Article 50/Brexit Negotiations

[Metal Biker]

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.

Still doesn't mean it's 'against democracy', which has been my stance all along.

How people are influenced to vote does not equate to someone being forced to vote a particular way or face reprisals. This is about how people reach a decision, not how people enact it at the polls. If you had paid me to vote a certain way i'm not facing reprisals am I from the person giving me the money. However, if I were being bribed with violence if I did NOT take the money and ALSO vote the way the person wanted, that would be a matter for debate, but that's not what is being theorised here so the analogy does not make sense.

It's been a very successful and convincing method to pander and influence voting practices. But they are under no pressure to actively continue to vote in the way they have been influenced. The article is effectively talking about "brainwashing" people into voting a particular way that is effecting national interests due to pandering to peoples own prejudices, viewpoints and preferences gathered by their activity and interests online. I don't see that as brainwashing, more like taking advantage of market research.

People still have the choice to refuse to follow it, they are not being forced, merely guided, but the choice is still theirs. They aren't acting like mindless drones.

 

[dave_blue12]

Still doesn't mean it's 'against democracy', which has been my stance all along.

How people are influenced to vote does not equate to someone being forced to vote a particular way or face reprisals. This is about how people reach a decision, not how people enact it at the polls. If you had paid me to vote a certain way i'm not facing reprisals am I from the person giving me the money. However, if I were being bribed with violence if I did NOT take the money and ALSO vote the way the person wanted, that would be a matter for debate, but that's not what is being theorised here so the analogy does not make sense.

It's been a very successful and convincing method to pander and influence voting practices. But they are under no pressure to actively continue to vote in the way they have been influenced. The article is effectively talking about "brainwashing" people into voting a particular way that is effecting national interests due to pandering to peoples own prejudices, viewpoints and preferences gathered by their activity and interests online. I don't see that as brainwashing, more like taking advantage of market research.

People still have the choice to refuse to follow it, they are not being forced, merely guided, but the choice is still theirs. They aren't acting like mindless drones.

Sorry but you are refusing to see the point and if you don't want to see it you won't - your choice.

Thanks for the exchange anyway.

 

[Metal Biker]

Sorry but you are refusing to see the point and if you don't want to see it you won't - your choice.

Thanks for the exchange anyway.

I do see your point and the message the article puts forward.

I disagree that it is in any way influential on the outcome of any election/referendum result.

 

[The Light Was Yellow Sir]

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.

I didn't say one shouldn't count or have more validity over another. I just think it's dangerous that people are being fed a bespoke diet of news which just confirms what they want it to, whatever that is.

 

[vonkeynotvenky]

I didn't say one shouldn't count or have more validity over another. I just think it's dangerous that people are being fed a bespoke diet of news which just confirms what they want it to, whatever that is.

Right and left echo chambers are counterproductive and Twitter and Facebook compound that because a great many users just have users with the very same opinions on their timelines.

 

[Metal Biker]

I didn't say one shouldn't count or have more validity over another. I just think it's dangerous that people are being fed a bespoke diet of news which just confirms what they want it to, whatever that is.

Hasn't that always been the case though? Especially with newspapers; I don't recall the Mirror, for example, ever having a positive article about the Conservatives, so it's not a place someone would go to to find out how the Tories will benefit the country because the rhetoric will be completely one sided, but then there are other news sources that claim to be impartial yet follow the same pattern.

Social media has made people lazier in this regard, it was only a matter of time before someone took advantage of the situation.

 

[steviemc]

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.

Politics has always targeted voters. Somebody wants your vote and they are going to try everything possible to convince you of their argument. As long as there's no foul play or vote-rigging etc. I'm not too sure what your problem is?

If people choose to divulge their personal information there's a good chance that the data will be used to target a specific audience. This isn't something new, and happened long before the introduction of social media apps. As for being ethical, you have a choice not to read or absorb any supposed targeted information. You can't expect much of a line to be drawn on this.

Do we tell somebody who saves a few quid on their car insurance policy that the targeted literature they received is unethical? As for a party political broadcast seeking to sway voters - are you suggesting they should campaign to dissuade voters? The whole essence of debating is to give a persuasive speech. Nobody would choose to exclude members of the public on the basis that they were too easily manipulated, unless of course they were a particularly vulnerable member of society.

There are some that use the argument that the public are not really clued-up enough to form an opinion, particular when the result doesn't fall in their favour. Those that suggest this often have either a gross misunderstanding of democracy, or an exaggerated belief of self-importance.

 

[inbetween]

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.

The simple fact is that both sides of an argument have to put across their position. People who support that argument will then utilize many means of getting across that message. How people CHOOSE to digest that information is for them to decide, that is a free society. Yes there is no doubt there is a massive campaign to change peoples minds on millions of things, we watch adverts everyday on TV for that exact purpose but whilst I retain the ability to choose I don't see the problem.

Put it this way, if enough news articles told me jumping off a cliff was good for me I still would not jump because I would use my mind to figure out whether it is good for me or not. Whilst people have a decision, democracy is preserved because democracy is about making a decision and not the right decision as according to others.

I don't disagree big data and the like is massive and is clearly now part and parcel of society but people can decide what they read, decide who to believe and when it comes to it we have to respect that they made their decision in good faith for whatever reason.

 

[dave_blue12]

Some of the responses on this issue are very disappointing.

But then maybe they are from Botts (automated computer generated responses). I have no way of knowing if you people are real or not.

Nothing to see here, everything is fine, carry on !

Trump is a great guy, so is Putin and as for Theresa, well you couldn't wish to meet a nicer person.

FFS !

 

[Metal Biker]

Some of the responses on this issue are very disappointing.

But then maybe they are from Botts (automated computer generated responses). I have no way of knowing if you people are real or not.

Nothing to see here, everything is fine, carry on !

Trump is a great guy, so is Putin and as for Theresa, well you couldn't wish to meet a nicer person.

FFS !

People don't agree with you on something so we're 'part' of the problem?

Okay.