Democracy at risk: the terrifying power of 'big data'

Cambridge Analytica – noted above – is one such firm, whose parent firm SCL Group states that it specialises in 'election management strategies' and 'messaging and information operations'. Cambridge Analytica was involved in both Trump's campaign and the Brexit 'Leave' campaign, helping both campaigns achieve their political goals. Shouldn't the very phrase 'election management' by private firms be raising alarm bells? Who or what are these firms that have begun to manage elections? And what do these new forms of shaping public opinion mean for democracy?

The worrying thing is that we might find ourselves being manipulated or 'managed' without being aware of it. Suppose Cambridge Analytica or some such election management firm was trying to persuade a certain demographic – say, left-leaning environmentalists – to vote for Trump. It would not direct a campaign advert towards this group that highlighted Trump's policies on climate change, which environments widely regard as regressive. But perhaps an advert that highlighted the fact that Trump does not support the pro-corporate Transpacific Partnership Agreement might be effective, subtly inducing this group to adopt a more positive view on Trump.

Now imagine this type of strategy being employed across a society, day after day, advert after advert, approaching different personality types in different ways to maximise influence. By managing which individuals are exposed to what, and when, it is quite clear that big data has the power to influence public opinion in unprecedented ways and with significant – and potentially undemocratic – political implications. Think of it this way: would you want private, politically motivated firms choosing what books you read? Obviously not, because that would clearly colour your resulting outlook.

Big data can also be used politically in a different way too – to test campaign ideas, strategies, and language, in extremely nuanced ways. Alexander Nix, CEO of Cambridge Analytica, is quoted as saying that 'Pretty much every message that Trump put out was data-driven'. For example, on the day of the third presidential debate between Trump and Clinton, Trump's team reportedly tested 175,000 different ad variations to determine which would be most effective with which demographics. Microscopic variations were tested – different colours, captions, headings, photos, etc., – and based on the results, different political adverts were directed to different people, in order to optimize the desired manipulative impact. Again, campaigning based on big data is providing a new means to shape public consciousness in ways that few appreciate.

Of course, powerful vested interests have always distorted public opinion by being able to afford a disproportionate access to mass media. The Murdoch press, for example, certainly shapes public consciousness through its concentrated media, which is worrying enough from the perspective of democracy. Big data now offers a terrifying new level of sophistication and power.

As futurist, Richard Slaughter, notes:

In order to protect the wellsprings of life, culture and meaning, we need to get serious about limiting the power and reach of Silicon Valley and the Internet oligarchs. We need strategies that allow us to free the ubiquitous algorithm from their grasp and, in so doing, gather collective courage to re-design 'the Internet' and re-frame its multiple uses. It needs to be 'liberated' for more respectful and constructive uses. This is quite obviously not a case of rejecting 'technology' wholesale but of locating it within a broader frame of understanding and value. The latter will include 'the market' but not be dominated by its current reductive and out-dated framework.

Conclusion

The game of political campaigning has changed, and almost everyone is still playing the old game. If the rest of culture and indeed our political regulations do not catch up quickly, democracy as we know it will continue its worrying decline. We will find that elections are 'strategically managed' by digital propaganda machines – whether on behalf of politicians or the transnational corporate elite – in ever more effective ways through technological manipulation of political consciousness in society, thus making a farce of democracy. Orwellian dystopias no longer lie merely in the realm of fiction.

It was philosopher John Dewey who once wrote: 'Every generation has to accomplish democracy over again for itself'. His point was that, at each moment in history, citizens and nations inevitably face unique challenges and problems, so we should not assume that the laws, institutions, and practices inherited from the past will be adequate for today. Big data is the latest challenge to democracy – and it is a threat that runs deeper than most people realise.