We need your help now
Support from readers like you keeps The Journal open.
You are visiting us because we have something you value. Independent, unbiased news that tells the truth. Advertising revenue goes some way to support our mission, but this year it has not been enough.
If you've seen value in our reporting, please contribute what you can, so we can continue to produce accurate and meaningful journalism. For everyone who needs it.
Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
By continuing, you are indicating that you accept our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
In an Interview with InterOccupy.org, a group that provides channels of communications between the groups across the Occupy movement, Noam Chomsky discusses the impact of the Occupy movement, why it is beneficial to society and where to next. Here is what Noam Chomsky had to say on:
One of the remarkable successes of the Occupy movement is that it changed the entire framework of the discussion on many issues. There were things that were known, but they were in the margins. Now they are right up front like the imagery of the 99 per cent and 1 per cent and the dramatic facts of the rise in inequality over the last 30 years, with the wealth being concentrated in the small fraction of 1 per cent of the population.
Wealth in the majority of incomes has stagnated, benefits have declined, and work hours have gone up and so on. It is not third world misery but it is not what it ought to be in a rich society – in the richest country in the world in fact – with plenty of wealth around. This has now been brought to the fore – it is almost a standard framework of discussion – that is a big shift.
There is sympathy for the goals and aims of the Occupy Movement. It has to further engage people and be something that people feel they can actually do something about. It’s about getting out into communities and not just with a message but to try and spread and deepen their main achievement – creating communities – real functioning communities, communities with support, with democratic interchange, people that care for one another. That is highly significant, especially in a society like ours, a society in which people tend to be very isolated, where neighbourhoods have broken down and structures have broken down.
For 15o years there has been a massive effort to impose the ‘new spirit of the age’ on people - which is to just take care of yourself and don’t bother with anyone else – but it is so inhuman. There is a lot of resistance to it and it continues. One of the real successes of the Occupy movement has been the real rejection of this in a very striking way – the people involved are not in it for themselves, they are in it for one another and for broader society and future generations.
People have problems and concerns, if they can be helped to feel that these problems are part of a broader movement and there are people that support them, then it can take off. While in a suburb of Brazil – a poor district of the city – a small group of media professionals from the town came out regularly and set up a truck in the square at 9 o’clock at night. They had a screen above it and they presented skits, plays, and things written and acted by people in the community.
Some were just for fun but some were serious about debt and AIDS. As people gathered in the square, some walked around with mics for comments. Comments were shown on the screen. People were engaged and talking about quite serious topics that are part of their lives. If it can be done in a poor area in a Brazilian slum you can certainly do it in other ways, in other places. These are the kind of things that can be done to engage broader sections, which can give them a reason to feel that they can be part of this too.
It’s been mixed. At first dismissive, making fun of people – that it was about playing games and silly kids – but it changed. The coverage of the Occupy movement has been varied. In the business press there has been fairly sympathetic coverage but the general picture is – why don’t they go home and just let us get on with our work. Where is their political program? How do they fit into mainstream structure of how things are meant to change and then came the inevitable repression. It was clearly coordinated around the country, some of it was pretty brutal, others less so. There has been a bit of a stand-off, some occupations have been removed, some have filtered back in some other form.
Getting money out of politics is a very crucial matter; it has been for a long time and it is now even more extreme now. It is now at the point where elections are just public relations extravaganzas, where people were just mobilised every four years to get excited – there is a lot of ways of overcoming that.
If someone wants a degree of decision or authority they literally have to buy it. It used to be that the chair of committee was granted on seniority and service, now you literally have to pay the party to be a candidate of a chair. This is not 100 per cent but these are pretty widespread tendencies that are shedding the very fibre of democracy. You can see it in the campaigns which are farcical.
Concentrated wealth will use its wealth and power to take over political systems as much as possible. The public has to find ways to struggle against that and it can be done.
David Hume speaking on the foundations of government said – power is in the hands of the governed. And that is true.
The only way the rulers can overcome is through the control of opinion and attitudes of the population. There are massive efforts out there trying to control it, less by force today, but by other means like propaganda, consumerism, stirring up ethnic hatreds, all kinds of ways, that is always going to be going on – we just have to resist it.
In the 1970s, there was a substantial shift – there was shift towards increasing the role of finance in society. Financial systems are wiping out functioning markets like larvae eats away at its host. During the big growth periods in the 1950s banks were regulated, there were no crises. In the 80′s we started getting crises and bubbles – there were number in the Reagan and Clinton administration. Sub prime mortgages, derivatives, they all took off and created a huge bubble, which was obviously going to burst. It was barely noticed by the economics profession including the Federal Reserve.
It’s a financial casino instead of productive economy. The people that get hurt are not the rich and powerful, it’s the 99 per cent.
(Interview courtesy of InterOccupy.org)
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Interesting man and a good read. Whatever you may think of the occupy movement they got people talking and thinking about topics that otherwise would have passed unnoticed. I for one became more politically aware but aware in a more questioning manner in that i dont just believe what mainstream media portrays as the truth.I am just one how many others began to question and become more informed by the presence of this movement.A wave of political change hopefully on the way and not before time.
It’s inevitable, if not in the next year or two then at least within the next generation or two. If a federal Europe is created in the form of the current proposition it’ll be sooner rather than later, then it’ll be riots on the streets or mass exodus from the PIIGs, or both. Who knows what will happen when the Euro comes tumbling down. Everyone needs to get pro-active in their communities now, that’s for sure. Things definitely need to change.
Noam Chomsky rocks,! great thinker!
I’ve followed him for a number of years,
Great to see this this interview in an Irish media.
It’d be nice to see a piece from Chris Hedges too. Hint! Hint! @theJournal
Big shower of lazy freeloading students from what I could see on Dame Street.
Well if you did see a couple of hippies on same street that must be the entire make up of the occupy movement. Mystery solved so.
There’s a worse shower of freeloaders in Kildare St. We will have to wait to remove them but they will be removed.
The OccupyDameStreet protest was a very bad example. It started okay but lost it’s way. Check out some of what OccupyWallStreet did – a lot more positive & creative.
Freeloaders! The only freeloaders in our society are the banks. Taking our money for nothing in return.
Students dont get the dole so they can hardly be called freeloaders.
The occupy movement might have been usurped by the propaganda machine that makes you believe that the people involved are frivolous drop outs and cranks so that the exploitation can continue, but at the end of the day can you honestly say you ever stopped to think about the injustices of the 1% club before all this?
I absolutely thought about the injustices of the 1% before this!!! However, it was reassuring to see that so were others.
The numbers at ODS were pretty small though, perhaps the propaganda is just too effective here in Ireland. “Protesting doesn’t work”, “this is the only alternative, there are no other options”.
Many people still feel they get the full storey from RTE and the newspapers. It’s difficult to determine how much of the media’s group-think is by design, and how much is just because the journalists have come from similar backgrounds.
It’s great to hear that some people feel they’ve become more aware politically. I think that was it’s main purpose of the global movement. However, I was personally very disappointed in the Irish Occupies.
Here’s a link of Chomsky talking about the Occupy (among other things): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lCidkSR6D8
The Occupy Movement is a complete disaster. All anger and no solution. Anger is not a policy.
Anger is what will shape our next Govt. at the ballot box.
Their idea was good, but they were too passive as a group! They had the interests of Ireland at heart, unlike FG/Labour. At least they stood up for what they believed in!
For someone who I presume is into politics your comment doesn’t give the impression you’ve looked into the occupy movement much and certainly not with an open mind. Maybe because you think the current policies have served us so well thus far?
Capitulation is no policy either, yet that’s the one we are following. Chomsky is one of the few people to see clearly through the “policy bullshit” and see it for what it really is just another trick to keep the wealthy and privileged in positions of power
“your anger is a gift”
But what about Fine Gael – Bullshit is not a policy either.
Well done Journal for featuring Chomsky. One of the finest intellectuals anywhere from any era, who always speaks truth to power.
For those interested, one of Chomsky’s favourite news analysis sites is Medialens.
Fair enough. I should have said ‘how many of you can honestly say you ever thought about the 1% injustices’.
I think the only reason protests don’t work here is that too few people bother to stand up for themselves. The people of this country are too beaten down to bother defending themselves. We are a collective of abuse victims. The British, the Catholics, the financial terrorists….we walk from one abusive relationship to another and like most abuse victims we put up with it because we have no confidence in ourselves and are afraid of what might happen if we stand up and say enough is enough.
Its the older generations who were the victims to all of these and theyre the ones who keep the victim mentality alive by voting these tools in!
Agree with yez both.
The Irish young seem to emigrate rather than stand up making the situation even worse.
People seem convinced of the effective propaganda that “protesting doesn’t work”. The older generation trust the government too much, but they are the ones who know how to protest when they feel aggrieved. It’s massively powerful to have an elderly lady in a wheelchair saying, “I’m not leaving”. They say it calmly, but you’re left in no doubt – they mean it!
Ireland has several issues. We are a welfare state so while people have just about enough shelter, food, booze and cigs, they are never gonna protest in mass. We had 100000 irish unemployed during the boom who were being looked after by the taxpayer and more than likely still are. 430000 unemployed now, why arent they out on the streeets going ape shit?
On the emigration issue, its the skilled and qualified emigrating. They could stay here and do the jobs we have unskilled foreign migrants doing such as working in shops, cafes and hotels but theyd rather go abroad and work in their area of study or travel for a year or two which to,me, is resourceful instead of going on the dole. We have so many skilled graduates, can there ever be enough jobs for all of them in a country this size?
Because in the words of Benjamin Franklin “any government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always rely on the support of Paul”.
at what point is violence acceptable? if someone approached one of your children with the intention of robbing them would you act in a physical way to defend them? yet this is exactly what has happened, not only have they robbed what you currently have, they have put each of your children €40k in debt, do you wait till theres nothing left or fight now to protect your family? the fact occupy and other activist movements drew this line meant they werent serious and nothing for the powers that be to fear
Cannot agree on the violence issue though your passion is admirable. Violence on the streets will do nothing to remedy the current situation and certainly not encourage investment. What would initiate change is a prolonged, sustained, and viable alternative party to the current lot who have delusions of adequacy. Occupy could be the seed of this.
but the change is too slow, and all the while we lose more and more, in a very short time we could be too weak to act, i dont meand physically, but depression destroys motivation, i disagree about the owners of the delusions of adequacy, the elected members hold no such delusions, they dont care about it at all, their real purpose is the retention of power and ensuring europe continues to pay their salaries and pensions, instead, i say its the people who elect them that are deluded, they have us at each others throats, the propaganda works
“those that make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable”-JFK
So are you suggesting violent action?
From you’re comment, I’m guessing you mean violence onto people?
The Irish media (for some bizarre reason) would call hitting a plane with a hammer violence. They would call vandalism, such as burning a bank violence. I can’t really understand that given the history of personal violence onto people. Personally, I would not consider that to be violent.
Iceland’s uprising is accepted as being totally peaceful, but it did involve destruction of property. It has resulted in actual change http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-20/icelandic-anger-brings-record-debt-relief-in-best-crisis-recovery-story.html
If the Occupy movement crossed into violence it would loose out. The state’s weaponry and capacity for violence far exceeds that of the citizens. Citizens’ can only hope to create positive change by having persistent and honest opposition.
I guess it depends if you want democracy or some other system. Democracy depends on the majority. It depends on people knowing what’s going on. It’s the info-wars that need to be fought. The likes of Sean Sherlock’s SOPA legislation, that threatens our freedom.
I don’t mean to be lecturing you here – it’s just that violence really doesn’t sound like a good idea if you want to create a caring society.
Come on now Revolting Peasant – you make a lot of sense.
Peaceful revolution is *not* impossible. It’s a big “if”, but if people become more aware – which they are – then peaceful revolution is very possible.
A flash-in-the-pan revolution is not much use, it must be slow and steady change.
*make a lot of sense most of the time*
i am not advocating violence as a weapon but as a defence, i feel we are under attack, certainly i can see nothing wrong with what the icelandic people did, when they surrounded parliament and drove the politicians out of office using pots and pans as drums, there are a few institutions in this country that could use similar treatment
We are under attack. Definitely. But not in a direct physical sense.
I would love to see a prolonged and sustained pots and pans campaign outside the dail as well as constituency offices. Unfortunately it is up to the unemployed and students to radicalise this kind of movement and maintain it.
I’d do it but I live too far away :)
At some point though, we’d need to determine what it is we want and how to achieve it. That’s not at all easy, and after ODS, I’m not sure it’s possible to do on a national scale.
Personally, I think the system is broken. I want an utter re-structuring of society and for each town in Ireland to become a transition town. We could have our currencies like the Bristol Pound http://bbc.in/yZ3RF2. It would (hopefully) be good for local business, but big business wouldn’t like.
Also I’m not convinced that the horizontal consensus decision making in ODS can produce results. It seems to me that hierarchical structures are needed and, as with ODS, those structures develop of their informally of their own accord. It’s how we choose who’s leading that I feel we need to focus on.
I would find it very difficult to sit through another badly focused consensus meeting that goes on for ages, breaks up in agreement, with no one assigned to any of the tasks.
cant comment?
hmm, thats weird, been trying to make a comment and it wont post,@Gordon i believe the attack is physical as the repaying of gambling losses by taking money from the people, directly effects their ability to provide basic needs such as food, heating medicine etc, as such it directly effects peoples physical well being
Fair enough, it does manifest itself physically.
I have to admit to thinking of stamping on Brain Hayes’ face from time to time, but it’s not the way forward. Violence begets violence.
Some of the most effective protests in the world have been peaceful. In fact I don’t know of violent ones that ever end well.
If we want lasting change it will be slow and methodical. The Occupy thing has been a beginning, but it hopefully won’t end there.
Violence isn’t enevitable because when nobody has any disposable income left to purchase any of their products, the businesses of these rich people will collapse, it’s enevitable, question is how much more austerity can the public endure before the rich wise up. The current state of affairs is in nobody’s interest whether you’re a hardcore socialist or a hardcore capitalist.
Love Chomsky. He has a unique knack for seeing the bigger picture. Always interesting.
Absolute bollocks Andrew, he views the west exactly as he views the east, vested interests looking to protect their power and influence. They are the opposite sides of the same coin.
@ Brian – A Chomsky / Herman analysis a la Manufacturing Consent of Chomsky re: West vs East coverage would quickly explode the fallacy of your statement. Feel free for example to check out how many books he’s written about the transgressions of socialist regimes…
@ Brian. I see you posted to me an hour ago up above, but have yet to provide me with chapter and verse as to how Chomsky has stuck it to Socialist regimes over the years. Interesting that.
Andrew, take a couple of paracetamol and chill.
Chomsky’s philosophy has always been that people should act within their own sphere of influence i.e. at home, he cannot advocate for democratic change in China or Cuba when he doesn’t live in China or Cuba he lives in the United States which also happens to be the global superpower. To suggest he has a “has a gargantuan blind spot” to brutal or opressive regimes elsewhere in the world is patently untrue and a complete misrepresentation of the man. What do you mean by anti Western, because he doesn’t cheerlead for his government? If I don’t cheerlead for the policies of my government does that me anti-Irish or anti Western? Get real.
SUN WOO LEE: The Bush administration has declared that North Korea is part of the Axis of Evil, and is spurring up the level of its pressure on North Korea. What effect will this rhetoric have in connection with the mood of reconciliation and peace developing on the Korean peninsula? What do you think of the North Korean leader, Jong Il Kim?
NOAM CHOMSKY: North Korea is one of the most horrible countries in the world, nothing good to say about it.
But the question is : “what do you do about it ?” You try to make it worse or try to move towards reconciliation and improve matters. The Bush administration is making it worse. This hysterical rhetoric is going – predictably – going to increase North Korean efforts to develop a nuclear deterrent. And as the South Korean president pointed out, you don’t want them to do it, but it is understandable why they would. You threaten a country with destruction and they’re not going to say. “Thank you, here is my throat, cut it.” They are going to try to find some way to react. There are only two ways to react. Nobody is going to fight the U.S. military. The U.S. depends about as much on the military as the rest of the world combined. It’s technologically far more advanced – such an enormous destructive capacity – that nobody is going to fight a war with it, which leaves two possibilities for a deterrent. One is nuclear weapons and the other is terror. And so by carrying out meaningful threats against other countries, you’re simply inspiring terror and nuclear proliferation.
(Monthly JoongAng, January 24, 2006)
Used to take Chomsky seriously until I attended an Amnesty Int. lecture given by him in the RDS in the mid noughties. When asked at the end if he could think of a time when military force was ever justified he replied that there probably were some but that the only one he could think of off the top of his head, was the Japanese invasion of South-East Asia prior to WW2, which he said brought an end to Western hegemony in the region. Bear in mind this action also involved the rape of Nanking, with 250,000 civilians being killed by Japanese Imperial forces. Also bear in mind he didn’t think that stopping Hitler was a justifiable military action, bear in mind that stopping Serbian forces around Sarajevo in the nineties wasn’t a justifiable military intervention, bear in mind that bringing down the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan post 9/11 wasn’t a justifiable military intervention. Or Somalia in 1994. The list is endless. Noam Chomsky is as much a peddler of a vested interest / political and financial perspective as anything you’ll see in the Wall St. Journal or the FT. He is very far from an honest broker.
I disagree with his ideas on military force, even though I must admit I don’t understand them fully.
Though I agree with a majority of his views, especially regarding economic and political structures and his analyses of them. Also, I’d like to say I take anyone seriously, especially if I disagree with them, but they can back up their points. Is there a video or transcript of that lecture, by any chance? If so I’d love to see it!
Andrew Eager, If you read his book “Hegemony or Survival” he explains his reasoning on “justifiable military interventions”
Its not as “black & white”as your synopsis
@ Joost. You could ask the Amnesty guys. They may have a copy.
@ Caroline. I can only take the man at his word, what more can I do? Chomsky is a West-hating westerner who can only ever see harm and malice in anything the Capitalist West does because he’s a card carrying socialist who has a gargantuan blind spot to all the harm Socialism has done in any of it’s manifestations over the last century. When did you last hear him address the issue of Socialist / Marxist N. Korea, who’s regime in the mid-nineties, redirected food aid from the West to feed it’s 1 million strong army, while 2 million N. Koreans died of starvation? I think you’ll find Mr Chomsky and his fellow travelers are pro-actively silent on such issues. Let us be spared the hubris of ideologues of whatever hue, is all.
@andrew – because you disagree with Chomsky on military intervention you automatically discount his thesis on economics? I may not agree with everyone on Occupy but I might agree with them on public sector reform for instance.
@ Scarr. I stopped taking him seriously because in the final analysis, he’s as jaundiced as a London City Banker. His work can give pause for thought certainly, but the cult of personality around him, equally should give pause for thought. Too many followers and not enough leaders. We are in the state we’re in because individually people have chosen not to be leaders because it involves too much sacrifice and exposure. Much easier to follow someone and blame them when it all goes wrong, than lead yourself for yourself and have to take the rap when it goes pear-shaped.
Andrew, To write Chomsky off as a “west hating westerner” is quite simplistic, and suggests you haven’t read much of his work, If you read the interview in this link
http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/20060124.htm
you will find the quote below
NOAM CHOMSKY: North Korea is one of the most horrible countries in the world, nothing good to say about it.
To equate totalitarianism in North Korea with Socialism suggests you have an agenda Andrew.
@ Caroline. One of us has some sort of a Stalinist fist in their avatar and one of us doesn’t. Which one do you think a reasonable person would conclude has an agenda?
And to quote me just one line out of Chomsky’s considerable output is pretty poor fare, in fairness. As emaciated an effort as the bodies of the N. Korean citizens that Chomsky and his fellow travelers would prefer us not to dwell on, for fear that Socialism/Marxism be exposed as being just as morally bankrupt as unfettered Capitalism.
And all is sweetness and light in capitalist regimes I’m sure.
Andrew, you are now applying labels to attempt to ram home your point, read up on the symbol I use, Like Socialism it has nothing to do with Totalitarianism (Stalin).
You have not produced any quotes to back up your claims, only your understanding of a lecture given by Chomsky which is completely at odds to his writings.
If there was sufficient oil & gas reserves in North Korea I’m sure the West would invade/liberate and give the starving population a good dose of freedom&democracy/Shock&awe
@ Brian. Straw man arguments? Is that all you can bring to the table? Like it or not there is a direct correlation between the amount of political freedom and the amount of financial freedom (.i.e. true right to private property). The fact of the matter is that even Communist China has realised that Socialism is fundamentally flawed in that it diminishes productivity, which is why it is now pursuing deregulation of its own economy coupled with a very old school imperial commercial rights land grab in Africa. No where has Socialism in its proper form been shown to succeed. Nor has unfettered Capitalism. The why of those facts lies with the not small issue of humans being human, will corrupt any system. The best we can aspire to is to marry the social concern and justice of Socialism with the productivity of Capitalism. Ideas, like fire, are good servants but bad masters. You ideologically driven types of both left and right would do well to get that old saw writ large somewhere so it better informs your perspective. Just saying, is all.
@ Caroline. Educate me. What does the symbol in your avatar mean. In my ignorance I don’t know how to google an image.
As for the remainder of your point, why is it that whenever socialist leaning people are confronted with the reality of what Socialist revolutions / experiments inevitably end up in, the response is invariably ‘that’s not real socialism’. How many chances to get it right do you want exactly?
I also reckon that it will be your Chinese friends who will have to tackle N. Korea, as it’s so bad it’s embarrassing them. But what do I know, maybe all those NGOs were lying to us, eh?
@ Caroline. For the record, I was so shocked by his remark at the lecture, I asked the guy beside me, and he confirmed that I had understood Chomsky correctly.
Btw, it is neither polite nor respectful to call people liars without any proof of it to hand. Just so you know.
Andrew, I have not called you a liar, just asked you to provide proof of your claims, which you still have not done,thereby invalidating your argument.
If Noam Chomsky cannot educate you what chance have I ?
Re China Andrew, here’s another fact, communism and socialism are not the same thing:
Here’s a transcript of the Amnesty Lecture from 2006, I assume that is the one under discussion. Unfortunately there is no transcript of his responses to audience questions, however I have attached a transcript of the 1967 debate with Hannah Arendt, Susan Sontag, Conor Cruise O’Brien “The Legitimacy of Violence as a Political Act?” which may address some of the points raised above by Andrew. If I come accross anything else of relevance I’m post it later.
@andrew. Your comments regarding Chomsky are tedious. You read like a cliche.
Ball not the man, and your post might have some merit. The sum total of your contribution to the discussion thus far = 0. Good job.
hmm… TheJournal acting very buggy. All the comments have disappeared?! and I can’t post
Quote from post above “Used to take Chomsky seriously until I attended an Amnesty Int. lecture given by him in the RDS in the mid noughties. When asked at the end if he could think of a time when military force was ever justified he replied that there probably were some but that the only one he could think of off the top of his head, was the Japanese invasion of South-East Asia prior to WW2, which he said brought an end to Western hegemony in the region. Bear in mind this action also involved the rape of Nanking, with 250,000 civilians being killed by Japanese Imperial forces”.
This is a complete distortion of Chomsky’s views. Read his interview with the Irish Times at http://www.irishtimes.com/focus/chomsky/interview.htm :
“The Saff Commission, which is basically the old Non – Aligned Movement in a different form, which represents about 80 per cent of the population of the world — not democratically , but at least it’s their governments — right after the bombing of Serbia they had their highest level meeting ever and produced a long document.
One part of it was that they flatly reject the so – called “ right of humanitarian intervention ”. They’ve had enough experience with it over the last couple of centuries.
And if you try to find cases, it’s very, very hard. I mean, just to illustrate, perhaps the main scholarly work by Cole on humanitarian intervention in the legal literature which covers the period of roughly the 20th century, found three cases of humanitarian intervention prior to the UN Charter.
You know what they were? Mussolini’s invasion of Abyssinia, Hitler’s takeover of the Sudetenland, and Japan’s invasion of Manchuria in North China. It’s not that the author regarded them as humanitarian, it’s that they were carried out with a very impressive humanitarian rhetoric and in fact a fair amount of support in the West, not open support , but tacit support.
That’s humanitarian intervention. Trace back the history and you find almost nothing.”
Chomsky is making a simple point – that “humanitarian intervention” is mostly cynical self-interest dressed up, as carried out by Mussolini, Hitler and Hirohito. For anyone to somehow twist that into an allegation that Chomsky supports the Japanese Rape of Nanking, while alleging that CHOMSKY is the idealogical one……!!!!!????!!!!
Use precise geolocation data. Actively scan device characteristics for identification. Store and/or access information on a device. Personalised advertising and content, advertising and content measurement, audience research and services development.
These cookies are necessary for the website to function and cannot be switched off in our systems. They are usually only set in response to actions made by you which amount to a request for services, such as setting your privacy preferences, logging in or filling in forms. You can set your browser to block or alert you about these cookies, but some parts of the site will not then work.
These cookies are set by a range of social media services that we have added to the site to enable you to share our content with your friends and networks. They are capable of tracking your browser across other sites and building up a profile of your interests. This may impact the content and messages you see on other websites you visit. If you do not allow these cookies you may not be able to use or see these sharing tools.
These cookies may be set through our site by our advertising partners. They may be used by those companies to build a profile of your interests and show you relevant adverts on other sites. They do not store directly personal information, but are based on uniquely identifying your browser and internet device. If you do not allow these cookies, you will experience less targeted advertising.
These cookies enable the website to provide enhanced functionality and personalisation. They may be set by us or by third party providers whose services we have added to our pages. If you do not allow these cookies then these services may not function properly.
These cookies allow us to count visits and traffic sources so we can measure and improve the performance of our site. They help us to know which pages are the most and least popular and see how visitors move around the site. All information these cookies collect is aggregated and therefore anonymous. If you do not allow these cookies we will not be able to monitor our performance.
Cookies, device or similar online identifiers (e.g. login-based identifiers, randomly assigned identifiers, network based identifiers) together with other information (e.g. browser type and information, language, screen size, supported technologies etc.) can be stored or read on your device to recognise it each time it connects to an app or to a website, for one or several of the purposes presented here.
Advertising presented to you on this service can be based on limited data, such as the website or app you are using, your non-precise location, your device type or which content you are (or have been) interacting with (for example, to limit the number of times an ad is presented to you).
Information about your activity on this service (such as forms you submit, content you look at) can be stored and combined with other information about you (for example, information from your previous activity on this service and other websites or apps) or similar users. This is then used to build or improve a profile about you (that might include possible interests and personal aspects). Your profile can be used (also later) to present advertising that appears more relevant based on your possible interests by this and other entities.
Advertising presented to you on this service can be based on your advertising profiles, which can reflect your activity on this service or other websites or apps (like the forms you submit, content you look at), possible interests and personal aspects.
Information about your activity on this service (for instance, forms you submit, non-advertising content you look at) can be stored and combined with other information about you (such as your previous activity on this service or other websites or apps) or similar users. This is then used to build or improve a profile about you (which might for example include possible interests and personal aspects). Your profile can be used (also later) to present content that appears more relevant based on your possible interests, such as by adapting the order in which content is shown to you, so that it is even easier for you to find content that matches your interests.
Content presented to you on this service can be based on your content personalisation profiles, which can reflect your activity on this or other services (for instance, the forms you submit, content you look at), possible interests and personal aspects. This can for example be used to adapt the order in which content is shown to you, so that it is even easier for you to find (non-advertising) content that matches your interests.
Information regarding which advertising is presented to you and how you interact with it can be used to determine how well an advert has worked for you or other users and whether the goals of the advertising were reached. For instance, whether you saw an ad, whether you clicked on it, whether it led you to buy a product or visit a website, etc. This is very helpful to understand the relevance of advertising campaigns.
Information regarding which content is presented to you and how you interact with it can be used to determine whether the (non-advertising) content e.g. reached its intended audience and matched your interests. For instance, whether you read an article, watch a video, listen to a podcast or look at a product description, how long you spent on this service and the web pages you visit etc. This is very helpful to understand the relevance of (non-advertising) content that is shown to you.
Reports can be generated based on the combination of data sets (like user profiles, statistics, market research, analytics data) regarding your interactions and those of other users with advertising or (non-advertising) content to identify common characteristics (for instance, to determine which target audiences are more receptive to an ad campaign or to certain contents).
Information about your activity on this service, such as your interaction with ads or content, can be very helpful to improve products and services and to build new products and services based on user interactions, the type of audience, etc. This specific purpose does not include the development or improvement of user profiles and identifiers.
Content presented to you on this service can be based on limited data, such as the website or app you are using, your non-precise location, your device type, or which content you are (or have been) interacting with (for example, to limit the number of times a video or an article is presented to you).
With your acceptance, your precise location (within a radius of less than 500 metres) may be used in support of the purposes explained in this notice.
With your acceptance, certain characteristics specific to your device might be requested and used to distinguish it from other devices (such as the installed fonts or plugins, the resolution of your screen) in support of the purposes explained in this notice.
Your data can be used to monitor for and prevent unusual and possibly fraudulent activity (for example, regarding advertising, ad clicks by bots), and ensure systems and processes work properly and securely. It can also be used to correct any problems you, the publisher or the advertiser may encounter in the delivery of content and ads and in your interaction with them.
Certain information (like an IP address or device capabilities) is used to ensure the technical compatibility of the content or advertising, and to facilitate the transmission of the content or ad to your device.
Information about your activity on this service may be matched and combined with other information relating to you and originating from various sources (for instance your activity on a separate online service, your use of a loyalty card in-store, or your answers to a survey), in support of the purposes explained in this notice.
In support of the purposes explained in this notice, your device might be considered as likely linked to other devices that belong to you or your household (for instance because you are logged in to the same service on both your phone and your computer, or because you may use the same Internet connection on both devices).
Your device might be distinguished from other devices based on information it automatically sends when accessing the Internet (for instance, the IP address of your Internet connection or the type of browser you are using) in support of the purposes exposed in this notice.
The choices you make regarding the purposes and entities listed in this notice are saved and made available to those entities in the form of digital signals (such as a string of characters). This is necessary in order to enable both this service and those entities to respect such choices.
Non-TCF/GVL Vendors
have your say