←back to thread

187 points anigbrowl | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
paxys ◴[] No.45754300[source]
Remember that Cambridge Analytica was "research" as well. Laws like these sound good on paper, but it's the company that has to deal with the fallout when the data is used improperly. Unless the government can also come up with a fool proof framework for data sharing and enforce adequate protections, it's always going to be better for the companies to just say no and eat the fines.
replies(5): >>45754398 #>>45754429 #>>45754448 #>>45755093 #>>45755396 #
pms ◴[] No.45755093[source]
Republicans and Elon Musk have become very skilled at exerting political influence in the US [1] and Europe [2] through social media in ways the public isn't really aware of. Is this really that far from the goal of Cambridge Analytica of influencing elections without people's knowledge? Is it fine for large online platforms to influence election outcomes? Why wouldn't an online platform be used to this end if that's beneficial for it and there is no regulation discouraging it?

[1] https://www.techpolicy.press/x-polls-skew-political-realitie...

[2] https://zenodo.org/records/14880275

replies(2): >>45755545 #>>45755584 #
terminalshort ◴[] No.45755584[source]
I can't stand this "influencing elections" nonsense. It's a term meant to mislead with connotations of manipulating the voting tabulation when what is actually going on is influencing people to vote the way you want them to, which is perfectly legal and must always be legal in a functioning democracy.
replies(2): >>45756354 #>>45758314 #
pms ◴[] No.45758314[source]
It's obviously not about "manipulating the voting tabulation". Influencing people to vote the way you want them to is fine as long as it's not based on deceit. Is this what you can't stand?
replies(1): >>45759140 #
terminalshort ◴[] No.45759140[source]
I hate it because I have never seen it used any other way than if my side does it, it's "campaigning," and when the other side does it, it's "influencing elections."
replies(1): >>45761100 #
1. pms ◴[] No.45761100[source]
Agreed that's inconsistent and not ok. We need rules, procedures, and systems that apply equally to different sides.