to that line. Go no further.
Don't mistake my statement for an invitation for discussion.
Okay and I agree with keeping this site and these forums politics free.
However this is a political story. Everything about it was by political agens acting for political reasons, to benefit or harm political actors. What made you think this would stay non political?
With all due rspect to the work you do policing these forums, perhaps the mistake was posting it on AppleInsider. It relates to FaceBook which true a lot of people use, but it really is not an Apple related story.
Do you see a political slant in the story?
There is a difference between a story about politics and how tech relates, and when it turns into a partisan bicker-fest. I will not tolerate the latter.
No the story was very neutral. Quite well done. But you can't expect the comments about a story that elicits such strong partisan fever to not descend into partisan bickering any more than you can wrestle with pigs and not expect to get muddy. It kinda' goes with the territory.
So what is the issue here, my understanding is that CA were using standard ( if unethical ) practice to garner information about contacts, which not only is common but was done previously by other administrations, or campaigns. And by other companies.
So if faceBook didn't do anything to enable CA to get better access then this story is overblown. If it was an API designed for CA only, or they were given privileged information, then there is a story here.
The role that social media plays in the dissemination of information, influence, persuasion, and human engineering absolutely needs to be addressed...
Had CA, Facebook, and non-political party actors collaborated in a similar influence campaign to persuade a target group of individuals to purchase one brand of automobile over another, say by falsely alluding through misleading social media channels that one automobile brand uses the pelts of clubbed baby seals in their upholstery leather, would we even be talking about this? Probably not, but the negatively impacted brand would very likely seek legal remedies for the damages caused by the campaign.
Humans are obviously quite vulnerable to media influence.
This is a legitimate concern that needs to be addressed by those who make the tools that allow human engineering campaigns to be executed so effectively. At some level it is simply political advertising and I'd imagine Facebook saw it as a way to promote their suite of advertising tools. More than anything it's a wakeup call for us, the general population of people who got duped by assuming the information dissemination channels are benign, neutral, and (cough cough) factual in all cases. We've all become numb to most forms of advertising/Influence but we didn't recognize this new form of advertising/Influence that is disguised as news.
We all have beliefs and are attracted to articles and blogs and ads and groups, and friends, and "news" that help us convince ourselves that we're "right". No one wants to be wrong and we're far more likely to believe half-truths or even total inventions if they play into what we've already chosen to believe. Example: How many here bought a smartphone or car or appliance last year, then after committing and acquiring and putting it to use still spent time searching for articles and reviews that vindicated their choice ... and maybe even complaining about those that didn't since those sources must be wrong and stupid for not agreeing with you.
We see it play out in small measure right here at AI everyday. There are stories told that may be totally off-base or predicated on false premise, but some segment of the membership wants to believe it because it fits with them and thus accepted as fact. Might even repeat it to others just to show how "right" they are. Changing beliefs is hard because it means accepting you've made a mistake (some just can't admit to one) so it comes slowly, except for those with no real beliefs to begin with who simply lean wherever the wind blows at the moment. Non-committal is a thing too.
So in real-life politics or playthings are in the same vein. We're bags of skin with money (my mother-in-law would say animals with furniture), some more than others, and someone is out there with self-serving motives to take it from us by convincing us we're on the good side with "news" that gluten-free left wing Ford-smartphones make you a smarter, better-looking and richer person who will live longer than right-wing sugar-free Chevrolet-salmon buying folks do. Every press release, product page, editorial, speech, and even many "scientific studies" and government investigations serve as another type of ad....
And folks believe it because they want to... Or call it a lie because they don't want to.... Then they repeat it because they want a crowd around them that believes it too. It's makes it more comfortable and consoling if doubts start to creep in or it looks like you chose the wrong side because you can blame on "we were all duped!" You're still smart as anyone else cause everyone around you believed it too. You aren't alone.
The basic methods haven't changed in a thousand years. We just find different ways of spreading it and experience has made some of it more effective. We haven't the time or the inclination to bother vetting the veracity of the latest hot story. If your favored source says it's true then it is.
This whole fiasco reminds me of that James Bond movie with Pierce Brosnan in it. The one where a worldwide media conglomerate made a play for world domination. Damn ... what was the name of that one?
The role that social media plays in the dissemination of information, influence, persuasion, and human engineering absolutely needs to be addressed...
Had CA, Facebook, and non-political party actors collaborated in a similar influence campaign to persuade a target group of individuals to purchase one brand of automobile over another, say by falsely alluding through misleading social media channels that one automobile brand uses the pelts of clubbed baby seals in their upholstery leather, would we even be talking about this? Probably not, but the negatively impacted brand would very likely seek legal remedies for the damages caused by the campaign.
Humans are obviously quite vulnerable to media influence.
This is a legitimate concern that needs to be addressed by those who make the tools that allow human engineering campaigns to be executed so effectively. At some level it is simply political advertising and I'd imagine Facebook saw it as a way to promote their suite of advertising tools. More than anything it's a wakeup call for us, the general population of people who got duped by assuming the information dissemination channels are benign, neutral, and (cough cough) factual in all cases. We've all become numb to most forms of advertising/Influence but we didn't recognize this new form of advertising/Influence that is disguised as news.
We all have beliefs and are attracted to articles and blogs and ads and groups, and friends, and "news" that help us convince ourselves that we're "right". No one wants to be wrong and we're far more likely to believe half-truths or even total inventions if they play into what we've already chosen to believe. Example: How many here bought a smartphone or car or appliance last year, then after committing and acquiring and putting it to use still spent time searching for articles and reviews that vindicated their choice ... and maybe even complaining about those that didn't since those sources must be wrong and stupid for not agreeing with you.
We see it play out in small measure right here at AI everyday. There are stories told that may be totally off-base or predicated on false premise, but some segment of the membership wants to believe it because it fits with them and thus accepted as fact. Might even repeat it to others just to show how "right" they are. Changing beliefs is hard because it means accepting you've made a mistake (some just can't admit to one) so it comes slowly, except for those with no real beliefs to begin with who simply lean wherever the wind blows at the moment. Non-committal is a thing too.
So in real-life politics or playthings are in the same vein. We're bags of skin with money (my mother-in-law would say animals with furniture), some more than others, and someone is out there with self-serving motives to take it from us by convincing us we're on the good side with "news" that gluten-free left wing Ford-smartphones make you a smarter, better-looking and richer person who will live longer than right-wing sugar-free Chevrolet-salmon buying folks do. Every press release, product page, editorial, speech, and even many "scientific studies" and government investigations serve as another type of ad....
And folks believe it because they want to... Or call it a lie because they don't want to.... Then they repeat it because they want a crowd around them that believes it too. It's makes it more comfortable and consoling if doubts start to creep in or it looks like you chose the wrong side because you can blame on "we were all duped!" You're still smart as anyone else cause everyone around you believed it too. You aren't alone.
The basic methods haven't changed in a thousand years. We just find different ways of spreading it and experience has made some of it more effective. We haven't the time or the inclination to bother vetting the veracity of the latest hot story. If your favored source says it's true then it is.
Thank you. I completely agree on your points and most definitely the influence that confirmation bias has played on politics and personal/public opinion, both contemporary and throughout history. The current, almost endless, streams of social media and the 24x7x365 news cycle has increased the number of opportunities for exploiting cognitive biases as influence/persuasion campaigns. The frequency, micro-targeting, and crowd sourced stupidity provided by social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter also amplify the impact of such campaigns, analogous to dropping clusters of precision guided munitions on unsuspecting innocents.
One very important point for discussion within the realm of technology platform providers like Apple, Facebook, Twitter, Google, etc., and why this topic warrants discussion within communities like AppleInsider, is that the tools, delivery vehicles, munition containers, presentation formats, and especially the connectivity mechanisms are essentially "owned" by these same technology platform providers. Some of these technology platform providers have come across as being unaware that their platforms could be abused, much less admitting that they have already been abused on their watch. They have feigned naiveté and acted as victims even after having allegedly tutored the same firms who abused their platforms on the most effective use and deployment of the tools and techniques that were used in the campaigns.
The solution to this problem, IMHO, goes far beyond treating the CA campaign or whomever was behind it, or funding it, as a criminal incident for prosecution by law enforcement and the FBI. The technology platform providers need to become part of the solution and take an active role in making it much harder for these campaigns to be directed at easily persuaded people without the intentions of the campaign directors, those pulling the human engineering strings, being transparent. Yeah, this is probably wishful thinking because as soon as one cognitive bias exploit vector is attenuated through public awareness, if this is even possible, another one will be used in its place. The entirety of social media influencers coupled with universal, pervasive, and relentless connectivity has unleashed something never before seen on human societies. If Facebook, Twitter, Google, etc., just kick the can down the road on this from the sidelines while CA and its accomplices/clients fight it out with the FBI in a highly charged political cage match the situation will only get exponentially worse.
Comments
But you can't expect the comments about a story that elicits such strong partisan fever to not descend into partisan bickering any more than you can wrestle with pigs and not expect to get muddy. It kinda' goes with the territory.
So if faceBook didn't do anything to enable CA to get better access then this story is overblown. If it was an API designed for CA only, or they were given privileged information, then there is a story here.
and maybe even complaining about those that didn't since those sources must be wrong and stupid for not agreeing with you.
We see it play out in small measure right here at AI everyday. There are stories told that may be totally off-base or predicated on false premise, but some segment of the membership wants to believe it because it fits with them and thus accepted as fact. Might even repeat it to others just to show how "right" they are. Changing beliefs is hard because it means accepting you've made a mistake (some just can't admit to one) so it comes slowly, except for those with no real beliefs to begin with who simply lean wherever the wind blows at the moment. Non-committal is a thing too.
So in real-life politics or playthings are in the same vein. We're bags of skin with money (my mother-in-law would say animals with furniture), some more than others, and someone is out there with self-serving motives to take it from us by convincing us we're on the good side with "news" that gluten-free left wing Ford-smartphones make you a smarter, better-looking and richer person who will live longer than right-wing sugar-free Chevrolet-salmon buying folks do. Every press release, product page, editorial, speech, and even many "scientific studies" and government investigations serve as another type of ad....
And folks believe it because they want to...
Or call it a lie because they don't want to....
Then they repeat it because they want a crowd around them that believes it too. It's makes it more comfortable and consoling if doubts start to creep in or it looks like you chose the wrong side because you can blame on "we were all duped!" You're still smart as anyone else cause everyone around you believed it too. You aren't alone.
The basic methods haven't changed in a thousand years. We just find different ways of spreading it and experience has made some of it more effective. We haven't the time or the inclination to bother vetting the veracity of the latest hot story. If your favored source says it's true then it is.
One very important point for discussion within the realm of technology platform providers like Apple, Facebook, Twitter, Google, etc., and why this topic warrants discussion within communities like AppleInsider, is that the tools, delivery vehicles, munition containers, presentation formats, and especially the connectivity mechanisms are essentially "owned" by these same technology platform providers. Some of these technology platform providers have come across as being unaware that their platforms could be abused, much less admitting that they have already been abused on their watch. They have feigned naiveté and acted as victims even after having allegedly tutored the same firms who abused their platforms on the most effective use and deployment of the tools and techniques that were used in the campaigns.
The solution to this problem, IMHO, goes far beyond treating the CA campaign or whomever was behind it, or funding it, as a criminal incident for prosecution by law enforcement and the FBI. The technology platform providers need to become part of the solution and take an active role in making it much harder for these campaigns to be directed at easily persuaded people without the intentions of the campaign directors, those pulling the human engineering strings, being transparent. Yeah, this is probably wishful thinking because as soon as one cognitive bias exploit vector is attenuated through public awareness, if this is even possible, another one will be used in its place. The entirety of social media influencers coupled with universal, pervasive, and relentless connectivity has unleashed something never before seen on human societies. If Facebook, Twitter, Google, etc., just kick the can down the road on this from the sidelines while CA and its accomplices/clients fight it out with the FBI in a highly charged political cage match the situation will only get exponentially worse.