Journalist Maurits Martijn wrote a piece on Cambridge Analytica, the online political microtargeting company. The company essentially applies behavioural targeting marketing techniques to political campaigns. Martijn questions whether Cambridge Analytica is really that powerful, and whether it really caused Trump to win the US elections. Both Claes de Vreese and Frederik Zuiderveen Borgesius are quoted in the piece.
Judith was invited as expert to the tegenlicht meetup about challengers of democracy in pakhuis de zwijger. It was an inspiring night of grand democratic dreams and small steps towards a society of enlightened citizens.
The Personalised Communications project edits a special issue for the Internet Policy Review on political microtargeting.
Here is the CFP. More info here.
Data have become corner stones for political campaigning and strategies. Political parties increasingly use data-driven expertise and research to build extensive databases on citizens, voters. These data sets allow politicians to engage in political micro-targeting by addressing individual voters with tailor-made messages, attuned to their individual background, attitudes, beliefs, concerns, etc. During campaigns political micro-targeting can be used to personalise political advertising. Between elections they are often put to use to grow the voter base, mobilise voters in, for example, referenda, and keep their existing voters engaged.
Different systemic factors affect the tools, the scope, the depth, and the effectiveness of political micro-targeting in different countries. Laws on privacy and data protection define the limits of data collection and voter profiling. The particularities of national political systems define political priorities, campaign budgets, etc. The local media environment shapes the contours of the political debate. In addition, a complex network of organisations and intermediaries: marketing and survey companies, data brokers, canvassers, online intermediaries, such as ad companies, or social networking sites, and technology companies also shape the process of micro-targeting. As we have seen, some of these factors are inherently local, but global technological infrastructures, and supra-national platforms, such as Facebook, play an increasingly central role in the local political processes.
There are many pressing issues to discuss around political micro-targeting: what kind of data is collected on citizens? How are they profiled? How transparent are the processes of profiling and targeting? How transparent are the organisations involved? How neutral are the supposedly neutral intermediaries, such as Facebook or Google? How are political parties and campaigns changing due to micro-targeting? Does micro-targeting fulfil its promises of raising issue diversity, higher citizen engagement, or lowering the barriers of entry for new entrants? Is there evidence of the alleged dangers of micro-targeting: voter manipulation, voter exclusion, the fragmentation and polarisation of the political discourse? What are the novel, innovative methods with which this emerging phenomena can be studied?
Scope of the special issue
Recent or upcoming elections in the EU and the US offer the chance to take a look into political micro-targeting from multiple perspectives. Micro-targeting plays a different role in different local or national elections. Studies that discuss political micro-targeting in these various localities offer an opportunity to develop a comparative approach, and understand how local factors shape the use and effects of political micro-targeting. On the other hand, studies on international online actors, such as Facebook may help us understand how these global entities influence the local body politic.
The Internet Policy Review invites theoretical, empirical, and methodological papers on the topic of political micro-targeting to discuss an emergent phenomena via the lens of interdisciplinary research. Based on extended abstracts, a selection of contributions will be made. All authors of papers selected for the special issue will be invited to present and discuss their full paper at an expert workshop held in Amsterdam in September 2017. The purpose of the workshop is to enable exchange of ideas on this timely issue, and provide peer-feedback for the finalisation of the papers. A sub-selection of these papers will eventually make it into the special issue based on regular peer review.
On Thursday January 26, there will be a preconference about Personalized Communication organized by members of our team.
The preconference aims to contribute to the debate regarding personalized communication, by bringing together researchers from the Netherlands and Belgium that study personalized communication. By assembling these researchers, we aim to discuss research that addresses all fields of personalized communication, including journalism, political communication, advertising, health communication. By discussing our research, we aim to identify ongoing research regarding personalized communication, and address theoretical, methodological, and ethical issues related to this research. For instance, we want to detect where there may be theoretical and methodological differences and overlap and stimulate a discussion about these theories and methods. In addition, we hope to discuss shared research ideas, inspire researchers, and bring about new research collaborations.
Interested? You are very welcome to join the preconference!
Who: All researchers interested in personalized communication and that are going to Etmaal 2017
When: Thursday January 26, 10:15-11:15
Where: Tilburg University, Dante building, DZ6
More information: https://etmaal2017.nl/preconferences/
Theof the has a vacancy for a PhD candidate in Law.
In the digital media environment, user attention is scarce and competition for ‘eyeballs’ is fierce. Big Data analysis, algorithmic profiling and targeting readers with customised news and advertisements that match their individual interests are widely seen as potential solutions: ‘Everyone their own newspaper and personal headlines.’ The personalisation of news media content enables new financing strategies and means to capture the audience’s attention. But personalisation is also part of a more fundamental paradigm shift in the media’s role from public interest intermediary to personal information coach. This research will answer critical questions about the implications for newsreaders and society, and contribute to a new normative theory of the role of personalised media in a democratic society.
To do so, the PersoNews project integrates legal research, communication sciences and political sciences, undertakes comparative, normative and evidence-based research, and carries out experiments, interviews and surveys. The team performs quantitative and qualitative research to identify the user advantages, concerns and conditions of acceptability, as well as the drivers behind and the obstacles to news media personalisation, how they affect journalistic practices and whether they translate into new algorithmic journalistic ethics and self-regulation.
These insights feed into the legal-normative analysis, which will critically re-examine the existing regulatory and normative framework, identify gaps and make suggestions for future legal design. More concretely, the PhD research aims to critically examine the legal framework that protects the editorial independence of the media and ensures a fair balance between commercial pressures and the democratic mission of the media to inform. Advertising has always been one of the primary means of financing media content, and concerns about the integrity of editorial content vis-à-vis external influences are not new. Accordingly, media laws, e-commerce laws and unfair commercial practice laws in Europe have a long tradition of scrutinising the blurred lines between editorial content and advertising. An unanswered question that this PhD project will help to answer is to what extent the existing provisions are able to address new dynamics in the media value chain, new players, such as social networks, app stores and search engines, the growing influence of digital advertisers and ad networks, new forms of advertising in the media, and new challenges to media integrity.
Please find the application procedure and additional details here: PhD candidate in Law University of Amsterdam – Amsterdam — AcademicTransfer
The Court of Justice of the European Union decided an important case on 21 December 2016. In short, the Court prohibits mass metadata surveillance. The Court says that EU member states are not allowed to impose an obligation on telecommunications companies to store metadata of all telecom-users.
The Court says that mass metadata surveillance, even if it may help to catch criminals or terrorists, violates people’s privacy and data protection rights. The Court adds that metadata are just as sensitive as the content of communications. Metadata show, for instance, who you call and when. The Court says that such metadata are “no less sensitive, having regard to the right to privacy, than the actual content of communications.”
Frederik commented on the case for Dutch media:
- NOS: http://nos.nl/artikel/2149484-eu-hof-locatie-en-telecomdata-mogen-niet-zomaar-worden-verzameld.html
- Tweakers: https://tweakers.net/nieuws/119273/eu-hof-massaal-verzamelen-telecomgegevens-is-niet-toegestaan.html
- BNR Nieuwsradio (around 37 minutes): https://www.bnr.nl/player/audio/10053540/10315699
The full judgment by the Court of Justice of the European Union is here: http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=186492&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=566657
For an analysis of metadata surveillance and human rights, see:
Frederik J. Zuiderveen Borgesius and Axel Arnbak, New Data Security Requirements and the Proceduralization of Mass Surveillance Law after the European Data Retention Case, Amsterdam Law School Research Paper No. 2015-41. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2678860
This week, there were a lot of media appearences related to the discussion of the role of filter bubbles and fake news in electin campaigns. Damian is quoted in de Volkskrant interviewed for television broadcast EenVandaag (around minute 27.00). Sanne was interviewed the NOS. And we published a piece on Stuk rood vlees.
We had an excellent panel on the policy aspects of digital intermediaries and platform at the 6th European Communication Conference in Prage. Balazs presented our take on the algorithmic control crisis, and our research infrastructure to address that by monitoring the development of individual filter bubbles, and the algorithmically curated public sphere. Natali presented a paper on shared responsibility regarding online platforms.
On 9 November Frederik Zuiderveen Borgesius participates in the Privacy Platform in Brussels (‘Automated profiling after the GDPR, more regulation needed?’), organized by Sophie in ‘t Veld. The event will address the topic of the potential risks of automated profiling, on whether the provisions on profiling in the General Data Protection Regulation will suffice, and on what can be expected of the revision of the ePrivacy Directive.
Chair: Ms Sophie in ‘t Veld MEP
- Frederik Borgesius: Researcher at the Institute for Information Law (IViR) at the University of Amsterdam
- Jeremy Rollison: Director EU Government Affairs at Microsoft
- Sachiko Scheuing: Co-chair of FEDMA, Federation European Direct Advertisement Associations
- Tal Zarsky: Professor at the University of Haifa
More info: http://www.sophieintveld.eu/agenda#