Article 50/Brexit Negotiations

[dave_blue12]

Good call, perhaps one of the Mods can strip out the posts associated to this important topic to a new thread so that it can receive the focus it deserves and does not distract this thread.

That would be great if one of the Mods could do that.

I should have started a new thread, apologies !

 

[dave_blue12]

But doesn't this and hasn't this always happened?

Len, Fumble etc.. are in 1 camp and no matter how many 'likes' are posted on Facebook or whatever, they aren't just going to change their view. Same with mcfc1632 or metalbiker, their minds are made up.

It's the easily manipulated who they're targeting but again hasn't that what has always happened with party political broadcasts, the papers lining up to support who they want?

Of course it has always happened but the the newspapers and party political broadcasts openly seek to sway voters. It's all part of the process. The Psycho campaigns target individuals using data on those individuals that I'm not sure they are legally allowed in ways that the target is not aware.

Using myself as an example - I am very anti Corbyn but when I see him him speak I feel conflicted - he seems to make a degree of sense and seems like a good chap - but I can't stand him !

Now maybe, just maybe it has been gleaned from my social media activity that I have an aversion to men who look like old fashioned schoolteachers (thin, disheveled, beard) and this has been re-enforced with negative messages on social media. Hey presto - I struggle to see Corbyn in a positive light !

It really isn't such a stretch to think this is happening and from my perspective it is absolutely wrong that it should be allowed to continue. How to stop it is a whole other question but first we must see the very real threat.

 

[inbetween]

I'm afraid it has everything to do with democracy.

We have rules concerning elections for a reason. The reasons are in the main to prevent the manipulation of the vote.

You may well not be susceptible to subliminal persuasion on this particular issue but others who do not feel so strongly may well be. The Co's who are dealing in this type of Psycho Campaign are not within the UK and so are beyond the reach of the UK Electoral Commission who have sought with little success to investigate this issue.

The process of winning elections is about influencing those who are open to be influenced, 'the floating voter' term is often used. Psycho campaigning recognises and targets those voters through the gathering of data from all available sources and then uses that data to tailor a programme of persuasion without the voter ever knowing what is happening.

A crude example might be used on a parent by associating child abuse with a political party. I believe the methods are much more sophisticated than this but you get my drift.

This type of thing is reprehensible whoever is gaining or losing by it.

Vote manipulation to me would be forcibly acting to change the result of this vote. Given every single voter walked into the voting booth with the capability of voting for one thing or another completely freely without any threat to the person or mind means democracy was fully preserved.

In corrupt countries democracy is not democracy because voting the wrong way often comes with it a threat of violence and/or personal threat meaning that person votes otherwise. I would guess that at the time not a single person in this country voted for Brexit but actually wanted to vote remain. I know you are saying they were swayed but that is just how they took on the information they were given, freedom of choice and even unvalidated information is part and parcel of a free society.

If anything the only campaign befitting the corrupt model above is the remain campaign which promised a whole world of pain. Who is to say that had the remain campaign not been so negative the country would of voted overwhelmingly further in favour of Brexit?

I have far more respect for Brexit because Brexit was the hard decision on the table and even if there was a big data conspiracy, the real question is why? Why would billionaires want such a thing?

The City of London is the powerhouse with regards to billionaires and economics in this country, the City of London voted overwhelmingly to remain. Don't forget the remain campaign was mostly funded by Goldman Sachs, one of the biggest companies in the world. Also remember £12M was spent on leaflets sent out to the public outlining the way the government wants the public to vote.. Is any of the above not a case of outright voter manipulation by the rich?

It just makes no sense to claim that the British public were duped beyond a handful of stupid lies and figures, the same of which could be attributed to the remain side.

 

[Metal Biker]

I'm afraid it has everything to do with democracy.

We have rules concerning elections for a reason. The reasons are in the main to prevent the manipulation of the vote.

You may well not be susceptible to subliminal persuasion on this particular issue but others who do not feel so strongly may well be. The Co's who are dealing in this type of Psycho Campaign are not within the UK and so are beyond the reach of the UK Electoral Commission who have sought with little success to investigate this issue.

The process of winning elections is about influencing those who are open to be influenced, 'the floating voter' term is often used. Psycho campaigning recognises and targets those voters through the gathering of data from all available sources and then uses that data to tailor a programme of persuasion without the voter ever knowing what is happening.

A crude example might be used on a parent by associating child abuse with a political party. I believe the methods are much more sophisticated than this but you get my drift.

This type of thing is reprehensible whoever is gaining or losing by it.

The ability or inability to successfully convince undecided votes to vote in a particular way, swaying the outcome of a result...is still not against democracy. At best you could say it was against "fair debating". But again, anyone and everyone has the right to ignore it and even if they don't it still is not against democracy.

"Your side told lies in order to win!"
Doesn't matter, it's not against democracy. ANY party or political group could use that stance in order to object to results they were against. "Labour won yes, but only did so on a bunch of false promises and lies!" "Sorry people, we'll have to do the election again...SOMEONE was being dishonest in their campaigning!"

Rules about campaigning don't limit parties from 'telling lies' because either side could see their view subjectivley as a lie. Blackmail, fraudulent votes, threats of violence against ones person, these are all against democracy. The best adjudicator on whether something they are told is true or not, or that they adhere to it is the individual themselves. The individual is the best person at deciding whether they believe what they have been told and if they will use that information to influence their decision. People might have agreed with John Oliver on his desperate Pro-EU plea to the UK from his US based TV show and made their decision solely on that. It does not invalidate that voters decision nor does it mean the result itself should be invalidated or was affected by underhand tactics. These tactics mentioned in the article and by yourself were utilised by a group of people who had a clear objective to influence the decision by targeting specific individuals in the hope that their vote would be swayed. In their view it was successful and it garnered the result they were hoping for.

You can call these tactics reprehensible, you can call them advantageous to one viewpoint, but still they are not against the democratic process. In the end that person, in that voting booth had every opportunity to change their mind, to ignore their message. No-one forced them to hold true to the 'manipulative methods' in which they reached their decisions and this article does not prove that anything untoward about the result took place.

All it highlighted is that a specfic group of likeminded individuals took it upon themselves to campaign in a specific manner that would be most advantageous to their ultimate goal of achieving the result that they wanted. It was how some people made the decision that they did. But those people still made their decision without anyone else forcing them to vote in a particular way.

Essentially, the article comes down to "the EU/Trump result should be invalidated because easily influenced people were specifically targeted by a bunch of liars to influence their vote, and it was because of THESE votes that Leave/Trump won, because Leave/Trump voters didn't know what they were voting for and this proves it. If it hadn't have happened, Remain/Hillary would and should have won".

Yeah, like we haven't heard that argument used before.

 

[dave_blue12]

Vote manipulation to me would be forcibly acting to change the result of this vote. Given every single voter walked into the voting booth with the capability of voting for one thing or another completely freely without any threat to the person or mind means democracy was fully preserved.

In corrupt countries democracy is not democracy because voting the wrong way often comes with it a threat of violence and/or personal threat meaning that person votes otherwise. I would guess that at the time not a single person in this country voted for Brexit but actually wanted to vote remain. I know you are saying they were swayed but that is just how they took on the information they were given, freedom of choice and even unvalidated information is part and parcel of a free society.

If anything the only campaign befitting the corrupt model above is the remain campaign which promised a whole world of pain. Who is to say that had the remain campaign not been so negative the country would of voted overwhelmingly further in favour of Brexit?

I have far more respect for Brexit because Brexit was the hard decision on the table and even if there was a big data conspiracy, the real question is why? Why would billionaires want such a thing?

The City of London is the powerhouse with regards to billionaires and economics in this country, the City of London voted overwhelmingly to remain. Don't forget the remain campaign was mostly funded by Goldman Sachs, one of the biggest companies in the world. Also remember £12M was spent on leaflets sent out to the public outlining the way the government wants the public to vote.. Is any of the above not a case of outright voter manipulation by the rich?

It just makes no sense to claim that the British public were duped beyond a handful of stupid lies and figures, the same of which could be attributed to the remain side.

I'm sorry but you're still going on about Brexit. The Brexit vote may be the latest where these techniques have been used but it is the use if the techniques themselves that is the real concern.

We can all be manipulated in certain circumstances to do things we otherwise wouldn't do and that is the key to this. I believe there is a spectrum which ranges from the easily influenced to difficult to influence but I believe we all sit on there somewhere.

I'm not talking about vote tampering I'm talking about tampering with peoples minds using the mass of data that these companies have on us as a key.

 

[dave_blue12]

The ability or inability to successfully convince undecided votes to vote in a particular way, swaying the outcome of a result...is still not against democracy. At best you could say it was against "fair debating". But again, anyone and everyone has the right to ignore it and even if they don't it still is not against democracy.

"Your side told lies in order to win!"
Doesn't matter, it's not against democracy. ANY party or political group could use that stance in order to object to results they were against. "Labour won yes, but only did so on a bunch of false promises and lies!" "Sorry people, we'll have to do the election again...SOMEONE was being dishonest in their campaigning!"

Rules about campaigning don't limit parties from 'telling lies' because either side could see their view subjectivley as a lie. Blackmail, fraudulent votes, threats of violence against ones person, these are all against democracy. The best adjudicator on whether something they are told is true or not, or that they adhere to it is the individual themselves. The individual is the best person at deciding whether they believe what they have been told and if they will use that information to influence their decision. People might have agreed with John Oliver on his desperate Pro-EU plea to the UK from his US based TV show and made their decision solely on that. It does not invalidate that voters decision nor does it mean the result itself should be invalidated or was affected by underhand tactics. These tactics mentioned in the article and by yourself were utilised by a group of people who had a clear objective to influence the decision by targeting specific individuals in the hope that their vote would be swayed. In their view it was successful and it garnered the result they were hoping for.

You can call these tactics reprehensible, you can call them advantageous to one viewpoint, but still they are not against the democratic process. In the end that person, in that voting booth had every opportunity to change their mind, to ignore their message. No-one forced them to hold true to the 'manipulative methods' in which they reached their decisions and this article does not prove that anything untoward about the result took place.

All it highlighted is that a specfic group of likeminded individuals took it upon themselves to campaign in a specific manner that would be most advantageous to their ultimate goal of achieving the result that they wanted. It was how some people made the decision that they did. But those people still made their decision without anyone else forcing them to vote in a particular way.

Why do you think subliminal advertising is banned ?

Because it influences people to make choices they would otherwise not consciously make. These Psycho campaigns are doing the same but are far more sophisticated.

Both techniques are messing with peoples sub-conscious.

 

[The Light Was Yellow Sir]

The ability or inability to successfully convince undecided votes to vote in a particular way, swaying the outcome of a result...is still not against democracy. At best you could say it was against "fair debating". But again, anyone and everyone has the right to ignore it and even if they don't it still is not against democracy.

"Your side told lies in order to win!"
Doesn't matter, it's not against democracy. ANY party or political group could use that stance in order to object to results they were against. "Labour won yes, but only did so on a bunch of false promises and lies!" "Sorry people, we'll have to do the election again...SOMEONE was being dishonest in their campaigning!"

Rules about campaigning don't limit parties from 'telling lies' because either side could see their view subjectivley as a lie. Blackmail, fraudulent votes, threats of violence against ones person, these are all against democracy. The best adjudicator on whether something they are told is true or nor, or that they adhere to it is the individual themselves. People might have agreed with John Oliver as his desperate plea to the UK from his US based TV show and made their decision on that. It does not invalidate that voters decision nor does it mean the result itself should be invalidated. These tactics mentioned in the article and by yourself were utilised by a group of people who had a clear objective to influence the decision by targeting specific individuals in the hope that their vote would be swayed. In their view it was successful and it garnered the result they were hoping for.

You can call these tactics reprehensible, you can call them advantageous to one viewpoint, but still they are not against the democratic process. In the end that person, in that voting booth had every opportunity to change their mind, to ignore their message. No-one forced them to hold true to the 'manipulative methods' in which they reached their decisions and this article does not prove that anything untoward about the result took place.

All it highlighted is that a specfic group of likeminded individuals took it upon themselves to campaign in a specific manner that would be most advantageous to their ultimate goal of achieving the result that they wanted. It was how some people made the decision that they did. But those people still made their decision without anyone else forcing them to vote in a particular way.

Part of the issue we have with democracy, at least in modern times, is the propensity for people to have their news filtered for them. Many people's news source is Facebook and other similar sites. Now, if you only use this as your view of the world and you believe, for example, either; most white men are racists or, most crime is committed by foreigners, quite quickly most of the news stories making their way to you will be biased towards that view. This just confirms what you 'know' to be true and the hamster wheel just keeps on turning. You just have to look at how many times people are reported dead, via social media!!

 

[Metal Biker]

Why do you think subliminal advertising is banned ?

Because it influences people to make choices they would otherwise not consciously make. These Psycho campaigns are doing the same but are far more sophisticated.

Both techniques are messing with peoples sub-conscious.

Messing with people's sub-conscious?

You mean successfully convincing them of something? It doesn't matter who is doing it, or what is said to you, you can still CHOOSE to ignore it and that is the point.

It's all sounding a bit tin-foil hat conspiracy to me. Are you saying my vote was NOT actually my own, but was influenced by invisible brainwaves sent via a succession of equally influential advertisements, soundbites, recommendations on Youtube, Twitter and Facebook that all follow a similar theme!? Are Coca-Cola telling me subconsciously how I should vote?

If they do, fair play to them, if that is what influences their voting decision, then that is what did. It still doesn't mean their votes should be invalidated, just criticised by those who care for not being based on a logical outcome. In any case it's not against democracy.

Democracy is not under threat; "ethical campaigning" might be though.

 

[Metal Biker]

Part of the issue we have with democracy, at least in modern times, is the propensity for people to have their news filtered for them. Many people's news source is Facebook and other similar sites. Now, if you only use this as your view of the world and you believe, for example, either; most white men are racists or, most crime is committed by foreigners, quite quickly most of the news stories making their way to you will be biased towards that view. This just confirms what you 'know' to be true and the hamster wheel just keeps on turning. You just have to look at how many times people are reported dead, via social media!!

So don't use social media for your news or to influence your opinion if you are so concerned about your vote being reached via ethical and logical reasons from fact checking.

"I voted Blue because I did the correct research that was backed up by relevant facts and cross checked with relaible sources! My vote is genuine and pragmatic!"

"I voted Yellow because my mate said it would be best"

"HERESY! Your vote should be stricken from the record for it's lack of transparency, legitimacy and inability to draw your own conclusions!"

Nope. Both votes still count, no matter how the decision was reached by the individual.

 

[dave_blue12]

Messing with people's sub-conscious?

You mean successfully convincing them of something? It doesn't matter who is doing it, or what is said to you, you can still CHOOSE to ignore it and that is the point.

It's all sounding a bit tin-foil hat conspiracy to me. Are you saying my vote was NOT actually my own, but was influenced by invisible brainwaves sent via a succession of equally influential advertisements, soundbites, recommendations on Youtube, Twitter and Facebook that all follow a similar theme!?

Wow! Erm, remind me exactly how many people who voted Remain/Hillary came to their decisions since they are after all the LARGEST proportion of social media followers? Hasn't it been revealed that most people on Facebook tend to share anti-Conservative content?

If they do, fair play to them, if that is what influences their voting decision, let it. It still doesn't mean their votes should be invalidated thus not against democracy.

Where have I said that any votes should be invalidated ?

Your vote was of course your own but if I had paid you to vote a certain way and you had agreed that would be illegal. You could carry on shouting as you got sent down 'but my vote is my own !' I would, of course, be in trouble too.

For the last time this is not about Brexit or any other vote. It is about the way that people are potentially being manipulated to vote in a way that they may not consciously have done.

Now if you don't believe that people can be manipulated in this way then fine. I think you are wrong. and given the amount of money being spent in this area so do a lot of other people.