ELECTIONS! BREXIT! TRUMP! RUSSIANS! The latest big
Guardian/Observer expose seems to have it all. But do we need to worry about
targeting advertising? What is wrong here anyway?
I thought I’d put the stream of MPs (the Commons Digital,
Culture, Media and Sport Committee) questioning Christopher Wylie on in the
background today. I ended up watching it to the end. He seems to be a
knowledgeable and eloquent young man who knows much about the new political
frontline of social media campaigning and advertising.
It’s unlikely that data-led targeting can be put back
into a box, even if we wanted it to. And our data is probably going to get
leaked or stolen—it probably already has. We all need to understand this brave
new world of targeted advertising and political messaging. But is targeted
advertising and messaging really anything new?
Data theft?
The core activity that appears to be wrong and possibly
illegal is that Cambridge Analytica (CA – shorthand for the various affiliated
data companies involved) used information that was taken from Facebook on the
basis that it would be used only for academic research, but which was then
diverted for other (political and money-making) purposes. Eventually we’ll get
a judgment about whether the academics, business managers or Facebook (or all
the above) did anything illegal.
As individuals our data may be out there, but there have
been numerous data breaches and this one probably isn’t that much more
troubling than other ones. What other issues does the case raise? Well the CA people
come across like a bunch of shits (wanting to make money at the expense of
democratic ideals) but there are unscrupulous people all over the place, so we
needn’t focus on that either.
Campaign overspending?
A major issue for the MPs is no doubt one of election
spending breaches. One line is that the leave campaigns could breach spending
limits, certainly a significant issue. (The fact that there were numerous leave
campaigns also had the advantage of being able to put out different and
contradictory statements about post-EU Britain). Hopefully this will be
properly investigated but the electoral commission and its equivalent bodies
abroad.
A further related concern raised by Wylie was that CA
could have been used to get around spending rules in other ways. The owner is
super-right-wing rich guy Robert Mercer, who could offer subsidised (or free)
assistance to causes and candidates he supports.
Russian interference?
If CA are as effective as they claim then this would have
had a major impact on recent elections and a certain referendum. What has any
of this got to do with Russians? The links are perhaps tenuous, though they
will hopefully be investigated. Firstly, Russia is against Western unity and so
clearly supports movements (populism, fascism and left-wing) that seek to
undermine institutions such as the EU and internationalist politicians such as
Hilary Clinton. Russia is a gangster state so can’t compete with the West
economically, but the thugs can stay in power if they don’t fall too far behind
the rest of the world. They could raise their people up but it’s cheaper to try
to bring the West down by interfering in our democracies.
These are serious issues, but not that revelatory and are
largely matters for the law or regulators.
Targeting?
What will trouble people is the issue mentioned above:
targeted messaging/advertising. But is targeted advertising anything new?
Retailers target their customers and politicians target their electorates in
ways they think will be likely to elicit a response and most people don’t find
this immoral or something that should be outlawed.
I think what is particularly concerning about the
targeted messaging is that it is less open to scrutiny and challenge. If
people’s online lives are increasingly cut-off then their messages aren’t as
likely to be challenged. Political debate is debased and polarised. Echo
chambers and silos abound online.
Public discourse
If untrue or morally questionable campaign literature or
advertising is posted through a door, then it might get publicised through the
media. People still talk about the awful racist anti-labour materials used in
the West Midlands in the 1960s, though most won’t have seen it. Those involved,
or their parties, can be held to account whether legally or reputationally.
However, if online material of unknown source is focused
on those who are likely to fall for it then sceptics may not get a chance to
challenge it. Untruths can spread quickly online. Furthermore, no-one can be
held to account as its anonymous. So, the mechanism which might cause people to
hold-back on bad behaviour won’t apply online.
Campaign spending irregularities and the spreading of
falsehoods for political gain are longstanding concerns. However, these issues
become turbocharged in the age of social media.
Has unfair or immoral campaigning given us the wrong
election results? Only if people have been duped into voting the wrong way. Its
certainly plausible but very difficult to prove, depending whether CA are as
effective as they claim to be.
Either way, we all have a duty (and a personal interest)
in making sure we aren’t fooled by those seeking to manipulate us. This gets
harder as more is learned more about what pushes people’s buttons and about
what buttons each person has. We must all make sure we aren’t turned into a
sucker.
