The March for Our Lives: Where Its Power Lies

A headline from this past weekend reads “NRA Takes Aim at ‘March for Our Lives Rally, Mocks Gun Violence Survivors.” Did we expect otherwise? Mockery and deflection, along with alarmist tactics, are always available as easy tools for trying to ruffle an opponent or sway popular opinion. The March for Our Lives, however, could, despite the NRA’s attempts to belittle it, prove to be very powerful, and the sentiments it inspired are likely to continue to gain momentum.

The March for Our Lives, a nationwide protest against gun violence, organized by survivors of the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School mass shooting, took place last Saturday, March 24, in Washington, D.C., with numerous “sister” marches taking place around the world.

“Not one more,” reads the March for Our Lives mission statement. “We cannot allow one more child to be shot at school. We cannot allow one more teacher to make a choice to jump in front of a firing assault rifle to save the lives of students. We cannot allow one more family to wait for a call or text that never comes. Our schools are unsafe. Our children and teachers are dying. We must make it our top priority to save these lives.”

Yes, the March for Our Lives received a large amount of funding and social media support from well-known names such as the Clooneys and others in Hollywood. It does take money to pull off such a large-scale event. Are we as upset about the funding that some of our representatives in Congress get for supporting the NRA?

Yes, the March for Our Lives was well-organized. This, along with the fact that it was funded by some celebrities, has inspired the narrative that the organizers, who were all witnesses to horrific gun violence, were puppets of the “liberal anti-gun lobby.” This idea seems weak, unless one is a conspiracy theorist who also believes that the Parkland shootings were staged by the “anti-gun left” so that people would hold international gun violence demonstrations because they want to “take away all of our guns.”

The NRA and its supporters, in the aftermath of every school shooting and every other mass shooting in the U.S., panic about the possibility of losing their right to possess assault-type weapons, while dismissing or ridiculing those who point out the horror and devastation such weapons have caused, and almost certainly will cause again. That way of prioritization doesn’t seem at all strange to them.

The March for Our Lives took place at a time when Congress had already finished passing legislation for the year. Some will see that as waste. The organization states that “ The mission and focus of March For Our Lives is to demand that a comprehensive and effective bill be immediately brought before Congress to address these gun issues.”

A great deal of the power of the March for Our Lives, however, will come from the fact that it included a large drive to register voters. Many of those newly registered voters are impassioned young people who have been watching their peers work to effect change around gun control laws while the adults appear to have done nothing. All of them will be able to vote in the 2018 mid-term elections. Indeed, the March for Our Lives could have an even larger impact than simply introducing immediate legislation – it could, through votes, replace the climate of the current Congress with one that is no longer controlled by the gun lobby.

Millions Join #MarchForOurLives For Gun Control | The View  [2018-03-26]

 

 

Gutfeld on Saturday’s Gun Control March | Fox News [2018-03-26]

Cambridge Analytica, Facebook Data Breach: Are We Really Surprised?

The recent Facebook data breach by data mining and analysis firm Cambridge Analytica is believed to be the largest in Facebook history. But are we really so shocked that this could have happened? Whenever we use a Facebook app, take a Facebook quiz, or play a Facebook game, we’re advised that Facebook is accessing some of our personal information. We don’t know, of course, that data firms like Cambridge Analytica might unethically use the information we consent to share with Facebook, but perhaps we should start to assume that anything could happen to our data once we let it go into the ether.

According to whistleblower Christopher Wylie, a former Cambridge Analytica contractor, Cambridge Analytica used personal information from the Facebook profiles of over 50 million people without their permission. Facebook users who took a personality quiz entered data into a third-party app. The app not only allowed Cambridge Analytica access to data about those users, it also allowed them access to data about the users’ Facebook friends. Cambridge Analytica then built a powerful software application to predict and influence choices at the ballot box by targeting political advertising to those users during the Trump presidential campaign.

Wylie said, “This is based on the idea of informational dominance. The idea that if you can capture every channel of information about a person, and then change the content around them, you can change their perception of what’s actually happening.”

Thought we don’t know for sure how, or if, the Cambridge Analytica data breach impacted the way our election turned out, we know that the same technology that is used for selling items and services on Facebook was used to target people for political ads. According to Wylie, Cambridge Analytica used the data to create profiling algorithms that allowed them to learn more about the mental vulnerabilities of users. Cambridge Analytica then “mapped out ways to inject information into various streams of content onllne, so that people (would) begin to see things all over the place that may or may not have been true.” This went further than simple political advertising, in that it delivered fake news messages based on personality profiles.

Cambridge Analytica is a U.K. company. Though European data access and privacy laws are much stricter than those in the United States, Cambridge Analytica took advantage of the lack of legal protection of American data. We do have specific laws, such as HIPAA, that protect certain types of data, but, unlike Europe, we don’t have a general law that protects our data in all situations, and it’s much more difficult to know what data about us is gathered.

Facebook claims that its business model holds protection of users’ privacy as paramount. Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook co-founder, chairman, and CEO, has apologized to users, and has suspended Cambridge Analytica from Facebook. Zuckerberg stated, “We have a responsibility to protect your data, and if we can’t, then we don’t deserve to serve you.”

Sheryl Sandberg, Chief Operating Officer of Facebook, said, “We know this was a major violation of people’s trust and I deeply regret we didn’t do enough to deal with it.”

But will deleting your Facebook account protect you? Not really, says David Carroll, Associate Professor of Media Design at the Parsons School. “You’re only reducing the number of ways data is collected about you.”

Still, Carroll offers these suggestions for Facebook users:

  • Limit the amount of info you share with social networks
  • Limit the browser you use for your social network
  • Take the applications off your phone.
  • Don’t share your exact name, location, or age

We should always assume that someone, somewhere, is harvesting our data. This reaches beyond Facebook and Cambridge Analytica – it’s a demonstration of how easily companies can target and manipulate us by getting hold of our data.

Facebook Suspends Data Firm Tied to Trump Campaign | CBS News [2018-03-17]

Cambridge Analytica Whistleblower Says Company Worked With Corey Lewandowski & Steve Bannon | TODAY [2018-03-19]