• zeezee@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 day ago

    Wait, you’re both saying people voted for Brexit out of their own free will but also that advertising doesn’t persuade people? How do you explain Cambridge Analytica literally influencing millions of people to vote for Brexit? (a vote won by 2% margin btw) - like why would the right-wing establishment pay for ads if not to sway public opinion?

    Do you really think neoliberals spent millions to inform people why Brexit is good for them actually because that was factual information people couldn’t have found otherwise?

    • JasSmith@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      I don’t know what you think you’re proving with that link. Do you think I’m arguing that political advertising isn’t real? Because I never argued that. Cambridge Analytica scraped a lot of Facebook data, and it is claimed they used that data to advertise to potential voters. So what? That’s how democracy works: convincing potential voters of the righteousness of your cause. Are you arguing that people should no longer be allowed to debate and inform each other in a democracy?

      • zeezee@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        You’re equating Cambridge Analytica’s targeted psychological manipulation based on secretly harvested personal data with ordinary citizens debating each other. Do you really see no difference between billion-dollar campaigns using Al to exploit psychological vulnerabilities and regular people discussing politics? Who exactly is doing the ‘convincing’ in your version of democracy?