>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 34 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 6 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).