Intentional Consequences

by Charles Harris

  Stanton and Kahn said they were in. Mayer said, “What about technology, David? You know our media group is making a huge investment in our online business.”

  Bernbach said, “Good reminder. I’m focused on technology. It’s essential in building the platform we need to manipulate attitudes about social policy and issues and lead our ultimate candidate to victory. We’re already making substantial investments in the technologies we need, including artificial intelligence and microtargeting. We’ll be using JPAC down in Austin for data strategy and analytics. We’ll be using the Sentinel Observer’s online capabilities as well as other vehicles like Facebook, PaprW8 and Twitter. What the Russians did in 2016 was child’s play by comparison.”

  Mayer said, “Good. Then you can count me in as well.”

  Chapter 21

  Arriving from Shanghai at 8:30 a.m. Pacific time on Friday morning, Ward went straight from San Francisco International Airport to PaprW8’s offices in Menlo Park. It was a good flight, if any flight almost 12 hours long can be considered good. She’d been in business class on a United 787 with lie-flat beds. Although she had slept well on the plane, the 13-hour time zone change would catch up to her at some point during the day. Fortunately, her only meetings were internal.

  By the time she had cleared customs through Global Entry and arrived at her company’s offices, it was almost mid-morning. She went directly to Mike Hastings’s conference room to discuss her trip. They had learned long ago not to send sensitive emails or texts from China, encrypted or not.

  Eying Ward as he walked into the conference room, Hastings said, “Welcome back. Did you get that shirt at the airport?”

  Ward said, “No, person of zero fashion taste, but thanks for asking. It’s by a Shanghai designer. You wouldn’t know her. She doesn’t do hoodies.” Hastings smiled.

  She gave Hastings an overview of her dinner meeting with Chen and the presentation at CnEyeco.

  After walking Hastings through the capabilities CnEyeco’s founders showed in the meeting, she said, “It’s amazing technology that could be very profitable for us. Given Bernbach’s interest in political marketing, I can see why he’s interested. The technology can disrupt commercial marketing as well. It can reinvent how marketing propaganda of any kind is targeted and spread, regardless of the message and the messenger.”

  Hastings said, “It sounds a little too good to be true. Are you comfortable the demo wasn’t rigged? Do we even know how the system’s built, how it does what it does?”

  Ward said, “We’ll obviously have to see if it’s real, but if they’re serious about doing business, we should be able to do that quickly.”

  Hastings said, “How would this fit with the changing laws on data privacy? Whatever their system does, it must need huge quantities of personally identifiable information. The Chinese approach to data privacy is vastly different from ours. If we can’t get the data we need and the consents to use it, this system would be far less valuable to us—maybe useless and certainly dangerous.”

  Ward said, “The system clearly needs PII, both to build the database and to teach the AIs how to parse the data. I talked with Chen about access to data and privacy issues. He was very cryptic, but he assured me we could deal with it. We need to call his bluff.”

  “How would you structure a deal?” Hastings asked.

  She said, “Acquisitions don’t make sense for either side. I think a licensing play is the most likely structure. We license the technology from them and do some data sharing with them.”

  “We need to be thoughtful here. We don’t need to poison our database with tainted data, and we don’t want to violate any data privacy laws.”

  “Remember, there’s still a lot of uncertainty about data privacy. Despite the growing calls in both parties to go after Big Tech, I think it will be awhile before we see beefed-up data privacy laws at the Federal level in the U.S. The Republicans are wary and the progressives in the Democratic Party want to break up the tech companies and lock up all the PII. So, we may be through the next election before we see anything out of the Congress. That’s probably good news, at least for our 2020 revenues. But if the Democrats win in 2020, it could get ugly for all of us. At least we’re small enough that we won’t get killed by the antitrust investigations that are going to hit Facebook, Google and Amazon no matter who wins in 2020.”

  Hastings said, “Let’s hope we aren’t all run out of business in the meantime by idiotic state data privacy laws like the one California passed. How the hell can we have 50 states separately regulating data privacy on the internet?”

  Ward said, “You sound like our friends at Facebook. My point is we have an opportunity to be creative about how we access the data we need. Because of that, let’s keep these data privacy issues away from legal counsel until we set our plans.”

  Hastings said, “The CnEyeco system is good at using facial recognition data. Are you concerned about people manipulating the images?”

  Ward said, “The system doesn’t need facial data to work, but more facial data and more non-facial data that links to the facial data creates better results and delivers more value. I asked Chen about the risks of altered photos but didn’t get much of an answer other than they’re working on it.”

  After a few more questions, Hastings said, “We should take a closer look, if for no other reason than to make Bernbach think we’re doing something. If there’s something here, we’ll need to move aggressively to commercialize it in time for the 2020 elections. Even if we can’t pull it off, it still might be useful for our business sector. If what’s here doesn’t make sense, we need to cut off the distraction and get on with our other priorities.”

  After the meeting, Ward headed to the on-site gym for a quick treadmill run and a shower. Rejuvenated for at least a while, she returned to her office to call Bernbach.

  He picked up immediately. Before she could say anything other than hello, he said, “Hey Susan, thanks for calling. I heard the meeting went well. What did you think?”

  “Who told you the meeting went well?”

  “Jason Chen. I spoke with him after your meeting. So, what did you think?”

  Ward said, “I think it’s worth a hard look. If the technology can really do what they showed me, it could be particularly valuable in the political sector.” She mentioned a licensing deal would probably make the most sense, but it could take some time.

  “Don’t worry about the license or the license terms. It won’t be a problem. Just let me know what you want. Focus on whether the technology works and whether they’ll share the personal data we’ll need.”

  “David, you seem to be very well-connected over there. I sense there’s more to this deal than you’re telling me.”

  “It’s always good to have friends where you do business. I have some strong relationships in China, going all the way back to my father’s time over there. To be blunt, yes, there are things you don’t know about. You don’t need to know about them because they don’t affect what you’re doing. It’s not a matter of trust, it’s a matter of need to know. It’s the way I work.”

  “OK. But if I do need to know, don’t forget to fill me in so I don’t make fools of us both.”

  Chapter 22

  Andy Baker was sitting in the small glass-walled office of his editor at the Sentinel Observer in downtown Boston. His editor said, “With the 2020 elections approaching, I’d like to see you start researching a story about power and influence in Democratic presidential politics. It’s an old topic that needs to be told in today’s world of business, technology and what could be two dozen Democrat presidential candidates with half of them sounding like socialists.”

  “There’s a hedge fund guy down in Westport named David Bernbach. He’s been involved in Democrat politics for years. Bernbach’s one of the leading activist investors today. A few months ago, he bought just under ten percent of PaprW8, the social media company that competes with Facebook. While it could just be a financial inve
stment, with the accelerating use of social media in political campaigns it could also be related to his political interests. Bernbach’s very well connected here and overseas. His funds invest in Asia and Europe as well as the U.S. His father was an international banker who was an adviser to the Chinese government back in the eighties, which could add a little international intrigue.”

  Andy said, “What kind of story are you thinking about?”

  “Don’t know. It will depend on what you find and how well you tell the story. I don’t want some sweet human-interest piece. We hired you because of your interest in investigative journalism. You’ve done some nice work here but nothing on this scale. This could be a good opportunity for you to show what you can do.”

  Baker had been with the Sentinel Observer for almost three years. After graduating from the University of Texas at Austin, or UT-A, with a major in journalism, he picked up a master’s in government and went to work at The Washington Post for four years. Although he loved D.C. and the Post, the Sentinel Observer had promised him an opportunity to do more investigative stories. He had jumped at the chance.

  His editor continued, “With so many Democrats running for president, there’s going to be a lot of noise in the media, especially with Trump around. I’m hoping you can create an overarching piece with some real intellectual interest. It doesn’t have to be an exposé, but it does need to have substance and make people think. You can decide whether to build it around Bernbach or not, but he’s a start. We’ll talk weekly about where you are. You’ll need to make time for this, meaning you’ll need to keep doing your other work at least until we see what you’ve got.”

  “Sounds interesting. I like the idea of telling the story in the context of the Russian hacking and social media manipulation in 2016 and the shift in campaign finance from big money donors to internet-based crowdsourcing. I also like the political backdrop of socialism versus capitalism. I wonder what Bernbach thinks about Bernie.”

  Part Two

  Four Weeks Later

  Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government.

  Thomas Jefferson

  The algorithms are watching you right now. They are watching where you go, what you buy, whom you meet. Soon they will monitor all your steps, all your breaths, all your heartbeats. They are relying on Big Data and machine learning to get to know you better and better. And once these algorithms know you better than you know yourself, they can control and manipulate you, and you won’t be able to do much about it.

  Yuval Noah Harari, 21 Lessons for the 21st Century (New York: Spiegel & Grau, 2018)

  You gain strength, courage, and confidence by every experience in which you really stop to look fear in the face.

  Eleanor Roosevelt

  Chapter 23

  Valerie smiled as she read her new Op/Ed on the Sentinel Observer’s iPhone App. She had been thinking about this one for a while. She’d offered it to the Times, but they weren’t interested. The Sentinel Observer was a good compromise. In addition to its paper in Boston and its syndications to a long list of regional and local dailies, it’s smartphone app had the fourth highest internet news subscriber base in the country. Only the New York Times, The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal were ahead.

  Pressing the Share symbol on the app, she sent the piece to Rakesh and their two children, who were always among her biggest fans. She also sent it to her Department Chair at the University. She’d post links and tweet it out later in the morning.

  Going back to the top of the Op/Ed, she read through it one more time. The text said:

  The time has come to talk about the death of knowledge in American politics, and what it means for American democracy. We’ve come to a tipping point in our political culture where we’re willing to trade knowledge, expertise and thoughtful analysis for passions and emotions. We’re willing to make decisions based not on the strength or weakness of an idea but upon the identity of who said it. We are replacing logic with feeling, analysis with wishful thinking. In the process, we may be replacing democracy with mob rule and its usual successor, autocracy.

  When I was in college, I took a mandatory course called Fundamentals of Logic. One of the first things we talked about was how to recognize fallacious arguments. My favorite was something called arguments ad hominem, which basically translates as arguments ‘to the person’. These are arguments where a person attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making the argument, or the people associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. In his 2008 essay on the hierarchy of disagreement, the technologist Paul Graham classified arguments ad hominem as the second lowest category of effective argument. The only thing worse to him was name calling.

  Despite our history of using science, technology and reason to build the most powerful and advanced nation the world has ever seen—a country that continues to stand as a shining light to the billions of people who live under autocratic rule—we are using these two argument styles to determine our future. The question is why.

  Many would say Donald Trump deserves the blame. If you watch his earliest debates, he was calling his opponents names and reinforcing them with his midnight tweets. Some thought he’d ease off if he became President, but he’s continued to use personal attacks on most anybody who dares to disagree with him. Whether you are a Trump supporter or detractor, you must agree his name calling is not elevating debate in America.

  Others would say the Democrats’ identity politics deserves the blame. Although we can argue about intention and degree, identity politics all too frequently attempts to bias people for or against an idea based on tribalism. An idea is good or bad based on the group you identify with or the group the person proposing the idea identifies with. The substance of the idea, and the rational analysis of the pros and cons associated with it, are purposefully left behind.

  Still others would suggest our divisive, revenge-driven politics deserves the blame. Study after study shows American politics is more partisan, bitter and divided than it has been in decades. Some would assert it’s worse than at any time since the Civil War, and they may be right. We say we want to see the Congress work together across the aisle, but far too many of us simply want revenge against the other party. We’ve moved to a winner-take-all attitude, where we want to crush the other side to punish them for some actual or perceived sins or abuses. We don’t just disagree with our opponents’ ideas; we have contempt for our opponents for daring to hold or express those ideas. It’s easier and more satisfying to attack our opponents for who they are, rather than waste time arguing with them about whether their ideas are good or bad.

  Some would blame the traditional media, which today primarily consists of our remaining press and our cable and network news channels. As American politics has become more rancorous and the internet has disrupted the financial viability and scale of our print media, huge numbers of our local and regional newspapers have closed, effectively eliminating that source of news. At the same time, our cable news stations and most of our remaining newspapers have become more focused on one side or the other of the partisan divide.

  Some of the media polarization is a reaction to economic reality. Controversy attracts viewers and sells ads. Networks that provide an echo chamber for their viewers hope to multiply passions and cement a financially sustainable business model—although CNN may be an example of how not to do this successfully. The political preferences and frailties of the Fourth Estate itself have also played a role here. Taunted and egged on by President Trump’s claims the press is the enemy of the people, journalists and outlets once respected for their independence have fallen for the partiality trap. Being human, they too are seeking revenge, albeit under the guise of investigative journalism.

  All these things have contributed to where we are today. To understand how these factors affect the American political conversation, and the future of our democracy, we need t
o look at the impact of two other issues: The torrential power of the internet on our society and our growing loss of trust in our most fundamental socio-political institutions.

  Volumes have been written about the effects of the internet. For present purposes, let’s look at three points.

  First, the internet has reduced our attention span and increased our expectation of immediate gratification. Although the sample size was small, in 2015 Microsoft found that from the year 2000 the average attention span dropped from twelve seconds to eight (goldfish enjoy nine seconds). Most of us don’t need this anecdotal research to confirm that whenever we have a spare moment, we reach for our phone to read our texts or emails or check something else online. Once we’re there, of course, we expect the source we’re looking for to appear on the first page of search results, the web page to load in microseconds and the content to meet our needs. Otherwise, we’ll move on and repeat.

  Second, because our attention spans have dropped, we are more susceptible than we have ever been to what we used to call sound bites and video clips. Despite the intense global power of our internet search engines, we don’t want to take the time to look for the best answer or listen to competing arguments. We just want to form an emotional attachment to something we like or dislike, and move on to our next funny cat video, LOL text or email. This is why images and videos and sites like Instagram, Pinterest and TikTok have grabbed so much mindshare.

  Third, the internet has let us to create, test and spread microtargeted political ads and propaganda more effectively and efficiently than any comparable advertising in the traditional media. These ads can be even more deceptive and manipulative than the attack ads that plague campaign mailers and television commercials. As we learned in 2016, they can be used by our global adversaries to sow dissent and division and undermine our electoral process. They can also be used by domestic organizations.