Remainers Set Up Data Harvesting Shell Campaign

After spending years accusing Vote Leave of setting up another group to get around spending limits while studiously avoiding questions about the five new campaigns they set up and into which they funnelled more than £1 million in the month before the referendum, Remainers have been up to their old tricks again with another youth-focused campaign. Predictably, it looks like yet another attempt to gather data and avoid spending limits…

The ‘Vote for Your Future’ campaign was co-founded by Lara Spirit, a director of the astroturf Our Future, Our Choice campaign. OFOC likes to say it’s independent of the People’s Vote campaign, it’s just pure coincidence that the two campaigns share each other’s content, donations, office space, etc… OFOC were busy telling their activists to campaign across universities under the guise of this new organisation…

But just how neutral is this campaign? Vote for Your Future says on its heavily advertised sign-up page that the data it collects will be processed “on behalf of Our Future, Our Choice! (OFOC!) Ltd.” Like Remain’s 2016 shell campaigns, ‘Vote for Your Future’ uses Keira Knightley and a bunch of other big name Remainers in their digital content. It also states in its Privacy Policy that:

“If Vote For Your Future, or substantially all of its assets, were acquired, or in the unlikely event that Vote For Your Future goes out of business or enters bankruptcy, user information would be one of the assets that is transferred or acquired by a third party. You acknowledge that such transfers may occur, and that any acquirer of Vote For Your Future may continue to use your personal information as set forth in this policy.”

The Privacy Policy has clearly been written with the specific purpose of folding the business – and all of its data “assets” – back into OFOC, while shifting the advertising spend onto a different legal entity, helping to sidestep election spending rules. Vote for Your Future can just be quietly wound down after doing its job of collecting huge amounts of personal data of people as young as 16. All held ready for acquisition by Big Remain’s data machine…

UPDATE: An Our Future Our Choice spokesperson has been in touch to tell Guido that “A VFYF spokesperson said: “Vote For Your Future is a politically neutral campaign” that has “maintained scrupulous neutrality, and at no time have we told young people which way to vote.” Definitely not a front group…

mdi-timer 21 May 2019 @ 10:59 21 May 2019 @ 10:59 mdi-twitter mdi-facebook mdi-whatsapp mdi-telegram mdi-linkedin mdi-email mdi-comment View Comments
‘Tesco Tax’ Will Be Unpopular With Voters

Guido doesn’t want to pay extra taxes “to save the High Street”. In fact it seems quite obvious that millions of people like getting cheaper goods delivered direct to their door. Of course rivals want to handicap their competitors in their own self-interest. Perhaps politicians should side with consumers rather than producers for once?

Converting high streets into residential streets might even help with high-priced housing costs in urban areas. Which will please younger voters!

mdi-timer 13 May 2019 @ 09:27 13 May 2019 @ 09:27 mdi-twitter mdi-facebook mdi-whatsapp mdi-telegram mdi-linkedin mdi-email mdi-comment View Comments
Remain’s Facebook ‘Dark Money’ Massively Outweighs Leave

New data published by Facebook has revealed that yet again Remain is massively outspending Leave on social media, with almost twice as much money being spent by second referendum groups. Guido has listed relevant Facebook spending above £10,000…

  • People’s Vote: £433,384
  • Britain’s Future £422,746
  • Best For Britain: £317,463
  • UK Government*: £245,353
  • The Conservative Party*: £114,924
  • Liberal Democrats: £82,600
  • The Labour Party*: £75,462
  • We are the 52%: £51,845
  • Right To Vote: £27,296
  • The Brexit Party £19,082
  • Renew: £13,275

In total this puts dedicated big Remain spending at £874,018, compared to just £493,673 for Leave. This hasn’t stopped the media attacking The Brexit Party for spending less than £20,000. Loopy Remainers have even called this ‘Dark Money’…

But it isn’t. Political parties have to declare their funding by law. The ‘dark money’ listed here is that which is spent by pressure groups like People’s Vote and Best for Britain, not political parties. This puts the Leave ‘dark money spend at £474,591, compared to a Remain ‘dark money’ spend of £778,143. More post truth politics from Remain campaigners…

*Groups not specifically advertising about Brexit
mdi-timer 26 April 2019 @ 12:07 26 Apr 2019 @ 12:07 mdi-twitter mdi-facebook mdi-whatsapp mdi-telegram mdi-linkedin mdi-email mdi-comment View Comments
ChUK Microtargeting Guardian Readers on Facebook

Change UK – The Independent Group – Remain Alliance have been spending money micro-targeting adverts on Facebook to focus on their core electorate which at the moment is seemingly just readers of The Guardian. Quite a tight voter pool considering Guardian circulation stands at just 141,160. That’s about half as many votes as the unsuccessful and niche ‘An Independence from Europe’ party achieved in 2014…

mdi-timer 25 April 2019 @ 17:00 25 Apr 2019 @ 17:00 mdi-twitter mdi-facebook mdi-whatsapp mdi-telegram mdi-linkedin mdi-email mdi-comment View Comments
Porn Laws Coming Into Force in July

The Government has announced that its authoritarian internet porn ban will be coming into force on 15th July. People in Britain will need to hand over their credit card details or buy a government-approved porn pass from a newsagent from £8.99 to access online porn from then. Tech-savvy Generation Z-ers will just get round it with a VPN…

Digital Minister Margot James says: “We want the UK to be the safest place in the world to be online, and these new laws will help us achieve this.” Combined with the Government’s impending assault on the wider internet and its latest genius plans to crack down on… Netflix and Amazon Video, the UK is rapidly becoming the most repressive democracy in the world to be online.

The Adam Smith Institute’s Matthew Lesh says “This scheme, that requires linking of people’s identity to their online adult viewing habits, will seriously threaten our privacy, be a massive gift to scammers, and won’t even work. Young people will just get around it, and end up being exposed to more hardcore material.” The Government’s sledgehammer approach to the internet is what you’d expect from an authoritarian regime like China or Saudi Arabia, not the liberal democracy that invented it…

mdi-timer 17 April 2019 @ 12:39 17 Apr 2019 @ 12:39 mdi-twitter mdi-facebook mdi-whatsapp mdi-telegram mdi-linkedin mdi-email mdi-comment View Comments
Child Protection is the Job of Parents Not ‘iPlod’

The proponents of the Online Harms White Paper are trying to frame it as a child protection and anti-terrorism measure. Guido is willing to accept that is the government’s intention and that it is under pressure from the newspaper industry to hit the global platforms. Almost every day News UK and Associated Newspapers titles run a shock horror story about Facebook or Twitter or one of the other social media platforms. Often it is focused on child protection – children committing suicide, children being groomed, children falling for scams, children seeing an advert for a high sugar product. Do not underestimate how much pressure this puts ministers under when there is a “something must be done” clamour.

According to the government the something that must be done is the creation of yet another quango, an online regulator. Dubbed by Toby Young “iPlod“.

Guido has no doubt as to the harms done by child sexual abuse or terrorist propaganda online, it is however already the case that these things are illegal. Introducing a new law will not change the enforcement problems, which go unaddressed in the White Paper. The best form of child protection is preventing your children having access to this material. Why does your 7 year-old child need a smart phone? Why is your daughter on Snapchat, an app originally designed to enable the sending of a quick nude picture that will selfie-destruct after a maximum of 10 seconds. New legal controls are no substitute for parental control.

The online harms that the White Paper has trouble defining include cyber-bullying and trolling, both of which it says are unacceptable. People being rude to one another online does not require a legislative response. The police have better things to do than arrest people for being rude on Twitter.

There is also the collateral damage to press freedom from a new regulator, Toby Young argues in tomorrow’s Spectator cover story that the White Paper if it became law “iPlod” would mean that any companies “that allow users to share or discover user-generated content or interact with each other online” will be “in scope” so that includes newspapers and magazines. This is arguably state regulation of the press by the back door and has no place in a free society. Sajid should be opposing it as vigorously as he opposed Labour’s attempts to set up a state press regulator, not championing it.

mdi-timer 9 April 2019 @ 11:07 9 Apr 2019 @ 11:07 mdi-twitter mdi-facebook mdi-whatsapp mdi-telegram mdi-linkedin mdi-email mdi-comment View Comments
Previous Page Next Page