Wednesday, February 19, 2020

How Dangerous Do You Think Facebook Is To Democracies?

>


On Monday, the Financial Times published a letter from George Soros calling for Mark Zuckerberg and Sheryl Sanderberg to be removed from controlling Facebook:
Mark Zuckerberg should stop obfuscating the facts by piously arguing for government regulation ("We need more regulation of Big Tech," February 17).

Mr Zuckerberg appears to be engaged in some kind of mutual assistance arrangement with Donald Trump that will help him to get re-elected. Facebook does not need to wait for government regulations to stop accepting any political advertising in 2020 until after the elections on November 4. If there is any doubt whether an ad is political, it should err on the side of caution and refuse to publish. It is unlikely that Facebook will follow this course.

Therefore, I repeat my proposal, Mark Zuckerberg and Sheryl Sandberg should be removed from control of Facebook. (It goes without saying that I support government regulation of social media platforms.)
I hope that works-- before the election. Watch this video interview with a former Trump campaign executive that was posted by the BBC in 2017 that explains how the Trump campaign used Facebook to worm his way into the White House.


Q: What were Facebook and Google and YouTube people actually doing here; why were they here? (at Trump's digital campaign headquarters)

A: They were helping us... They were basically our hands-on partners as far as being able to utilize the platform as effectively as possible... When you're pumping in millions and millions of dollars to these social platforms, you're going to get white glove treatment. So, they would send people to the Project Alamo to ensure that all of our needs were being met. Without Facebook, we wouldn't;'t have won. Facebook really and truly put us over the edge. Facebook was the medium that proved most successful for this campaign.


Last month, a Facebook executive, Andrew Bosworth, made a similar claim, namely that Facebook out Trump in the White House.
Bosworth, a close friend of the firm's chief Mark Zuckerberg, made the remark in an internal memo last week.

Mr Bosworth said Mr Trump was not elected because of "misinformation," but "because he ran the single best digital ad campaign I've ever seen from any advertiser. Period."

...Bosworth's note discussed many of Facebook's high-profile scandals, including alleged Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.

Mr Bosworth told staff that it was not foreign interference that helped Mr Trump get elected, but his well-planned campaign.

"So was Facebook responsible for Donald Trump getting elected?" questioned the long-time employee. "I think the answer is yes, but not for the reasons anyone thinks."
Political manipulation through Facebook is probably here to stay and by "here," I mean the planet earth. ZDNet Tuesday: "Facebook has called out the Singapore government for its use of the country's Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act to block access to a page on the social networking platform. The move goes against an earlier pledge that the legislation will not be used to censor voices, says the US internet giant. Singapore's Ministry of Communications and Information on Monday instructed Facebook to block access to the States Times Review page, after the latter repeatedly refused to comply with previous directives issued under POFMA. The 'disabling' order, outlined under Section 34 of the Act, requires Facebook to disable access for local users. The order came two days after the ministry served a directive for the STR page on Facebook to be tagged a 'Declared Online Location.' This required the author of the page, Alex Tan, to publish a notice on the page stating it had 'a history of communicating falsehoods.' The order, which was to take effect from February 16, was not complied with, prompting the directive for Facebook to block access to the page. The page is no longer accessible in Singapore... In defending the decision to issue the disabling order against the STR page, Minister for Communications and Information S. Iswaran said the government needed to 'act swiftly' against falsehoods amidst the coronavirus outbreak. 'Because if we don't, then these falsehoods can cause anxiety, fear, and even panic,' the minister said Tuesday during a media doorstop."





Republican oligarch Michael Bloomberg has been spending a million dollars per day on manipulative Facebook ads that seem to be working very well for him.


Labels: , , ,

5 Comments:

At 8:13 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

All we need is a modern Cardinal Richelieu and an update to his famous dictum:

"Give me six tweets or entries posted on Facebook by the most honest man & I will find something to hang him."

Zuck Phuquerberg!

 
At 2:41 AM, Blogger Procopius said...

Sounds to me like an advertisement to sell the effectiveness of Facebook as an advertising medium, so they can sell more ads. These people make a very good living selling their expertise as makers of advertisements, whether those ads are really effective or not. Of course they are going to say those ads were crucial to their success. I think if that were the case both parties and Mike Bloomberg would be better served to hire Internet Research Agency, the Russian company that made ads showing cute puppies in 2016.

 
At 8:25 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Maybe they did think so, 6:01. As the late and unlamented Antonin Scalia once chided, there is no right to vote in the Constitution. The Founders were reluctant to give everyone the franchise to vote. That didn't come for the unpropertied man until later, and even later yet for other voting groups. One can make a case that the Founders' fears might well have been realized.

 
At 2:17 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'd agree 8:25, but they also relied on a free and unfettered press. Colossally stupid voters would fail to support the press among their first fuckups.

of course, there really is little a system of government that is elected could do to ensure the electorate was smart enough to elect a useful one.

One might presume that a society would generally respect intellect and learning. One would definitely be wrong, then.

you can't fix stupid.

 
At 4:07 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't even try to fix stupid, 2:17. The success rate is horrible and the costs for the attempt far greater than I'm willing to spend.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home