| |
JakeTaylorFirstEssay 3 - 17 Nov 2019 - Main.EbenMoglen
|
|
META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstEssay" |
| |
< < | It is strongly recommended that you include your outline in the body of your essay by using the outline as section titles. The headings below are there to remind you how section and subsection titles are formatted. | | In Defence of Cambridge Analytica | | In the face of this, there is but one personal act of defiance left. I may never be one of those who knows how to change the behaviour of computers, but the decision to seek to learn, grapple and engage with the design of my global commons is a start. We have had Cambridge Analytica, we have had Snowden, we know the power of information and we therefore no longer have the luxury of ignorance. So, why have I not deleted Facebook? | |
> > |
I don't think I
understand the arc of the essay, which probably means that the best
way to make it better is to make clearer the contour of the
argument.
The first point, which also seems to be the title point, is that the
activities of Cambridge Analytica did not by themselves change the
result of a referendum that was decided by a relatively significant
margin of 4%. That does not seem to me to be a very strong thesis,
however. The significance of the matter, as you indicate yourself,
has nothing to do with whether it was outcome-determinative in one
electoral incident.
I think in deciding what Cambridge Analytica itself accomplished,
the matter would better be addressed by asking what it actually did,
in this and in prior electoral episodes elsewhere, than by relying
upon one (or even more than one) general political science studies
of the effect of advertising on candidate choice. We can all agree,
I think, that the question about psychographically-tagerted "push
communications," which are not necessarily advertisements, is how
they effect behavior, rather than idea formation.
But that's the less evident aspect of the process that you discuss
in the remainder of the draft, which is far removed from the
question of single electoral choices, and more generally directed at
the issue of the effect of these push communications on
self-fashioning tout court. Once we are at the question of how the
self is shaped, any one Alexander Nix is indeed insignificant. But
the matter cannot be analyzed simply as one troll and one anxiety
sufferer in his echo chamber. Now the question is about the
"climate of opinion," the influence of the great plurality of minds
and bots affecting minds, that studies of "computational propaganda"
are in this sense about.
So I think the way forward is to clarify what the central idea is,
and to reflect that ida both in brisk introduction and in a more
closely-sustained effort to produce the analysis that causes you to
believe in the value of whatever idea it is. So far as why you
haven't removed yourself from Facebook (or is that FACEBOOK?) yet, I
should think the answer is that you're still not taking the question
very seriously.
| |
You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable. |
|
|
|
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform. All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors. All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
|
|
| |