Micro-Targeting: Targeting or Manipulating

Micro-Targeting: Targeting or Manipulating

We are in an age of science and technology where every technological development brings hopes and fears alike and more than ever for us. Human wisdom and the ability of reasoning collectively constitute one sole pillar of democracy. What if this sole pillar is shaken or deformed through subtle engineering of mind? More subtly, what if the information upon which a human mind makes a decision is altogether altered? Obviously, the sole political system, which Fukuyama says is the end of human ideological evolution, will then be jeopardized.

“We are in an age of science and technology where every technological development brings hopes and fears alike and more than ever for us. ”

Hence, people and so democracy will be driven by the lethal combination of big techs and vested political interests. It implies the free will of human beings is under attack. Such is the potential of micro-targeting, a double-edged sword that can work for and against the people. Through micro-targeting political campaigners may serve customized promises to different segments of society evading the public scrutiny of claims at large. Ann Ravel, a former member of the Federal Election Commission, said ;

‘The way to have a robust democracy is for people to hear all these ideas and make decisions and discuss but with micro-targeting, that is not happening’.

Micro-targeting is a marketing strategy that serves to disseminate a piece of certain information to a certain group of people. It uses sophisticated algorithms to identify and segment people based on their political, social and economic likes and dislikes and feeds them certain information to mold their behaviors. Three steps involved in its working. Firstly, a digital presence in the form of social media platforms or other networking sites exposes people to the digital world where they connect with other people, like different things, purchase goods and express opinions about politics, economy, and social issues. Then comes the second step facilitated by the first one that all the information about individuals whatever they like, dislike, prefer or strongly detest on digital applications and websites is stored and individual behavior profiles are generated. Lastly, sophisticated algorithms are developed which analyze data already stored. Algorithms serve two purposes; predict the content which an individual is more likely to click and political or other commercial ads are then directed to that content.

Micro-targeting, like any other technology or strategy, is a double-edged sword. It can facilitate us as well as mislead us. For example, people living around the hot equator can be suggested information through social media about cheap solar energy solutions. Moreover, people may find better choices in terms of food, clothing or traveling as algorithms running behind and having information about your likes and dislikes feed content accordingly. Similarly, it may increase the voter turnout rate by urging a certain group of people who prefers indifference to politics. However, there is a dark side to it. It can become a tool for spreading misinformation or disinformation. Misinformation refers to spreading inaccurate information knowingly or unknowingly. While disinformation refers to the deliberate dissemination of wrong information.

In politics, micro-targeting possesses a peculiar advantage. While in traditional media, the ads of political campaigns are subject to certain laws and scrutinized for the veracity of claims and facts, micro-targeting evades such checks. False and inaccurate information can be curated with impunity. Dr. Hannah Critchlow, a neuroscientist at the University of Cambridge, in her debut book ‘The Science of Fate’, argues that free will is just an illusion. The decision which looks coming out of rationality is just dictation that the mind gives us based on the information it possesses. Now, imagine, what if a political campaign head disseminates such information that is inaccurate, false and malicious that alters the political behavior of a person. Then the political system whose purpose is to solve the issues of people through persuading them with plans and policies will become a battleground where the effectiveness of micro-targeting firms will determine the election outcomes. Resultantly, the whole political system will be jeopardized. Therefore, micro-targeting is a threat to democracy unless harnessed its power truthfully and honestly.

Realizing such misuse and receiving backlash against the manipulation of people behaviors through providing data to micro-targeting firms, Google has ultimately banned micro-targeting for political campaigns. However, Google’s VP of product management for Google Ads Scott Spencer said that contextual targeting will still be allowed by the company. Contextual targetting allows advertisers to serve ads to people based on what they were reading or watching (for example, targeting people reading about climate change or abortion. Scot Spencer further said:

“Of course, we recognize that robust political dialogue is an important part of democracy, and no one can sensibly adjudicate every political claim, counterclaim, and insinuation. So we expect that the number of political ads on which we take action will be very limited — but we will continue to do so for clear violations,”

Google maintains that such a ban on false political campaigns is to stop the spread of inaccurate and false information. However, in other businesses, the opportunity micro-targeting provides to augment the sales and revenues is commendable.

However, there is another side to Google’s policing of political ads. A huge chunk of Google’s revenue comes from advertisements largely from search ads. According to the transparency report 2018 of Google, search ads constitute 84% of its total revenue. While political ads only contributed $121.9 million since May 31, 2018. Such a meager contribution to a company with revenue of $33.9 billion in the latest quarter does not affect Google revenue substantially. It might be said Google took such a stance to gain high moral ground.

To sum up, micro-targeting is a strategy, aided by digital applications and algorithms, whose power can be harnessed for good. However, Googles’s ban on it suggests things about its use otherwise. Google’s ban on micro-targeting is due to two reasons; first, it is undermining democracy; second, it does not affect Google’s revenues considerably. However, Google does not extend this ban for other businesses. It makes sense as 84% of its revenues come from search ads of other companies. Moreover, the use of micro-targeting in other areas is less threatening and more rewarding for companies as well as for Google. However, when it comes to politics, it seriously hampers the trustworthiness of democracy. Still, on the other side, fears exist that compounded by the revolutions in genomics and biotechnology, the effectiveness of micro-targeting has become more pervasive. Therefore, it can be used by anti-social elements posing a threat to society in multiple ways.