Article in the Observer (Politics)

[Spiral]

I haven't seen this posted on here, apologies if I've missed it. There was an article in the Observer this weekend about an advanced 21st century psy-ops programme being carried out and how Brexit and Trump are intertwined...and a whole lot more (it's a very long read but vitally important IMO).

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/ ... -democracy" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I've always kind of had an unarticulated feeling that this kind of thing was happening which is why I avoid much of social media-or at least keep it at arms length-but it's an essential read especially if you consume news through facebook. It ties in to meme-culture, micro-targeting, 'alternative facts', it's chilling stuff, real advanced propaganda. I read a lot of unfathomable hatred on the French election thread and I can't help but think a lot of people are, as the article suggests, being played.

[Rick_Muller]

You said observer in the title but the link is for the guardian...

[Spiral]

Sorry, yes. My mistake. I think it appeared in the weekend print version, but the link is the Guardian's website. Same difference, I suppose.

[Rick_Muller]

Fair enough - just read it. It is a little scary, not because it's happened/happening, but more because the general populace will have no understanding of what it means and implies.

[Paul Waine]

Fair enough - just read it. It is a little scary, not because it's happened/happening, but more because the general populous will have no understanding of what it means and implies.

I haven't seen this posted on here, apologies if I've missed it. There was an article in the Observer this weekend about an advanced 21st century psy-ops programme being carried out and how Brexit and Trump are intertwined...and a whole lot more (it's a very long read but vitally important IMO).

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/ ... -democracy" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I've always kind of had an unarticulated feeling that this kind of thing was happening which is why I avoid much of social media-or at least keep it at arms length-but it's an essential read especially if you consume news through facebook. It ties in to meme-culture, micro-targeting, 'alternative facts', it's chilling stuff, real advanced propaganda. I read a lot of unfathomable hatred on the French election thread and I can't help but think a lot of people are, as the article suggests, being played.

Hi Spiral and Rick, so, is this link safe to click on? I don't use facebook - certainly wouldn't expect to find any news there. I can't define "meme" and "alternative facts" to me means "wrong."

Has the Guardian worked out that 52% of the population have been manipulated?

[aggi]

I suspected that it would be an article referencing Cambridge Analytica. Opinion seems split as to how much influence they actually had https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles ... s-election" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[kentonclaret]

As soon as they hear the trigger words on polling day morning "Strong and Stable Leadership" the brainwashed will be off to cast their votes.

[Damo]

IMG_20170508_173656.jpg (171.53 KiB) Viewed 4255 times

[Lancasterclaret]

I didn't think you'd have a beard to be honest Damo

[Damo]

I didn't think you'd have a beard to be honest Damo

Everyone has a beard these days don't they?

[Lancasterclaret]

Only trendy left wing snowflakes I think

[Damo]

Only trendy left wing snowflakes I think

And perverts. Don't forget them

[dsr]

Well, I've read it. The gist appears to be that an American company sent lots of adverts ("billions", apparently - that's 300+ each to every single person in Britain; or since they were targeting specific individuals based on profiling, thousands each to the target customers) telling them why they should vote leave. And that they were paid £4m, declared on various Leave organisation websites, but they way the money was paid broke election rules - probably. Does that accurately sum up what he's on about? Alternative precis would be more than welcome.

One slight worry I have with this theory is that it is more or less universally acknowledged that old people voted leave, young people voted remain. And computer technology by definition is targeted at the young.

But the biggest caveat of all comes from what he says at early in the article. "How British democracy was subverted through a covert, far-reaching plan of coordination enabled by a US billionaire. " He is starting with the premise that a vote for Brexit is wrong and therefore must be a fix.

[claretandy]

According to this article on buzzfead news, people on the left only want to read pro-Corbyn, anti-Tory-news on Facebook.

https://t.co/3xK2Nwsr0I" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Kind of explains a lot.

[Spiral]

Expected a few tin foil hat comments, tbf. I can understand how someone might read it as verging on conspiratorial. Two points I take from it are the sophistication of of the campaigns-the right are very well organised in this respect, far more organised than he left, but my second point would be that I've always had an issue with the notion that Brexit and Trump are a product of natural, patriotic grassroots movements. I've always suspected that they are to a degree manufactured by plutocrats, and nothing in the article regarding the collusion between the parties involved dents this belief for me.

Paul Waine, as the article points out, the key isn't in 'manipulating' the 52% (and I've never claimed anything of the sort), just the few hundred thousand votes that matter to deliver the desired result. I'm aware that's the essence of politics, but I suppose my issue is who is delivering the message and what are their intentions.

[Pstotto]

The media have invented the media as a 'living being' to bow down to and obey, whose expression in in all the edit-cut and paste, zoom in and zoom out, rather like the CGI football on MOTD that attempts to press one's psyche to the back of one' skull. Similarly with the French cockerel CGI symbol for EURO 2016 with sucked the viewer forwards in their brains to then graphic punch them in the counter movement.

There is a phrase 'if God didn't exist it would be necessary to invent him' only there is now a bastardization of that, as the devil, coming at us like a fierce dog on a leash, under the auspices of the media-as-Phobos and all those of it or in-media or behind it, barking at us all behind that media-as-Phobos, particularly MOTD, where the Nu Masters they ask one to bow down and suck up to, are '-of-the-dark' as if the colour black actually was them.

They've created a media 'demon' which everyone is both submitting to and recoiling against unconsciously, such as Trump and Le Pen, so we get one set of confused luvvies for the media and those against the media incursion confused as to what is the Phobos-as-media and what is the actual invading entity.

The polarization is racial tension and social tension in the form of pro-gay/lesbian, pro-black/Asian, pro-bitch/feminism and their perceived enemy, the racist, sexist homophobes' reaction to media-as-Phobos.


I will now have a look at the article and see if it tallies. On second thoughts, I've read the above comments and decided not to on the basis that someone wrote that the premise was 'Brexit was a fix' i.e the article is a fix.

[Sidney1st]

I'm about half way through that article, but the reference to the film Minority report did make me laugh.

As for what I've read, its been well known for a while that the internet harvests information about what you look at.
That's the purpose of the Amazon and google devices that sit in your home and you can give voice commands too.

They're also designed to pick up on what you're watching, talking about etc.

EVERY aspect of social media is tracked, but so is all your information held by the government agencies.
The DVLA sell information about you, that's also general knowledge.


Do we live in a democracy?
I doubt we do, nor do I think we have for a very long time, from Unions controlling the Labour Party to the Tories being influenced by the rich.

We're all just hamsters on the big wheel whilst the powerful decide what direction our lives are going to take for us.

[dsr]

Expected a few tin foil hat comments, tbf. I can understand how someone might read it as verging on conspiratorial. Two points I take from it are the sophistication of of the campaigns-the right are very well organised in this respect, far more organised than he left, but my second point would be that I've always had an issue with the notion that Brexit and Trump are a product of natural, patriotic grassroots movements. I've always suspected that they are to a degree manufactured by plutocrats, and nothing in the article regarding the collusion between the parties involved dens this belief.

Paul Waine, as the article points out, the key isn't in 'manipulating' the 52% (and I've never claimed anything of the sort), just the few hundred thousand votes that matter to deliver the desired result.

How many people did they target to get these 600,000 votes? Did they target 600,000 Remainers and persuaded them to change their mind with 100% success rate? Did they target 6,000,000 Remainers and get 10% to change their mind? Was their targeting so accurate that they only targeted Reaminers, or was a percentage of the target population already in the Brexit camp?

To claim that over 2% of people who intended to vote for Brexit had their minds changed because of this single campaign, that's a very big claim indeed. Can we have a bit of anecdotal evidence? Let's start with a single name of someone who can describe the adverts they received and explain that they changed their vote because of them.

[Sidney1st]

The article is basically saying the EU referendum was rigged?

OK let's hold another one and if the vote is remain, shall we say that's also rigged?

[dsr]

The article is basically saying the EU referendum was rigged?

OK let's hold another one and if the vote is remain, shall we say that's also rigged?

That wouldn't help, Sidney. The article isn't saying that there were fraudulent votes or miscounts or anything like that; it's saying:

1. It was won by Brexit because people had their minds changed by this Canadian company's internet adverts;

2. and it was rigged because, although it was legal to pay this company and do this advertising, the way the various Leave groups declared the payment wasn't in accordance with election rules.

But if they held the vote again, the people whose minds were changed for them, would still have no reason to change back so would presumably vote the same way.

[Spiral]

I don't think it is saying it was rigged-it also discusses Trump so this isn't just a Brexit thread-it's a wider point about psy-ops and people with immense wealth operating outside of public scrutiny to effect huge change in sovereign states' political landscape, IMO, to their own benefit. Again, it doesn't say everyone who voted leave was manipulated. One point though, the polls were miles apart in remain's favour when the idea of a referendum first entered public discourse. It might be difficult to emphatically demonstrate what effect these programs had but that they exist and the collusion between the parties cannot be disputed. Whether or not this pollutes democracy will be a matter opinion.

[Sidney1st]

Cheers for clearing that up

[Lancasterclaret]

There isn't any arguing about 2) on the evidence, election rules were broken.

1) There isn't any justification for holding another referendum at this moment in time.

There is plenty of justification of holding a referendum on the final deal that we get though

[Sidney1st]

Hold another referendum and have more people complaining if it doesn't go their way?

No thanks.

Parliaments job is to ratify this deal and that's the best way to do it, a full parliamentary vote, not spunk money on another referendum.

[Spiral]

But if they held the vote again, the people whose minds were changed for them, would still have no reason to change back so would presumably vote the same way.

I'm not saying you're wrong here-at the moment, in this climate, you're probably 100% right, but I can help but think of disillusionment within the USSR during its later stages when people realised they were being played.

edit-again, I'd hoped this wasn't another thread discussing the EU, but a wider point about the content of the article. It was reading some of the hate on the French election thread that prompted me to post.

[Lancasterclaret]

Can I be honest Spiral, this stuff combined with a combination of "giving Cameron a bloody nose", Vote Leave propaganda (bus, leaflets showing Syria and Turkey, pictures of long queues of immigrants), apathy and a genuine feeling that we might be better off on our own combined to give us the leave result.

I'm not sure that combination would work again, but at the same time if it was manipulated by data, then its a powerful, but limited tool.

[dsr]

I don't think it is saying it was rigged-it also discusses Trump so this isn't just a Brexit thread-it's a wider point about psy-ops and people with immense wealth operating outside of public scrutiny to effect huge change in sovereign states' political landscape, IMO, to their own benefit. Again, it doesn't say everyone who voted leave was manipulated. One point though, the polls were miles apart in remain's favour when the idea of a referendum first entered public discourse. It might be difficult to emphatically demonstrate what effect these programs had but that they exist and the collusion between the parties cannot be disputed. Whether or not this pollutes democracy will be a matter opinion.

The polls showed Trump losing, Brexit losing, Cameron losing in 2015, and Major losing in 2001. Basically the polls haven't been very good at predicting "right wing" victories, although in the Brexit vote it was actually the left-leaning areas (Middlesbrough, Burnley etc.) that they got the predictions especially wrong.

IMO the polls were wrong for Brexit and Trump because the general impression in the media was that Remain and Clinton were the "right" way to vote, and there was something "wrong" (racist, stupid, reckless, whatever) about voting for Brexit and Trump. But anyway, you can't use the opinion polls as evidence that people changed their mind because of this campaign, because the opinion polls taken after the vote closed also said Remain and Clinton would win. With those last polls, at least, it's certain that the polls were wrong, not that people changed their minds.

[Spiral]

I'm not sure that combination would work again, but at the same time if it was manipulated by data, then its a powerful, but limited tool.

I agree that it's somewhat limited, but it isn't blunt, either. I was cautious in my OP not to claim it as a fix, btw. I'm trying my best to avoid the minutiae of details re. the Brexit campaign. We aren't exactly short of Brexit threads lately. I suspect it's in vain though and if this thread gets to page three we'll be discussing EU agricultural policy!

[Spiral]

The polls showed Trump losing, Brexit losing, Cameron losing in 2015, and Major losing in 2001. Basically the polls haven't been very good at predicting "right wing" victories, although in the Brexit vote it was actually the left-leaning areas (Middlesbrough, Burnley etc.) that they got the predictions especially wrong.

IMO the polls were wrong for Brexit and Trump because the general impression in the media was that Remain and Clinton were the "right" way to vote, and there was something "wrong" (racist, stupid, reckless, whatever) about voting for Brexit and Trump. But anyway, you can't use the opinion polls as evidence that people changed their mind because of this campaign, because the opinion polls taken after the vote closed also said Remain and Clinton would win. With those last polls, at least, it's certain that the polls were wrong, not that people changed their minds.

Point of pedantry, Clinton actually did win the vote, she lost the EC. But that's for another thread.

[dsr]

Point of pedantry, Clinton actually did win the vote, she lost the EC. But that's for another thread.

The opinion polls said she would be elected President. They take the electoral college into account; they don't just measure total expected votes, they measure them by state and count the college votes that result.

The opinion polls were wrong about George W Bush's first election,as well. Even to the extent that Bush conceded defeat before realising Florida was a lot closer than the polls said.

[Paul Waine]

Expected a few tin foil hat comments, tbf. I can understand how someone might read it as verging on conspiratorial. Two points I take from it are the sophistication of of the campaigns-the right are very well organised in this respect, far more organised than he left, but my second point would be that I've always had an issue with the notion that Brexit and Trump are a product of natural, patriotic grassroots movements. I've always suspected that they are to a degree manufactured by plutocrats, and nothing in the article regarding the collusion between the parties involved dents this belief for me.

Paul Waine, as the article points out, the key isn't in 'manipulating' the 52% (and I've never claimed anything of the sort), just the few hundred thousand votes that matter to deliver the desired result. I'm aware that's the essence of politics, but I suppose my issue is who is delivering the message and what are their intentions.

Hi Spiral, I've now read the article. I agree, in essence the article says that the billionaires with some clever use of "big-data" have found 600,000 people to persuade to vote Brexit - and that was enough to swing the referendum. Big thing I don't get: the article says something like billions of ads were sent to these 600,000 people. If we assume "billions" is 2 billion - then that means an average of a little over 3,000 ads per person. What sort of technology are these 600,000 people using to get through this many ads over a short period of time. Or, is it all done subliminally? Blink and you miss it?

More thoughts later.

[Spiral]

Like I say, it's probably impossible to say for certain what effect these campaigns had but the point remains that they do exist, and outside the rules and regulations of traditional election campaigns. From my own personal experience I saw people who two years ago knew absolutely nothing about the EU and how it operates become its staunchest, most vocal opponents, largely informed by news consumed through social media and in particular, facebook; an ungodly amount of it demonstrably untrue but repeated almost ad verbatim nevertheless. For the benefit of Ringo, yes, prominent remain figures lied too, but that isn't the focus of the article-the focus is an apparent global psy-ops programme run by a handful of billionaires, some (most) of whom are unelected, operating outside public scrutiny. It's difficult to type all that without sounding like a complete nut, but evidence seems to be there.

[Imploding Turtle]

You said observer in the title but the link is for the guardian...

[Spiral]

irony.jpeg

[Paul Waine]

I'm pretty sure most people know the Guardian and the Observer are connected.

Or is that more clever technology?

[Sidney1st]

Coincidently Panorama on BBC 1 now is about facebook, talking about the data they gather etc

[Spiral]

Thanks, Sidney. Didn't know that was on. I'll have to watch it later on iPlayer. Their data procurement practices are quite well known to people with even a whiff of suspicion of this sort of thing (or anyone whose read any piece of LibDem literature-they're keen on internet privacy), but interesting that it's reached the mainstream.

[Paul Waine]

Like I say, it's probably impossible to say for certain what effect these campaigns had but the point remains that they do exist, and outside the rules and regulations of traditional election campaigns. From my own personal experience I saw people who two years ago knew absolutely nothing about the EU and how it operates become its staunchest, most vocal opponents, largely informed by news consumed through social media and in particular, facebook; an ungodly amount of it demonstrably untrue but repeated almost ad verbatim nevertheless. For the benefit of Ringo, yes, prominent remain figures lied too, but that isn't the focus of the article-the focus is an apparent global psy-ops programme run by a handful of billionaires, some (most) of whom are unelected, operating outside public scrutiny. It's difficult to type all that without sounding like a complete nut, but evidence seems to be there.

So, are we saying that "a handful of billionaires" are the ones that made us vote Brexit, or are you saying that David Cameron, with parliament's authority agreed to hold the referendum. And, the leave campaign(s) made use of 1 (or 2, or 3) firms that use "big data" to monitor and influence voting intentions - and these firms are owned by "a handful of billionaires" that have realised their technology skills can be used to aid political campaigns rather than use them for marketing consumer products and "last minute holidays."

Yes, clever stuff, technology. We are all on here - whether we post on not - building up our "big data" profiles.

Booking_dot_com continues to remind me that the hotel I stayed at for my mother's funeral (now 7 years ago) has got some special offers. I guess they've not worked out that we don't make every trip for leisure reasons.... And, once I've bought a new car, I'm unlikely to be in the market to buy another a few weeks later...

It would have been good if the Guardian/Observer had provided some ideas that will counter-act these "big data" billionaires. I'd suggest doing some different things every now and again when you are on-line. Go on both the Guardian's and the Mail's websites, for example. Do some "analogue" stuff - buy a book, visit a library (one that doesn't have electronic book borrowing records). And, in politics, do some research when there isn't an election on (if there is ever such a time) and do your own thinking.

Anyway, appreciate you posting, Spiral. It's not the big "shock, horror" story that the G/O by-line makes out. And, apart from the technology/big-data, not something that is unknown to political organisations across the whole spectrum of political views. (East Germany's Stasi was probably low tech, but their records, from what is now known, were very detailed).

[Imploding Turtle]

Well, I've read it. The gist appears to be that an American company sent lots of adverts ("billions", apparently - that's 300+ each to every single person in Britain; or since they were targeting specific individuals based on profiling, thousands each to the target customers) telling them why they should vote leave. And that they were paid £4m, declared on various Leave organisation websites, but they way the money was paid broke election rules - probably. Does that accurately sum up what he's on about? Alternative precis would be more than welcome.

No. The gist is that there are serious and crippling flaws in our electoral laws and data collection laws that make it a piece of cake for not just foreign companies, but also foreign governments to interfere in our elections in a way which we cannot sufficiently protect outselves against.
To miss this point, as you apparently have, means you should probably re-read the whole article again. Unless you deliberately missed this point and want to summarise it in a biased, bullshit and dishonest manner for like minded forum users.

But the biggest caveat of all comes from what he says at early in the article. "How British democracy was subverted through a covert, far-reaching plan of coordination enabled by a US billionaire. " He is starting with the premise that a vote for Brexit is wrong and therefore must be a fix.

I have no idea how you've managed to imagine that what you quoted is in any way an opinion on which way we should have voted. How the **** is your mind working?

[Spiral]

Paul,

I agree with your sentiment re. sourcing. However, the article doesn't refer to the targeting of politically active or interested citizens, but rather, as the article suggests, a more politically passive section of the electorate. I feel like I'm repeating myself but I said in my OP that I've suspected this has been happening in this sophisticated fashion for a long time, and I don't claim for anything in the article to be profound, nor does the article for that mater. It's just a piece of investigative journalism outlining the weaknesses in our political systems and the links between various interested parties. I trust people will be able to make their own minds on whether this is to nefarious ends, but it's also worth remembering that the fact that it happens doesn't necessarily mean that it should. The assumption of an informed electorate is the foundation of a functioning democracy. Misinformation programmes don't exactly reconcile with this principle. They pollute democracy.

[aggi]

With regard to Trump, they were specifically targeting non-voters in areas where Trump had a decent chance of winning but it was marginal. The Clinton states were abandoned (part of the reason why the popular vote didn't match the result) and adverts focused elsewhere.

I mentioned elsewhere how a lot of people exist in an echo chamber with their online activity being amongst similar people who have similar views and reinforcing their own view. Facebook and targeted ads is an example of this? You don't get articles that contradict your own point of view.

If you do want to obfuscate your online activity then have a look at this add-on https://chrome.google.com/webstore/deta ... lnamlcdcbg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[dsr]

No. The gist is that there are serious and crippling flaws in our electoral laws and data collection laws that make it a piece of cake for not just foreign companies, but also foreign governments to interfere in our elections in a way which we cannot sufficiently protect outselves against.
To miss this point, as you apparently have, means you should probably re-read the whole article again. Unless you deliberately missed this point and want to summarise it in a biased, [expletive deleted] and dishonest manner for like minded forum users.




I have no idea how you've managed to imagine that what you quoted is in any way an opinion on which way we should have voted. How the **** is your mind working?

But this wasn't to do with a foreign government interfering - it was a foreign business being used by a UK organisation or group of organisations. The writer tried to link it to a Trawdengirl-like conspiracy of shadowy billionaires, but his evidence was pretty tenuous. The only alleged malpractice was in the way the funds were declared, and even that wasn't proven. What sort of protection do you have in mind?

Certainly there are important issues re. collection of data, but I don't see that someone paying to advertise Brexit at me is much different in principle from someone paying to advertise hotels at me.

As for the bias of the writer, maybe I'm reading something in to the article that isn't there. I got the impression that the writer was anti-Brexit. Don't you agree? I doubt he would have said the electoral process had been subverted if Remain had won; even if Remain had used foreign advertisers rather than using the Civil Service.

[CrosspoolClarets]

I've just read this entertaining, if a tad naive, article.

Did some powerful folk find a way to coordinate an effective media campaign - yes. Did it break the rules - possibly.

BUT...

Does Momentum use equally dodgy tactics to try to force socialist / communist propaganda on us (not so much in the referendum, just generally as an example)?
Did Osborne break the rules in the referendum campaign by using civil servants to promote his case?
Have those civil servant reports now been shown to be total baloney?
Did the Remain camp not procure powerful resources themselves, not the future President but the current one at the time, all the EU leaders, our own PM - are we saying that Cambridge et al are more powerful a voice than them?

So yes I think the article makes some valid points, but the author needs to lie in a darkened room for some time if they think the Brexit promotions influenced more people to make their minds up than all the Remain propaganda. It's desperation wrapped into a 2 page article.

There are some bigger picture things to think about though of that nature if any of our politicians ever have the nerve.

[Paul Waine]

Paul,

I agree with your sentiment re. sourcing. However, the article doesn't refer to the targeting of politically active or interested citizens, but rather, as the article suggests, a more politically passive section of the electorate. I feel like I'm repeating myself but I said in my OP that I've suspected this has been happening in this sophisticated fashion for a long time, and I don't claim for anything in the article to be profound, nor does the article for that mater. It's just a piece of investigative journalism outlining the weaknesses in our political systems and the links between various interested parties. I trust people will be able to make their own minds on whether this is to nefarious ends, but it's also worth remembering that the fact that it happens doesn't necessarily mean that it should. The assumption of an informed electorate is the foundation of a functioning democracy. Misinformation programmes don't exactly reconcile with this principle. They pollute democracy.

Hi Spiral, I agree that the 600,000 are suggested to be "politically passive" - and I agree it is easier to help some one make up their mind to vote a certain way, especially if they have previously not thought about the issue. A blank canvass, so to speak. I'm also right alongside you in everyone to be well informed and this is certainly an important foundation of a proper democracy. However, we may both be "democratic idealists" seeking a standard of political involvement and understanding that is very unlikely. Equally, I feel it would be undemocratic to insist that everyone proved a certain understanding before they were permitted to vote. So, I'm quite content to trust in the "wisdom of the crowd." It may be that some don't have the same facts that you and I believe are important or weigh those facts in the same way is either you or I might in reaching our individual judgements but democracy requires that they can still be the final arbiter of the right result. And, this isn't to deny that they haven't been "manipulated" by one side or another to vote a certain way.

I've posted before on here about some of the changes I'd like made to strengthen the strength and depth of our democracy. I believe I'm being neutral between the political parties in the first series of changes I'd advocate. And, then there are further changes where I'd aim to raise the democratic standards followed by our representatives; these may cut across the stereotypical profile of one party of another (they all have their weaknesses and their failings).

As for technology, I don't see any political party as having more virtue or less inclination to seek ways to manipulate and distort outcomes in their favour. The only way to counter and protect against this is in the standards of full transparency and disclosure.

Stop taking, start giving. (c) Paul Waine, 2017

[Imploding Turtle]

But this wasn't to do with a foreign government interfering - it was a foreign business being used by a UK organisation or group of organisations.

Don't you ever get bored of only ever putting words into other peoples mouths? I didn't say it was about foreign governments interfering, i said it's about exposing what is possible by demonstrating what has happened. The article is saying that foreign governments can interfere because this is how easy it is just for foreign businesses. Stop strawmanning.

The writer tried to link it to a Trawdengirl-like conspiracy of shadowy billionaires, but his evidence was pretty tenuous.

You think Peter Thiel is a shadowy billionaire? And what is it about his evidence that you think is "tenuous"?

As for the bias of the writer, maybe I'm reading something in to the article that isn't there. I got the impression that the writer was anti-Brexit. Don't you agree? I doubt he would have said the electoral process had been subverted if Remain had won; even if Remain had used foreign advertisers rather than using the Civil Service.

No. You're imparting your biases onto the article and manufacturing a bias from the journalist than cannot be demonstrated. If it could be demonstrated then you'd provide a quote from the article that shows that the reporter is skewing things to fit his own narrative. So please, do that if you think you're right. Or don't and know it is you who is biased.

Probabilistically speaking he probably was a Remain supporter. He's educated, he's got a talent for cutting through bullshit to find out facts for himself, he's skeptical without being cynical so there's a higher than 50% chance he's a remain supporter. But that said, it really doesn't matter because if after reading his article the best anyone can come up with to refute it is "yeah, but he voted Remain" then that's unspoken admission that there's little wrong with the article. At least on the face of it.

[dsr]

No. The gist is that there are serious and crippling flaws in our electoral laws and data collection laws that make it a piece of cake for not just foreign companies, but also foreign governments to interfere in our elections in a way which we cannot sufficiently protect outselves against.

No offence, turtle, but when you're dealing with people who don't have your advantages, you need to make allowances. Obviously there wouldn't be a remain voter in the land who thought that you were saying that foreign governments had interfered in our elections. Every single remain voter (because they're educated, talented, skeptical, etc., would have spotted the nuance.

So yes, we have established that foreign people have access to the internet and can place adverts on UK computers. So what do you suggest we do about it?

[brigante]

Read this at the weekend and it's fascinating and scary.

In a nutshell these guys can propogate misinformation on an individual level. Their reach is such that they have created, in effect, alternative versions of reality on the internet through fake news etc and can identify persuadable people who can be manipulated through persistent exposure to such (as well as other individual means of manipulation). It's not tin foil hat stuff, this is big data being used right now to (usually) advance political and/or neoliberal/con interests, with a questionable ethical stance.

The ability to afford this level of manipulation is in the hands of a select few very wealthy people, the extent to which whose interests align with genuine "informed democracy" is ... debatable.

There's a really good book called "Weapons of Math Destruction" worth reading on the subject.

[Imploding Turtle]

No offence, turtle, but when you're dealing with people who don't have your advantages, you need to make allowances. Obviously there wouldn't be a remain voter in the land who thought that you were saying that foreign governments had interfered in our elections. Every single remain voter (because they're educated, talented, skeptical, etc., would have spotted the nuance.

Yet again, you're making up bullshit that i never said nor implied.

[dsr]

Yet again, you're making up [expletive deleted] that i never said nor implied.

You frequently imply that Remain voters are more educated, intelligent, and less susceptible to persuasion than Brexit voters.

[Damo]

This is certainly more amusing than the "52% of voters are uneducated, Racist, idiots" and "FTPT is unfair when the vote doesn't go the way I wanted it to" excuses