Introduction
The growing role of the internet in people’s lives continues to change how individuals interact with each other. At the same time, sharing information through social media and using websites becomes a tool for collecting information. In digital marketing, the use of private information and such concepts as big data, analytics, and targeting are now commonplace. However, the extent of using such data to reach one’s goals is left largely unexplored by the public. The documentary The Great Hack focuses on a significant recent scandal of Cambridge Analytica (CA) and its connections to the 2016 presidential election, Brexit, and other elections worldwide. The film presents and adequately supports the argument tying the events together. Nevertheless, the writers fail to discuss the use of data in detail and do not present any tangible solutions to the problem, leaving part of the question unanswered.
Summary
The documentary analyzes the activities of CA and its parent company SCL Group by following the stories of several individuals. First, the movie starts with David Carroll’s pursuit to access the data that CA has collected. Next, the audience is introduced to Carole Cadwalladr, a British investigative journalist, who looks into the possible connection between CA and Brexit. Her work and subsequent proceedings lead to the inclusion of two more characters – whistleblowers of CA, Christopher Wylie and Brittany Kaiser. With the help of these and several other individuals, the documentary demonstrates evidence of CA’s influence on Trump’s election and a connection between CA and Brexit campaigners. Moreover, the film argues about the company’s influence in manipulating elections in multiple foreign countries. Overall, the documentary aims to prove that CA has worked with Facebook to obtain data and breached Facebook users’ trust by mining private data. It is argued that the company targeted specific individuals with content that manipulated their political opinion.
Analysis
When analyzing the documentary, one has to look at the credentials, experiences, and views of the selected participants and the film directors. The two directors are Karim Amer and Jehane Noujaim, both of whom have a background in documentary filmmaking (IMDb, 2022a; IMDb, 2022b). Amer and Noujaim have worked on similar projects, such as the documentary The Square, analyzing the Egyptian revolution of 2011 and its outcomes (IMDb, 2022a; IMDb, 2022b). The interviewees for the present documentary have different professions and expertise, but all of them are connected to the world of digital privacy and big data. Carroll is a professor teaching about data privacy, particularly interested in the impact of CA on the 2016 election (Amer & Noujaim, 2019). Cadwalladr is a journalist for the Observer who investigates the connection between CA and Brexit. Kaiser and Wylie are former employees of CA – Wylie was instrumental in creating the data analysis algorithm, while Kaiser has participated in many projects headed by SCL Group (Amer & Noujaim, 2019). Overall, all guests have a background in data privacy and first-hand knowledge of the internal processes at CA.
The directors present the interviewees’ stories simultaneously, switching between their narratives to make connections temporally and logically. For example, when Kaiser testifies before the UK Parliament, other major documentary participants are shown reacting to her words and linking her testimony to their research. Thus, the editing indicates that all information related to the interviewees’ topics of interest is interconnected. At the same time, the characters are invited to speak about their feelings on the situation instead of simply focusing on the facts. For example, Kaiser is frequently challenged on whether her work for CA was ethical. This approach to mixing personal opinions and experiences with factual statements is intended to make one care about the subject and relate one’s personal experiences with data privacy.
The documentary’s editing places supporting evidence rights after stating a belief, which makes the ideas presented in the film appear transparent and substantiated. For example, it is argued that CA was involved in working with the Trump election campaign, and documents, emails, and recorded conversations of this connection are presented immediately. Similarly, after claiming that Brexit can be linked to CA, Cadwalladr offers proof from the officials who worked directly with the major Brexit-supporting politicians (Amer & Noujaim, 2019). The main argument encompassing all campaigns is that CA has misused information gathered from Facebook without the users’ explicit consent. Here, whistleblowers confirm that this data was utilized, providing specific dates, meeting recordings, emails, and other details.
The tone used by the filmmakers further strengthens their position that election campaigns relying on big data are unethical. The authors describe targeted ads as propaganda, focusing on their ability to sway people’s opinions toward the desired political stance. The language is persuasive and assertive, although the documentary features individuals who are not entirely supportive of the thesis. Kaiser is indecisive when talking about big data ethics, believing voters are free to choose their preferred political candidate (Amer & Noujaim, 2019). Nonetheless, there exists a lack of opposing opinions presented objectively and such persons as Alexander Nix are clearly labeled as villains by one of the movie’s interviewees (Amer & Noujaim, 2019). One can conclude that the purpose of the documentary is persuasive and informative, with an emphasis on the former.
Evaluation and Response
The documentary succeeds in transparently presenting a web of connection between the events, including Brexit, Trump’s campaign, the 2016 election, and the misuse of data by CA and Facebook. The interviews with experts present a look inside CA, increasing the statements’ validity. Nevertheless, the film fails to discuss the particular uses of data, including what information is used, how it was collected, and what was done with it. While the directors include some information about a “personality test” and “targeted ads,” they do not specify how one’s psychological profile is built. Isaak and Hanna (2018) state that CA used an “OCEAN” test, which analyzed people’s personality traits, such as “openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism)” (p. 57). The documentary fails to explain in detail how this data can be used to manipulate opinions, which makes the argument less transparent.
Moreover, the documentary fails to make a strong conclusive statement and present ways of mitigating the problem. The conversation ends without a clear plan for future action that could entice the audience to form a strong opinion about data privacy. For instance, Laterza (2021) and Isaak and Hanna (2018) present concrete principles that can be implemented to change people’s approach to privacy. The researchers also ask follow-up questions that further the discussion, while the documentary does not focus on deepening the research in the future.
Conclusion
The documentary The Great Hack presents significant information supporting the link between the 2016 presidential election, Brexit, Trump’s campaign, CA, and Facebook data misuse. The film features former CA workers, increasing the work’s validity and making the claims seem trustworthy. Thus, the directors succeed in linking the events and proving their questionable ethics. However, the documentary fails to provide clear descriptions of how data is collected and misused, omitting a discussion of how this problem can be addressed. Therefore, The Great Hack persuades the audience to consider the facts but does not use them as an opportunity to inspire change.
References
Amer, K., & Noujaim, J. (2019). The great hack [Film]. Netflix.
IMDb. (2022a). Jehane Noujaim. Web.
IMDb. (2022b). Karim Amer. Web.
Isaak, J., & Hanna, M. J. (2018). User data privacy: Facebook, Cambridge Analytica, and privacy protection. Computer, 51(8), 56-59.
Laterza, V. (2021). Could Cambridge Analytica have delivered Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential victory? An anthropologist’s look at big data and political campaigning. Public Anthropologist, 3(1), 119-147.