Remix.run Logo
goshx an hour ago

IMHO, that was the beginning of the deep troubles we are in right now, and cause of the political polarization. The brainwash was very effective, not only in the US, but also in Brazil.

sasaf5 an hour ago | parent | next [-]

I would date this beginning to 2013. That's around when Facebook feed ceased to be chronological. That's when everyone became rabid.

anonym00se1 9 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Social media + engagement algorithms = societal cancer.

seizethecheese 26 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Did you read the content here? This is really not about brainwashing so much as using performance marketing effectively for fund-raising?

epolanski 15 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I think you're missing the forest for the tree.

Data promised to improve lifes, it has done so in many aspects, but also has made countless things worse.

From physical and digital products squeezing the last cent instead of improving user's experience, algorithms getting every single second of your attention, from deciding the kind of music and tv shows getting produced, to the kind of dull ever repeating style of everything really on every corner of the planet from hotels to restaurant and menus it's all a data-driven conversion to the mean in boring-and-safe or money-squeezing fashion.

Data has entered sports and transformed them from the times of money ball. Basket, soccer, football, are all much less enjoyable and creative because again, it's all about applying data.

And yes, data has entered politics at a level it could not before computing power and data collection and our understanding of human manipulation didn't reach those levels.

It has understood you only need 50%+1 of the votes and efforts to get 50%+2 are a waste and less efficient.

So politicians, especially in weaker democracies characterized by winner-takes-all mechanics, are incentivized to be divisive, not representing the majority of the citizens.

Again, you only want 50%+1 of the votes, if you trying to get a single more you're dispersing your efforts and decreasing the chances to win.

2OEH8eoCRo0 9 minutes ago | parent [-]

Data is what uncreatives turn to when out of ideas.

nephihaha 5 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

It is often not the beginning of processes but the end of them. This is the problem with a lot of AI, i.e. it takes data and mixes it up instead of doing things afresh.

epolanski 6 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

Creativity doesn't win elections. Getting 50%+1 of the votes does.

And you do that today with maths, algorithms and quick information analysis and response.

hnlmorg an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

And in Europe too.

Social media was definitely the start of that downfall. Yeah people used to spread misinformation longer before social media was a thing. But what Facebook changed was the way how misinformation could be targeted with surgical precision.

hsuduebc2 an hour ago | parent [-]

You can't expect that malicious actor would be fighting against malicious actors that are increase shareholder value. Tbh at this point it's governments fault. You can't expect British American Tobacco to fight against smoking. It's not really their job. Their job is increasing said shareholder value.

valleyer 26 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

You can't expect me to stop selling crack to kids on the streets. My job is to feed my family.

Avicebron 31 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

I think it's fair to hold the government to account, but it's good to be cognizant of how entrenched corporatism is in our modern governance.

If your "just increasing shareholder value" is found to cause damages to the public, you should be held to account for that.

TZubiri an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I'm not sure what the claim or charge would be. While I wouldn't feel comfortable participating in political campaigns for democracies of other countries, and I would feel defensive about attempts to influence elections in my country, in the end these 'attacks' rely on actual citizens to vote, so the citizen still holds the power and makes the final decision, so I don't think it's an issue of critical severity, and I don't think it's illegitimate to try to persuade citizens of another country to vote in such matter at a constitutional level (excluding specific laws), even if I personally would feel icky about it.

Now there may be other potential issues that would elevate the matter, if disinformation is used, or if personal information about citizens is obtained illegitimately, then they could constitute crimes in their own right. Whether the crime is aggravated by its intent to subvert the democratic institution would be a legitimate question, but without the accessory crimes, I don't think political campaigns from non citizen actors are themselves illegal, just icky.

TheOtherHobbes an hour ago | parent | next [-]

>Now there may be other potential issues that would elevate the matter, if disinformation is used, or if personal information about citizens is obtained illegitimately, then they could constitute crimes in their own right.

Both of those happened. And are still happening.

This is algorithmic behaviour modification using sophisticated psychological priming that most people - including people who consider themselves educated and rational - have no defences against.

It very much was, and is, an issue of critical severity. CA and Nix specifically sold themselves as election fixers, but most people using FB would have been completely unware they were being influenced.

cgio an hour ago | parent [-]

But now people do, and it still works. How is this dissimilar to controlling the media in the past? Maybe can be more specialised, but superficially at least O don’t see significant content specialisation, rather the opposite, consumption herding.

fmbb 33 minutes ago | parent [-]

> How is this dissimilar to controlling the media in the past?

In the same way dynamic personalized pricing in the supermarket is different from supermarkets being able to set prices before.

gruez 5 minutes ago | parent [-]

>dynamic personalized pricing in the supermarket

Which I also think is overblown. The one thing that people can actually agree on is that dynamically setting sticker prices is bad, but nobody actually does this. There's less consensus on whether coupons (targeted or otherwise) are okay, even though they have the exact same effect (ie. $10 w/ $2 targeted coupon vs a Dynamic Price™ of $8).

26 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]
[deleted]
aaron695 41 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[dead]

arewethereyeta an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Brainwash on what subjects?