RugbyRebels

I don't post in the politics board very much anymore, as it's all got a bit...well.

However, this is scary. It doesn't matter what you believe in politically, or who you support, the idea that some American Billionaire, with Russian, Iranian, etc., links can influence the outcome of a democratic election in any country gives pause for thought...

It is a long article, but worth it.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/ ... -democracy

Yeah read that earlier. What's the answer? How is it stopped? Can we trust any election, do we give anyone a mandate anymore?

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

Donny osmond wrote:Yeah read that earlier. What's the answer? How is it stopped? Can we trust any election, do we give anyone a mandate anymore?

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

Well, indeed. But I've long said that social media has to be held accountable as media...and if we make Facebook et al play by the same rules as newspapers, that could clean it up somewhat. But those rules are outdated anyway, and need to be rewritten...and who do you trust to rewrite them? As all the politicians seem either bent as hell or incompetent...

Exactly. One thing I wasnt clear on from the article, were they targeting possible voters with adverts, or how else were they persuading people? I think there's a role for govt (civil service) to play in having a public information system that is open to scrutiny, and in encouraging people to look beyond headlines and read whatever facts can be considered objective.

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

So long as parties are allowed to campaign on the back of outright lies I see little hope. Also, maybe it is time to ban referenda. Allowing our partial press the level of control over democratic process that the Eu referendum did may well be one of the worst legacies a prime minister has ever left. David Cameron has sold the UK to the highest bidder.

Who has the credibility to fact check? The MSM are condemned by some for being biased etc, whilst alternative media is no better. Governments are accused of lying to us daily so would they have any credibility either?

Part of me thinks that this is addicting personal responsibility. I use Facebook (subject of a Panorama investigation last night on the same subject) but I don't use it for my news feed. If people are gullible enough to do just that then will any measure really make much difference - I suspect many people have their minds made up already and are just looking for confirmation. One of the points made on Panorama last night was the targeting of fishermen with anti EU stories. I used to live in Devon for a while in the 1990s and you would be hard pressed to find many fishermen who had anything good to say about the EU; propaganda on Facebook isn't going to hugely change much there.

FWIW, I think when a Social Media outlet begins to promote stories for financial reward, they have moved beyond a hosting platform where people can bring their opinions, independently of the management view, into a publishing house, with the ability to comment. In some ways, the difference between them and MSM in that regard is minimal, other than editorial control. I think the likes of Facebook should have some form of regulation, similar to the media, Although how to enforce that is another matter given the multinational nature of the company. For the UK government, its not a matter of being bent or incompetent. There are plenty of experts out there who can advise government policy effectively. The issue is how to tackle Facebook when its not a British company and any idea of filtering the content it provides would be met by howls of protest over government censorship.

Final thought is the scale of the issue. State sponsored, or professionally sponsored content is probably big enough, but take into account random stuff posted by individuals and the issue is huge. The high end stuff is probably more persuasive due to the time and money spent on the finished product, but the drip, drip, drip of individual opinion can also influence. but at what point does this become merely an extension of some 'expert' in a pub?

I think an independent fact publisher i the UK would be an excellent idea in theory. But I don't think it would be easy to create the required level of credibility and like any other organisation they will make mistakes and be howled at the moment they do.

canta_brian wrote:So long as parties are allowed to campaign on the back of outright lies I see little hope. Also, maybe it is time to ban referenda. Allowing our partial press the level of control over democratic process that the Eu referendum did may well be one of the worst legacies a prime minister has ever left. David Cameron has sold the UK to the highest bidder.

Or we look at better rules surrounding referendums. Make the percentage of votes requires higher than merely 50% plus 1 for major constitutional change. Also, ensure that the rules over campaigning are tightened up to prevent out right lies and huge distortions. And finally, make sure that the question being asked of the public is one which can then determine policy.

27 Conservative candidates under investigation for overspending,.....and it all gets swept under the carpet.
It's so much pony.

kk67 wrote:27 Conservative candidates under investigation for overspending,.....and it all gets swept under the carpet.
It's so much pony.

And confirmed to be bollocks.corbyn must be gutted, although most main parties used travelling canvassers and I suspect that the rules need to be changed to clarify how that expenditure is worked.

This is very bad though. We clearly have two very disturbed idiots gone totally tonto with the power and the money.
Our first internet super-nutters. They've mostly been benign up till now, nowhere are the big boys implicated (my mistake,...they legally bought the info from facebook).
This is on a different level. These two probably think they're Walter O'Brian or Biggles or some shit like that. And Donald and Nigel are just dumb enough to buy it.

kk67 wrote:27 Conservative candidates under investigation for overspending,.....and it all gets swept under the carpet.
It's so much pony.

Firstly there clearly weren't 27 candidates under investigation. Secondly an investigation by police followed by an independent charging decision by the CPS who give a public statement as to their reasoning is not sweeping things under the carpet.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

kk67 wrote:27 Conservative candidates under investigation for overspending,.....and it all gets swept under the carpet.
It's so much pony.

Firstly there clearly weren't 27 candidates under investigation. Secondly an investigation by police followed by an independent charging decision by the CPS who give a public statement as to their reasoning is not sweeping things under the carpet.

Don't bring process into this, its a clear carpet sweeping.