Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

robindch

Fintan O'Toole notes an interesting connection between #45, Brexit and the Save the 8th campaign:

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/fintan-o-toole-abortion-fake-news-firestorm-heading-our-way-1.3440927

Irish Times wrote:

If you like my stuff you’re an ignoramus. Many people would agree with this as a general proposition, but I mean it in a more specific sense. If you’ve ever liked or shared one of my columns online, data-analysis firms probably identify you as a hopeless lefty liberal. And you will therefore be ignorant of the big social-media campaign against the repeal of the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution, which bans abortion in almost all circumstances. That campaign will be modelled on those that helped both Donald Trump and Brexit to victory. It will use microtargeting to direct specific messages to those who can be most easily swayed by them. You won’t see them – and as things stand Irish regulations will do nothing to control them.

The Brexit referendum and the Trump campaign have shown in the starkest terms that we are no longer in the era of national democracy. The online space in which the opinions of increasing numbers of voters are formed is unbounded. Russia can target voters in Ohio. So can a UK-based digital-campaigning firm like Cambridge Analytica. An obscure data firm in Canada, AggregateIQ, can target voters in Sunderland. (I see, by the way, that AggregateIQ has now removed from its website a quote from the director of the Vote Leave campaign, Dominic Cummings: “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 would be naive to think that this kind of influence will not be brought to bear on the Irish abortion referendum. We already know that a UK-based data-analytics and political-campaigning company, Kanto, has been hired by the Save the 8th campaign to help persuade Irish people to vote against repeal. Kanto is headed by Thomas Borwick, son of the former Tory MP Victoria Borwick. It is hard to think of a single person who better embodies the transatlantic nexus of right-wing digital influencers.

Borwick is an alumnus of the now notorious Cambridge Analytica, which is owned by Robert Mercer, the billionaire Trump ally who also funds the far-right website Breitbart. Borwick was also a consultant to Cambridge Analytica’s parent company, SCL Group. And Borwick was technology director of the Vote Leave campaign, which spent more than half its entire budget with AggregateIQ, as well as the sole shareholder of Voter Consultancy Ltd, which came to prominence in Britain last November, when it used highly targeted Facebook ads to urge protests against specific anti-Brexit Tory MPs. Taking us back across the Atlantic, these ads were placed on behalf of a shadowy Florida-registered organisation called Brexit Realities. Borwick has also recently formed a company called (I kid you not) Disruptive Communications Ltd with the former Ukip MP Douglas Carswell.

According to John McGuirk of Save the 8th, Kanto has been hired merely to create a website and track its use. This may well be so, but it is decidedly odd. Kanto is Thomas Borwick. According to its filing with Companies House in London, Kanto Systems has two registered officers, its company secretary, Thomas Borwick, and its company director, Thomas Borwick. There is also Kanto Elect, registered at the same address. It too has two directors: Thomas Borwick and Kanto Systems. Save the 8th hasn’t hired web services. It has hired Borwick.

And hiring Borwick to create and manage a website is like employing the SAS to run security at a school hop or bringing in Einstein to tot up your shopping bill. He seems awfully overqualified for the job. There are probably thousands of people in Ireland who could create a campaign website that would allow McGuirk and his colleagues to tell, as he puts it, whether “600 people from Tipperary are logging on”. I am sure there are highly motivated anti-abortion idealists who would even do this for free.

So why do you need to bring in the person who ran the Brexit operation, one of the most successful campaigns of digital persuasion yet seen? How do you just happen to hire someone who is right at the heart of the Trump-Mercer-Brexit data-manipulation nexus? If the anti-abortion campaign can really afford this kind of overkill, we can also expect every Save the 8th leaflet to be delivered to our doors on a silver platter by a liveried courier riding a white charger.

But assuming that Save the 8th really has no intention of using the dark techniques that were so successful for Trump and the Brexiteers, the certainty is that someone else will. The Irish vote matters deeply to the hard right internationally. The Eighth Amendment has always been a model for what it wants to see elsewhere, especially in the United States. Money will be no object – as the main anti-abortion website LifeSite News asks in a fundraising appeal attached to an article posted last week, called Will Ireland Rise Up and Do Battle for the Unborn? “Can you donate just $10 for PRO-LIFE? Every person you help reach becomes equipped to engage in the culture war.” The firestorm of fake news is coming. We need to know what plans the Government has to ensure a free and fair vote.

david75

This is the scary part. Apart from where did the money come from to hire the guy, why hire this guy in particular at all? Except to run the most extreme divisive and misleading campaign possible in order to win?

And hiring Borwick to create and manage a website is like employing the SAS to run security at a school hop or bringing in Einstein to tot up your shopping bill. He seems awfully overqualified for the job. There are probably thousands of people in Ireland who could create a campaign website that would allow McGuirk and his colleagues to tell, as he puts it, whether “600 people from Tipperary are logging on”. I am sure there are highly motivated anti-abortion idealists who would even do this for free.

So why do you need to bring in the person who ran the Brexit operation, one of the most successful campaigns of digital persuasion yet seen? How do you just happen to hire someone who is right at the heart of the Trump-Mercer-Brexit data-manipulation nexus? If the anti-abortion campaign can really afford this kind of overkill, we can also expect every Save the 8th leaflet to be delivered to our doors on a silver platter by a liveried courier riding a white charger.

Peregrinus

O'Toole's points are very valid. But we'd be naive, wouldn't we, to think that the tools of data analysis, micro-targetting, etc are only available to, or likely to be employed by, those on the regressive side of issues? Ten years ago, for example, the Obama campaign was employing data analysis techniques to identify (a) those who would likely vote for Obama, (b) those who would likely vote for McCain and (c) those who could be swayed, and then virtually ignoring the first two groups while running a variety of targetted campaigns aiming to reach the third. Obviously, both the data and the techniques available ten years ago were infantile compared to what is available now, but the point is that progressives and conservatives have the same motivation to employ whatever tools for influencing opinion are available, and we should probably assume that they are both doing so.

aloyisious

I know that, by itself, marketing can't but be a help to guide people toward making a choice favoured by an interested group. We've been "bracketed" by Ads from all the "interested groups" to give them their desired result, and I'm including the Irish Amnesty international branch here as such a party. We know we've been targetted for decades by supermarket chains [through discount offers based on returns of goods sales figures] and by Ads on TV. It's just a political use of the same ploy, target what/whom will favour you most.

This might seem a strange simile to make but I can see how the nice image of babies scooting away from mummy when she wants to put on a new nappy or smiling when given a bottle of milk, or aome soothing cream on you know where and baby smiles/gurgles up at you/the screen in happiness, would be appreciated by the Pro-Life anti-abortion side of the argument as the little babby is being projected into homes all over the country regularly from the nations TV's. I see it has the chance of being subliminal advertising free of charge to the Pro-Life anti-abortion side of the debate. Floor open to debunking of mine above now.

Edit: @ david75... the article used the US dollar sign. There is at present a bill going through one of the US states elected houses now seeking to ban abortions in that state. It won't happen and those promo-ing it know it won't as the USSC has thrown out similar bills in the past on the basis that women are allowed abortion operations in the US as a right. Look at it as a US anti-abortion movement ploy to point to Ireland as a shining example of a nation free from abortion "if they can do it in Ireland, so can we".....

smacl

The Irish vote matters deeply to the hard right internationally. The Eighth Amendment has always been a model for what it wants to see elsewhere, especially in the United States. Money will be no object – as the main anti-abortion website LifeSite News asks in a fundraising appeal attached to an article posted last week, called Will Ireland Rise Up and Do Battle for the Unborn? “Can you donate just $10 for PRO-LIFE? Every person you help reach becomes equipped to engage in the culture war.” The firestorm of fake news is coming. We need to know what plans the Government has to ensure a free and fair vote.

One wonders if SIPO are becoming involved in this, given the recent outcry over George Soros. It certainly seems like a case of highly objectionable and undue foreign influence, regardless of which side you're voting for.

david75

aloyisious wrote: »

I know that, by itself, marketing can't but be a help to guide people toward making a choice favoured by an interested group. We've been "bracketed" by Ads from all the "interested groups" to give them their desired result, and I'm including the Irish Amnesty international branch here as such a party. We know we've been targetted for decades by supermarket chains [through discount offers based on returns of goods sales figures] and by Ads on TV. It's just a political use of the same ploy, target what/whom will favour you most.

This might seem a strange simile to make but I can see how the nice image of babies scooting away from mummy when she wants to put on a new nappy or smiling when given a bottle of milk, or aome soothing cream on you know where and baby smiles/gurgles up at you/the screen in happiness, would be appreciated by the Pro-Life anti-abortion side of the argument as the little babby is being projected into homes all over the country regularly from the nations TV's. I see it has the chance of being subliminal advertising free of charge to the Pro-Life anti-abortion side of the debate. Floor open to debunking of mine above now.

Edit: @ david75... the article used the US dollar sign. There is at present a bill going through one of the US states elected houses now seeking to ban abortions in that state. It won't happen and those promo-ing it know it won't as the USSC has thrown out similar bills in the past on the basis that women are allowed abortion operations in the US as a right. Look at it as a US anti-abortion movement ploy to point to Ireland as a shining example of a nation free from abortion "if they can do it in Ireland, so can we".....

I did wonder about the reasoning behind RTE starting that One Born Every minute series recently. Odd timing.

david75

smacl wrote: »

One wonders if SIPO are becoming involved in this, given the recent outcry over George Soros. It certainly seems like a case of highly objectionable and undue foreign influence, regardless of which side you're voting for.

There’s a crowd on twitter called transparent ref looking into all that and they reported last week that they’ve discovered something like 100 PLC ads have been paid for from the US directly. So the money isn’t going through the PLC here at all, so it seems it’s a sneaky loophole they’re using in order to get around SIPO

“But “the (SIPO) Act does not cover expenditure that occurs outside Ireland.”


Link to the article

https://www.dublininquirer.com/2018/03/20/with-facebook-ads-us-groups-seek-to-influence-outcome-of-referendum/

david75

Really weird that American media are covering this and our own media really aren’t.
This is a brilliant read.
Why American Pro-Life Dollars Are Pouring Into Ireland

https://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2013/01/why-american-pro-life-dollars-are-pouring-into-ireland/266981/

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

O'Toole's points are very valid. But we'd be naive, wouldn't we, to think that the tools of data analysis, micro-targetting, etc are only available to, or likely to be employed by, those on the regressive side of issues?

Quite true, but ironically it is those on the "progressive" side that will receive most of the more hysterical "news" items describing the regressive's assault on democracy. For example Fintan OToole as quoted in full a few posts above saying...

The Brexit referendum and the Trump campaign have shown in the starkest terms that we are no longer in the era of national democracy

IMO what those campaigns have shown us is that (a) people are increasingly living in their own little echo chambers. And (b) they increasingly identify with online global communities as opposed to local communities.

The result of all that is to increase the contrast between two broadly global worldviews; the internationalist, ultra liberal, misandrous, progressives versus their more traditional rivals.

Hence the 800 odd marches around the world (including Dublin) to protest US gun laws. Something that has absolutely nothing to do with the vast majority of the people protesting.

Peregrinus

I have to say that I don't have a problem with international funding coming in for the Repeal-the-8th referendum (on either side of the issue) or, for that matter, with international concern about US gun laws. Discourse about these issues is framed in terms of human rights and, if there is one topic that should transcend national and political borders, isn't it human rights?

recedite

I think you'll find nobody has a problem with it, until they find out the other side is at it.

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

isn't it human rights?

Maybe, maybe not. Maybe its just the people in one country interfering in the laws that govern people in another country.

But then if you're an internationalist, you don't have a problem with that, as long as you think the interference is "for the common good" (ie the liberal agenda).

So if its Amnesty International promoting a liberal agenda in Russia, its OK. But if its the Kremlin promoting Donald Trump, its "the end of democracy".

david75

recedite wrote: »

Maybe, maybe not. Maybe its just the people in one country interfering in the laws that govern people in another country.

But then if you're an internationalist, you don't have a problem with that, as long as you think the interference is "for the common good" (ie the liberal agenda).

So if its Amnesty International promoting a liberal agenda in Russia, its OK. But if its the Kremlin promoting Donald Trump, its "the end of democracy".

And if it’s US pro life groups pouring money into Ireland and buying ads for the PLC to skew the referendum?

Peregrinus

david75 wrote: »

And if it’s US pro life groups pouring money into Ireland and buying ads for the PLC to skew the referendum?

I have no problem with the "US" bit. The merit, or lack of merit, of the arguments advanced on either side of this issue is unrelated to the nationality of the people advancing the arguments. Democracy is pretty pointless if you don't think citizens can scrutinise arguments and decide which ones they like and which ones they don't.

david75

Peregrinus wrote: »

I have no problem with the "US" bit. The merit, or lack of merit, of the arguments advanced on either side of this issue is unrelated to the nationality of the people advancing the arguments. Democracy is pretty pointless if you don't think citizens can scrutinise arguments and decide which ones they like and which ones they don't.

You have more faith in the Irish people on this particular issue than I do it seems.

recedite

david75 wrote: »

And if it’s US pro life groups pouring money into Ireland and buying ads for the PLC to skew the referendum?

As Peregrinus said...

if there is one topic that should transcend national and political borders, isn't it human rights

..and what human right is more important than the right to life itself?

david75

recedite wrote: »

As Peregrinus said... ..and what human right is more important than the right to life itself?

If we’re playing silly buggers.

aloyisious

david75 wrote: »

There’s a crowd on twitter called transparent ref looking into all that and they reported last week that they’ve discovered something like 100 PLC ads have been paid for from the US directly. So the money isn’t going through the PLC here at all, so it seems it’s a sneaky loophole they’re using in order to get around SIPO

“But “the (SIPO) Act does not cover expenditure that occurs outside Ireland.”


Link to the article

https://www.dublininquirer.com/2018/03/20/with-facebook-ads-us-groups-seek-to-influence-outcome-of-referendum/

Are the Ads online or in the print media outlets? If the Ads are large billboard type, then the printing work and the pasting on the hoardings [owned by commercial co's] would have to be paid for here. Most of the posters have a name printed on them to identify the person/Co behind the Ad. That's left me wondering how they get around the currency exchange problem, dollar to euro, in respect to the US donations. I know there are ways of making payment electronically but there has to be a start point in the US, so in theory, if a complaint was made [to: say SIPO] about a US funding source there must be a trail for the investigators to follow back to the donor..... It would take a bit of work & might not be seen as worth the bother.

david75

aloyisious wrote: »

That's left me wondering how they get around the currency exchange problem, dollar to euro, in respect to the US donations. I know there are ways of making payment electronically but there has to be a start point in the US, so in theory, if a complaint was made [to: say SIPO] about a US funding source there must be a trail for the investigators to follow back to the donor.....

Ideally there would be. Doesn’t look like foreign donations come under SIPO rules. Which is an astounding oversight if true.

Peregrinus

Well, it may be a practical issue. If I, in the US, pay Facebook, in the US, using US dollars, to run particular ads promoting pro-life (or pro-choice) views or values, or urging a vote one way or the other, targetted at Irish viewers of Facebook, how are the Irish authorities going to regulate that effectively? Nobody involved is within the jurisdiction of the Irish courts, no Irish funds are used, no funds are ever remitted to Ireland. And if Ireland can't regulate that, there may not be much point in passing laws that pretend to regulate it.

david75

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, it may be a practical issue. If I, in the US, pay Facebook, in the US, using US dollars, to run particular ads promoting pro-life (or pro-choice) views or values, or urging a vote one way or the other, targetted at Irish viewers of Facebook, how are the Irish authorities going to regulate that effectively? Nobody involved is within the jurisdiction of the Irish courts, no Irish funds are used, no funds are ever remitted to Ireland. And if Ireland can't regulate that, there may not be much point in passing laws that pretend to regulate it.

I believe they’re looking at legislating for that right now but no way will it be done before this referendums ballot day.

aloyisious

recedite wrote: »

Maybe, maybe not. Maybe its just the people in one country interfering in the laws that govern people in another country.

But then if you're an internationalist, you don't have a problem with that, as long as you think the interference is "for the common good" (ie the liberal agenda).

So what say you about the present foreign interference on the 8th amendment [trying to steer the Irish people towards keeping it in the constitution] would it meet your approval?

If it did meet your approval [for the common good] would you not then [within your own definition] be an internationalist ?

Or even more so, the way the introduction of the 8th into our constitution was promoted by foreigners, would you class the last as interference?

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

I have to say that I don't have a problem with international funding coming in for the Repeal-the-8th referendum (on either side of the issue) or, for that matter, with international concern about US gun laws. Discourse about these issues is framed in terms of human rights and, if there is one topic that should transcend national and political borders, isn't it human rights?

Rather depends whether the funding is covert or transparent and whether those trying to influence local politics play by local rules. Given the furore surrounding Trump's election and possible Russian influence, it seems clear that most people find covert foreign influence unacceptable. This is similarly true of human rights issues as SIPO's attitude to Soros illustrates. I'd also be concerned about local voices being drowned our by well funded international lobby groups, which very much seems to be the case in this debate. Democracy really shouldn't be about who has the deepest pockets, which is very much the American model.

aloyisious

Re the funding of parties on both sides, I reckon that the NO side has to be spending more cash on promotion that the YES side. Apart from the rallies and [maybe local meeting on canvassing] I haven't seen much literature from the YES side, definitely no Ad site posters or Ad vehicles with posters promo-ing their side of the issue, though I've seen ads for meetings signs on lamp-posts. Maybe the Ad cash is being spent on rally banners and hand-held signs but I've seen more home-made signs on the Yes-side rallies than mass-produced signs. Even such signs seem to be borne by union or professional groups bearing their logos.

recedite

david75 wrote: »

I believe they’re looking at legislating for that right now but no way will it be done before this referendums ballot day.

I don't believe.

aloyisious wrote: »

So what say you about the present foreign interference on the 8th amendment [trying to steer the Irish people towards keeping it in the constitution] would it meet your approval?

If it did meet your approval [for the common good] would you not then [within your own definition] be an internationalist ?

Or even more so, the way the introduction of the 8th into our constitution was promoted by foreigners, would you class the last as interference?

I'm not all that perturbed about it one way or the other. Maybe its because I assume that I personally cannot be influenced by Facebook. Maybe I underestimate their ability to swing a referendum in favour of the highest bidder. Its an issue that will grow in importance as time goes on, but right now I see a lot of whingers moaning about it. Just because they can't accept that votes like The Donald and Brexit could have happened in a democratic world.
But hey, that is democracy.

david75

recedite wrote: »

I don't believe.

I'm not all that perturbed about it one way or the other. Maybe its because I assume that I personally cannot be influenced by Facebook. Maybe I underestimate their ability to swing a referendum in favour of the highest bidder. Its an issue that will grow in importance as time goes on, but right now I see a lot of whingers moaning about it. Just because they can't accept that votes like The Donald and Brexit could have happened in a democratic world.
But hey, that is democracy.

It doesn’t matter what you believe, the governemt are looking at it and will be legislating.

Sounds like you don’t care about financial support and foreign interference so long as it’s your political preferences benefitting from it.


Colour me shocked.

recedite

david75 wrote: »

It doesn’t matter what you believe, the governemt are looking at it and will be legislating.

I bet you a million roubles they won't be legislating for it.
"It" defined earlier as..

If I, in the US, pay Facebook, in the US, using US dollars, to run particular ads promoting pro-life (or pro-choice) views or values, or urging a vote one way or the other, targetted at Irish viewers of Facebook, how are the Irish authorities going to regulate that effectively? Nobody involved is within the jurisdiction of the Irish courts, no Irish funds are used, no funds are ever remitted to Ireland. And if Ireland can't regulate that, there may not be much point in passing laws that pretend to regulate it.

david75 wrote: »

Sounds like you don’t care about financial support and foreign interference so long as it’s your political preferences benefitting from it.

In fairness, I said earlier that you can't really complain about it in one campaign while being for it in another campaign.

IMO the lobbying of politicians/legislators is a far more serious subversion of democracy, and that is rife in Washington. It used to be worse in Dublin than it is now, and we can give a lot of credit to Sipo for improving things.

aloyisious

recedite wrote: »

I'm not all that perturbed about it one way or the other. Maybe its because I assume that I personally cannot be influenced by Facebook. Maybe I underestimate their ability to swing a referendum in favour of the highest bidder. Its an issue that will grow in importance as time goes on, but right now I see a lot of whingers moaning about it. Just because they can't accept that votes like The Donald and Brexit could have happened in a democratic world.
But hey, that is democracy.

I like your sense of humour.

Hotblack Desiato

These guys must be some eejits if they're spending all that foreign money yet the Irish public are all far too clever to be influenced by their campaigning


































:rolleyes:

Peregrinus

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

These guys must be some eejits if they're spending all that foreign money yet the Irish public are all far too clever to be influenced by their campaigning

Both sides in a referendum campaign will be spending money in an attempt to influence the vote. Only one side can win. Are those on the other side therefore eejits?