All the Tories out this morning

Lefty said:
The Wisdom of Crowds?
Click to expand...
I'm not familiar with the theory, but it looks like it starts with the concept of Cognition: "Thinking and information processing, such as market judgment, which he argues can be much faster, more reliable, and less subject to political forces than the deliberations of experts or expert committees."

However, this theory was developed in 2004, pre-social media, pre- ubiquitous facebook, pre-cambridge analytica and their Brexit 'success'. I'd be interested to see it updated for the current environ, where political forces have subverted normal methods. Where that very crowd can and are directly, subtly, and absolutely manipulated by those political forces that in 2004 didn't have the direct reach and influence into our daily lives. Does this theory still stand in 2020?! The crowd is no longer an amorphous impenetrable blob. The crowd are now individually identifiable, profile-able and reachable to all political parties with deep enough pockets.
 
Last edited:
Laughing said:
Which brings me nicely to something I have banged on about for ages - politics should be a core subject in schools.

As for MFP, hmm, it's not worth engaging. Anyone who doesn't see that the UK is moving to the right is clearly nuts. If you still believe that Johnsons political agenda is right centrist then again you are nuts.

There was an article written about a year ago on how you move a nation from central policies to extreme policies, left or right, and it used Nazi Germany as an example and referenced what people accept as the norm, the overton window, heavily.

The article claimed that you suggest extreme policies then wind them back a little until they are acceptable to the masses. Then a little while later you repeat the exercise. In fairly short order you can push very extreme ideas into normalised thinking. Hitler didn't start by suggesting the Germans gassed all the Jews. He started by blaming them for Germany's economic problems. Once that was accepted he started talking about Jewish boycotts, then segregation, then dispossession, evacuation and then the final solution.

If anyone doesn't see that echoed in the UK with immigrants is blind, stupid or amoral.
Click to expand...

Being far-right and moving to the right are not the same thing and if it is you think this government is far-right, or even approaching the far-right. then explain what these policies are that support the idea.
 
BoroMart said:
I'm not familiar with the theory, but it looks like it starts with the concept of Cognition: "Thinking and information processing, such as market judgment, which he argues can be much faster, more reliable, and less subject to political forces than the deliberations of experts or expert committees."

However, this theory was developed in 2004, pre-social media, pre- ubiquitous facebook, pre-cambridge analytica and their Brexit 'success'. I'd be interested to see it updated for the current environ, where political forces have subverted normal methods.
Click to expand...

The Wisdom of Crowds by James Surowiecki is a really interesting book, but as even he points out the 'wisdom' comes with caveats and conditions, otherwise it doesn't work.

Politics these days is less about data and facts and models and much more about persuasion and rhetoric. We now know much more than we ever did that it means tapping into emotions and identity.

I don't think Surowiecki's maxim applies here, although I do think that it should. It is just that we are in an era of high manipulation and misinformation. If people can be made to understand what is going on, to appreciate the importance of critical thinking and reason and if we can establish some standards on reporting to generate trust once more in our institutions, then it might.
 
You do have a point Lefty, but I would argue that democracy works more often than not, even with social media manipulation of the electorate. I would guess that eventually social media will be used in equal amounts by both sides, hopefully cancelling each other out.

We are in the mess we are in with the tories because of 1 lie, Oven Ready Deal, a great deal for the UK.

I like to believe that there will be a rebalancing at some point in the future, hopefully 2024. I cannot see the tory government recovering from a hard brexit, no US deal, skinny EU deal and an expensive pandemic handled poorly.

Whilst it is a bit doom and gloom at the moment, it will mean the fall of the conservative government and I believe by a majority at the next election.

I know Starmer is a bit centrist for a lot of Labour voters, but you have to start somewhere to wrestle power. Hopefully Labour have learned a little bit about electorate manipulation, and whilst I don't like the idea, Starmer is using the same optics to improve Labours reputation. I liked Corbyn, and he was dealt with very severely for a fairly minor statement. However, this may be for the greater good.
 
Cooper671 said:
No they shouldn’t. The great thing about this country is everyone has a say. Voting is the greatest right you can have. Any person can vote for any party, MP, referendum outcome they so wish and for any reason they choose. It is not up to you, me or anyone else to tell someone how to vote, nor is it up to you, me or anyone else to criticise someones reasoning for how they vote. If your advocating that you should have some standard IQ in order to vote then you are advocating censorship and removing the greatest right each person in this country has. Luckily we dont live in your world.
Click to expand...
It’s an interesting point to debate though and whilst I agree with you I do think the average voter is susceptible to manipulation and this is not about lacking intelligence or being too stupid to vote but that there should be careful controls on what information politicians are allowed to impart to the electorate. It is too important for misrepresentation to become acceptable just to win an election.
 
Lefty said:
The Wisdom of Crowds by James Surowiecki is a really interesting book, but as even he points out the 'wisdom' comes with caveats and conditions, otherwise it doesn't work.

Politics these days is less about data and facts and models
Click to expand...
I'll have to add it to my To read list.

Politics is now about big data, bucketing the electorate into Firm supporters, Firm Opposers, Loose supporters, Loose Opposers, and floaters. Then targeting misinformation at the Loose Supporters, Loose Opposers and Floaters to move them for you or disenfranchise from voting at all.
 
Laughing said:
You do have a point Lefty, but I would argue that democracy works more often than not, even with social media manipulation of the electorate.
Click to expand...
It's far too early to make that assumption, it's only been about 5-8 years of massive use of big data in elections. It's led to a large shift towards the right in several countries. Are the majority of citizens in all these countries actually full of repressed hate OR have people's feeling been stoked by misinformation into hate. The internet and big data is the real manifestation of Big Brother.
 
BoroMart, I do a lot of work with big data and audience segmentation and it has been around for a long time, Hadoop was released in 2006 and some smaller big data players have been around since way before then. Over and above that Big Data is a buzzword and manipulation of enormous datasets has been around for decades. I don't know when analysis and segmentation of the electorate began, but it would be more than 5-8 years. Segmentation is still very basic whether it is done computationally or by a human expert. It attempts to segment an audience using known data points, what news they read, their post code, their income. It is a fairly blunt tool. That is not to say it cannot be effective, and you don't need to fool all the people all the time in an election, just a small percentage. If you consistently don't deliver on promises, the electorate wise up. Bare in mind also that lots of data should be unavailable to the government.

It's important not to give people an impression that Big Data somehow opens them up to manipulation, it doesn't.
 
Laughing said:
It's important not to give people an impression that Big Data somehow opens them up to manipulation, it doesn't.
Click to expand...
The level of information available now, compared to 2006 is huge. We have all got portable computers in our pockets, 80% of us are active on at least 1 social media platform. Facebooks advertising platform has matured. Political organisations spend fortunes on social media advertising for a reason, of course it works, it doesn't work on everyone and it doesn't work all the time, but it's pretty much undeniable that people have been manipulated to unprecedented levels in the last 5 years. People have always been open to manipulation, Cambridge Analytica found a great vehicle to achieve that manipulation and it got Brexit over the line and Trump in power.
 
Laughing said:
Bare in mind also that lots of data should be unavailable to the government.
Click to expand...
The law has proven not to be capable of governing this. Cambridge Analytica shut down and shut up so not to be prosecuted. Then started up again as other companies.
 
HolgateCorner said:
It’s an interesting point to debate though and whilst I agree with you I do think the average voter is susceptible to manipulation and this is not about lacking intelligence or being too stupid to vote but that there should be careful controls on what information politicians are allowed to impart to the electorate. It is too important for misrepresentation to become acceptable just to win an election.
Click to expand...

Not just the average voter, every single one of us. It just depends on the issue and which of our buttons are pushed. The only defence against it is appreciating and employing critical thinking skills.
 
BoroMart said:
The law has proven not to be capable of governing this. Cambridge Analytica shut down and shut up so not to be prosecuted. Then started up again as other companies.
Click to expand...
Which is why I say should boromart.

On the subject of mass manipulation it doesn't work, yes you can manipulate some people. Most folks who voted brexit, for example, were already racist and blamed immigration for their problems. Jeez my parents were racist before social media and never read a newspaper. Some people don't require manipulation they have unsavoury character traits already. Yes elections have been influenced by social media just not to the extent you think.
 
Cooper671 said:
No they shouldn’t. The great thing about this country is everyone has a say. Voting is the greatest right you can have. Any person can vote for any party, MP, referendum outcome they so wish and for any reason they choose. It is not up to you, me or anyone else to tell someone how to vote, nor is it up to you, me or anyone else to criticise someones reasoning for how they vote. If your advocating that you should have some standard IQ in order to vote then you are advocating censorship and removing the greatest right each person in this country has. Luckily we dont live in your world.
Click to expand...

Vote for insanity, you know it makes sense!
 
Laughing said:
On the subject of mass manipulation it doesn't work, yes you can manipulate some people. Most folks who voted brexit, for example, were already racist and blamed immigration for their problems. Jeez my parents were racist before social media and never read a newspaper. Some people don't require manipulation they have unsavoury character traits already. Yes elections have been influenced by social media just not to the extent you think.
Click to expand...
I guess it depends on your definition of mass. Manipulating 4 million people is mass manipulation, it's still just 10% of possible voters. If you can manipulate those who don't vote to vote, and those who do vote for the opposition to not vote, and manipulate a % of those fence sitters onto your side, then you win. Social media and in particular some pretty unsavoury memes and videos of Tommeh have boosted those with historical and inherent racism to speak louder. It's all very sad and facebook has clearly had a massive and negative effect.
 
I wouldn't disagree that there is an impact from social media and targeted messaging, billions is spent every year which proves it has an effect. I just think it is a bit dangerous to overstate the effect.
 
Laughing said:
I wouldn't disagree that there is an impact from social media and targeted messaging, billions is spent every year which proves it has an effect. I just think it is a bit dangerous to overstate the effect.
Click to expand...
well we have popularism rising up where it was once quelled, as secretive firms likes CA manage their digital strategy. Then under investigation they dissolve themselves and start up differing companies. It's pretty obvious that it's had massive impact. The internet and social media has had massive impact on many aspects of our lives, it would be silly to down play the impact it's had on elections.
 
I am not downplaying it BoroMart. It has had a massive impact if you accept that winning an election on the back of social manipulation as massive, regardless of how deep the impact actually was. 1% could be considered massive if swinging an election. The actual individual impact is much lower than you are suggesting. I know this because of multiple studies commissioned by global retailers. It is no where near 10%.

As I have said, people who voted brexit and voted for trump were, largely, not doing so because of media campaigns and targeted ads, it was largely where their politics were to begin with.

There is a definite shift to the right in UK politics, is that social manipulation or is it people being more vocal of their views as it doesn't seem quite as abhorrent as political views shift right. Who knows. I have no numbers to back this up, but I have long held the belief that society is a thin veneer for many people and for a while racists were embarrassed into whispering their beliefs and brexit, perhaps, emboldened them to start talking louder.

I am not arguing with the knub of your point, just the impact it has.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top