So now that the Cambridge Analytica story is unraveling they're looking for a new scapegoat to blame an undesirable (to them) political outcome on.
To me, a lot of it feels like people can't believe that a thinking human would ever vote for "the bad guys", so they go searching for some other explanation. It must have been some sort of brainwashing, that's the only reason someone would ever fall for their obvious lies!
Curiously, I very rarely hear people who complain about social media admit to it influencing their own political decisions, it's always their opponents who are being led astray.
These prestige publications no longer have the influence they once had on other social classes because these social classes have access to a wide variety of new media enabled by the internet, and this loss of control is what's shocking to the political/social elite.
I think something along these lines must be what's happening because in terms of actual policy, Trump isn't that different from someone like Pat Buchanan.
Are you sure it's not the other way around? I believe people's political views shape what media they consume. I agree with your point that wider availability plays a role, but I see it mostly in giving people a choice. If you only have one choice in media, you can either not read news or read that one. If you have multiple choices, you can choose whichever seems to make the most sense to you.
People don't want to feel like they are reading an article by someone who has no clue about the matter at hand, which it often feels like when they come from a very different ideological background, they will seem to have things backwards, focus on irrelevant details and completely miss the actual reasons.
Theres been a fundamentaly change in how information in society is organized, in terms of reach, scale, scope and frequency - and all the data analysis and nudging it entails.
At some point that vortex would create some event that would set off conversation and fear as the average person begins to discuss what is going on/
I assume you are referring to stories like this[0] where the UK's Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) recently found that "Cambridge Analytica models were exaggerated and ineffective". Presumably you don't think that there could be any bias in the ICO's investigation, despite the UK government now being run by Boris Johnson, Michael Gove and Dominic Cummings, all senior members of the Vote Leave campaign group.
Regardless of any bias, there is the question of whether the ICO had the data it needed to judge CA's models sufficiently. We have a whistleblower claiming that Vote Leave "attempted to destroy evidence"[1] and photographic proof that "Storage crates were removed from Cambridge Analytica's London headquarters today (pictured) but it is not yet known who has ordered them to be taken away"[2]. In fact, CA were given at least a week's notice to prepare for the search warrant[3], a privilege not afforded to most criminal suspects.
You might think that there is nothing suspicious about all this, and that even a fair examination of CA's practices would clear them of any influence over the outcome of the referendum (and you may also think that all online advertising is a waste of money, because it can't influence people's decisions and opinions), but please do not glibly state without a citation that the story about them is "unravelling".
[0] https://www.itpro.co.uk/policy-legislation/data-protection/3...
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/mar/26/the-cambridge-a...
[2] https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5521893/Warrant-sou...
[3] https://eandt.theiet.org/content/articles/2018/03/informatio...
It just so happens that the current Information Commissioner was appointed in July 2016, just one month after the June 2016 EU referendum. Perhaps pointing out that strange coincidence is a cheap-shot too.
I think that you should stick to factual claims rather than trying to infer my mental state from my comments.
Hopefully my point would have worked just as well if phrased: "Even if you think that there is nothing suspicious about all this... (and even if you think that all online advertising is a waste of money...) I think that a claim of the story unravelling requires at least a citation".
My aim was for people on different sides of this issue to have a chance to present their cases, so that we didn't give the impression that this was a settled matter that everyone agreed on.
If you do think there is something suspicious about CA's actions, and/or you think that online advertising can influence the way people vote, then I'm pleased that we agree on some premises at least.