I noted Carole Cadwalladr tweeting yesterday to say that despite the staggering work that she has done to expose the deeply corrupting practices of Facebook and others she had been on the BBC just twice, with Sky offering exactly the same amount of coverage. That is deeply shocking when the likes of Isabel Oakeshott are all over our screens, without having any obvious merit at all. So I decided I should share this talk, which is about the very core of her work:
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Well I’ve just watched this and I have very mixed feelings about her message. Where I agree with her is that Facebook and all the other data mining tech companies are unscrupulous, which in itself sounds very old fashioned simply because we might say ‘ so what’s new ? ‘ . I agree with her that we all living in this data determined world. Why this April the first stage of HMRC’s ‘ Making Tax Digital ‘ has come into being costing £1 billion to collect information to tell them what exactly ? Try contacting any large company these days on the phone if they even list a phone number on their website . They want your money, but they don’t want you other than as another piece of data. The point I am making is, evil as they may be, Facebook is doing what it can do to make money – lots of it – reduce you and I to pieces of data . But so are all the companies and government agencies who in the name of profit , or efficiency wish to do the same. Do they also help any remaining shred of democracy go up in smoke ? You bet they do . Because the very word ‘ democracy ‘ has been reduced to just another meaningless term which has no meaningful reality in our everyday lives. That I believe is what the referendum vote signified . Carole showed a couple of slides of shiny new buildings in Ebbw Vale and a sign making it clear that funding had come from the EU and was incredulous that Ebbw Vale came out tops in the Brexit vote. Really ? She appeared to think that the presence of these buildings, given those in the slide that they had replaced, should have persuaded voters of the value of remaining in the EU. Sorry Carole, Facebook or no Facebook in Ebbw Vale that connection wasn’t made just as it wasn’t made in other towns and cities. It comforts the metropolitan and fashionable ‘ doing all right thank you class ‘ to believe that vote leave was an orchestrated plot , just as it comforts Establishment Democrats to believe they got Trump because Putin made it so. Wrong . But why would people here and in the US vote for something and someone that on the face of it were likely to harm them ? Because those people have been abandoned politically and then out of the blue comes an opportunity for them to put up their hand and say ‘ I’m here, I exist ‘ and I want you to know it. I can chuck a spanner in the works and chuck it they did.
So you’re saying we really shouldn’t care?
Wow
We should care that politucs failed. Of course. What do you think I do this for?
But you think that’s enough to say the corruption of democracy by Facebook is OK?
Come on……
No I’m not saying that at all. There has always been corruption in politics – it’s a given – and over time attempts to limit corruption by legislation have been made with greater or lesser success . What I was saying is data mining is being done by a large number of organisations beyond social media and the idea that a bunch of adverts on Facebook undermined our democracy is frankly naive and demonstrates a very narrow view of the myriad forces at work in contemporary politics, both here and across the world. Of course I think democracy matters . I wouldn’t bother reading and occasionally commenting on here if I didn’t.
So what would you do?
“So what would you do?”
Obviously I can’t reply to that on behalf of John, because he must do what he can, and is willing, to do.
For my part I like to think I’m challenging people to see the reality (as I see it) of the way opinion is formed and manipulated.
My pal thinks I’m wasting my time because I ‘can’t (or won’t) change anything’. Maybe he’s right, but if I don’t try I certainly won’t. And he certainly won’t because he can’t be arsed because he ‘knows’ he would be wasting his time. Given the quality of many of his stock banalities he’s probably right. 🙂
🙂
This is in response to Richard’s “what would you do” and Mr Hopes “There has always been corruption in politics”.
Dealing with the corruption first- the current “version” of elective democracy predicates corruption.
Dealing with “what would you do” – Van Reybrouck’s “Against Elections” charts various pathways out of the current mess – this current mess being a situation where “professional politocos” “groom” the population – Facebook being one of an array of tools to do so (The Daily Torygraph, The Daily Heil and other assorted trash being other forms of grooming).
Asserting “There has always been corruption in politics” carries with it the implication that it is inevitable – which – as the book amentioned above shows is not the case.
Citizen involvement is the way forward (to keep policos more honest) & would also help those such as Cadwalladr who try to shine light on problematic areas such as Facebook etc..
I’m not on Facebook nor twitter btw – & have no plans to be on either.
As a founder of one of the oldest of the UK’s ISPs we take the view “there is no such thing as “free” – everything has a price – obvious or hidden.
If I may say, Mr Hope makes a very telling point here:
“Try contacting any large company these days on the phone if they even list a phone number on their website. They want your money, but they don’t want you other than as another piece of data.”
This is the Age of Surveillance Capitalism; and the cheapest cost structure for companies to do business in the relevant sectors, is to abandon all personal contact with people: too expensive, too difficult, too open-ended, and since governments don’t care – why not, there is no downside? In an age of 4G/5G, as ‘click and go’ cashless consumers emrece the technology, and can’t live without it, people are efficiently being reduced far below the level their humanity deserves, to electronic ‘bits’; quantified data that can be qualitatively exploited by corporations.
In decades to come the manipulators of data will know far more about you, than you do; and what makes it all totally, deliciously compelling to investors; most consumers do not even appear to notice they are being sliced and diced, certainly insufficently to care.
Mr Hope is, I think somewhat frustrated and aggrieved, if apparently resigned (who can blame him – there is obviously inadequate regulation of this new business age). If I would venture a small criticism of his position, it is simply that he may be accused, perhaps, of failing to live up to his name………
@ John S Warren : ‘This is the Age of Surveillance Capitalism’
Just to say I too am persuaded that the ‘Brexit’ issue, which clearly needs an official investigation is the tip of a much larger & more dangerous iceberg. Although I’ve not read her book, ‘The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power’, Shoshana Zuboff’s hypothesis is gaining increasing exposure in the alternative media – a recent example being this comment in yesterday’s CounterPunch – ‘Big Tech and the Rise of Surveillance Capitalism’ – https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/05/06/big-tech-and-the-rise-of-surveillance-capitalism.
It’s a logical progression of the ideological neoliberal agenda, which is proving so difficult to counter both at national & international level. Currently the devil has all the best i-tunes. The authorised introduction of 5G is yet another typical neoliberal ‘success’, which will have negative implications for health, environment and society. The incestuous union of Financial Capitalism with Surveillance Capitalism threatens our very survival.
Many moons ago I attended an event to hear Jonathon Porritt (remember him?) give a speech. He likened Capitalism to the Lernaean Hydra. Just as you cut off one head it grows another. While this analogy has stuck with me over the decades, it has since been replaced by Michael Hudson’s metaphor of the parasite eating the host.
Jonathan and I still talk to each other….
@John Hope:
I hear what you’re saying. But it’s so sad, is it not, that the media storm that has buried the EU (from Common Market days) for the best part of four decades has managed to completely the obscure the fact that the problems in the UK are all home grown in Westminster. 🙁
John, what you need to be worried about are the links between the political process and billionaires and their think tanks.
The Sun, Express, Mail and Telegraph have not given their readers much idea how the EU actually works but they have given constant distorted accounts, claimed all sort of things were about to happen (but didn’t) and even lies. The constant theme was one of outrage e.g. “outrage at Brussels plan to make us do XYZ” or “EU take away ABC” or ‘Eurocrats to force us to do DEF”. There is website of euromyths with hundreds of examples and many of them from the four sources I mention. It seems even some the politicians who went to negotiate Brexit didn’t fully understand how the EU works.
Few people remember the specifics but they absorb the tone and theme of the constantly repeated misinformation. They are, basically encouraged to project their frustration onto the EU/ migrants/ unemployed etc. The same process can be seen in Trump’s America. Rather than hold the right people to account, we are encouraged to blame anyone and anything which might challenge the real sources of power.
The Heritage Foundation boasts it wrote two thirds of Trump’s legislative programme. This resulted in huge tax breaks for the megarich and a few tax crumbs for the masses-while many of their public services were cut.
The phrase used by Lenin of ‘useful idiots’ is often used by the Right implying liberal thinkers get fooled into supporting the extreme Left. Sometimes I feel there are useful idiots for the Right as well. ( I’m not saying you, just making a point ).
Ian Stevenson says:
“… the links between the political process and billionaires and their think tanks…..[…] …The Sun, Express, Mail and Telegraph…..”
Most of the ills of the internet and social media are in no way new. Since Caxton invented the printing press we have used it to shape opinion…it’s earliest target was the Church – the establishment of its time. Those with most money had most influence (if they had wit to use the medium). Pornography is not new to the internet age, just more readily accessible…and before the printing press why are so many celebrated paintings in galleries around the globe populated with naked and semi naked ladies …and young men.
I think we’re getting ourselves into a bit of a flap about this new age of increased access to information. We need to wise-up to it and we will, if we get there before we have draconian state intervention to curtail our access. That’s the subtext of what I’m seeing at present; the fight, much of it falsely flagged to wrest control of the internet and hold it close to power.
If we let them get away with it we’re stuffed. The big threat is not Mark Zuckerberg, it’s the power structure using distorted public opinion to justify controlling him. And the usual suspects are witlessly lining up to protect their own petty interests in support of the big power brokers.
I think we should be very afraid.
Carole Cadwalldr’s exposure of what is going on doesn’t justify stopping it, it argues strongly for a new raft of regulation about how we use it, and let’s hope we can make a better job of it than we have done of regulating the lies and misinformation of the print and broadcast media. It’s the same business entirely; only the speed and scale has changed. The gullible will always queue up to be gulled. People will always gravitate to news sources that reflect their views and prejudices.
It is we the users who need to regulate, and educate ourselves, and FFS grow up a bit, before we can seriously consider how to regulate the medium of the interweb.
Having watched how our parliament has gone about Brexit, whilst largely ignoring the issues which are really important to the population can we seriously hope there is either the intellect or the processes required to do the job even a half-decently in our current Westminster parliament?
Personally, I think not. I’m beginning to wonder if anarchy might be preferable to the political status quo. ( I met a serious minded advocate for anarchy a while back and, at the time, I thought he was barking…. I may need to revisit the idea)
Deeply disturbing and worrying. Especially when linked to the observations made by Elif Shafak in today’s Guardian: ‘…. the rise of the far right is a clash of cultures not civilisations’ – https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/may/06/spain-turkey-far-right-vox-culture-war.
We are living through complex times at every level: local, national, continental and global. Fertile ground for proto-Faascists everywhere. Unfortunately those who advocate practical ‘solutions’ are not being given the macro air-time, hence the general public will continue to be kept in the dark. In the US, Chris Hedges calls it ‘Creeping Toward Tyranny’. Beware men in black/brown shirts or with weird coiffure.
John D says:
” Beware men in black/brown shirts or with weird coiffure…”
….and when they habitually sport a bright red tie and have not a socialist bone in their body.
The ‘red peril’ in the US is the Republican party…. no wonder Americans find politics confusing. They are colour blind. 🙂
I saw this talk. It is excellent. The BBC really have become a disgrace.
What a gal! WHAT A GAL!
Admirable – and I’ve seen this myself on holiday in that beautiful country (Wales).
this short video does cover all the points included in my general understanding of the situation,
but if I try to broach this subject socially I’m met with pretty much uniform blank stares,
a while back I started using a new Opticians, when the receptionist was taking my details she made a point of highlighting the existence of their Facebook page and asked me if I could ‘like’ it,
I said I was afraid that wouldn’t be possible as nowadays I try to avoid interacting with Facebook,
she looked at me as if I was being difficult,
I tried to clarify by adding that, you know, since it has become apparent quite how creepy Facebook is,
then she looked at me as if I was a raving lunatic!
I have experienced much the same
Matt B says:
“….then she looked at me as if I was a raving lunatic!”
I’m not surprised. I’m also not surprised that a lot of people would not be surprised at her reaction to you. 🙁
I use Fb a lot. Big Brother will be after me when the excrement hits the extractor. In the meantime I use the medium which connects me to the people I want to talk with, and which I am not prepared to hand over, as free platform, to the purveyors of shite misinformation and propaganda.
My US contacts are moving to another platform, it will be interesting to see how that takes off, but it will still need the established social media page to attract new recruits from outside the bubble/echo chamber. Or at least I think it will.
Good posting, Richard. Thanks.
Posted on.
Every person who works for the BBC has, if you follow the hiring chain back far enough, been hired by someone who has been hired by someone who works for the Department of Culture Media and Sport. In another words, the BBC is a State broadcaster.
There are those who think the government should decide how we are educated, informed and sometimes entertained.
If you believe in accountability , which in itself is a form of democracy, then you should want the BBC Trustees to be elected by the licence fee payer and not by government officials.
Carole hasn’t picked up on this, but she’s not exactly the brightest button in the box of supporters of democracy and accountability.
First, I have worked for the BBC and do not recognise anything you say
Second, if you had 1% of the ability and courage of Carole I suspect you would be a much better person than your comment implies, regrettably
I’m not having a go at her courage. It’s her ability that I’m calling out – that she cannot see the fundamental lack of accountability at the heart of the BBC. And it seems that neither can you, because you are working alongside people like you who think that government of whichever persuasion should be the decision maker in the top appointments. The licence fee payer has no say in who makes the senior appointments, the scope of the BBC operation and the cost. There are none so blind as those who cannot see this.
And I’ve done work ( unpaid ) for Channel 4, and they are definitely aware of accountability to the people that make it possible for them to make a living.
The licence fee is a tax
It’s levied by statute
You have a problem with an elected government having a role in reviewing its use?
Personally, I am a democrat
And a licence fee payer election would not have a better outcome – worse than elected police commissioners
George Costanza says:
“In another words, the BBC is a State broadcaster.”
But the alternative is a broadcaster which does not so much represent the viewers, as represent the owners. That means it pipes the tunes that are paid for by advertisers.
I would agree we have a problem, but the solution is not simple, and I don’t off-hand know of anywhere it has been satisfactorily resolved.
I question your conclusion that we have a ‘state’ broadcaster. I think we have what, in American parlance, is called a ‘Deep State’ broadcaster. The BBC does not support the government of the day it supports ‘The Establishment’.
Brexit coverage is fascinating, because the ‘Establishment’ view of Brexit is as divided as it is in the rest of society. Confusion is rife; the Establishment hates the present government, but fears the Labour alternative and has nowhere else to go. Besides which, different sectors of the Establishment have very different priorities
dependent on how they extract their wealth from the public purse. Is their golden goose in Brussels or Westminster; from industry or finance; for example, will colour their opinion. They fight like rats for air-time. 🙂
For those who have followed Carole and the others who have worked on this story you will know that the TED talk is a fraction of the detail and Facebook are implicated, but not the main ‘movers and shakers’. “There is something nasty in the woodshed.”
“There is something nasty in the woodshed.”
Yes – and its called ‘advertising revenue’.
Pilgrim Slight Return says:
” “There is something nasty in the woodshed.” ……Yes — and its called ‘advertising revenue’. ”
Since when did advertising force us to take action ? If we can’t tell the difference between what we want and what we need can we call ourselves adult ?
What is nasty in the woodshed is the money that uses the medium not the medium itself. If we persist in focusing on shooting the messenger we are doomed to eternal and ever deeper manipulation.
It always come down to money doesn’t it. We are going to have to rehabilitate the idea that societies need taxation policy fitted to meet desired social purpose. The rest can then have a chance to follow.
When I first came to this web page I thought the title indicated a niche interest and somewhat esoteric interest at that……… Hmmmmm…..
Andy
Sorry, but that’s naive
Like it or not we are all influenced by advertising – and advertisers know it
The worst thing is to think we are not
Richard
“The worst thing is to think we are not [influenced by advertising]”
I have to disagree with you on this, Richard. I think the worst thing is to rely on others to shield us from it. That way lies the path to infantilism. (Like where we are now) We have to learn to understand our desires, and the process should start in childhood. Advertisers ‘ask’ us to make choices; we need to learn to be responsible for the choices we make. We cannot have the cake and the ha’penny; literally or metaphorically and we see the result of this fantasy that we can, in the wasted three years of pursuing the Brexit fantasy.
Shield us from lies and false statements ? Yes absolutely; by means of legislation (and breaches should attract very heavy, punitive fines that are beyond being ‘the cost of doing business’) but from the legitimate advertisement of wares, or indeed the legitimate ‘selling’ of social policy choices, I suggest not.
I am not sure I am following what the consequence of your suggestion is
“I am not sure I am following what the consequence of your suggestion is”
I think the longterm consequence is that we might have a population discerning enough to know what it values and consequently have some hope of creating a functional democracy, which we emphatically do not have at present.
To get there would require some fundamental shift in what we think education is for. It might for example have taught Andrew Gwynne how to frame a rational argument (?) Somebody on the Guardian editorial team being capable recognising bollox, and a Labour party that had a coherent strategy for which he apparently is (at least by his job title), responsible.
Would that do for a start ?
🙂
Andy
I take you point lower down, but I still contend that those named by Carole above are driven by the need to circulate as much as possible through their platforms because (1) adverts are rammed down our throats anyway on the Net (a source of income is it not?) and (2) we are tracked where we go and adverts even follow us onto other platforms (another source of income no doubt).
For example, when I am on eBay, how come I get adverts from say an outdoor shop I’ve just visited because I’m going camping? How does the eBay platform know I’ve been there?
Think about it? Facebook etc., are all set up to expose you to products and services. That’s why Facebook et al are sheepish and in denial because they know that their huge profits are derived from advertising revenue that is chasing sales for advertisers. That is why they are reluctant to change. How else can these idiots earn cash? And the same algorithms to advertise are being used to subvert democracy.
And if that itself is not worthy of being in the wood shed I do not know what is.
As for ‘informed’ people – I tell you this – the internet is still in its infancy. So I believe that as people mature around the internet they will soon tire of its ‘predictive’ qualities because people will realise soon enough that they are being followed on line. They will begin to tire of the amount of data they have to deal with and will look increasingly at ways to be left alone or opt out. Give it time. People will get fed up.
Pilgrim Slight Return says:
” (1) adverts are rammed down our throats anyway on the Net (a source of income is it not?) and (2) we are tracked where we go and adverts even follow us onto other platforms (another source of income no doubt).”
Point one: That’s tough! Not nearly as intrusive as TV advertising IMO. If we want advert-free TV we watch BBC (which we are legally obliged to pay for and ‘encouraged’ to do so with menaces). If we don’t like what is available we buy subscription packages….. and they are shot through with adverts anyway.
If we want advert free social media we’re going to have to pay for it. And find a supplier with the confidence to set-up something which is not likely to be a cheap operation with very little assurance that the public is as yet ready to pay.
The tracking issue is something I’m more concerned about. At least the tracking across platforms; I think there are serious data protection, and privacy issues there to be addressed. More opt-in tick boxes required(?)
“For example, when I am on eBay, how come I get adverts from say an outdoor shop I’ve just visited because I’m going camping? How does the eBay platform know I’ve been there?”
Because data is shared …on the platform I’m using I don’t have a problem with that. I’m looking for camping gear and someone is offering to provide it…where’s the beef ? Actually come to think of it if I’m looking at Halfords, say and my computer helpfully points out that I can buy similar products perhaps more suited to my needs …better quality, closer to my specs, cheaper, more local second hand… What would I complain about ?
“How else can these idiots earn cash? ” Which idiots ? Who are the idiots here ?
“And the same algorithms to advertise are being used to subvert democracy.”
Now that IS a problem if election expenditure is being hidden from the electoral commission. (And that is the nub of the Issue Carole is drawing attention to.) Let’s not conflate the issue of abuse with the issue of not liking legitimate use of the new medium, which as you say is in its infancy. Targeted advertising is the holy grail of the advertising industry. Look at the number of specialist magazines on the racks in your high street newsagent ….what are those for ? Matching customers to things they might want. Can you imagine what it would cost, and how effective it would be for a fishing rod manufacturer to find customers in a national circulation newspaper or its colour supplement? Customers self select for what they are interested in.
If you didn’t want camping gear adverts you shouldn’t have gone looking online at camping gear 🙂 You just self selected.
As you say……. we’ll learn.
Too much data….? Did you ever buy a newspaper, Pilgrim? Did you EVER read one cover to cover ?
You ask what would I do . Well for one thing I would make all political advertising subject to regulation by the Advertising Standards Authority . At present under Section 7 of the Code it is entirely exempt. So political advertising like those untrue ads on Facebook regarding immigration and the ridiculous and untrue claim plastered over the side of Vote Leave bus stating the ‘ we send £350m a week to the EU ‘ and below it the implication that we could use this money to fund the EU could be stopped . This was discussed by Parliament over twenty years ago, but no cross party support could be found. There’s a surprise.
Excellent suggestion
John Hope says:
“… make all political advertising subject to regulation by the Advertising Standards Authority . ….”
It is outrageous that politicians can exempt their utterances. They can lie in parliament too, without being called liar because to point out the liar is to use ‘unparliamentary language’. By extension that tells us a lot about what it is acceptable to say in parliament. 🙁
Shoshana Zuboff’s idea of Survillance Capitalism is dead relevant to this debate. A shame the book is pretty unreadable but there are some good reviews and summaries. Try:
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/feb/02/age-of-surveillance-capitalism-shoshana-zuboff-review?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
Whether it’s businesses or political interests exploiting and manipulating us through the mechanisms of Facebook et al, the consequences are equally dangerous.
I’m sure The Observer did a very readable article/synopsis on Zubhoff’s book in its review section which was very easy to read indeed and I’d highly recommend digging it out if you can.
The index in Zuboff’s hefty book requires one page for Google alone, but it is important to understand that Zuboff singles out no individual company for scrutiny; not Google, not Facebook, nor any other Corporation; indeed she begins with an anecdote to show that the well publicised discussions around Facebook are not the essential problem: it is much wider than that, it embraces the capture of all kinds of data from myriad sources, for imagined, or yet unimagined purposes, and has huge implications for us all.
Zuboff wrote a trenchant summary article on what she titled ‘the Dark age of Surveillance Capitalism’ on 25th January, 2019 in the FT, if you care to seek it out online. In the spirit of fair use, I have taken one small quotation from Zuboff’s article for this comment:
“Surveillance capitalists produce deeply anti-democratic asymmetries of knowledge and the power that accrues to knowledge. They know everything about us, while their operations are designed to be unknowable to us. They predict our futures and configure our behaviour, but for the sake of others’ goals and financial gain. This power to know and modify human behaviour is unprecedented.”
I suggest you read the article; or better still, the book.
Thanks
Another good analysis of Zuboff’s book is at:
https://thebaffler.com/latest/capitalisms-new-clothes-morozov
Congratulations John S if you read the book cover to cover- my patience did not extend that far. A shame as her previous tome, In the Age of the Smart Machine was excellent. She is one of the few writers and academics studying the impact of technology on society and business, rather than obsessing about the technology itself.
Then of course there is Charlie Brooker and the Black Mirror series that brilliantly anticipates both current and near future dysfunctional impacts of technology.
Thanks Richard.
The Ted Talk was very consistent with your previous comments on the book Democracy in Chains. It also reminded me of Chomsky’s Manufacturing Consent.
Andy Crow
I’m not quite sure what your point is so I will say again that the digital technology used to get us to buy stuff online has the potential to be used for much darker purposes.
Those purposes are two sides of the same coin.
On a personal note, once I have bought or looked at something I do not really want to be chased by other advertisers selling their wares – I find it irritating because Andy IT IS NOT MY CHOICE.
I have always acted upon the basis that if I go shopping it is an elective process. The internet increasingly does not work like this.
Where I live, loads of shops have closed down, so the internet is becoming more important as a means of shopping. So much for choice!
And this is my problem with the internet: once it knows we exist we seem to loose the choice whether we want to be known or not.
Should the desire to sell and make profit override privacy? You seem to be OK with that. I on the other hand am not.
I share your frustration on this issue
I know what some people use anonymous browsing for
I use it to look at shopping sites