Cambridge Analytica's use of data analytics to manipulate the voter base in the 2016 US elections serves as an example of data analytics being used in order to turn raw data into actionable insights - in this case, the data was collected from Facebook users who used a third-party app as well as from the user's Facebook friends. The collected data included a user's post history, likes, and other interactions. These data were used to profile individuals based on their psychology and determine what kind of message would be most likely to draw a reaction. These messages were spread through targeted political advertisements from campaigns that paid Cambridge Analytica for its services.
In my grid, I looked at the three of Cambridge Analytica's most standout ethical quandaries and how these quandaries affected the systems of public trust, social media, and political atmosphere. Collecting data from unconsenting individuals is a clear-cut case of a breach of public trust and highlights flaws in the management of Facebook. Using psychographic targeting is another violation of public confidence - when users find out that their online interactions may have been artifically altered, they lose trust in the authenticity of their social media feed. Both of these quandaries drew public outcry demanding a change in Facebook's policies and how they collect data. Additionally, Cambridge Analytica's attempts to influence the 2016 election undeniably had an affect on the political atmosphere. Certain political campaigns had advantages over others if they paid Cambridge Analytica for access of their psychographic data, allowing them to spread more effective political messages. This also compelled Facebook to be more transparent about political advertisements hosted on their site.