Jump to content

So the UK is finished says Theresa Mayhem


fatshaft

Recommended Posts

EU regulation on shorting is very restricted indeed. Under EU law, ESMA can suspend short selling in an emergency situation. But what does that mean? Not a lot, in practice. The UK legally challenged the law but lost. In my opinion the practice should be banned totally, so I would go further than the EU position.

Even if EU regulation was up to scratch on this, I believe that the prize of regaining full national sovereignty trumps individual regulatory measures for better or for worse. As I've said before, if our stable needs sweeping out, we should be the ones to do it, not some supranational authority with powers beyond that of the state. That is a very slippery slope that you really don't want to get to the bottom of. Too many otherwise intelligent people see only as far as trade and the status quo. They do not look beyond that to the future and where it all might end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, RIchard Britten said:

So...The Big Hack.

Who has seen it?  

If you still believe that Brexit has anything to do with "sovereignty" after watching it, you are either:

A) Gaining from Brexit

B) Indifferent

C) Too stupid to see that the wool has been pulled over your eyes.

I found this precis of it. I assume that this is what you refer to: "The Great Hack."

https://www.digitalspy.com/tv/ustv/a28517243/the-great-hack-netflix-cambridge-analytica/

What does it tell us that's new? We knew already that CA was farming personal data, but beyond that, if the information on the above link is authentic, it doesn't say much. A lot depends on how effective you consider targeted online propaganda to be. It seems to take at face value CA's claims for the efficacy of its operations, but you have to remember that they were a commercial operation selling this as a service to political forces, so they would say that they have the electorate eating out of their hand, wouldn't they?

Personally, I don't believe that this would change anyone's mind at all, and certainly not many. All they were doing were identifying individuals from their online profiles who were likely to be receptive to messages to vote in a certain way. Well surely if they were receptive to the message, they were going to vote accordingly anyway. If they sent a load of pro-Brexit propaganda to me, would that change my view? If they sent it to you, would it change yours? Of course not. I agree that mining the data is sinister, but I think that the electoral ramifications are being blown out of proportion by those seeking to find an explanation that fits their agenda for democratic votes that went in the opposite direction to that they desired.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, RIchard Britten said:

Then you have no idea of the reach or scope of what happened and what is still happening.

Well explain how and why then. The people they identified were those who were receptive to certain messages, so all that was happening was that their preconceived ideas were being nurtured. How would that make them vote differently to their original intention? As I said, if they sent you Brexit propaganda, it would not have had the slightest effect, because you have a fixed view. Likewise myself. You might say that perhaps some of them wouldn't have voted at all had they not been wound up online, but that would be a poor argument from a supposed democrat. The more people who vote, the better.

Your assessment above is a subjective analysis that comforts you with the conclusion you desire, i.e. the vote was gerrymandered. You fail to give any credit that people might actually be capable of thinking for themselves. If I was being bombarded with manipulative material, being the cussed individualist that I am, I would be more likely to vote the opposite way.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, woolley said:

Well explain how and why then. The people they identified were those who were receptive to certain messages, so all that was happening was that their preconceived ideas were being nurtured. How would that make them vote differently to their original intention? As I said, if they sent you Brexit propaganda, it would not have had the slightest effect, because you have a fixed view. Likewise myself. You might say that perhaps some of them wouldn't have voted at all had they not been wound up online, but that would be a poor argument from a supposed democrat. The more people who vote, the better.

Your assessment above is a subjective analysis that comforts you with the conclusion you desire, i.e. the vote was gerrymandered. You fail to give any credit that people might actually be capable of thinking for themselves. If I was being bombarded with manipulative material, being the cussed individualist that I am, I would be more likely to vote the opposite way.

For some reason, I knew I was wasting my time with you on this...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...