The left are clueless on this loophole. That is a horrible source btw

monkey wrote:

My point is that £675,000 spent on Facebook lies was either the most effective campaign spending in the history of the universe, or it didn’t really make a blind bit of difference when seen in the context of all the other noise and self-made problems.

Well, something has to be the most effective campaign spending in history. If it’s targetted adverts spreading misinformation on social media, I’m not in the least bit surprised. Its use is widespread, pervasive, people use it as a source of news, and exist in echo chambers.

monkey wrote:

Even if it had swung the result, it doesn’t affect political decisions made since the time.

It doesn’t explain the blinkered determination with which the government are pursuing it, but it would have prevented them from starting. Or, are you saying they would’ve triggered Article 50 regardless?

monkey wrote:

Even if it did, it doesn’t get you out off this current mess.

It would’ve stopped us being in this particular mess. And given the catastrophic nature of this mess, that would be nice.

monkey wrote:

And even if you could stop it happening in future, it won’t get you the result you want then either. Even if you could have prevented it happening, we’d still be up shit creek now, with the issue still dominating everything. Just as it did in the year running up to the vote.

No, no, no, no, no. As has already been pointed out, there is a world of difference between Brexit being a noisy distraction, and it consuming all government business for years. You keep making the mistake of equating people saying we should leave Europe to actually preparing to leave Europe. They are two entirely different things.

monkey wrote:

This page has admittedly taken a bizarre turn with various views on what might have happened with a Remain win. Dante thinks that, having been in open rebellion for a year and come within a hairs breadth of achieving their goal, Brexiteers would have sat down, shut up, and that would be that.

No, I’m sure they would still be rabbitting on about it but, crucially (see above) that’s not the same thing as what is happening now.

monkey wrote:

Labour, bucking 6 years of evidence, would have become an effective opposition and be on the verge of winning an election.

Maybe they would, maybe they wouldn’t but, yet again, that doesn’t mean we’d be crashing out of Europe.

monkey wrote:

Since at least 2014, there’s been some absolutely crazy results from elections and referendums in the West. Most of which have no connection with targeted Facebook adverts.

Most, he says. Although, if we look at the two most obvious (Trump, Brexit) the evidence suggests narrow margins and targetted social media misinformation.

monkey wrote:

Those that do, the connections are dubious and besides the point.

No, it’s not besides the point at all. Not when - and I’m going to repeat myself here - listening to people demanding something and having to live with their demands aren’t even close to being the same thing.

No it's fine, easiest trade deal in history.

One quick response though - Brexiters were preventing the government from governing BEFORE the vote. Look at stuff from the time. Teaming up with Labour to defeat the govt, Cam pulling votes and gutting policy because they indicated they would vote against it, resignations, speaking out, calling for him to quit, openly calling for votes of no confidence. There is no reason to expect this would have stopped and every reason to think it would have escalated. I am not confusing this with the work the civil service are currently engaged in with Brexit.

And now, 5000 posts on what would have happened if Ed Miliband had won.

I think her alternative will be asking them for things they've already said no to.

Nobody else has a better plan.

Everyone has a better plan. Undiscovered tribes have a better plan.

I don’t really think that’s what’s been happening in here, TBH. It’s entirely possible to think that these campaigns had a potentially decisive effect on the result as well as recognising that the current political and economic system isn’t working for the vast majority of people and gives them many reasons to be angry with the status quo.

If any of you don't think social media campaigns had a significant (a few percentage points is significant) effect you're deluded.

Okay, firstly it wasn’t Cambridge Analytica (though they were hired by Aaron Banks and his pal Farage for their unofficial campaign). Vote Leave hired a different company, AggregateIQ. And AIQ worked for a tiny percentage of their usual rates (basically expenses only) because to them the Brexit referendum was a handy test case for their tech. They were a new startup who had privately developed their product/service and only charged for staff costs running it for Vote Leave.

Quote from Dominic Cummings, Vote Leave’s chief strategist: “Without a doubt, the Vote Leave campaign owes a great deal of its success to the work of AggregateIQ. We couldn’t have done it without them.”

It has since been unconverted that part of AIQ’s tech has been licensed from Cambridge Analytica – so there is a link after all. Personally, I’d wager that’s just a patent license so that CA don’t sue them for similarity of product.

. wrote:

I've decided to go all Winston Smith and get on board. Brexit, Brexit, BREXIT!

I love Farage. I love the way he looks, smells and tastes. I love that way the sweat sheen forms on his brow when he's laughing and when those yellow teeth beam like the Sun on the fairest summer's day. I love everything about him and Brexit. It's like Christmas, but every day. I'm so happy.

Of course. Any association with Gonz is probably a death warrant. I'm not even sure he's British. Yoss is double fucked because Guardian.

I hadn't figured on the eye-reading algorithms. Might have to don a wig and shades.

Jesus Christ, what a fucking ridiculous angle.

"The UK is jumping off a cliff, why don't you stick their dick in your mouth and jump with them?"