The role Cambridge Analytica played in the latest American presidential election and the Brexit referendum in the UK PDF

Preview

Summary

Introduction This report aims to examine the role played by Cambridge Analytical in the 2016 American Presidential election won by Donald Trump as well as the Brexit referendum in the UnitedKingdom. Political marketing is beginning to assume more and more importance in political communication from y...

Description

1. Introduction

This report aims to examine the role played by Cambridge Analytical in the 2016 American Presidential election won by Donald Trump as well as the Brexit referendum in the United

Kingdom. Political marketing is beginning to assume more and more importance in political communication from year to year and electoral campaign to the electoral campaign. Over time, speeches and meetings skills were the major assets for winning elections, not neglecting posters and printed press. These means of expression are still been utilized in today's world of politics while also making use of faster means of media. Nowadays, politicians have to tweet all the time while also appearing on talk shows in comparison to just television appearances in the era of John Kennedy. Maarek (2004) and Holz-Bacha et al. (2007) noted that for politicians to achieve their goals, politicians across the globe have to develop a mastery of the so-called 'professionalization' of political communication as a failure of mastering these diverse communication crafts seems impossible. To evaluate the modernity level, so to speak of their country's political communication, some scholars have attempted to elaborate on professionalization standards (Strömbäck, 2009). An assessment has been reached by modern political marketing that one of the main political communication tools is digital media, which is a trend that followed the marketing evolution itself. The use of mass media such as television, printed press, marketing techniques passed through a first step with the development of direct marketing such as phoning, mass mailing, and surveys at the end of the last century while ‘mass marketing’ was developed and rose to prominence in the 50s and 60s. However, more private ways of one on one consumer communication has been brought into play in recent years in the marketing world (Lendrevie & Levy, 2012) George Orwell of the 1984 fame will turn in his grave from the ways voters are being targeted by

political marketing specialists using digital media. Thanks to new tools developed on the Internet, the personal habits of consumers can be surveyed nowadays. Without even being aware of the process, comprehensive knowledge of web users' practices is being developed most of the time using Cookies and ISP memorization. Thanks to minimalist software pieces left on computers or tablets, utmost precision tracing of the philandering of any individual connected on the Internet may now be carried out. Consequently, individual voters' knowledge has been accumulated enormously. Companies such as Google have mastered this craft of constituting socalled ‘Big Data’ on everyone (Maarek, 2014). This kind of intimacy on individual voters was precisely used probably for the first time during the reelection campaign of Barack Obama in 2012, where up till doors to knock and arguments to use while canvassing was provided using Big Data. This was the aim of British consulting firm, Cambridge Analytica when they were contracted by the Donald Trump Campaign to help in winning the 2016 American Presidential elections. However, the company went on to obtain the personal data of Facebook users illegally resulting in a huge scandal (Rosalie, 2018). An application developed by data scientist, Aleksandr Kogan and his organization Global Science Research in 2013, "This Is Your Digital Life" was used in collecting the data (Sam, 2018). Psychological profiles were built on users using a series of questions within the app as well as using Facebook's Open Graph platform to collect personal data of the friends of Facebook users, harvesting data of 87 million Facebook users (Sam, 2018). Analytical assistance was then provided to the Trump Campaign by Cambridge Analytica using the harvested data (Nicholas, 2018 and Allan, 2018). The was also an accusation directed at Cambridge Analytical on interfering in the Brexit referendum, this was however debunked after official investigation (Izabella, 2020 and BBC, 2020). Against this backdrop, this report which is

structured in 5 parts will examine the circumstances around the scandal in the second part, discuss services Cambridge analytics offered to the Donald Trump campaign including my perspective on whether it was right or wrong in the third part while the fourth part looks at challenges facing Facebook today and my perspective on how this issue will impact Facebook going forward. The report will be drawn up using sources such as articles, journals, and other relevant literature.

2.

Cambridge Analytical which is a subsidiary of SCL Group contracted Aleksandr Kogan, a University of Cambridge data scientist to develop an application called "This Is Your Digital Life" (Graham-Harrison et al., 2018; ABC, 2018). Several hundred thousand users of Facebook were then required by Cambridge Analytica to undertake a paid survey which was meant only to be used academically (Graham-Harrison et al., 2018 and Cadwalladr, 2017). It nonetheless extended beyond what was allowed as the personal details of friends of Facebook users was also collected in addition to those of respondents. A journalist with Guardian, Harry Davies was the first to report this apparent breach where personal data was being collected by Cambridge Analytical without users' consent. He reported that data from millions of Facebook users were being harvested without consent for

Senator Ted Cruz of the United States Senate by Cambridge Analytica (Davies, 2015). For academic purposes, the Collection of user data was allowed for Kogan, who was the creator of the app, however, he didn't have the permission to sell the information to a third party. The unethical conduct of Alexander Nix, the CEO of Cambridge Analytica continued with an approach made to the jailed founder of Wikileaks to exploit the private emails of Hilary Clinton the democratic presidential candidate to favor Donald Trump the Republican candidate. Even though there weren't any collective data mining standards (Keary, 2019), Nix and Cambridge Analytica needed to have verified if Kogan had the permission to sell on the Facebook users' data, which records show he wasn't permitted to as Facebook limited him to using the data for academic purposes only. The ethical practice Alexander Nix should have done before acquiring legally authorized data and then give users the option to either opt-in or opt-out, meaning they are transparent with users on their data-mining practices. This will prevent unnecessary criticism from being leveled at the organization for misleading users (Keary, 2019). Therefore, Alexander Nix and Cambridge Analytica ought to have ensured the explicit permission of users were sought in addition to having the legal right to access the data. This reduces the risk of friction by both meeting expectations of consumers and have the legal backing to utilize the data. Furthermore, the brand reputation of Cambridge Analytica wouldn't have been tainted as it was these unethical practices and conducts of Alexander Nix that exposed the company to legal challenges and bankruptcy. The company was also reportedly hired by the UK Independence Party to convince people to give their support for Leave. EU. It was rumored that Cambridge Analytica provided the datasets that were utilized by Leave.EU for the creation of databases (Weaver, 2018). However, reports

have later emerged that they did nothing wrong or illegal in this case (BBC, 2020). Micro-targeting, combined data sets, Behavioural targeting were tactics utilized by Cambridge Analytica to deliver on their promises. While these tactics aren't illegal, there were done unethically with absolute disregard for audiences' choices. After the scandal, Alexander Nix made a series of mistakes. It is clear that recovering from a corporate scandal isn't something easy, but certain steps should have been taken to mitigate the damage. The initial response was to try and prevent the airing of footage that showed Alexander Nix confessing to blackmailing and extortion to deliver on promises made. He needed to have involved the legal and public relations department to provide an honest and swift response to the public across all media channels; The issue that resulted in the scandal needed to be swiftly addressed while also providing frequent updates on progress which reassures stakeholders on the seriousness of the organization in addressing the issue (Lee, 2020). Going forward, stricter policies and measures needed to be put in place to restore the confidence of relevant stakeholders. Alexander needed to have concentrated on the rebuilding of trust with relevant stakeholders. These are some ways Alexander Nix could have mitigated the outcome of the scandal, while it is no guarantee this will restore the damaged reputation of the firm but is a step in the right direction.

3. Work and services provided by Cambridge Analytica to the Trump Campaign A 120 question survey that sought to probe personality was developed by Cambridge Analytica which was then given to respondents and marks were then given for traits such as agreeableness, extroversion, and openness.

Personality models for voters were then created after mixing those results with online activity, polls, and voter records. Psychological profiles which determined the personality traits of users based on their activities on Facebook were built by Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign using the harvested data (Rosenberg et al., 2018). Using various platforms, customized messages about Trump were displayed to different voters on multiple digital media by the campaign team using this information as a micro-targeting technique (Lewis and Hilder, 2018). Furthermore, based on whether votes were potential swing votes or supporters of Trump, Ads were segmented into different categories. Alexander Nix noted that this was done so voters can be identified (Isaak, 2018). Triumphant visuals of Trump as well as polling stations' information were sent to his supporters, while images of notable supporters of Trump or Hillary Clinton's negative images or information were sent to Swing voters (Lewis and Hilder, 2018). For instance, Clinton was attacked through constructed advertisements that sought to shed light on her perceived corrupt activities by “Make America Number 1 Super PAC” as a way to prop Trump up as the more preferable candidate.

The work of Cambridge Analytica also included the Trump-aligned Super PAC, the campaign office of Trump in San Antonio received three staff of Cambridge which were led by Matt Oczkowski, their chief product officer in 2016. Reporting to Brad Parscale, Trump's digital director, the team was later increased to 13 people. The team analyzed data on the voters in America. From my perspective, the initial promise of Cambridge Analytica to influence the behavior of voters by identifying their personalities appeared ethical and legal irrespective of the questions

surrounding the merits of the company's psychographic modeling techniques. What wasn't right was the decision to harvest data of Facebook users without permission from Facebook and the users. This constitutes a breach of privacy laws and unauthorized use of user data. This is capable of tainting the image of organizations and bringing them to bankruptcy and ruin.

How do public goodwill/license to operate and data-driven technology companies interrelate License to operate is an often-used concept that is an indication of the established behavioral limit for a firm to be recognized and accepted in its surroundings in many textbooks and articles on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). Nielsen (2013) defines it as given authorization for undertaking a trade or carrying out activities of a business, subject to the licensing authority regulating or supervising them. Many contemporary firms aim to become data-driven. This entails making data and analytics a key aspect of the systems, culture, processes, and strategy of the business. Additionally, it also entails the development of a mindset where all fact-based decisions are dependent on analytics and all organizational level embraces it. The world is quickly being revolutionized by this basic enterprise asset which has enabled business processes to be better, cheaper, and faster. There is a commitment to gathering data concerning all business aspects by Data-driven organizations. Data can facilitate conclusive decision-making which becomes a competitive advantage to the business when employees at all levels are enabled to use the right data at the right time. Overall, a more transparent world is created between businesses and the market as a result of the increasing number of data-driven organizations. Nonetheless, the news has been dominated by

the risks of monopolization, market manipulation, and invasion of privacy such as the Cambridge Analytica Scandal. Consequently, profound knowledge of new rules such as the GDPR needs to be developed by data-driven organizations if they are to avoid sanctions, heavy penalties, or perhaps forfeit their license to operate.

4. Challenges facing Facebook A. Fake news and Hate Speech

New Revenue Sources Facebook’s core newsfeed isn’t the crown jewel of its portfolio anymore, at least where its next wave of growth is concerned. Instagram and Stories, and even WhatsApp, are looking a lot more interesting these days to many growth-seeking investors. Accordingly, Facebook’s advertising products are evolving. Stories have evolved into a popular medium for sharing content among friends, both on Facebook and Instagram, and advertisers are beginning to better understand how to monetize these emerging forms of communication on Facebook. Interest in Stories will likely remain high next year, and Facebook will need to meet investor expectations on that front. (Gaus 2019).

Although it's nascent, there is hope among investors that shopping and commerce will turn into a meaningful source of revenue, particularly on Instagram and WhatsApp. Analysts have noted that Instagram, as a visual-first medium that's increasingly popular among advertisers, is a natural fit for shopping. In November, Facebook rolled out Facebook Pay, a PayPal-Esque peerto-peer payments system that, if widely adopted, could make shopping through Facebook easier -- and potentially boost monetization potential across all of Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp.

2. Problem Content Ever since Cambridge Analytica, Facebook has taken pains to inform people how its processes for purging fishy accounts, apps, and other types of problematic content are improving. Recently, it said in a blog post that it removed 3.2 billion fake accounts in Q2 and Q3. It also broke out for the first time its content moderation efforts on Instagram versus core Facebook, saying that it deleted millions of pieces of content depicting child abuse and self-harm.

Progress on content moderation is a good thing, but it also doesn’t come cheap. Facebook spends in the ballpark of $5 billion per year on safety, security, and content moderation efforts, and that cost isn’t likely to come down significantly anytime soon. On its third-quarter earnings call, Zuckerberg told investors that "I don't foresee any time shortly that AI is going to make it so that the cost comes down...there's just so much content flowing through the system that we do need a lot of people looking at this. And I don't think that's going to change anytime soon."

Relying on humans for content moderation comes with a host of problems. Months ago, an

investigation by The Verge into poor working conditions of Facebook contractors who moderate content sparked a stiff backlash. It’s also an imperfect system, a game of whack-a-mole that will likely remain a liability for Facebook well into the future.

3. Regulatory Headaches Facebook’s Libra project was supposed to represent its next big innovation in financial services. Instead, it became a flashpoint for long-simmering ire towards the company for privacy-related infractions, political advertising, content moderation issues, and even its spotty record on civil rights. In two separate hearings, one with Facebook executive David Marcus and the other with CEO Mark Zuckerberg, lawmakers vented their frustrations with the social media firm’s impact on society.

It’s uncertain what form Libra will take when, or if, it launches as initially planned in 2020. If it does launch, it’ll likely be a drastically scaled-down version of Facebook’s original vision of a global digital currency with a large network of partners; after being told by lawmakers they could bear liability for problems with Libra, several major partners, such as PayPal (PYPL) - Get Report and Mastercard (MA) - Get Report, withdrew their participation.

Beyond just Libra, however, regulators in the U.S. and elsewhere are keeping their eyes on Facebook. Facebook is one of several big tech companies facing an antitrust review by the DOJ, FTC, and nearly all state attorneys general, likely focusing on its data practices, acquisitions, and product development. In Europe, it faces potentially even greater pressures, including scrutiny into hate speech, stiff potential penalties for GDPR violations, and a new antitrust probe by the

European Commission. Next year, it will have to reassure investors that regulatory pressures won’t negatively impact its long-term prospects.

License to Operate Encyclopedia of Corporate Social Responsibility, 2013

ISBN: 978-3-642-28035-1

Anne Ellerup Nielsen

Keary, T. (2019). The Balancing act of data mining ethics:the challenges of ethical data mining....