Theory of Knowledge - Course Companion for Students Marija Uzunova Dang Arvin Singh Uzunov Dang

IV. Ethics
enabled by technology. Prosecuting
environment
Analytica, or its campaign clients,
Cambridge
complicated because the nature of their
was
meant only the people being targeted
medium
improved Cambridge Analytica’s messaging
AI
If an advertisement does not get
iteratively.
on, it is automatically tweaked based
clicked
the personality profile and served again; if
on
is clicked on, the person is shown more such
it
How much did this influence political
content.
Without controlled experiments it is
outcomes?
to know.
hard
Albright, assistant professor and data
Jonathan
Elon University, believes the influence
scientist,
is a propaganda machine. It’s targeting people
This
to recruit them to an idea. It’s a level of
individually
engineering that I’ve never seen before. They’re
social
people and then keeping them on an
capturing
Analytica’s data allowed campaigners
Cambridge
optimize candidates’ campaign movements.
to
Analytica claimed that they saw small
Cambridge
based on engagement with people’s
openings,
posts, in Michigan, Pennsylvania and
Facebook
—known as the “blue wall”, because
Wisconsin
are traditionally democratic states—and
they
Trump scheduled events there. The Clinton
so
mocked him at the time, but apparently
analysts
was the small margins in Michigan,
“it
and Wisconsin that won Trump the
Pennsylvania
(Anderson, Horvath 2017).
election”
October 2016, Nix made the following
In
statement.
in the United States we have somewhere
Today
to four or ve thousand data points on every
close
So we model the personality of every
individual…
across the United States, some 230 million
adult
has been used for centuries,
Propaganda
online networks may have increased the
but
and efficacy of political persuasion.
precision
beginning of this chapter explored how
The
emotions and fake news spread quickly
intense
social networks. SCL (parent company
through
Cambridge Analytica) described itself as “the
of
election management agency”, using
premier
such as “psychological warfare” and
words
operations” (Weinberger 2005). SCL
“influence
to have influenced elections and other
claimed
outcomes in Italy, Latvia, Ukraine,
political
Afghanistan, Romania, South Africa,
Albania,
Kenya, Mauritius, India, Indonesia,
Nigeria,
Philippines, Thailand, Taiwan, Colombia,
the
St Vincent and the Grenadines, St
Antigua,
and Nevis, and Trinidad and Tobago. An
Kitts
for Politico stated that SCL used “military
article
campaigns to social media
disinformation
and voter targeting” (Vogel, Parti 2015).
branding
is also alleged to have operated extensively
SCL
developing countries to manipulate public
in
and claimed to be able to instigate
opinion
It certainly sounds like something from
coups.
James Bond or Mission Impossible films
the
it did not help that SCL and Cambridge
and
were backed by a reclusive hedge fund
Analytica
called Robert Mercer.
billionaire
Potter, President of Campaign Legal Center,
Trevor
non-profit organization that works to reduce
a
influence of money in politics and to support
the
access to voting, reacted as follows.
unrestricted
a random billionaire can change politics
Suddenly,
public policy—to sweep everything else o
and
table—even if they don’t speak publicly, and
the
if there’s almost no public awareness of his or
even
many observers, including political
However,
academic experts, have voiced scepticism
and
these claims. It is a big leap to go from
about
personalities to influencing voting
understanding
Could behavioural microtargeting
decisions.
be powerful enough to sway elections and
really
There is some evidence to suggest
referendums?
its influence has been grossly exaggerated.
that
2
on social media could see them.
is substantial.
emotional leash and never letting them go.
(Albright quoted in Cadwalladr 2016)
herviews.
(Potter quoted in Mayer 2017)
people.
(Nix 2016)
54