Posted on 12/11/2015 8:03:46 AM PST by VinL
Ted Cruz is using psychological data collected on tens of millions of US Facebook users without their consent in his campaign for President. An investigation by The Guardian (link is external)shows that the campaign contracted with a Cambridge, UK-based firm, run by Cambridge University researchers, to provide the data. And they paid them a lot - at least $750,000 this year.
The company, Cambridge Analytica*, appears to have gathered this data by running surveys. Participants were required to log in with their Facebook accounts. As part of that process, the researchers gathered information on all of the survey-taker's Facebook friends. (Note that all Facebook apps can do this; if your friend installs an app, that app can pull your data). Once the data was collected, the firm built models of people's personality traits (I've written about that technology before).
And how is that data used? The Guardian reports "Ahead of the midterms, Cambridge Analytica reportedly developed a series of TV ads for candidates...each aimed at different personality types and aired at times when viewers with personalities it aimed to reach were most likely to be watching." The campaign also claims to use it to target people online. The full extent of its use is unknown.
Media targeting is nothing surprising nor is the fact that candidates are collecting data about people to help their campaigns. In this case, the truly disturbing element is the unethical way this data seems to have been collected. This was not public information; it was concealed by privacy settings, shared only with Facebook friends, and was collected from people who had no idea what was happening. It's data none of us should expect to be collected by companies, processed, and sold - especially when we were not asked to share it nor did we consent.
Some will argue that everyone should expect that anything they post online will be treated this way. I think it is overly simplistic and unfair to declare an entire communication medium off-limits to people who want to preserve some privacy. We should be allowed to have some privacy online. Tactics like this, which sneakily circumvent our explicit privacy controls, are harmful both to individuals and to the prospect of a trustworthy internet. It's something that Facebook should not allow (please, Facebook - stop allowing apps to collect data about someone's friends) and that ideally would be forbidden altogether.
---------
*Cambridge Analytica's tagline is "Data driven behavior change". On their website, they state:
At Cambridge Analytica we use data modeling and psychographic profiling to grow audiences, identify key influencers, and connect with people in ways that move them to action. Our unique data sets and unparalleled modeling techniques help organizations across America build better relationships with their target audience across all media platforms.
-:)
Market research is used by all the candidates.
People need to know that social media gets seen by a year and all people. When you interview for a job, lots of employers do background checks Including social media. We used to watch our opinions and words but now there is no common snese
Hint: if it’s politically market related IT, any PR firm is going to use such data just like google or amazon
Ooooh scarrrry.
So the Left is against “science” when Cruz uses it? Gotcha.
It is terribly unfair. Life is unfair. Any adult just discovering that is way behind the curve.
It's no secret that putting info on the web means it will likely be shared with people you don't intend to see it. Privacy policies are there for a reason. People who don't read them don't really care about their privacy.
Stop the presses!!
An investigation by The Guardian …The Manchester Guardian looks only to smear, not investigate.
> So the Left is against “science” when Cruz uses it? Gotcha.
Bingo!
You mean that when I tweet or post my private thoughts on the internet they are no longer private?
> Market research is used by all the candidates.
Yep. And they act as if ole Barry never did it. Where do they think Barry got all their phone numbers from to contact them when he was campaigning when they never provided them?
Even worse, it’s The Guardian UK.
If you follow a candidate on twitter that candidate will almost inevitably follow you back. Other candidates campaigns will also follow people or compile lists of people they follow.
They collect thousands of tweets every day and probably run them through some kind of analysis program to pick out words that come up a lot.
$750,000 is a lot of money to find out what his supporters think. Trump says what he thinks. Doesn’t need a data company to tell him who to target.
Oh the horror of it all! I’m a Trumpkin and I think its funny. :-)
Idiot author: “without their consent”. Uh, if they logged in via FB they clicked a box that told them exactly what the app would be looking at.
Also: for the love of America, people need to learn how to use privacy settings and NOT share everything on social media.
Hell - the Left has been using actual psychological warfare for decades - a candidate would be stupid not to collect and use such data in today’s climate.
If you don’t want anyone to see your facebook data, put a hijab on it.
New APP coming up: Hijab your Face(book).
Facebook & Twitter do not exist to give people free platforms. They exist solely to mine data & glean info.
Yes. Why pay that kind of money unless you need to tailor your positions to push all the right buttons with voters. Maybe that’s why suddenly Cruz is sounding a lot more like Trump. Finger in the wind to see what works.
Fortunately for me, Trump says what he thinks, not what he thinks I want to hear.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.