But look a bit closer, it appears intentionally bad.
1. This beautiful and thought provoking piece of 21st century art was shared widely in anti-EU Facebook groups, Twitter replies to journalists and elsewhere online, in 2016.
Is it an untrackable, untraceable, Cambridge Analytica-style, fake?
But look a bit closer, it appears intentionally bad.
Literate enough to spell “Sovereignty” correctly.
Cambridge Analytica boasted on hidden camera that they created “untraceable, untrackable” social media themes, memes and propaganda that spread.
“We put the information into the bloodstream of the internet and watch it grow.
Give it a little push.
This stuff infiltrates the online community and expands.
With no branding.
So it’s unattributable, untrackable"
It’s impossible to find out unless you work at Facebook or Google.
But there are some strange clues.
TinEye reverse image search shows that it was first saved by their web crawler in 2016.
A few days before the EU referendum in the UK.
With the username “niteoflight”.
Note the strange spelling and grammar; ‘re_election'
(A table of Johnny's most shared accounts on Twitter)
Unusually for a pro-Brexit British man named Johnny, he often used “Beeter”.
An obscure Japanese Twitter app, to Tweet.
But probably just a random weird guy, from the UK?
Who can’t really speak English.
Who likes Russian government TV more than any other news outlet.
Who uses a defunct, obscure Japanese language Twitter app, to post to Twitter.
But searching back further, the earliest example of this meme that we could find was not on Google, Twitter or Facebook.
The first evidence of it anywhere online, is from a guy called “Martin Corner”. Who posted the meme on Russian Facebook (VK), on the 3rd of June 2016.
The people who liked the 40 YEARS EU RULE post on VK purport to be English neo-Nazis and fascists, if their posts on VK are to be believed.
He loves Hitler and IKEA candles.
But hates the EU.
Who’d have thought.
Seeded it online via various “independent” groups and activists, who spread it so that it multiplied across social media without being tracked back to the creators.
More from Brexit
You May Also Like
Recently, the @CNIL issued a decision regarding the GDPR compliance of an unknown French adtech company named "Vectaury". It may seem like small fry, but the decision has potential wide-ranging impacts for Google, the IAB framework, and today's adtech. It's thread time! 👇
It's all in French, but if you're up for it you can read:
• Their blog post (lacks the most interesting details): https://t.co/PHkDcOT1hy
• Their high-level legal decision: https://t.co/hwpiEvjodt
• The full notification: https://t.co/QQB7rfynha
I've read it so you needn't!
Vectaury was collecting geolocation data in order to create profiles (eg. people who often go to this or that type of shop) so as to power ad targeting. They operate through embedded SDKs and ad bidding, making them invisible to users.
The @CNIL notes that profiling based off of geolocation presents particular risks since it reveals people's movements and habits. As risky, the processing requires consent — this will be the heart of their assessment.
Interesting point: they justify the decision in part because of how many people COULD be targeted in this way (rather than how many have — though they note that too). Because it's on a phone, and many have phones, it is considered large-scale processing no matter what.
It's all in French, but if you're up for it you can read:
• Their blog post (lacks the most interesting details): https://t.co/PHkDcOT1hy
• Their high-level legal decision: https://t.co/hwpiEvjodt
• The full notification: https://t.co/QQB7rfynha
I've read it so you needn't!
Vectaury was collecting geolocation data in order to create profiles (eg. people who often go to this or that type of shop) so as to power ad targeting. They operate through embedded SDKs and ad bidding, making them invisible to users.
The @CNIL notes that profiling based off of geolocation presents particular risks since it reveals people's movements and habits. As risky, the processing requires consent — this will be the heart of their assessment.
Interesting point: they justify the decision in part because of how many people COULD be targeted in this way (rather than how many have — though they note that too). Because it's on a phone, and many have phones, it is considered large-scale processing no matter what.