Last week, Cambridge Analytica, the data analytics firm, announced that it is closing down. This does not mean the end of the matter. It is still important to find out what they did and where they did it. Following ground-breaking investigative work conducted by Channel 4 and The Guardian, an enquiry is under way in the UK.
Concerns about data protection will continue as the misuse of personal data, mined from the internet, will resurface. Data protection may tighten up, but the world has seen how individual voters can be micro-targeted to manipulate their behaviour, and this prospect is surely too tempting for politicians and other power-seeking groups to ignore.
People’s willingness to share information about themselves on social media will not cease either. They will like, share and post as before, irrationally expecting this to be ‘private’. Social media users often behave as though they are having a chat among friends, seemingly oblivious to the fact that their posts might be visible to thousands.
According to whistleblower Christopher Wylie, the Cambridge Analytica method involved harvesting Facebook profiles in order to understand what types of messages individual Facebook users (and voters) would be susceptible to. He described it as “psychological warfare”. Creatives, videographers and photographers would create internet content. A targeting team would then “inject” this content into the internet, designed and placed intentionally for target groups to pick up as they browsed online. This would play into the likes, dislikes or fears revealed by individuals on Facebook, in order to change their thinking, and the way they would vote in an election. Cambridge Analytica has denied this.
It is an uncomfortable reality to think that we could all potentially be targeted and manipulated as some kind of psychological experiment. Wylie explained that the method is like whispering messages in people’s ears. Instead of listening to politicians speaking in a public forum, where the crowd can then debate their understanding of the same message, and react to it collectively, in this new scenario everybody gets separate, targeted messages on the internet. Their family, friends or colleagues might receive quite different messages, based on their own personality types, desires and fears.
The size of a crowd does not establish right or wrong
As a result, society grows more fragmented, losing out on shared experiences and diminishing a common understanding of events. This undermines the functioning of a healthy, democratic society. As Wylie observed, one underlying idea is that in order to fundamentally change society, you first have to break it. You can then remould the pieces into your vision of a new society.
Fragmented views are already a reality, here in politically polarised Malta. All we need is more psychological warfare through access to personal data. Those who are determined to highlight dubious governance practices, and those who refuse to acknowledge that impunity for wrongdoing is a major problem, already seem to be living in two or more countries instead of together on one small island. Friends and neighbours are hearing different messages, drawing divergent conclusions, moving apart in opposing directions. Many seem angry, disappointed, incredulous or suspicious of one another.
The game of numbers
Whatever muck continues to be raked up about the political class, by the Daphne Project or elsewhere, the government continues with business as usual.
It was hardly unexpected that a large crowd would gather around the Tritons Fountain in Valletta on the first of May. There are always large crowds at this political event, every year. The numbers neither prove nor disprove anything, least of all any allegations of bad governance or corruption. It is dangerous to try to interpret numbers of people in this way.
In a democracy the views of the majority are important and powerful – albeit while respecting diversity and the legitimate beliefs and way of life of minorities. Yet we also know, from the lessons of history, that might is not necessarily right.
Look no further than the rise of big political movements in the early 20th century, supported by large sectors of society at the time – including intellectuals and others who should have known better, and who should play a crucial role for society by questioning and doubting, and by asking difficult or uncomfortable questions. It comes with the territory, as academic training involves assessing arguments, taking them apart, discarding or reassembling them in new shapes. It encourages independent thought. It pushes against the uncritical acceptance of dominant ideas. It is partly about learning how to think, to query, to rock the boat if necessary.
Unfortunately, too many on all sides of the political divide do not seriously question but instead offer seemingly unconditional support to the powers that be. They are either timid and submissive, or cynical, or more interested in seeking favours or praise in a constant jockeying for position. To use a worn-out phrase, they do not speak out ‘without fear or favour’.
The importance of smaller political parties and civil society movements is growing in this polarised society. They fill a gap as they are willing to be critical and to stand up to powerful groups. The size of a crowd does not establish right or wrong; it is their ideas and vision that count.
petracdingli@gmail.com