In targeted advertisement no such public space exists and political discourse on the ads is hard. A political party could target your kid with disgusting lies while you will never know (and therefore discuss) it. Whole groups within a society can be told things without scrutiny. With targeted ads scrutiny can only happen, if the targeting algorithm chose the wrong person and that person chose to bring it to the public.
Anything that makes political discourse and advertisement more public and less private is in the self interest of democracy. Anything that makes it harder for parties to promise mutually exclusive or unrealistic things to multiple people is in the self interest of democracy.
To a time when people bought more news papers, you could have argued that the customers were voting citizens, although even then the real ones were advertisers. At least there was mutual dependency.
Today fewer and fewer people pay for journalism.
I don't think many people see them as creating public discourse and more about creating controversies to get attention. To be fair, they need it to stay economically viable. The trust in media outlets is pretty low and I believe that is not completely unfounded.
The Guardian is certainly not the worst offender by a long shot but general distrust in media isn't that hard to understand.
I think only more pluralism can help rectify this issue. And public officials need to think about channels to reach the public. Preferably not Twitter or Facebook. Attention is a precious resource and you have youtube make-up tutorials that have more views in a week than the Guardian in a quarter of a year.
A lot of frustration I have is that these advertising methods are only called out if the other political camp is the offender. Obama for example spent a lot of money on targeted advertising on social media. Granted, he told us and said that money in politics is a great problem on multiple occasions. So there is still a difference.
This isn't true for targeted (mis-)information campaigns on social media. If you e.g. were leaning to the political right, you wouldn't be able to discuss the ridiculous information someone on the political left might be exposed to, because you are very unlikely to see them in time (or at all). At the same time nothing would stop you to go to the Guardian website and read the article as anybody else.
That very aspect is the the key difference between public discourse and targeted ads. It doesn't really matter whether the media is biased or whether targeted manipulation works: one is doing it public (and can be subjected to scrutiny) and the other isn't.
Where traditional media necessarily always has to be selective about what they present us, targeted ads are not only selective in what they present us, they are also basing it on who we are. And because they can target people who are likely to share that view anyways there will be very little friction and public scrutiny. This naturally doesn't help with the quality of the information when it comes to truthfulness and divides people up: they no longer inhabit the same planet anymore in terms of truth and information.
I don't see what is far fetched about this claim. And I don't know about you, but being pointed out that something that was exclusively in the domain of the paranoid delusional only two decades ago is now the normalized experience for everyone without an ad-blocker does make me consider that we should pause to think more about what that situation means.
Huh, I admit that I ended up skimming a bit near the end but my impression of the first half of article was the opposite: that these fears weren't unfounded precisely because the current reality of advertising matches the imaginations of the paranoid.
Guess I should go back and reread the rest more carefully.
I would say that this is a natural consequence of having a free press, but places with a nonfree press also have political advertising (as a propaganda organ of the state) so maybe it is just a consequence of having media available in general.
More specifically, you are arguing against the speech that that the US supreme court has specifically identified as "core political speech," which has been explicitly covered by the strongest legal protections, such that any limitations must withstand the strictest legal scrutiny. You are suggesting that treating it with the lesser protections afforded to commercial speech is something good for society, that it is consistent with current legal treatment of free speech, and is consistent with the ideals of freedom. None of these are true.
(Well, not in the US, anyway. In Europe, this is actually normal and consistent with the way that speech is normally treated. But Europe doesn't actually have or want free speech, notwithstanding any protests you may hear about the topic.)
Cambridge Analytica's discourse has progressed from legitimate scandal to outright moral panic. Targetted advertising isn't good but the collective zeitgeist needs to get a sense of proportion and a grip on reality.
That isn’t a minor difference. It’s the same mechanism by which the superficially similar action of child protective services is still fundamentally different from a child abductor.
Motives also matter: Encouraging people to vote is different from stoking frustration with democracy intended to discourage voting. You’re operating from some definition of democracy where all opinions are equal, and where any judgements of the merits is un-democratic “bias”. But that’s some sort of naive misunderstanding of democracy, sort of a perverted parody of postmodern relativism. Not only is it legitimate for journalists and others to operate on the assumption of the fundamental superiority of democracy vs authoritarianism, it is necessary for it to function.
Edwards Bernays' (the father of PR) techniques to persuade the public (or "engineer consent") were so successful that Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi minister of propaganda, displayed a copy of his book "Propaganda" in his library.[1]
[1] https://www.thecrimson.com/article/1981/11/25/releasing-the-...
Other reading:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4318333/
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2007/02/12/the-fixer
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2003/jul/27/marketingandpr...
LE: typos
Newspaper will always have some sort of bias because they are written by human beings and the bias is harmless as long as it's understood and recognized by the readership.
Facebook manipulation, OTOH, is completely stealth because each reader gets a completely custom newsfeed.
I would agree if there wasn't coordinated hit pieces between newspapers or if newspapers didn't appear to collectively ignore certain pertinent events.
Now how many votes are changed due to the media's overwhelming (90%+) negativity about Brexit and Trump? If CA swayed any votes at all, then our media is actively and aggressively engaging in much worse. To use an analogy, CA might have been a car bomb, but the ongoing bias in the media is a continuous artillery shelling of the public's perception of politics.
The fact that we don't have much evidence about what Cambridge Analytica did is the whole problem.