Relating 'Camgridge Analytica' to this situation is a bit hyperbolic.
CA 'scandal' was vastly misrepresented by most in the press, it was a bit of a problem, but completely over stated.
I worked at a company that received 'special access APIs' from Facebook (something indicated during this scandal) and it was not only benign but the mechanics were misrepresented.
That said - it's reasonable to wonder 'What Is Happening Now?'
Another question is ... is it rational and/or moral? That's a more difficult question to contemplate for younger people I think, who have less exposure to the mechanics of the world, which are materially relevant. My view on that has evolved so much over time, it's so hard to say.
> CA 'scandal' was vastly misrepresented by most in the press, it was a bit of a problem, but completely over stated.
CA abused the friend-of-a-friend feature of FB's API to create detailed profiles of millions of voters, which they then used to micro-target them with ads. Advertisers are quite aware of the psychological effect of ads, and their ability to influence decision making, even on a subconscious level. It's pretty clear, then, how this would be useful for pushing propaganda, and swaying voters one way or another.
The 2020 leaks[1] show that they've done this in 68 countries. Whether or not they were entirely responsible for election results is debatable, but you can't possibly call this "a bit of a problem" and "completely over stated".
This is a very real and dangerous weaponization of social media, and it's not difficult to see how it's a natural progression of propaganda efforts from past decades. It would be naive to think that CA was the only and last firm operating in this business. They're just the ones we happened to hear about.
> Another question is ... is it rational and/or moral?
How is that even a question? There's nothing moral about getting paid by politicians to manipulate voters into voting for them. It's the modern equivalent of outright buying votes. If you don't see how that undermines democracies[2], then we have completely different worldviews.
CA did what many people were doing at the time, and those kinds of shenanigans are very common today.
The 'harm' caused by such information gathering, were it effective, is marginal.
So yes, we don't want people abusing people's APIs, but it's almost a nothing burger that people could 'target a few ads'.
More relevant to CA's case - their capabilities were rubbish. They completely overstated their ability to target people and to influence them.
This is the 'running scam' of the entire advertising, agency, ad-buying and consulting industry. Their claims were ridiculous.
All of that combined means that this was not some scary thing for civilization, the effects were marginal, and even then 'ad targeting' itself is not even a bad thing.
It's not 'harmful' that Toyota was able to get their ads in front of a few more truck buyers. More like 'annoying'.
'The Guardian' is a primary source for borderline fabrication at least to the extent that they vastly overstate both the kinds of abuse in the situation, and the power of the information garnered. In this case, misinformation by The Guardian is as bad as the case they are following.
"There's nothing moral about getting paid by politicians to manipulate voters into voting for them."
What Campus Bubble do you live in?
So you want to ban all public communications by 'Politicians'?
Are signs 'evil'? 'Pamplets'? 'TV Spots'? 'Radio spots'?
Did that 'pamphlet' you receive make you vote for ABC politician, and therefore the 50 cost of that was tantamount to 'vote buying'.
Does the same apply to industry? The iPhone ad should be illegal?
Please.
Ironically - targeted advertising is, on the whole, probably better for everyone than not. There is too much information out there, and we need better ways to access it. 'Targeting' is a form of market clearing, it's a form of efficiency.
The dynamics of it are screwed up in that some are much better able to leverage the system than others, and I don't like that our privacy is abused in many cases, but on the whole it's not bad.
CA 'scandal' was vastly misrepresented by most in the press, it was a bit of a problem, but completely over stated.
I worked at a company that received 'special access APIs' from Facebook (something indicated during this scandal) and it was not only benign but the mechanics were misrepresented.
That said - it's reasonable to wonder 'What Is Happening Now?'
Another question is ... is it rational and/or moral? That's a more difficult question to contemplate for younger people I think, who have less exposure to the mechanics of the world, which are materially relevant. My view on that has evolved so much over time, it's so hard to say.