Party zoology.

As it turns out that after the Beast of Morisi there was also the beast of Renzi, people are starting to feel that having "the beast" is a rather common thing for parties. And it is: if it weren't, we wouldn't have politics reduced to what it is today.

Let's start from the beginning. What are these "beasts". This is the application to the software policy and methodologies called "CRM": https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Customer_relationship_management

These are computerized systems that have different objectives:

• understand in advance what the customer likes
• understand what the customer did not like
• understand which customer has more money to spend
• increase the number of customers per followup

You understand well that if we replace the word "customer" with the word "voter", we have a system similar to that of companies, with the difference that it is used by parties.

These systems consist of a series of functions such as fake interaction, when they send you messages starting with your name, the channeling of messages on social networks, customer profiling, and a whole series of techniques normally called "marketing" .

Those who have worked with big data know that this is almost always illegal under the GDPR, but obviously techniques have been developed to circumvent these prohibitions, in particular data aggregation and parametric profiling, and thousands of others, depending on how the seller calls them.

What is the problem with this vision? What effect does it have on companies? And on the parties?

As the Wiki article, which appears to be written by a CRM vendor, says, when you want to work using a CRM, the company has to change the way it works, and CRM has to be the center of it all. The internal culture must change. What does it mean?

It means that any form of business or business ethics becomes secondary to market metrics. What does it mean?

Suppose we are a record company. Indeed, better: let's suppose we are the old MTV, that is to say, a music channel of the left, very left, and therefore very equal towards gays and women.

Good.

But tomorrow comes the Hip Hop, the RAP and all the machismo, the bling bling, the pimp-ho, and everything that comes with it. In other words, a musical genre that insults gays and commodifies the woman who in comparison Weinstein was Hypatia of Alexandria.

The company with an old management would have said “hey, this stuff is obviously creepy. We will NEVER put it on the air ”.

The company that has bowed to the "CRM" way of working, however, notes that customers appreciate these two or three pilot videos, and sacrifices everything, even the past brand (of equal company to gays and women), to new trend it has detected. What does it mean?

It means that the owner starts wandering around the offices saying "RAP is the future, from tomorrow men have to come dressed as a pimp and women learn to twerk and dress like street prostitutes"

Now, someone will say that then the feminists will be pissed and the TV will be lynched and all because it is a "vague" commodification of women. But no. Because even the managers of the "stars" of feminism, such as the star of the American blacks, eg Ocasio Cortez, know very well that this stuff "pulls", and they too have switched to the "CRM method".

Let me explain.

The feminist leader has a CRM system, and so does Ocasio Cortez. This happens:

• the feminist leader stands up and shouts that the RAP commodifies the woman (literally, since she calls her a "hooker", that is, a prostitute from the sidewalk) and that it is a male gender that invites violence and toxic masculinity (having as a model the "pimp", that is the pimp, it is difficult to blame her). He says it. It ends up on social media. Her CRM says this has given her + 3% users, 60% loyalty, etc etc. She will therefore be encouraged to repeat this quarrel.
• Ocasio Cortez arrives and replies "hands off the black music of the glorious African American people, whoever attacks her is a racist!". He says it. She gets interviewed while twerking dressed as a whore. His CRM, in turn, says that Ocasio Cortez now has + 3% users, another 60% loyalty, etc etc. She will then be tempted to show up with rap singers, etc.

This obviously makes the overall message illegible: if after this quarrel someone asked me what the overall message is, the answer would be "according to the American left, if you are a black you can beat a woman and then send her into prostitution, brag about it, while a white does not He can do it".

An ambiguous message, but from the point of view of the "CRM culture" they are both effective, if not synergistic, that is, the quarrel helps both personalities.

So far, I believe I have described something that we have seen happening every day.

The problem when we introduce the "culture of CRM" into politics is that consensus can be hostile. That is, if I am Trump and I want the left to divide, all I have to do is use MY CRM system (which also includes the possibility of producing artificial consent, such as false likes, etc.) and be the one to produce the + 3% of both candidates. Maybe the black feminist thinks that the RAP is a little macho, and so she doesn't understand the AOC so much, but Trump's followers come and click "like", and the AOC CRM decides that "I beat my wife with a can 'cause I can, I am a man ”is the song of the year, and it will be Trump's followers who will boost Ocasio Cortez's CRM. The left will still be divided in the controversy, which suits Trump, will lose consensus on the ground, but from the point of view of CRM everything went well.

The same can happen if the Russians, or other powers that want to radicalize and destabilize countries, come into play: just drug their CRM with bogus consensus, and you can make any party say what you want. Those who convinced Renzi that he would gain consent by dropping the Zan decree, for example, used this method: for months and months he raised the "consensus" every time Iv said something against the decree. CRM detected this peak, and Iv became opposed to the decree. At the next elections, Renzi will understand that it was a Northern League consensus, which does not bring votes to him.

The problem with using CRMs in politics is that CRMs can be heterodirected. Not much happens in the corporate world, but in politics the rules of the game are different.

And the parties that have "the beast" are all puppets. Because, said as it must be said, on social networks CRMs do not see reality: they see the algorithms of facebook, twitter, etc. With all the bots, companies that are likes, dwarfs and dancers.

And in the case of politics, they may find an investment aimed at drugging the database of others, an investment that pays little in the corporate world, makes sense.

When a party buys "a beast", in reality it has bought a donkey. And as if that weren't enough, a blind ass.