It would be helpful to see some of these fake sites as an example of their propaganda.
23
And this differs from other forms of post Citizens United political activity how?
18
The first sentence contradicts The NY Times reporting. The Times and other media outlets stated that the ads did not specifically name either candidate. They were not "anti Hillary" or "pro Trump"as the author states. No one really knows what effect these ads had on the readers. To state otherwise is pure conjecture but the author writes as if this was carefully researched.
Allow me some pure conjecture. No one should rely on Facebook for news. If you do, you are allowing yourself to be deceived, manipulated and reduced to a marketing target. Please subscribe and pay for subscriptions to your local paper, the NYT, WSJ or any other reputable media source. Your money will keep free speech alive.
Allow me some pure conjecture. No one should rely on Facebook for news. If you do, you are allowing yourself to be deceived, manipulated and reduced to a marketing target. Please subscribe and pay for subscriptions to your local paper, the NYT, WSJ or any other reputable media source. Your money will keep free speech alive.
26
I would much rather deal with Facebook's "fake" news myself than have someone in government decide what I can or cannot be allowed to read.
11
How about relying on our own judgement and self protection rather than a nanny state to protect us from evil? Guess what; there is free speech and freedom of the press that allows people to say what they want with (rare exceptions) no prior restraint. (Subject to subsequent lawsuits for fraud or slander.)
Is there some expectation that Facebook will review every word that everyone prints on every page and use some "accepted" (ha!) standard for rejecting the part that does not comply? This is the absolute exact contradiction to the exercise of Free Speech. Perhaps someone could review all political ads and deny publication to those that seemed inappropriate -- perhaps most of them.
It is simply routinely obvious that quite a few people and organizations exploit the right of free speech to a maximum extent and leave the American People to decide for themselves whether it is true or not. Our beloved President is renowned for routine dalliances with hyperbole (lies). Should his Tweets be censored? By whom?
The responsibility to think critically about what is said or printed publicly is a fundamental requirement in a democracy with free speech. No one is going to filter out just the good stuff for us to hear. Nor should anyone be doing that filtering!
Is there some expectation that Facebook will review every word that everyone prints on every page and use some "accepted" (ha!) standard for rejecting the part that does not comply? This is the absolute exact contradiction to the exercise of Free Speech. Perhaps someone could review all political ads and deny publication to those that seemed inappropriate -- perhaps most of them.
It is simply routinely obvious that quite a few people and organizations exploit the right of free speech to a maximum extent and leave the American People to decide for themselves whether it is true or not. Our beloved President is renowned for routine dalliances with hyperbole (lies). Should his Tweets be censored? By whom?
The responsibility to think critically about what is said or printed publicly is a fundamental requirement in a democracy with free speech. No one is going to filter out just the good stuff for us to hear. Nor should anyone be doing that filtering!
8
Nonsense.
Facebook is not responsible for protecting the security of American Presidential elections. That was President Barack Obama's job.
Donald Trump won. Vladimir Putin won. James Comey won. Julian Assange won. They do not work for nor with Facebook.
America is not a democracy. America is a Constitutional divided limited power republic that elects the President of the United States based upon the democratic popular vote in 50 states plus the District of Columbia. This is used to allocate the electors in the Electoral College.
Facebook is not responsible for protecting the security of American Presidential elections. That was President Barack Obama's job.
Donald Trump won. Vladimir Putin won. James Comey won. Julian Assange won. They do not work for nor with Facebook.
America is not a democracy. America is a Constitutional divided limited power republic that elects the President of the United States based upon the democratic popular vote in 50 states plus the District of Columbia. This is used to allocate the electors in the Electoral College.
9
We still have a free country. Everyone even foreign governments has the First Amendment right to say whatever they want. If Facebook wants to allow anyone to post then its OK with me. Facebook is not part of the government but a private business. Self censorship is what is needed. If you don't like a Facebook page, don't look at it. If you beleive that even half of what is posted on social media is true, I'll sell you the Golden Gate Bridge, real cheap!
6
This is shades of 'Skynet' controlling our existence with the revelation of Facebook accepting anonymous advertising. Facebook needs reigning in quickly and affirmatively to eliminate unknown unidentified outside influences that can sway opinions against our best instincts. Facebook is just another example of group think at best.
9
The title of this op-ed says it all. Losing democracy is serious and the consequences, as history shows, are even more serious. The consequences of this new powerful source of propaganda can easily threaten the well-being of most of the people and bend the future to just a few.
Historically this power will have a negative effect on our species. Electing a global warming denialist to the White House and confirming a Presidential cabinet that has accepted the argument of the Cooler Heads Coalition in its fight against global warming regulations will hasten the collapse of civilization by delay in the research and development of technologies that allow the World to prosper without fossil fuels.
Dr. James Powell has proposed a pathway for the US to follow that will economically evolve the economy away from fossil fuels and broadly share the benefits. The Pathway is described in "Silent Earth" in detail, but quickly, the Pathway consists of using Maglev to launch solar satellites to orbit to beam very cheap electricity to the whole World, and Maglev transport networks, which will transfer trucks and freight at 300 mph, and provide very fast, smooth, and affordable commuter service for our urban populations.
Cheap electricity can be trans formative. Providing the energy needed to make synthetic jet and diesel fuel from air and water.
We need to get started on the pathway, the permafrost is thawing and once its global warming emissions runaway, it is all over.
Historically this power will have a negative effect on our species. Electing a global warming denialist to the White House and confirming a Presidential cabinet that has accepted the argument of the Cooler Heads Coalition in its fight against global warming regulations will hasten the collapse of civilization by delay in the research and development of technologies that allow the World to prosper without fossil fuels.
Dr. James Powell has proposed a pathway for the US to follow that will economically evolve the economy away from fossil fuels and broadly share the benefits. The Pathway is described in "Silent Earth" in detail, but quickly, the Pathway consists of using Maglev to launch solar satellites to orbit to beam very cheap electricity to the whole World, and Maglev transport networks, which will transfer trucks and freight at 300 mph, and provide very fast, smooth, and affordable commuter service for our urban populations.
Cheap electricity can be trans formative. Providing the energy needed to make synthetic jet and diesel fuel from air and water.
We need to get started on the pathway, the permafrost is thawing and once its global warming emissions runaway, it is all over.
1
One doesn't need Facebook to share photos with friends and family, not in today's digital landscape. FB is for the intellectually lazy of us who just want to plug in and 'see what's happening.' Zuckerberg knows this, he knows he will always have a captive audience he can use for his social experiments--our election being the latest.
16
Most countries have nothing to hide but their own security-methods. Most people in just about every country in the world know what they can trust their government with and what they cannot trust their government with, all except the people of Russia, whose government seems to be the only country playing these games.
I think Putin may have become threatened when countries started sharing intelligence after 9/11. Maybe Putin saw that as he and Russia not being able to use other countries classified secrets as a weapon against them as easily, or to use secrets between countries as often to cause division between countries in his country’s political favor. So, Putin may be coming on strong using Intel as his weapon of power, with the fact that he is also threatened of the worlds social media, where the international public, groups and governments have a new public voice of strength that can influence criticism against him and Russia.
I think Putin may have become threatened when countries started sharing intelligence after 9/11. Maybe Putin saw that as he and Russia not being able to use other countries classified secrets as a weapon against them as easily, or to use secrets between countries as often to cause division between countries in his country’s political favor. So, Putin may be coming on strong using Intel as his weapon of power, with the fact that he is also threatened of the worlds social media, where the international public, groups and governments have a new public voice of strength that can influence criticism against him and Russia.
I use Facebook occasionally to keep up with friends and family. I find the adds and some of my more prolific posting friends are easily ignored. I currently haven't visited fb in several weeks or months. Seems pretty harmless to me. I assume that all public media is subject to abuse, manipulation and misinformation. Now if you really want some distorted, bias opinion or fake news head off to church, synagogue or mosque next week.
4
The only fault of the Facebook or Twitter Internet enabled social communication sites was their callousness at not being able to verify the user accounts through proper filter tools. Beyond this it is perhaps uncalled for to shoot the messenger that had simply carried the message, true or fake.
1
So, what is wrong with the delete button on your computer?
I usually just use "DELETE" for most of the stuff on Facebook. At one time I tried to unsubscribe. That cut it down a bit for awhile.
I usually just use "DELETE" for most of the stuff on Facebook. At one time I tried to unsubscribe. That cut it down a bit for awhile.
4
Many here are saying get off of FB and social media, but some of my longest-time friends are those I stay in touch with overseas via social media, incl. FB. Further, and equally as important, we share posts and news, including articles from newspapers we would not normally see, about like-minded issues. I know that keeps us in our 'bubble', but it also keeps us well informed about the issues that interest us, in this case, what Russia was up to in 2016, and what Mueller and others are doing about it. We shouldn't throw out the baby with the bathwater.
My faith in my Government through the NSA first surfaced when Edward Snowden leaked information about my government having Germany’s Chancellor Merkel’s number amidst classified documentation with Snowden’s interpretation that our government was spying on her. After President Obama said that Chancellor Merkel’s number was somehow collected during a security-scan before his presidential visit to Germany; I had my own suspected interpretation. I think it might be that in order for our government to protect our technology during our scan, our NSA may have masked our scan as Germany’s own security-scan, which might have included Merkel’s number. Perhaps the CIA managed a cover for the NSA ‘in’ our very classified documentation of the scan to infer to any external or internal spies, as Snowden, that we were ‘just’ spying on the German leader, with a warning message that we are watching them watch us.
If I am right, which I will never know, one can see that either the Russian government, that protected Edward Snowden in Russia, are either not capable in their intelligence community to know that, or Russia does know, and are using exploiting Snowden and his accusations against The United States, anyway.
I do not see ‘information’ classified, or otherwise, as the problem; I see certain others exploiting or falsifying other countries information as the problem.
If I am right, which I will never know, one can see that either the Russian government, that protected Edward Snowden in Russia, are either not capable in their intelligence community to know that, or Russia does know, and are using exploiting Snowden and his accusations against The United States, anyway.
I do not see ‘information’ classified, or otherwise, as the problem; I see certain others exploiting or falsifying other countries information as the problem.
I have tried many many times to report the fake news sites on Facebook to no avail. While Zukerberg goes around the country trying to convince people he cares about our country he is responsible for one of the main if not the most dangerous fake news sites.
Facebook needs to block all fake news, these sites are easy to find and at least for now impossible to remove on Facebook.
Facebook needs to block all fake news, these sites are easy to find and at least for now impossible to remove on Facebook.
84
Wrong! The First Amendment guarantees free speech, even fake news. Don't you understand that if you have the right to suppress other people's speech they have the right to suppress yours?
8
I shudder to think of all the time I wasted on Facebook before throwing in the towel and closing my account last November. Endless vitriol, stolen identities, non-stop fake news, scientific disinformation, bigotry, transparently false advertising, and the occasional rational insight. All this so FB could mine my data and preferences, sell my info to advertisers, and leave me open to scams and malware. Such a deal!
37
I deleted my Facebook account after the election and haven't missed it. In retrospect, I can't believe I ever spent so much time on it. Why I voluntarily surrendered my autonomy to such a dark, deceptive and mindless diversion remains unanswered. Real life is infinitely bigger than the virtual dungeon that is Facebook with all of its fake friends, fake lives, fake people, fake entertainment, fake spin. Why allow these minions of deception to feed your head? Facebook is a living testament to how gullible Americans have become.
38
Power is power. While companies like FB want to think of themselves as egalitarian, enlightened, liberal, there's one bottom line, and we all know what it is. Facebook makes money playing off of people's need to connect, creating the illusion that we're actually connecting with one another through it when we are not. I deactivated my account in 2010 and this morning got an email from Facebook saying I had tried to log in and it hadn't worked. At first I thought it was spam. Then I clicked the link and it opened my old page with no password, no login information. Creepy, big brother-ish. And we're all handing ourselves over to it.
22
What I want to know is: So, anyone can buy an ad on Facebook?! There is no vetting?!
I'm disgusted with Facebook, had they done some vetting of those who were buying those ads they would have discovered that they were from "troll farms"! Even today, if you post a comment say on, CNN's FB page you can see the Bots are everywhere!
Facebook, you must shut down FAKE accounts!!!
I'm disgusted with Facebook, had they done some vetting of those who were buying those ads they would have discovered that they were from "troll farms"! Even today, if you post a comment say on, CNN's FB page you can see the Bots are everywhere!
Facebook, you must shut down FAKE accounts!!!
22
I don't use social media. It's a vast waste of time, not to mention a vast disappointment for those who look at the site and leave 'comments'. Most people who participate so heavily are not using Facebook, Twitter, and other such money-makers for the developers to communicate with friends or family. The focus of the users is Me. Me! Look at Me! See how wonderful my life is! There is no trading of information, no return of sympathy or joy, no cohesion of community. Social media is the obverse of friendship and concern, and for the most part, leaves a feeling of ashes in the heart.
24
This is a very clear opinion by someone who claims not to even use social media.
2
Jeb...this is part of social media..We just come for the comments too.
5
Hillary Clinton would have lost the presidency whether or not there had been anti-Clinton ads. She was not a good candidate and the people voted against her in the ballot booth. She will probably use this flimsy excuse for losing as she has blamed others for her loss. She needs to directly look at the person who caused her to lose the election and that is Mrs. Clinton herself.
13
except she got more votes than the winner.
6
“appeared to focus on amplifying divisive social and political messages across the ideological spectrum"
How is it any different from Main Stream Media? How is a newspaper owned by Jeff Bezos or Carlos Simms any different from internet site owned by Mark Zuckerburg?
How is it any different from Main Stream Media? How is a newspaper owned by Jeff Bezos or Carlos Simms any different from internet site owned by Mark Zuckerburg?
12
Millions and millions more users.
5
How is it any different, you ask??
It's different because "Main Stream Media" tends to do something that Facebook and other social media platforms don't do -- they corroborate the facts before reporting them as stories.
It's different because "Main Stream Media" tends to do something that Facebook and other social media platforms don't do -- they corroborate the facts before reporting them as stories.
38
For profit corporations are machines, machines that do a specific job; corporations extract wealth. It's what they do. Expecting corporations to be patriotic is just silly.
The way we deal with propaganda is to teach critical thinking and critical news gathering. So maybe the best thing is to have Facebook actually put up adds once a week that encourage critical thinking.
The way we deal with propaganda is to teach critical thinking and critical news gathering. So maybe the best thing is to have Facebook actually put up adds once a week that encourage critical thinking.
4
To me, patriotism is supporting and defending the Constitution of the Unites States. Years ago I took an oath to support and defend the US Constitution. I take it very seriously. Being unpatriotic is demanding that someone else's Free Speech Rights be curtailed.
5
The real problem, the one not being addressed, is how much longer are we "The People" (remember us? The ones allegedly in charge!) going to allow these social media and other platforms to keep "profiling" us, all the way down to the way we like to cut our toenails? How long are we going to let these allegedly helpful and can't live-without platforms to keep creeping (and I mean creep in the physical sense and the icky, yucky sense) around us, spying on us (it is spying when you analyze it) and then using it, and/or selling it (and making millions) so they can narrowly define us, and then narrow down our choices of everything from hair products to, snack foods, to the info in our news feeds.
How long?
Till even non-social media users cant access good content, because the data compiled from all the addicted users, tells their browsers that because Person A might have clicked on Advert 23burblerZ, six months ago, "We" (the almighty Algorithm deity) decree that he/she can only see information from this predetermined, narrowed down (often dumbed down) data packet. "Don't let them access anything we don't deem part of that profile."
How much longer are we going to allow these platforms to denigrate us, define us, sell-off our quirky data, and in the end deny us the very freedoms to choose what we want when we want it that this great nation was founded upon?
Facebook, et al - didnt earn the free-pass they allege they deserve. So why do we give it to them?
How long?
Till even non-social media users cant access good content, because the data compiled from all the addicted users, tells their browsers that because Person A might have clicked on Advert 23burblerZ, six months ago, "We" (the almighty Algorithm deity) decree that he/she can only see information from this predetermined, narrowed down (often dumbed down) data packet. "Don't let them access anything we don't deem part of that profile."
How much longer are we going to allow these platforms to denigrate us, define us, sell-off our quirky data, and in the end deny us the very freedoms to choose what we want when we want it that this great nation was founded upon?
Facebook, et al - didnt earn the free-pass they allege they deserve. So why do we give it to them?
10
We have allowed ourselves to be duped by these social media platforms, allured by the "free" opprtunity to connect and influence in our personal spheres. And even that promise is becoming a didappointment. But that we deny reality that these are anything but advertising machines was pure folly. Follow the money to understand what is really at the heart of something.
Another thing, if you own FB stock to a large degree, maybe you don't deserve to have an opinion against FB. I have grown tired of the stated outrage about any corporate bad acting when the reality is that so many stating that outrage profit on investments in said company/industry.
Deeper thinking about what society allows their corporations to do in the name of profit (over intangible value) is what we must demand now.
Another thing, if you own FB stock to a large degree, maybe you don't deserve to have an opinion against FB. I have grown tired of the stated outrage about any corporate bad acting when the reality is that so many stating that outrage profit on investments in said company/industry.
Deeper thinking about what society allows their corporations to do in the name of profit (over intangible value) is what we must demand now.
3
Well Gee if you can't determine propaganda perhaps you should consider not voting. Critical thinking about politics is quite rare, it takes time and effort to actually see the candidates directly rather than trusting any media, facebook, etc.
11
Unfortunately, those Americans who believed and often reposted these fake stories believed them! They do not know how to think critically. There were hundreds of fake stories and Bots posting on news blogs. Hard to fight against a tsunami of lies.
6
Not voting is not the answer. Being informed, is.
3
It all depends on the readers' appetite. One can absorb all rubbish; at the same time, one can enlighten and inform him/her-self with quality information. Facebook has been a landmark outbreak in communication technology. No doubt, it panders to the narcissistic urges, helps spread false news and, as complained by the first lady, aids online bullying. But, at the same time, it has helped lost and forgotten friends and relatives reconnect.
I, for one, am a witness to the creation of this history. My first familiarity with Mark Z. came about when I heard that he was a Harvard dropout batch mate of a friend of my son. His Facebook innovation, it appeared, didn't have such an epoch making promise -- we thought this was just one of those online games the kids like to stay absorbed with.
Later on, the significance of this medium dawned upon me. Staying in North America, I stay in touch with my friends and relatives spread all over the world, know their views on a variety of issues, exchange publications and information I couldn't have otherwise accessed -- although I still consider myself computer half-literate when I compare myself to the millenials active simultaneously on so many sites.
Like any other technological or scientific invention, Facebook can also be used for destructive purposes.
The most disagreeable part I see is that Facebook offers so much garbage that nothing constructive comes out of this after burying the head for hours. It must be harmful to the young.
I, for one, am a witness to the creation of this history. My first familiarity with Mark Z. came about when I heard that he was a Harvard dropout batch mate of a friend of my son. His Facebook innovation, it appeared, didn't have such an epoch making promise -- we thought this was just one of those online games the kids like to stay absorbed with.
Later on, the significance of this medium dawned upon me. Staying in North America, I stay in touch with my friends and relatives spread all over the world, know their views on a variety of issues, exchange publications and information I couldn't have otherwise accessed -- although I still consider myself computer half-literate when I compare myself to the millenials active simultaneously on so many sites.
Like any other technological or scientific invention, Facebook can also be used for destructive purposes.
The most disagreeable part I see is that Facebook offers so much garbage that nothing constructive comes out of this after burying the head for hours. It must be harmful to the young.
4
Stop using Facebook. There is a long list of good reasons why you should. It is so "in your Face" and way too many lies and propaganda get passed around to people who believe it.
9
I am not a Facebooker but the few times that I do visit I am shocked at the fake news. Stuff that is, the highly trained eye, clearly advertisements disguised as editorial.
It's high time that Facebook eat itself and something new (and more credible) take it's place.
The cyber evolutionary chain has been stunted. AOL, Netscape, Alta Vista, MySpace, etc etc seems to have stopped with Google, Facebook and Amazon.
It's high time that Facebook eat itself and something new (and more credible) take it's place.
The cyber evolutionary chain has been stunted. AOL, Netscape, Alta Vista, MySpace, etc etc seems to have stopped with Google, Facebook and Amazon.
6
I could not agree more with the professor. Facebook's pseudo sincere, faux compassionate liberal, is no different than Trump, in that they both are greedy bastards. The difference is Zuckerberg does a better job of camouflaging his avarice. The same is somewhat true of Google, Twitter, Apple and other venues of social media. They are the new 21first century robber barons. Marshall McCluhan was right but would probably be horrified at how much these sites have co opted and corrupted cognitive thinking. Trump is the sad result of media overkill. Alvin Toffler predicted it in "Future Shock." I am a neo luddite but we need to be more aware of short men in pima cotton tee shirts professing their altruism and trying to make our world a better place.
21
There's an easy solution.
Quit Facebook. It's a time suck. Time that could be better spent reading a novel or going for walk.
There was life before Facebook. You don't need it to be happy.
Quit Facebook. It's a time suck. Time that could be better spent reading a novel or going for walk.
There was life before Facebook. You don't need it to be happy.
20
It's the money stupid, the money. Democracy always take a back seat to the addictive power of money. This is when capitalism becomes the evil force destroying the very ideals of a democracy. Facebook and Google are just the latest potential forces to twist democracy to it's own financial advantage.
The excessive flow of money into our politics from corporations, given permission by the SCOTUS, gives advantage in their ability to control the flow of information, distorting it when necessary, is one example.
The overpowering tendency of the believing brain in human psyche, to believe first and search for facts to support those beliefs is how the power of propagandists manifests itself.
The excessive flow of money into our politics from corporations, given permission by the SCOTUS, gives advantage in their ability to control the flow of information, distorting it when necessary, is one example.
The overpowering tendency of the believing brain in human psyche, to believe first and search for facts to support those beliefs is how the power of propagandists manifests itself.
4
Bob: Democracy only works when everyone has the right to state their views whether you agree with then or not.
1
My wife and I dumped Facebook the day after the election last November. We haven't missed a thing. It was a huge timesuck anyway. Good riddance.
12
So here we have the usual coalition of disgruntled Luddites, crypto-communists and technologically illiterate coming up with calls to ban Facebook! Sorry, dinosaurs! Facebook is one of the greatest inventions of the century. It allows me to keep in touch with colleagues, friends and family when I travel; advertise my professional achievements; see pictures of places I might want to visit, and in general, feel part of a large community. Facebook is a mirror. Since it is individually tailored, you have only yourself to blame if fake Russian news pop up on your feed - and of course, only yourself to blame if you believe this nonsense. Instead of trying to stifle free speech or censor posts, how about teaching people critical thinking?
8
What was intended to let people communicate with friends and express ideas to a broader public cost us privacy, a trade off users of Facebook agreed to. What was a fresh idea has become an advertising platform.
NOW, we have learned something new. Facebook is not social media, it is a Prepaganda Platform for anyone who has the money to pay. It will spread lies for a hostile foreign power, tamper with American elections and apparently knowingly and as of right The object is that a group of billionaire teckies can further line their pockets.
Yes we have the 1st amendment but colluding with a foreign power or its agents is treasonable conduct. Where there is no inquiry as to source, there is a question as to how far a slandered party, like HRC or institution will not be protected by the libel laws and could sue for damages and punitive damages. Russian agents and bots do not have 1st amendment rights. Facebook has published political ads without attribution and then erased the evidence. It has broken the law.
Over 50 years ago there was a successful packaged meat company called Merkal Meats. They were caught putting kangaroo meat in their sausages. Supermarkets put out their stocks of Merket products with a sign that said “free” and there were no takers. It was a poisoned product and was shunned by the public. Other products suffered the same fate and so should Facebook be shunned. Make Facebook another Merkel.
NOW, we have learned something new. Facebook is not social media, it is a Prepaganda Platform for anyone who has the money to pay. It will spread lies for a hostile foreign power, tamper with American elections and apparently knowingly and as of right The object is that a group of billionaire teckies can further line their pockets.
Yes we have the 1st amendment but colluding with a foreign power or its agents is treasonable conduct. Where there is no inquiry as to source, there is a question as to how far a slandered party, like HRC or institution will not be protected by the libel laws and could sue for damages and punitive damages. Russian agents and bots do not have 1st amendment rights. Facebook has published political ads without attribution and then erased the evidence. It has broken the law.
Over 50 years ago there was a successful packaged meat company called Merkal Meats. They were caught putting kangaroo meat in their sausages. Supermarkets put out their stocks of Merket products with a sign that said “free” and there were no takers. It was a poisoned product and was shunned by the public. Other products suffered the same fate and so should Facebook be shunned. Make Facebook another Merkel.
6
Well Gee it takes money to run so it needs income. Use your brain and the functions of Facebook to use it as you desire. I pay no attention to the stuff pushed by them, but rather my actual friends and organizations I follow. It is not difficult.
2
A Democracy in Name Only?
The Federal Trade Commission must get into the 21st Century. We need advertising regulations that meet the needs of consumer protections in the age of the internet.
This ad money is too easy. Facebook and others must be responsible for vetting advertisers and for letting FB users know, who exactly is advertising (transparency). It's not easy, it's costly, but must be done to maintain public trust.
Furthermore, shady outfits like Rebekah and Robert Mercer's Cambridge Analytica (both Flynn and Banon worked there)
reportedly featured "fun quizzes" on FB which they used for data mining of and targeted political propaganda to unsuspecting FB users.
Whoever Owns the Data Rules The World
Nothing less than our Democracy is at stake.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.nytimes.com/2016/11/20/opinion/the-s...
The Federal Trade Commission must get into the 21st Century. We need advertising regulations that meet the needs of consumer protections in the age of the internet.
This ad money is too easy. Facebook and others must be responsible for vetting advertisers and for letting FB users know, who exactly is advertising (transparency). It's not easy, it's costly, but must be done to maintain public trust.
Furthermore, shady outfits like Rebekah and Robert Mercer's Cambridge Analytica (both Flynn and Banon worked there)
reportedly featured "fun quizzes" on FB which they used for data mining of and targeted political propaganda to unsuspecting FB users.
Whoever Owns the Data Rules The World
Nothing less than our Democracy is at stake.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.nytimes.com/2016/11/20/opinion/the-s...
5
Although I agree with the author that this is a dangerous turn of events, I don't think the article goes far enough to explain why Facebook and Google are particular threats to our democracy.
Sure, Facebook has a large network – but so does Bernie Sanders. And Google has advanced data mining and demographic targeting – but so did the Obama campaign. Anonymous donors? See PAC, Super.
It's the combination of these features with a commercial market that seals the deal. Anyone, inside or outside the country, can effectively hire Facebook as their own political consulting firm – their very own Paul Manafort!
And like Manafort, Facebook only cares only about money. I don't say this to accuse – this is capitalism, kid. You know, the system that's been in conflict with our democracy since the founding of the country. This is just the latest, modern twist. And it's beyond ironic that Russia would use this system to try to destroy us.
This is a wholly unconvincing argument. How are these "phantom" ads different from robo-calls paid for by PACs (also funded by anonymous donors)? Or even from pamphlets left in voters' mailboxes in certain districts, apart from the fact that they can be preserved?
Facebook's large network & great reach? But these ads are targeted at a small number of users. Their secret demographics and data mining? But these are the same tools used by, say, the Obama campaigns of recent years. Where was the outrage then?
Sure, Facebook has a large network – but so does Bernie Sanders. And Google has advanced data mining and demographic targeting – but so did the Obama campaign. Anonymous donors? See PAC, Super.
It's the combination of these features with a commercial market that seals the deal. Anyone, inside or outside the country, can effectively hire Facebook as their own political consulting firm – their very own Paul Manafort!
And like Manafort, Facebook only cares only about money. I don't say this to accuse – this is capitalism, kid. You know, the system that's been in conflict with our democracy since the founding of the country. This is just the latest, modern twist. And it's beyond ironic that Russia would use this system to try to destroy us.
This is a wholly unconvincing argument. How are these "phantom" ads different from robo-calls paid for by PACs (also funded by anonymous donors)? Or even from pamphlets left in voters' mailboxes in certain districts, apart from the fact that they can be preserved?
Facebook's large network & great reach? But these ads are targeted at a small number of users. Their secret demographics and data mining? But these are the same tools used by, say, the Obama campaigns of recent years. Where was the outrage then?
2
No it is our lack of ability citizens who say vote as the media indicates, believes "news" that is basically either rumor or worse, and such that is the issue.
3
I realize this is not a real solution, but just close your accounts and get rid of the scourge. It is a time waster, and builds no skills that can be used beyond, well, wasting time on Facebook. The End.
8
Americans have been doing this identical thing to foreign governments forever. Facebook, just makes it easier here. If the U.S. couldn't sway the election the CIA would just have the foreign incumbent or challenger murdered. It happened often, without recrimination. South America, Vietnam, the Philippines.
2
Facebook and other social media exist in most of the world, not just in the US.
1
But in other partd of the world, action has been taken against Facebook for precisely this kind of thing.
8
Of course it doesn't help that the Electoral College installed, rather than doing it's actual job of protecting our republic from, a dangerous demagogue.
3
It did exactly what it was intended to do, keep majorities from running our country.
3
When it comes to lack of ethics, Facebook is in a class by itself. The company takes on the character of its founder, who admittedly, stole the idea/business from the people that hired him to set it up.
As an organization, FB is deceptive, unethical and self-serving.
As an organization, FB is deceptive, unethical and self-serving.
7
The people writing here to propose that Facebook's "right" to facilitate Russian espionage efforts is a "free speech" matter are either advertisement sales people or college sophomores with limited reasoning ability. Zuckerberg is, as always, defending his income stream, not your interests.
10
Facebook, the future of internet and democracy?
It appears to me the internet is just going to become an even more powerful form of previous communications systems of the 20th century--radio, television, so on. And like radio and television, the internet will be co-opted by power, the waves will be controlled like the previous forms of communication. Except the internet will co-opt and control the form of communication which so far has been most resistant to power as well: The written word, the printing press. In other words, first we had writing, most notably printing press, breaking down power. Then came new forms of communication like radio and television which promised more freedom but became co-opted by power. Now we have the internet in which all communication is rolled up into one and power is now in progress of controlling the totality.
Power has always disliked the written word and co-opted systems of communication when it could, and now it has the internet, all writing moved online, all radio and television, the totality of communications rolled up into one gradually. And always we hear "In the Name of Freedom". But it seems the message these days, the main one is "The internet and this and that site is full of fake news, propaganda, trickery so just stop using the internet..." Which of course just leaves the field more and more to power to control the totality, wrap it all up "For the Public Good". Ah, Gutenberg, you look more and more like the only good man.
It appears to me the internet is just going to become an even more powerful form of previous communications systems of the 20th century--radio, television, so on. And like radio and television, the internet will be co-opted by power, the waves will be controlled like the previous forms of communication. Except the internet will co-opt and control the form of communication which so far has been most resistant to power as well: The written word, the printing press. In other words, first we had writing, most notably printing press, breaking down power. Then came new forms of communication like radio and television which promised more freedom but became co-opted by power. Now we have the internet in which all communication is rolled up into one and power is now in progress of controlling the totality.
Power has always disliked the written word and co-opted systems of communication when it could, and now it has the internet, all writing moved online, all radio and television, the totality of communications rolled up into one gradually. And always we hear "In the Name of Freedom". But it seems the message these days, the main one is "The internet and this and that site is full of fake news, propaganda, trickery so just stop using the internet..." Which of course just leaves the field more and more to power to control the totality, wrap it all up "For the Public Good". Ah, Gutenberg, you look more and more like the only good man.
3
Thumbs up to this one. As a former Facebook user, now a NON-user, I am amazed at how many people are completely sucked in to the constant contact. Can't put the phone down, must scroll. On a bike trip last weekend, a woman almost ran into me head on as she was reading her phone while biking. Where will this end?
28
As much good as computers have brought us, there is such a tremendous amount of BAD from it, too. It's the end of the World as we know it.
2
Facebook is a con. Always has been. Always will be. How billions of people have allowed themselves to be sucked into this con is utterly beyond my comprehension.
18
The modern world has left many people feeling a need they cant explain,and being "connected" -as the might sales pitches say - allegedly fills that need.
The studies are becoming clearer..."Silicon Valley" has figured out ways to electronically control our hormones thru their APPS, etc...and by doing that they can "hook" people into doing - mostly buying things, they- the APP owner, want done.
Plus, they are gathering so much data on everyone who uses these platforms, they are also selling that off, and making millions more.
All hiding behind the sales-pitch that the more data "we" collect, the better and more efficient "they" can make our lives. So they use commercials (IBM cloud for one example) showing a lovely grandmother being properly treated (finally, the advert implies) by a smiling doctor, because grandmoms data was "in the cloud" for him to access. They advertise all these pleasant cant-disagree-with benefits, but meanwhile most of what is done with all the data is devious, and downright insidious.
We are a people under attack by algorithms, by the math geeks who wield them, meant to isolate and distill us down to impulses...that are being used to track us (govt loves this data,so does law enforcement) and tell us what to believe, who to believe, and more important what to buy!
The studies are becoming clearer..."Silicon Valley" has figured out ways to electronically control our hormones thru their APPS, etc...and by doing that they can "hook" people into doing - mostly buying things, they- the APP owner, want done.
Plus, they are gathering so much data on everyone who uses these platforms, they are also selling that off, and making millions more.
All hiding behind the sales-pitch that the more data "we" collect, the better and more efficient "they" can make our lives. So they use commercials (IBM cloud for one example) showing a lovely grandmother being properly treated (finally, the advert implies) by a smiling doctor, because grandmoms data was "in the cloud" for him to access. They advertise all these pleasant cant-disagree-with benefits, but meanwhile most of what is done with all the data is devious, and downright insidious.
We are a people under attack by algorithms, by the math geeks who wield them, meant to isolate and distill us down to impulses...that are being used to track us (govt loves this data,so does law enforcement) and tell us what to believe, who to believe, and more important what to buy!
4
One admittedly old-school response would be to boycott Facebook. Perhaps that would prick up Mark Zuckerberg's capitalist ears. Why is there no call for this? As Betty White has inimitably mused, Facebook is a "Colossal waste of time," anyway, and now it's a sinister one, too. Boycott Facebook! Our Democracy is at stake.
10
The people who would boycott are the ones who already know Facebook's dirty side and avoid being influenced by it. It's the politically and intellectually lazy user-drones who are the greatest consumers of propaganda, and the least likely to even question what they're posting and re-posting. Like addicts looking for a fix, they suck up what they want to hear and amplify it. Can we fix stupid?
2
Sure, go ahead, do that. And see how people then go in the closet for their fix.
Have you ever seen people at an event where they had to turn over their phones? They look like they've all taken amphetamines...all jittery, and twitchy.
Employers are having difficulties getting their employees to not use their devices and do their work! You expect a willful boycott? Over election tampering?
Maybe IF Facebook was killing puppies and baby seals, while endorsing GMO's in all baby formula..you might get a little boycott. But how would "they" organize the Facebook boycott, if "they"cant use Facebook...??!?!? Doh!
Have you ever seen people at an event where they had to turn over their phones? They look like they've all taken amphetamines...all jittery, and twitchy.
Employers are having difficulties getting their employees to not use their devices and do their work! You expect a willful boycott? Over election tampering?
Maybe IF Facebook was killing puppies and baby seals, while endorsing GMO's in all baby formula..you might get a little boycott. But how would "they" organize the Facebook boycott, if "they"cant use Facebook...??!?!? Doh!
1
We have seen that the "Ads" were so blatantly false as to only attract the attention of anti Hillary voters. Trump supporters knew they were lies, but they served to validate their reason for voting for a Moron.
5
The Soviets, as well as others like major religions, were always renown for their understanding and implementation of mass mind control. Facebook and the internet seem like ready made tools for the devil. Sorry, suckers.
6
"In the 21st-century social media information war, faith in democracy is the first casualty." I would say truth, itself, was the first casualty. I have had discussions with people who believe Hillary killed up to a dozen people, believe climate change is a Chinese hoax, believe there are fine people in the neo-Nazi-white supremacist movement, believed in death panels, birtherism, jade something or other, gun roundups, FEMA camps and compassionate conservatives. None of which ever really existed. Democracy is the best form of government to deal with this delicate balancing act of freedom versus propaganda. I wish ours' was functioning.
7
This is a fact of life. One can minimize or dismiss it, but there is absolutely an attempt to use digital tools to politically manipulate us. It is called "computational propaganda" and appears in several iterations. According to a recent study out of Oxford, this is a very real phenomena happening around the world. The more we buy into the narratives flickering across the social media feeds without rigorous critical scrutiny ( unless we have and use such critical tools) we are all prey to subtle, and not so subtle, kinds of manipulation--especially as our lived experience increasingly seems to be migrated on to servers, or stored on clouds, or what have you.
1
Who said "We will hang the capitalists with the rope that they sell us."...? Liquidating our democracy, including everybody from Russian and Macedonian hackers, tabloid newspapers , click seeking conspiracy websites, our lying 'fake news' President, "both sides do it", horse-race corporate TV networks, lobbyists, to hate radio and the billionaire serving anti-compromise anti-democratic GOP, is a very profitable enterprise.
5
I had several reasons for not joining the Facebook farce. Now I have one more.
I find it astounding that people are so stupid in revealing their most intimate and sensitive details of their lives with virtually zero thought as to what they are doing. You people deserve everything you get, and I don't mean that in a positive way at all.
I find it astounding that people are so stupid in revealing their most intimate and sensitive details of their lives with virtually zero thought as to what they are doing. You people deserve everything you get, and I don't mean that in a positive way at all.
4
This is not a freedom of speech issue ( as proposed by a couple of comments). Commercial advertising should be seperated from political and religious advertising.
Falsifying an identity should be made a crime if it isnt already one.
Don't make freedom of speech a "freedumb" issue.
Falsifying an identity should be made a crime if it isnt already one.
Don't make freedom of speech a "freedumb" issue.
6
"... Facebook revealed that hundreds of Russia-based accounts had run anti-Hillary Clinton ads precisely aimed at Facebook users whose demographic profiles implied a vulnerability to political propaganda. ..."
The crux of the problem "vulnerability to political propaganda" is simply not fixable.
Russia targets the credulous based on the following well known, well traveled, and manifestly verified to be a law of social science:
"YOU CAN'T FIX STUPID"
Long before there was an internet and social networks, there was propaganda, and suckers taken in by it.
Organized religion is an example. Fascism in Europe in the first half of the 19th century is another example. Trump supporters is yet another example.
Correct whatever it is that you imagine is wrong with Facebook, and there will still be millions of suckers for Russian propaganda.
The crux of the problem "vulnerability to political propaganda" is simply not fixable.
Russia targets the credulous based on the following well known, well traveled, and manifestly verified to be a law of social science:
"YOU CAN'T FIX STUPID"
Long before there was an internet and social networks, there was propaganda, and suckers taken in by it.
Organized religion is an example. Fascism in Europe in the first half of the 19th century is another example. Trump supporters is yet another example.
Correct whatever it is that you imagine is wrong with Facebook, and there will still be millions of suckers for Russian propaganda.
2
It should be obvious to anyone not in thrall to leftist rhetoric that these so-called liberal-minded companies - facebook, google and apple - are nothing more than unregulated monopolies that exalt money over morals - just like the "evil" exxon-mobil, merck or phillip-morris. Except the latter three return billions to investors as dividends while the former three....just keep ripping us off. Time to regulate these extra-legal monoliths AND fine their principals, if not indict them, for their myriad and continuing anti-trust violations, their disdain for democratic processes and their various cow-towing to their Chinese controllers. Harass, indict and arrest Zuckerberg, Cook and Schmidt, the true enemies of the people. Before they own your electeds, your news, your data and yourself. Oops. Too late.
2
The hypocrisy and the anti-liberal tilt of these articles and comments,coming from so called liberals no less, is amazing.
1. Foreign intervention : How about intervention in internal affairs of foreign countries. America has done propaganda, support of coups and military intervention in foreign countries. Compared to that Russia leaking real emails is nothing.
2. Hypocrisy: The hypocrisy of the articles around Russia influence is very obvious. There is a theme saying the unreliable sources are spreading fake news and this is damaging.
- How about MSM (supposedly reliable) actions surrounding the wars of the past decades (including Iraq, Libya etc.) ?
- How about the totally biased coverage of election ?
- How about silencing of third party candidates in US elections ? If you dare to raise against the establishment you get taken down by the MSM (example Bernie Sanders)
Are these the features of a supposedly reliable, free and independent press ? Or are these the actions of an MSM that is actual doing the damage that the unreliable fake sources are supposedly doing ?
3. One of the most alarming things in these comments and articles is how these fake news sources should be taken down using law. No regard for constitutional ethos of the USA - such as freedom of expression and freedom of press and freedom of speech. Just take them down they say. We alone, the powerful, shall decide what is true and what is not, we fact check, we decide what is ok.
Thank you
1. Foreign intervention : How about intervention in internal affairs of foreign countries. America has done propaganda, support of coups and military intervention in foreign countries. Compared to that Russia leaking real emails is nothing.
2. Hypocrisy: The hypocrisy of the articles around Russia influence is very obvious. There is a theme saying the unreliable sources are spreading fake news and this is damaging.
- How about MSM (supposedly reliable) actions surrounding the wars of the past decades (including Iraq, Libya etc.) ?
- How about the totally biased coverage of election ?
- How about silencing of third party candidates in US elections ? If you dare to raise against the establishment you get taken down by the MSM (example Bernie Sanders)
Are these the features of a supposedly reliable, free and independent press ? Or are these the actions of an MSM that is actual doing the damage that the unreliable fake sources are supposedly doing ?
3. One of the most alarming things in these comments and articles is how these fake news sources should be taken down using law. No regard for constitutional ethos of the USA - such as freedom of expression and freedom of press and freedom of speech. Just take them down they say. We alone, the powerful, shall decide what is true and what is not, we fact check, we decide what is ok.
Thank you
17
Why does this surprise us?
Remember, if the service is free, you are the product.
Remember, if the service is free, you are the product.
16
avrds--Most services are worth what you pay for them.
2
As usual you want things both ways. I'm sure you are aprt of the "Globalization" crowd, lauding the wonders you say it brings. Well, it brings this too.
In FaceBook, Google, et al. you are dealing with companies that could not care less about Nation States. They , in fact, want them to disappear so that we can all be one global community. With them cashing in every step of the way. Zukerberg and Brin and Musk don't care about Democracy, they care about dominance, their dominance.
In FaceBook, Google, et al. you are dealing with companies that could not care less about Nation States. They , in fact, want them to disappear so that we can all be one global community. With them cashing in every step of the way. Zukerberg and Brin and Musk don't care about Democracy, they care about dominance, their dominance.
6
mikem--Well, they really only need money for that result. They already have that.
This is the true Frankenstein. An invented system that destroys us. Is it too late to kill it?
5
All you have to do is click "Hide Ad" whenever a Sponsored Post appears in your FB feed. At first your have to press a few radio buttons but after awhile all you do is click once. I for one enjoy the sport of deleting all sorts of ads. Its quite a bit of fun and it add to the "excitement" of wandering through a FB feed.
2
Why do they even allow anonymous accounts? Each account should have to be verified.
3
the last sentence ironically sums up the author's flaxed argument. we live in a democracy in the information age. If we muzzle free speech on Facebook or elsewhere, we weaken our political system. i agree with an earlier comment: the answer is education and teaching our people how to think critically and how to dig for and recognize truth.
2
ed--We don't have to muzzle Facebook. Just stop using it. For you all, it might feel like quitting smoking, but you'll survive, and be better off in the end.
3
Where is the profit in that?
One more thing. Maybe the whole thing was payback for Obama's administration interfering in the last Urkrainian elections.
3
It's a possibility. It maybe a payback for what US did to Ukraine, it replaced a crooked regime with a more crooked regime.
2
Who looks at Internet ads... most tune them out or block them
Don't even notice their content
Just click bait, waste of time
Don't even notice their content
Just click bait, waste of time
3
I've told you, and told you, not to fully trust anyone with a profit motive. Facebook is no more ethical than any multinational corporation. They will chew you up and spit you out, while serving themselves EVERY time. Turn your backs on them. It's no way to spend your precious life.
6
Facebook does not care. They allow totally blank facebook profiles to exist that reveal nothing about the human behind that page.
Just like the bank robber with a hoody and full face mask.
All sorts of these "blanks" are permitted to comment on issues in on line forums and especially newspapers. I know because I make comments too.
I also ask tell them if they wish to stand on a soap box reveal who they are or shut up. Unfortunately the forums and/or newspapers allow these mystery people to continue hiding and allow them to post !
Just like the bank robber with a hoody and full face mask.
All sorts of these "blanks" are permitted to comment on issues in on line forums and especially newspapers. I know because I make comments too.
I also ask tell them if they wish to stand on a soap box reveal who they are or shut up. Unfortunately the forums and/or newspapers allow these mystery people to continue hiding and allow them to post !
4
Did Trump post on Facebook that Obama was a foreign born Muslim? What's next? Verizon and AT&T being faulted for allowing their wireless network to spew lies? Facebook is an open platform, not a media company. Don't blame the messenger.
8
Would you blame the NYTimes if they took ads from the KKK and the Nazis?
4
Facebook is a business making money on advertising without any self-regulation also not the industry. As a US company it IS a media company and has to be regulated like other media company ads on TV and newspapers.
1
Meantime the networks and cable "affirmation news" channels which willingly participated in the birther nonsense by allowing a con man a venue get a free pass.
1
The problems is Americans themselves. People do not know basic facts. Education is not valued. Your religion or your politics is paramount in your life. You love the flag, but cannot tell anyone who the Vice President is. Until there is some very obvious downside Americans have no incentive to change.
2
Democracy loses with each attempt at censorship. The fact people are too simple to fact check what they read doesn't mean the media is at fault.
2
America needs to get savvy, get smart. The barn door is wide open for foreign interference in the American democratic process. Russia's participation was invited against the Democrats by the Republican Party, as much as they may deny it. In fact, Republican ideology is actually quite confluent with that of Putin's Russia, i.e. nationalist, oligarchical, black-market, crony capitalism. It's how they roll.
2
well Google denied those claims. And you can not possibly go on writing about these issues that are unproven. Maybe the Russians did post ads to influence the US elections but the notion that people changed their mind about who to vote because of this propaganda is utterly wrong.
2
Russia is not the enemy. Ignorance is the enemy. The sooner we stop projecting our own failures as a society on Russia, the better off we all will be.
3
Get real. Russia is the enemy.
1
I cancelled my Facebook account in January, for this reason. While fb had always been political, with this election cycle, it seemed that a line had been crossed. It seemed to me that it had become a propaganda site on steroids. With each post, no matter how reasoned and well-written, there were at least fifteen scary, abusive, hateful and threatening. The fact that it was a tool used by Russians to influence the election does not surprise me and what surprised me even less than that was that there were so many fools out there, lazily ready to absorb and internalize the propaganda and were ignorantly used as weapons against decency and civility.
2
As much as Face Book is responsible for fake ads I am not sure to what extent they changed the votes in the last election. The cards were on the table. Trump had violated all forms of decency, bar none, from insulting his opponents to denigrating women. He lost all the debates, openly lied. Did everything disgusting as possibly. You don't need Face Book to make up your mind with this kind of behavior. People who voted for Trump and against Hillary had made up their mind. Face Book did not influence them
2
This is one very important reason to demand that children undergo a fine public education. Let the ranters, ravers, charlatans, and other mis-informers exercise their first amendment rights, well educated, well rounded people know when to suspect hooey when they see it.
6
I rarely use myself as an example of how to lead a righteous life, but vis-a-vis Facebook, I have done some things you might try in order to keep yourself pure while you use social media. First, erase all the personal "profile" information that you can. It attracts unwanted posts. Second, wherever Facebook allows you to control posts by using pull-down menus, always choose to see fewer posts. Third, unfriend any friend who sends you news from any source you do not recognize. Fourth, unfriend all the people you don't really know. Fifth, keep your eyes to the left and avoid the news feeds and advertising to the right. It's all superfluous. You want the news? Read the newspaper. Sixth, ignore political conversations--all of them!... See, Facebook is like a virtual cocktail party and, like at a cocktail party, you should not broach certain subjects-- they're downers. Religion, politics, intimate things, mean things, race prejudice, shop talk--you know the list. But one of the worst offenses at a cocktail party is trying to sell stuff--advertising yourself or your products... No, photos of kids and pets are acceptable, jokes are good, a nice story--especially a self-effacing one--is perfect, maybe even some light gossip, if it doesn't assassinate someone's character... Take my advice, block as much advertising as you can, winnow your friends, keep things light, and don't look at anything that seems to be trying to influence your opinion, and you'll be fine on Facebook.
34
The bigger you are, the more powerful and, supposedly knowledgeable, you may be, the more responsibility to do the right thing. And Zuckerberg's aim in social media, via Facebook, is not just to make money and satisfy greed, but spend enough to monitor abusive individuals/groups/entities and stop their graft before harm is inflicted. And given that we have an ignominiously ignorant bully at the helm now, elected by Russia's interference (plus Comey/Wiener intervention), the damage is done, to our ruin. It behooves Zuckerberg to assume responsibility for the license (not freedom) he is allowing for 'criminals' to have free rein for 'fake news' and hate messages to be disseminated to the misinformed folks out there.
3
The answer is simple. As Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln both urged, "Don't believe everything you read on the Internet."
5
I found the ads on Facebook to be unhinged from reality. One of my relatives believed the ad (Russian?) that Hillary wanted to abort 36-week gestation fetuses. When I told her that it was false, she didn't believe me and voted against Hillary for that reason alone. She had just lost a baby and was vulnerable. So many people are vulnerable on so many topics that logic no longer applies.
5
Wow. Another victim (democracy) and perpetrator (Facebook). $100k worth of ads vs billions spent by the candidates and their supporters. The actual premise by the author is that the intellectual elite have lost their ability to lead the 'politically vulnerable'. Facebook and social media are not perfect but they have given the masses a venue to voice their concerns. Democracy is messy, get over it.
3
Not this messy and we won't get over it until it stops. Our basic democratic process of electing public representatives is being destroyed by our enemy and we are supposed to get over it?
Honestly, both Facebook and traditional media suck. Get rid of them both.
1
Our country needs to quit Facebook period. It's a giant scam. I deleted my account a few years ago and have never been happier. I recently started a professional page through work, and once again was overwhelmed with the garbage posted there, not to mention that they dig into my computers guts to find history that will help Facebook sell me things I never wanted. I delete all of their emails. And good luck to Facebook selling me things at work. I'm too busy engaging in my life.
6
American voters -- of all eras, all ages, and all parties and persuasions -- have always been vulnerable to political propaganda. Why does the author suppose that only a small segment of voters (right-wing, populist, anti-Hillary Facebook users) have this vulnerability?
3
Self regulation by social media companies has failed. American cannot allow our democracy to be sabotaged by these irresponsible billionaire owners. Public regulation is essential and it is essential before our next elections.
2
This is true. I would also suggest people take a look at a recent study out of Oxford University that examines the role of "computational propaganda" in 28 countries. There is a pdf online.
Federal election law prohibits foreign nationals for making expenditures on “electioneering communications.” It defines electioneering communications as any communication that fulfills each of the following conditions:
The communication refers to a clearly identified candidate for federal office;
The communication is publicly distributed shortly before an election for the office that candidate is seeking; and
The communication is targeted to the relevant electorate (U.S. House and Senate candidates only).
So foreign nationals are allowed to place ads that address issues, but not ads that refer to a specific candidate. As the article points out, Facebook says that “the majority of the Facebook ads did not directly mention a presidential candidate,” but “appeared to focus on amplifying divisive social and political messages across the ideological spectrum — touching on topics from L.G.B.T. matters to race issues to immigration to gun rights.” So, the majority of the Russian-based ads violated no campaign laws. Since the articles doesn’t reveal exactly how many ads referred Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump, it is difficult to assess the magnitude of the problem.
The communication refers to a clearly identified candidate for federal office;
The communication is publicly distributed shortly before an election for the office that candidate is seeking; and
The communication is targeted to the relevant electorate (U.S. House and Senate candidates only).
So foreign nationals are allowed to place ads that address issues, but not ads that refer to a specific candidate. As the article points out, Facebook says that “the majority of the Facebook ads did not directly mention a presidential candidate,” but “appeared to focus on amplifying divisive social and political messages across the ideological spectrum — touching on topics from L.G.B.T. matters to race issues to immigration to gun rights.” So, the majority of the Russian-based ads violated no campaign laws. Since the articles doesn’t reveal exactly how many ads referred Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump, it is difficult to assess the magnitude of the problem.
2
Next column up: US Post Office is bad for democracy because it allows for targeted direct mail. Seriously, folks, it is the same thing. The only difference is cost.
2
Sort of true. Except direct mail, for the most part is canned and sent to everyone. Plus a false claim can be exposed, with evidence available. The internet, especially the scum at Facebook, not necessarily so.
1
When will folks understand that in exchange for convenience, they have sold their privacy and indeed their souls to a bunch of libertarian frat boys in Silicon Valley who have co-opted the Congress and are almost completely unregulated? Tech companies such as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat, Google, Amazon, Uber, Air BNB, credit reporters, etc. know more about you than you do. They operate with impunity. They own you and will sell you up the river in a heartbeat. Wake up!
4
If only the citizenry would immunize themselves against falling for phony ads, it would at least help mitigate this outrageous sell-out of our democracy.
2
Facebook gives its users the illusion that they are actually addressing issues in a proactive way. They click "like" or "sad" or "mad", they make a comment, and they feel they have done something to further their convictions. As a result, they don't feel it is necessary to vote, to write to their elected representatives or to work to elect their candidates. Not necessary to defend our public schools! It is a gigantic exercise in futility and disinformation. Turn off your computer and hit the streets, people! Read newspapers! Get a context.
6
I don’t like it that many of our television media corporations only allow you to log in with twitter, facebook and google now a days instead of other email accounts.
4
Americans are inundated with biased, speculative political propaganda EVERYWHERE daily - and not just from the internet. From the theatrical stage, to the church, to the watercooler area, and oh yes, the biased local newspaper.
Does this Facebook particular really matter? Please. Twitter does much more damage with it's simple free speech platform.
Does this Facebook particular really matter? Please. Twitter does much more damage with it's simple free speech platform.
2
All three suck.
1
Facebook assaulted freedom long before these ads, disturbing as they are. It made slaves of 2 billion people who waste way too much time trolling and posting as if that is the measure of informed citizenry or friendship. Two years ago I got off Facebook and rediscovered the kind of freedom Americans have long sought and died for. I can't make myself go back no matter who pressures me to do that. Liberty and the pursuit of happiness, I have found, has nothing to do with social media - another democratic bedrock we must protect!
3
Being trashed on this scale is stunning. Years ago a government employee wrote a defaming memo about me and circulated it through my local city government by email. I didn't find it until five years later. In that time I was targeted with lawsuits, harassment, assault, false arrests, false code enforcement actions and neighborhood gossip. It cost me a lot, including my family. But I doubt I could have survived had my opponents used Facebook to take me out.
2
Maybe we just need to abolish elections and simply put a few candidates on Facebook and the one who gets the most "likes" becomes president. Or governor or whatever. I wonder, could we then remove the person from office by the number of "dislikes"?
2
Sites like Facebook and YouTube should only allow verified users with real identities. They are smart - figure it out. They have made a lot of money - now it is time to be socially responsible
The NY Times has the best comments section because it is monitored. You cannot be mean or cruel or curse - people lie but others can politely correct. It is civilized and that is why I like it.
Other major papers are a virtual free for all and (Wapo)- marking the comments impossible to read and a lesson in civility gone wrong.
The largest, and most popular websites have a public responsibility to be civil and honest and make it difficult for the fraudsters to operate.
The NY Times has the best comments section because it is monitored. You cannot be mean or cruel or curse - people lie but others can politely correct. It is civilized and that is why I like it.
Other major papers are a virtual free for all and (Wapo)- marking the comments impossible to read and a lesson in civility gone wrong.
The largest, and most popular websites have a public responsibility to be civil and honest and make it difficult for the fraudsters to operate.
1
Buy some beautiful stationary, dig out some addresses, write a letter.
A box of old letters, something you can hold in your hand and actually feel close to another person through their written words. Words lost to this generation, and the "art" of letter writing.
A box of old letters, something you can hold in your hand and actually feel close to another person through their written words. Words lost to this generation, and the "art" of letter writing.
3
Blame Facebook if you wish, but the real problem is the American consumer who cannot or will not think critically and reject the distortions and prevarications.
4
The Europeans are on the money. Facebook's enabling of distortion makes me sick to my stomach, and these dark posts in political campaigning are shocking. Unfortunately the so-denigrated mainstream media, which I would better trust anyday than FB posts, have rolled over and let the platform exploit their quality journalism. They should exit en masse, and find a better way to attract their readerships/viewerships. I pay way more for my media consumption than I ever did, because good sources are indeed, worth paying for. To put it bluntly Facebook and Google need at least to be more tightly regulated and possibly broken up. This will be difficult as the lobbying of both is as troubling as their enabling. And no, European governments are not moving in that direction because of resentment that we have no such companies here. That is just a cheap Silicon Valley slur. The EU commissioner and the German and UK authorities are doing it for the right reasons, and it cannot come soon enough. More than enough profit has been generated from this digital revolution, forerunning the legislation required to keep society safe.
55
Democracy requires an informed and engaged electorate. When the electorate is uneducated, uninformed, and unmotivated the concept of democracy has no meaning and attacks on the first amendment only make things worse. If you don't trust the electorate to make sound judgements, how can you trust their elected officials?
3
I closed my Facebook account many years ago after using it just a few months. It only took a few months to discover what Facebook really is.
Taylor Swift, the pop singer, persuaded me close it. No, she didn't walk into my room and berate me for wasting time reading posts from thousands of "friends". She didn't have to. I kept getting "news", what Trump (who knows something about it) calls "fake news", about her. Her new album. The arrival of her concert tour in Chicago. Story-after-story, all positive needless to say. Glowing, actually.
They popped up in Messages, Notifications and that narrow left-hand column on my Home Page. "Taylor Swift" this. "Taylor Swift" that.
Then, one day, another item appeared, about Taylor Swift, in that column. Only it was from some faceless Facebook executive. He dryly explained why I was getting all this news about Taylor Swift. I was interested in her! Facebook knew about my interest through some process that it failed to reveal, so it was doing me a favor by keeping me abreast of her situation.
Very thoughtful. Only, I didn't even know who Taylor Swift was.
His tone was officious and defensive. Evidently, millions of bookers had been subjected to this advertising campaign styled "news", and some complained; more than "some", probably. Facebook wanted me to know that it was doing me a favor, and if the vomit of ads styled "news" about her annoyed me it was my fault.
Big Brother knew best. Big Brother had spoken.
I closed my account.
Taylor Swift, the pop singer, persuaded me close it. No, she didn't walk into my room and berate me for wasting time reading posts from thousands of "friends". She didn't have to. I kept getting "news", what Trump (who knows something about it) calls "fake news", about her. Her new album. The arrival of her concert tour in Chicago. Story-after-story, all positive needless to say. Glowing, actually.
They popped up in Messages, Notifications and that narrow left-hand column on my Home Page. "Taylor Swift" this. "Taylor Swift" that.
Then, one day, another item appeared, about Taylor Swift, in that column. Only it was from some faceless Facebook executive. He dryly explained why I was getting all this news about Taylor Swift. I was interested in her! Facebook knew about my interest through some process that it failed to reveal, so it was doing me a favor by keeping me abreast of her situation.
Very thoughtful. Only, I didn't even know who Taylor Swift was.
His tone was officious and defensive. Evidently, millions of bookers had been subjected to this advertising campaign styled "news", and some complained; more than "some", probably. Facebook wanted me to know that it was doing me a favor, and if the vomit of ads styled "news" about her annoyed me it was my fault.
Big Brother knew best. Big Brother had spoken.
I closed my account.
3
Some of the great things about being an American are now under attack. Unfortunately most of us don't even know how to defend ourselves. Mark Z. has his billions, but it is time for him to stand up to our enemies.
3
What about Cambridge Analytica? It is a firm owned by the Mercers that did the very same thing in service of Donald Trump. The firm, for example, targeted Haitians in Florida with ads accusing the Clinton Foundation of malfeasance after the Haiti 2010 earthquake. It was able to do so with surgical precision. The point wasn't to secure votes for Trump but to suppress support among communities that likely would vote for Clinton. The way that we consume information has changed due to social media. It's not wise for the government to crack down on the free flow of information, even if it's false. We as consumers simply need to educate ourselves and learn the difference. Much like 30 years ago, the public generally knew that Weekly World News was poppycock, we must learn that many Facebook ads are as well. Just as there was always a handful of people who believed that the living dog boy was real, there will always be a subset of folks who believe fake news. No legislation will change this. Hopefully, though, common sense will prevail among most of us.
1
The headline should read, "Free Speech Wins, Tyranny Loses."
Thanks, but I'll take my chances by reading numerous sources to come at the truth, just as any informed citizen should do.
Thanks, but I'll take my chances by reading numerous sources to come at the truth, just as any informed citizen should do.
1
No choice. My Facebook account will be deleted until there is change. Democracy used to include responsibility for the greater good.
2
Faith in democracy should not be confused with faith in the U.S. electoral system. Direct popular vote would not have DT in office. Despite Facebook, and commercials and propaganda disguised as citizen commentary, fraudulent social media posts did not fool the majority of the people. Democracy was not the problem. An antiquated system that gerrymanders sophisticated areas of states, and on a national level heavily weighs in favor of the votes of people outside diverse metro areas, is the thing in which there is no reason to have faith. This is not an undermining of faith; it's a revelation of the lack of fidelity to democracy in our system.
2
That the majority of people may not be fooled by fraudulent social media posts is heartening. However, in contests won with very narrow margins the manipulation of a targeted small minority through Facebook's platform without clear attribution naming the buyer and identification as a political ad, can affect the final outcome. This is of no small concern.
Russians didn't just run "anti-Hillary ads." They used the deceptive accounts and ads as catalysts to get the crowd to begin noticing, talking about, and sharing links to fake stories, and documents and emails that the Russians hacked, stole, and weaponized.
We need to know much more from Facebook. What are the exact targeting parameters the Russians used? In Facebook advertising, audience reach can be sliced and segmented very finely by geo, political leanings, age, and even by voting district. How much did the Russians know about targeting, and how did they know it? Was there collusion with Americans?
We need to know much more from Facebook. What are the exact targeting parameters the Russians used? In Facebook advertising, audience reach can be sliced and segmented very finely by geo, political leanings, age, and even by voting district. How much did the Russians know about targeting, and how did they know it? Was there collusion with Americans?
1
"Was there collusion with Americans?" -- I think about that everytime I look at Donald Trump.
1
I make it a practice to never click on advertisements on any web page, and I would think that a number of us Americans do not. Therefore, are we overreacting some to the power the ads have in only reaching a few Americans, while needing to put more focus on the misinformation that led our corporate media to go national with?
Such as the Breitbart non-corporate pundit news website publishing the debunked story that President Obama tapped Trump Tower? Didn’t that reach more of us than a website advertisement?
Such as the Breitbart non-corporate pundit news website publishing the debunked story that President Obama tapped Trump Tower? Didn’t that reach more of us than a website advertisement?
The monetary value of targeted misinformation that evaporates to avoid checking or repercussions is so great that manipjlatirs will keep Facebook in the dough forever. And Facebook facilitates all this by providing specifics to assist targeting their users without any interest in to whom or to what organization Facebook is providing this info., provided only that they pay their fees. And how on Earth will Facebook patrol these ephemeral abuses? Some automated search for keywords !??
It's interesting that an organization formed to bring people together has so abused their role just to make more bucks that people using it must protect themselves by stripping their profiles of all personal information that is crucial to bringing folks together.
It's interesting that an organization formed to bring people together has so abused their role just to make more bucks that people using it must protect themselves by stripping their profiles of all personal information that is crucial to bringing folks together.
I do remember seeing untrue political ads during the campaign on certain corporate media webpages I visit. I remember thinking that maybe certain media thought this political group was somehow free to publish what they wanted to, politically. However, I also asked myself if the untrue advertisement I saw about Hillary Clinton might have been approved by and somehow colluded with by the top corporate leaders in that certain media organization, which might be or lean towards Republican leadership.
This is what happens when people depend on social media as a news source, and apparently an increasingly large percentage of Americans do so.
While the main reason for this may be given what Donald Trump taunts as the "Fake Media" and "Fake News", the truth of the matter lies in the fact that what's often being reported on such social websites has not been corroborated, and is therefore little more than subjective opinion disguised as fact.
And if this recent revelation from Facebook about Russian-based accounts running an anti-Clinton campaign turns out to be true, given what is currently under investigation in the White House, it should come as a surprise to no one.
Unfortunately, it's too late now.
While the main reason for this may be given what Donald Trump taunts as the "Fake Media" and "Fake News", the truth of the matter lies in the fact that what's often being reported on such social websites has not been corroborated, and is therefore little more than subjective opinion disguised as fact.
And if this recent revelation from Facebook about Russian-based accounts running an anti-Clinton campaign turns out to be true, given what is currently under investigation in the White House, it should come as a surprise to no one.
Unfortunately, it's too late now.
1
The media are businesses that exist to make profit. Most of their income, about 70%. is generated by selling ad space. What they sell to ad space buyers is audience ratings, i.e documented evidence of audiences reached. Why would one expect the newest form of media, that which appears on the internet, to be different? They are different in one respect. They can be produced and distributed from beyond our borders and therefore are immune to government. regulation. That is just how things are.
2
Citizens can only decide on issues and vote for candidates based on what information they have. The source and credibility of the information is fundamental to democracy working. That is why Facebook and other social media must conform to standards imposed on traditional print and broadcast media. Who pays for a political ad, who endorses it, must be made public.
Foreign countries must be prevented from inserting political ads and fake news in our elections and must be prevented from creating social media accounts pretending to be American citizens.
Part of what is so terribly wrong with Trump is his attack on legitimate media and truth. He flagrantly undermines our democracy. He is the worst thing to happen to America since the Civil War and he may do more damage than was done in the 1860's. Nearly a million Americans died in the effort to divide and preserve the union. Americans on both sides knew the issues, the reasons they fought. But today Trump and foreign co-conspirators are working to confuse Americans with fake news and by undermining legitimate media and the truth. Facebook has facilitated these efforts.
If Facebook and other social media do not or cannot stop foreign interference in their platforms then the federal government must do so. Not to, is to say goodbye to democracy. So what do we do when our federal government willfully chooses not protect our democracy?
Foreign countries must be prevented from inserting political ads and fake news in our elections and must be prevented from creating social media accounts pretending to be American citizens.
Part of what is so terribly wrong with Trump is his attack on legitimate media and truth. He flagrantly undermines our democracy. He is the worst thing to happen to America since the Civil War and he may do more damage than was done in the 1860's. Nearly a million Americans died in the effort to divide and preserve the union. Americans on both sides knew the issues, the reasons they fought. But today Trump and foreign co-conspirators are working to confuse Americans with fake news and by undermining legitimate media and the truth. Facebook has facilitated these efforts.
If Facebook and other social media do not or cannot stop foreign interference in their platforms then the federal government must do so. Not to, is to say goodbye to democracy. So what do we do when our federal government willfully chooses not protect our democracy?
I quit Facebook years ago after I announced the birth of my child on Facebook and got targeted ads for pharmaceutical anti-depressants in response. I was not depressed - I was thrilled, but the ads kept trying to convince I was deluding myself and was really in need of a bunch of pills. It was beyond the pale. This is beyond the pale. I disagree that this issue is too "nebulous" to cause people to leave Facebook. FB has too much power (obviously) and is run by someone whose priorities do not include the integrity of our personal lives, let alone that of our country. Quit, already. I assure you it's the only way we'll ever get Zuckerberg's attention.
2
"The audacity of a hostile foreign power trying to influence American voters rightly troubles us."
Well, some of us. It doesn't seem to rightly trouble our current president and his supporters in the least, and I suspect it only troubles Congressional Republicans correlative to any possible political cost to themselves and their party.
So much for those self-proclaimed "real Americans" and "patriots". They've shown their true colors.
Well, some of us. It doesn't seem to rightly trouble our current president and his supporters in the least, and I suspect it only troubles Congressional Republicans correlative to any possible political cost to themselves and their party.
So much for those self-proclaimed "real Americans" and "patriots". They've shown their true colors.
No mention of the BBC video, in which a Trump campaign staff manager admitted, on camera, that Cambridge Analytica was in their office running "Project Alamo" and that both Twitter and Facebook sent REPRESENTATIVES to work with them in the targeting of propaganda to their users. She admitted on camera that these two companies were directly involved in the mass targeting of political propaganda to help the Trump campaign.
She actually stated that when you're throwing so much money at Facebook and Twitter they will do anything for you. They knew what they were doing, they were attacking our democracy and undermining our nations for profit.
Based on this one interview alone, those responsible should be the subjects of counter-espionage investigations.
And lets not forget, both companies have long wanted to expand into China, Russia and other untoward nations, just as Trump wants to do. They have an interest in making money, and pleasing enemies of our democracies.
Twitter and Facebook directly engaged in an attack on our democracies and they need to be held accountable for it.
She actually stated that when you're throwing so much money at Facebook and Twitter they will do anything for you. They knew what they were doing, they were attacking our democracy and undermining our nations for profit.
Based on this one interview alone, those responsible should be the subjects of counter-espionage investigations.
And lets not forget, both companies have long wanted to expand into China, Russia and other untoward nations, just as Trump wants to do. They have an interest in making money, and pleasing enemies of our democracies.
Twitter and Facebook directly engaged in an attack on our democracies and they need to be held accountable for it.
1
If the corruption of social media has become a threat to democracy
-- a doubtful proposition -- it's partly because, way back at the origin of the
web, influential journalists, including those of this newspaper,
boosted those commercial enterprises as the new "town square" of
the world. By now, though, we can see that social media are vast,
twitchy nerve nets that can never be proxies for the public sphere.
Their very structures, as networks of personages, makes them
unsuited for carrying the kind of public dialogue and debate on
which informed democracy depend. So their takeover by gangsters
isn't that much of a loss, and I think most people understand this.
-- a doubtful proposition -- it's partly because, way back at the origin of the
web, influential journalists, including those of this newspaper,
boosted those commercial enterprises as the new "town square" of
the world. By now, though, we can see that social media are vast,
twitchy nerve nets that can never be proxies for the public sphere.
Their very structures, as networks of personages, makes them
unsuited for carrying the kind of public dialogue and debate on
which informed democracy depend. So their takeover by gangsters
isn't that much of a loss, and I think most people understand this.
1
Internet corporations --by definition -- are global in nature. They seek profits and not political affiliation. They are showing tremendous power during a political campaign in democratic countries.
The last presidential election in the US -- home of the most powerful Internet corporations -- has shown the downside of this new propaganda tool.The only way out is adaptation and survival.
The last presidential election in the US -- home of the most powerful Internet corporations -- has shown the downside of this new propaganda tool.The only way out is adaptation and survival.
2
Isn't it ironic that the so-called ultimate social media network has zero social conscience.
I have never used FB and never will.
If I was using it, this would be one off many reasons why I would stop.
I have never used FB and never will.
If I was using it, this would be one off many reasons why I would stop.
2
Calls for Americans to simply be more discerning consumers of news are not an effective counterweight to stealth propaganda campaigns. Such an approach underestimates the dangers of motivated reasoning and confirmation bias, which will automatically kick in when viewers on Facebook see ads "telling them what they want to hear." Fact checking only reinforces a lie by repeating it, so is rarely an effective strategy in countering falsehood.
Furthermore, only a third of Americans have a college education. Older voters tend to be less educated than the average, and their high school civics classes are receding into the dim past. Younger people are busy and harried. No, "educated consumer" recommendations are like most caveat emptor advice, a way for companies to avoid responsibility for peddling poison. I don't know how Facebook should fix this problem, but somehow I feel that if they were assessed a hefty fine for each occurrence they would figure it out.
Furthermore, only a third of Americans have a college education. Older voters tend to be less educated than the average, and their high school civics classes are receding into the dim past. Younger people are busy and harried. No, "educated consumer" recommendations are like most caveat emptor advice, a way for companies to avoid responsibility for peddling poison. I don't know how Facebook should fix this problem, but somehow I feel that if they were assessed a hefty fine for each occurrence they would figure it out.
1
Agreed. Calls for the public to be more discerning is really blaming the victim. We do not teach critical thinking or civics since we decided to fix education by strangling it before pushing its head under the bath water. Really, what did you expect?
2
This essay focus attention on longstanding tensions between positive (most often applicable to a collective) and negative (absence of individual constraint) liberty. They can be rivals, as we see in this NYTs op-ed.
Is Facebook “destroying democracy”? That sounds a bit extreme. What constraints should be placed on its use as a tool for propaganda, as opposed to other types of advertising? At what point are these media giants no longer just private enterprise, but rather more of a public utility? What is the line between that broad censorship and the freedom/necessity of the collective (i.e. the nation) to protect itself from forces bent on disrupting our representative government?
The destructive influences of modern social media are increasingly apparent. Prof. Vaidhyanathan is correct: letting Facebook police itself is fraught. That should surprise no one, particularly when so much one and influence is involved. It is not enough to say that Facebook is just another tool, that the problems are with individual use, not the tool itself.
We need careful and better regulation of forces like Facebook. Individual states cannot do this. Opponents will highlight a disturbing list of countries who attempt to “control the internet,” but we should not be deterred by the most extreme examples of censorship.
Is Facebook “destroying democracy”? That sounds a bit extreme. What constraints should be placed on its use as a tool for propaganda, as opposed to other types of advertising? At what point are these media giants no longer just private enterprise, but rather more of a public utility? What is the line between that broad censorship and the freedom/necessity of the collective (i.e. the nation) to protect itself from forces bent on disrupting our representative government?
The destructive influences of modern social media are increasingly apparent. Prof. Vaidhyanathan is correct: letting Facebook police itself is fraught. That should surprise no one, particularly when so much one and influence is involved. It is not enough to say that Facebook is just another tool, that the problems are with individual use, not the tool itself.
We need careful and better regulation of forces like Facebook. Individual states cannot do this. Opponents will highlight a disturbing list of countries who attempt to “control the internet,” but we should not be deterred by the most extreme examples of censorship.
20
Social media, when used for good, can be informative and engaging, a useful tool for bringing families and old friends together or giving us a laugh when we need one. During times of crisis such as the situation in Florida or Texas, it can be a plentiful source of information and a way to keep in touch. Overall I think the good still outweighs the bad... however it has been proven just how bad the bad can be.
Despite all the talk of North Korea and the threat it poses, social media has become the nuclear weapon of the 21st-century, easily obtained and easily deployed by anyone who understands its power (and many who don't). Our enemies, who have never been able to touch us without incurring a cost too great to contemplate, have now found the ultimate weapon for sewing dissent, misinformation and and hatred, all from the safety of a chair. Today anyone with an axe to grind, a few dollars and a PC can have a Weapon of Mass Disinformation. Now apply that to an entire country.
Despite all the talk of North Korea and the threat it poses, social media has become the nuclear weapon of the 21st-century, easily obtained and easily deployed by anyone who understands its power (and many who don't). Our enemies, who have never been able to touch us without incurring a cost too great to contemplate, have now found the ultimate weapon for sewing dissent, misinformation and and hatred, all from the safety of a chair. Today anyone with an axe to grind, a few dollars and a PC can have a Weapon of Mass Disinformation. Now apply that to an entire country.
1
People repeatedly forget that large corporations with international operations are not patriotic. They follow the profits as to where they locate manufacturing, research, etc. They lobby to create gaping tax loopholes. The USA is attractive for our base of consumption and for our venal politicians, but in the words of Thomas Friedman in these pages, these corporations "hover" over the United States, they are not really committed to the long-term well being of the nation.
69
For me, Facebook and much of the emerging technology only helps point to the age old adage: "Be careful what you wish for."
2
I resisted Facebook for years until one of my employees pointed out it was a good way to keep in touch with family and friends who live far away. This person also said I could set privacy controls to avoid risk. Well that turned out to be a lie! I don't use it much. But, no one is going to convince the millions who use it to stop.
These are ads though. Not things people post & share. I'm sure there is a way for Facebook to monitor ad content and who is being targeted. Since it's illegal for foreign governments to spend money in our elections, Facebook has a DUTY to come up with a screening process. Ad content & targeted audiences should be their first clue. They seem to have been able to figure out after the fact who bought these ads. They should be required to do this before publishing the ad. Companies are trying to develop artificial intelligence in computers. Perhaps they need to spend some of those gazillions of dollars on developing screening tools to protect US elections from interference by foreign governments. After all, the US allowed Zuckerberg to build this empire. He owes something in return.
These are ads though. Not things people post & share. I'm sure there is a way for Facebook to monitor ad content and who is being targeted. Since it's illegal for foreign governments to spend money in our elections, Facebook has a DUTY to come up with a screening process. Ad content & targeted audiences should be their first clue. They seem to have been able to figure out after the fact who bought these ads. They should be required to do this before publishing the ad. Companies are trying to develop artificial intelligence in computers. Perhaps they need to spend some of those gazillions of dollars on developing screening tools to protect US elections from interference by foreign governments. After all, the US allowed Zuckerberg to build this empire. He owes something in return.
1
Well, I don't know what the answer is here, and I've never trusted Facebook or Zuckerberg for a host of reasons. But I just posted this editorial to my Facebook page in the blink of an eye. The Times, along with every other major news venue, makes it so easy to 'share'... How did we get to the point where for-profit social media like FB and Twitter are running the communications world - and it's still so hard for us scientists to get things published in peer-reviewed journals that the public never sees?
2
"In the 21st-century social media information war, faith in democracy is the first casualty." No. I would say in the 21st-century, faith in democracy remains strong, and faith in social media is the first casualty.
9
There is a large portion of the online community that are strictly "users". They get a laptop or phone, and learn only enough to navigate calling, texting, and social media apps. They don't care about who develops applications or who provides content. They don't care about source code or algorithms that are designed to target them and influence their behavior. We need to encourage a more critical thinking process directed at the online environment; it is a relatively new realm with immense power and influence. Putin was right about Artificial Intelligence and control and influence. The less we understand the more vulnerable we are.
17
I too remember as a kid blithely plopping down in front of the TV, pushing a button and like magic appeared dancing Mickey Mouse right in my own living room. Little did I know then that 60 years later that mouse would own me and everything else. What's new?
1
Yeah, look at how many people still believe that a Nigerian prince wants to send them millions of dollars.
1
Siva has it all backwards. Facebook is empowering democracy. When the media is 90% one way on political issues where is democracy?
The media isn't biased? Count the number of reports negative versus the number of reports positive on President Trump. Add up the minutes on negative reports versus the number of minutes on positive reports. Look at the bias of those who are interviewed. Look at the failure to disclose the background and motivation of those with a negative view versus those with a positive view. Look at what data and information is included and what is excluded in the reporting. Look at the actual false reports.
The media can print or say anything they choose. All they have to do is attribute it to an unnamed inside source. Siva then wants to control what Facebook can publish based on supporting democracy. What rubbish.
The media isn't biased? Count the number of reports negative versus the number of reports positive on President Trump. Add up the minutes on negative reports versus the number of minutes on positive reports. Look at the bias of those who are interviewed. Look at the failure to disclose the background and motivation of those with a negative view versus those with a positive view. Look at what data and information is included and what is excluded in the reporting. Look at the actual false reports.
The media can print or say anything they choose. All they have to do is attribute it to an unnamed inside source. Siva then wants to control what Facebook can publish based on supporting democracy. What rubbish.
13
Did it cross your mind that there may be nothing positive about Trump? That being the case, the question becomes why there are a few positive reports . . .
When 90% of the media report that the sky is blue, is that bias? Of course there are mistakes--the history of the NYT over even the past decade or so contains some egregious examples. But when traditional media outlets make a mistake it is out there in print or in an electronic record for others to question and correct. Facebook's temporary, targeted, anonymous posts do their damage and then disappear. Unlike public mistakes, stealthy misinformation does indeed threaten democracy by threatening the existence of the educated and informed populace that is essential to the functioning of a democracy.
1
I am not a Trump supporter but the thing that bothers me is that the media doesn't seem to give him a chance. They have a knee jerk reaction that almost requires a negative slant to everything he does.The eye rolls and snarky remarks have become de rigueur in some outlets.
He's done many things I don't agree with but he should still be treated even handedly and with respect for the office he holds.
He's done many things I don't agree with but he should still be treated even handedly and with respect for the office he holds.
2
What I have noticed is a change in personal privacy. I will explain. My grandmother was one of the marching feminist for women's voting rights in the teens of the 20th century. She and my grandfather would not discuss politics with each other until after the results of the votes were confirm. My parents didn't discuss politics either, or at least not in front of us children. I don't recall either my mom or dad ever talking about who they supported to me. But that changed with the Viet Nam era, as did so many other things.
Now politics reminds me of college sports. Everyone decided whom they will support and that's it. Then come the hazing of the other side and its supporters. This appears to be the sure way to kill a democracy. Well, right after lowering educational standards to such a degree that society ends up with Betty DeVos heading future education reform.
Now politics reminds me of college sports. Everyone decided whom they will support and that's it. Then come the hazing of the other side and its supporters. This appears to be the sure way to kill a democracy. Well, right after lowering educational standards to such a degree that society ends up with Betty DeVos heading future education reform.
56
@Susannah
When we cannot have an honest debate of the issues with actual facts, then there is only anarchy left. The press is complicit in this as they lurch from tweet to tweet. They also have to have a false equivalency for almost every story. ( climate change as a prime example and relevant today to be sure )
We have to remain vigilant, but we also have to think for ourselves.
Keep the faith luv. I do.
When we cannot have an honest debate of the issues with actual facts, then there is only anarchy left. The press is complicit in this as they lurch from tweet to tweet. They also have to have a false equivalency for almost every story. ( climate change as a prime example and relevant today to be sure )
We have to remain vigilant, but we also have to think for ourselves.
Keep the faith luv. I do.
2
Kudos to Siva Vaidhyanathan for expounding on this vitally important subject. a genie has been unleashed that can never be put back in the bottle so long as Facebook's only constriction is its word. In the absence of meaningful regulation with teeth, the profit motive always will win out in the boardroom in a country and culture that deifies capitalism regardless of the socioeconomic and political costs.
37
Well let's see. It would appear that with Facebook, money, and the accumulation of it. is way way way more important than democracy. Just ask the owners. You know, Zuckerberg 24%, Rothschlld 8%, Ebersman 11%, Schroepfer 11%, Sandberg 1%, Uillyot 1%, plus a bunch of venture capitalists. Believe me, all these people know the value of money and they're not going to allow some stupid thing like democracy get in the way of their piling up more of it. Maybe they'll feel different if they ever get targeted with the tactics they're so intent on protecting.
86
Except for Zuckerberg, not one of those names appears anywhere in any history, listing or document relating to Facebook. Your statements are completely fabricated anti-Semitic hate!
2
A significant problem with regulation is, as you point out, that most of the ads did not mention a political candidate.
They were instead statements about an array of social issues.
How do you regulate that on Facebook? Do you prohibit statements that could be construed as undermining one candidate vs another?
It seems to me the issue is one of dark posts, and specifically dark posts of a political nature. Can those be regulated?
They were instead statements about an array of social issues.
How do you regulate that on Facebook? Do you prohibit statements that could be construed as undermining one candidate vs another?
It seems to me the issue is one of dark posts, and specifically dark posts of a political nature. Can those be regulated?
12
This is the crucial question. Democracy is based on the idea that people can understand things. A rule that requires a political ad to be labeled as a political ad helps people take a critical look at the contents, but think how much better it would be if we could assume that people could figure out that kind of thing for themselves. It seems that our efforts to protect democracy are all based on a sense of the fragility of the very core concept of democracy - the common sense of the general public. And this is a demonstrable truth: people are easily influenced by demagoguery and lies. Just like the economic "free market", it turns out that free political discourse requires a structure of regulation built up around it. A troubling reality.
The targeted political ads I've seen are so simple or stupid, and target "the choir" - those who already agree with message. However, I have noticed more fishy "friend" requests. When you pull the supposed friend's profile, the only personal picture is the profile shot - no personal pictures or anything. In short, don't accept friend requests that are obviously fishy!
5
I must be blunt: how do fake Facebook and Twitter accounts represent an imminent threat to democracy? Why are we getting hysterical now?
Since the advent of the internet, users have been sorting through fact, fiction, misrepresentation and conspiracy theory. Ask anyone who's used a dating website what their opinion of bot accounts are - it's not positive, but surely it's not the end of democracy. The hysterics only start when Donald Trump gets involved.
On the other hand - who do we want validating "real" users on social media? These curated NY Times boards are certainly no better indicator of democracy than Facebook's likes or shares. CNN's elite investigative team immediately proved that it couldn't be trusted to release accurate information. During the election, Google was shown to manipulate autocomplete results to manipulate returns in Hillary's favor. Most obviously, given Silicon Valley's blatant political leanings, I don't trust Facebook or Twitter with the keys to the kingdom any more than the already have.
So I say again: why are we getting hysterical now?
Since the advent of the internet, users have been sorting through fact, fiction, misrepresentation and conspiracy theory. Ask anyone who's used a dating website what their opinion of bot accounts are - it's not positive, but surely it's not the end of democracy. The hysterics only start when Donald Trump gets involved.
On the other hand - who do we want validating "real" users on social media? These curated NY Times boards are certainly no better indicator of democracy than Facebook's likes or shares. CNN's elite investigative team immediately proved that it couldn't be trusted to release accurate information. During the election, Google was shown to manipulate autocomplete results to manipulate returns in Hillary's favor. Most obviously, given Silicon Valley's blatant political leanings, I don't trust Facebook or Twitter with the keys to the kingdom any more than the already have.
So I say again: why are we getting hysterical now?
13
Google was hardly "shown" to have manipulated search results to help Clinton. Why the "sudden" concern now? 1) This is the first major use of this kind of phony political ads to affect a major election, and 2) an unfriendly foreign government was involved in it. If it happens to your candidate next, will you see it differently? Unchecked proliferation of bogus accusations against political candidates is, like manipulation of the free press by the government, a serious threat to a free democracy, period.
If people are stupid enough to believe everything that is written on Wastebook and Twitter, then they only have themselves to blame. If you choose low hanging fruit, then be prepared to eat bugs and worms.
1
The real vulnerability here is an ignorant American population who gets its information from sources which are not credible. At one time the National Enquirer was considered a rag. By todays standards for some it is a reliable source. The Russians have found another source to deliver slop to certain Americans who can't get enough. Just watch a Trump rally and watch the reaction when he delivers speeches filled with lies, inaccuracies, and innuendo.
176
The same thing happened in the UK before and during Brexit. People don't seem to want to admit this, but they were fooled by Farage, UKIP and others working hand-in-hand with Putin/WikiLeaks and others in the deliberate undermining of our democracy.
This is not just an American issue, it's an international one. Putin is using these same measures all around the world, using partners like Twitter, Google and Facebook as willing partners.
Several political groups are more than happy to work with him to undermine our nations.
Farrage worked with Putin.
LePen worked with Putin.
Trump worked with Putin.
He has recruited traitors to our nations to do his bidding and destroy traditional unions between nations, and it's working.
This is not just an American issue, it's an international one. Putin is using these same measures all around the world, using partners like Twitter, Google and Facebook as willing partners.
Several political groups are more than happy to work with him to undermine our nations.
Farrage worked with Putin.
LePen worked with Putin.
Trump worked with Putin.
He has recruited traitors to our nations to do his bidding and destroy traditional unions between nations, and it's working.
1
This is precisely why we live in an era of "Idiocracy" of the public mind.
2
I totally agree. And with the continuing depletion of tax funds for basic education particularly in Red States (Kansas and Oklahoma) the population will become increasingly more ignorant. Add that to the addictive qualities of Facebook and we have an enormous problem.
3
How would facebook be affected if everyone boycotted it one day, just 24 hours?
34
Facebook doesn't care. I have reported abuses and they say they review my reports but the offensive content does not violate "community standards". I even reported someone who was inciting murder of people in a specific sociopolitical group, and I got the same response from FB. What?! Inciting murder is OK?
15
Are you saying the Russians are the only ones to be using social media to promote political agendas among the naive undereducated public? What, other intelligence would never stoop so low? CIA, MI5 or 6 or whatever? Come on, how difficult is it to raise the level of intelligence of Facebook users? (Stop with the cynical grins already.)
6
Yes Facebook needs to do a better job when it comes to monitoring ads on it's site, but it is a still a social mostly a social site for people sharing everything from pictures of what they had for breakfast to stories on pedophile pizza parlors.
It's easy to blame Facebook and Google for the fake news stories that were shared on their sites.
But it wasn't just social media that failed us during the last election it was way main-stream that provided Trump with free unlimited access to their pages and airtime so his campaign of fake promises were allowed to be backed up with fake facts that he heard about from fake news outlets.
It's easy to blame Facebook and Google for the fake news stories that were shared on their sites.
But it wasn't just social media that failed us during the last election it was way main-stream that provided Trump with free unlimited access to their pages and airtime so his campaign of fake promises were allowed to be backed up with fake facts that he heard about from fake news outlets.
116
"Facebook needs to do a better job". Really? Are we sure?
The social media is like the water supply and Facebook allowed Russia to poison it for a few thousand dollars. Predatory Capitalism has it's own rewards and it's own punishments but like all things capitalist, all profits are privaticized while all harm is socialized.
We need to restore functional government and end the abandonment of the Public good in favor of phony "job creator" "free market' private greed. Without government we are at the mercy of greed. Now we are provided with evidence that Facebook and others have used "freedom of the press" and "free speech" to permit foreign powers to subvert our real press and our freedom of speech for a few thousand dollars.
The social media is like the water supply and Facebook allowed Russia to poison it for a few thousand dollars. Predatory Capitalism has it's own rewards and it's own punishments but like all things capitalist, all profits are privaticized while all harm is socialized.
We need to restore functional government and end the abandonment of the Public good in favor of phony "job creator" "free market' private greed. Without government we are at the mercy of greed. Now we are provided with evidence that Facebook and others have used "freedom of the press" and "free speech" to permit foreign powers to subvert our real press and our freedom of speech for a few thousand dollars.
Do not forget the main streams priority on propagating the fake news on Hilary emails.
1
@Horace
It seems that not only has the political spectrum been pulled so far right, but the media as well as all of them try to be FoxNewsLite. ( even MSNBC )
In fact even, FoxNEws is being outflanked on their right by Sinclair, ( and their forcing of local newscasts to play their segments\fake news )
We need to take back the airwaves and better monitor them.
It seems that not only has the political spectrum been pulled so far right, but the media as well as all of them try to be FoxNewsLite. ( even MSNBC )
In fact even, FoxNEws is being outflanked on their right by Sinclair, ( and their forcing of local newscasts to play their segments\fake news )
We need to take back the airwaves and better monitor them.
1
Are you really just figuring this out now? Most of these are obvious ways public opinion could be manipulated using modern media.
1
This is all a distraction from our real issues, number one being our election process IS corrupted by money, redistricting, partisan politics, attempts to keep many Americans from voting. WE NEED A TOTAL REFORM of our election politics! It's incredible that the NYT's is spending all this time blaming Russia when the real problems lie within our political system!
8
Video posts and memes are highly suspect at all times on Facebook. I've seen Thomas Jefferson's words dumbed down and misquoted in memes, and recently I was subjected to the most heartbreaking video I've ever seen, of a mob of 100+ beating and burning a young woman to death. They set her ablaze twice, the second time with gasoline. She screamed and died in the street, the hundred or so lynchers looking on, pleased with themselves, taking videos of it. The video was real, graphic and uncensored, but the caption was fake. Some anti-Indian had written that the girl was a Hindu in India and her crime had been attending a Christian prayer service. "The true face of shining India!" the blurb said. My opinion of India took a huge dive--but in fact, I soon discovered, the incident occurred in Guatemala, as previously covered by the UK newspaper The Independent, and apparently the girl was supposed to have have committed some other crime. So heartbreaking to see this poor young girl die that way. Also sad that somebody had to attach a fake back-story to it. Is there an army of Pakistani trolls, I wonder, just like the Russians?
4
The main problem is that Americans are so convonced of their own independence of mind that they refuse to accept that they are just as susceptible to propaganda as any other human being.
Sigh. Americans' delusion of exceptionalism strikes again.
Sigh. Americans' delusion of exceptionalism strikes again.
41
"The audacity of a hostile foreign power trying to influence American voters rightly troubles us. But it should trouble us more..."
Maybe it would trouble us more if the author provided a clear definition of "hostile power". There are so many degrees that a foreign political entity's words and behavior can be interpreted as hostile that I'm honestly at a bit of a loss here on what warning signs to recognize. Divisive social and political messages seem to have existed in one form or another, forever, and it might strike some as a bit paranoid and overly defensive were I to reflexively dismiss everything as a naked foreign power's attempt of manipulating my highly susceptible mind.
Maybe it would trouble us more if the author provided a clear definition of "hostile power". There are so many degrees that a foreign political entity's words and behavior can be interpreted as hostile that I'm honestly at a bit of a loss here on what warning signs to recognize. Divisive social and political messages seem to have existed in one form or another, forever, and it might strike some as a bit paranoid and overly defensive were I to reflexively dismiss everything as a naked foreign power's attempt of manipulating my highly susceptible mind.
3
Democracies have significant weaknesses, foremost is corruption. Other weaknesses inherent in Democracy include: misinformed and uninformed voters; low voter-participation; a disfunctional press; and growing apathy.
U.S.A. Representative Democracy is struggling, beset by jackals and hyenas on all sides, and orphaned by the Courts.
U.S.A. Representative Democracy is struggling, beset by jackals and hyenas on all sides, and orphaned by the Courts.
8
Sometimes, democracy must actually rely on informed citizens. There is plenty of "Fake News"on the internet ,along with computer viruses . There are ads imploring you to click them in order to have Microsoft correct a problem with your pc LOL. In a similar vein, if an ad states that Trump was killed by a terrorist and I don't see that information on reputable sites, then I know its false. I do not need the protection of government to protect me from postings on social media. Social media is a place to converse with people you want to communicate with, but Facebook isn't a place where you can rely on the accuracy of factual information contained in postings. This article assumes that most internet users aren't computer literate, but there are plenty of people sophisticated enough not to be swayed by Russian propaganda in the form of fake news. Fake news is a simpler form of a computer virus and it is much easier to discover.
35
You clearly do not need that protection, but many of my gullible friends do. Democracy relies on an "informed electorate." We barely had that before Facebook, and now we have a sizeable group of people who are misinformed and unaware that they have been manipulated.
1
Platitudes about personal responsibility for choosing news sources were subverted by dilution of FCC rules, repeal of the Fairness Doctrine, Reagan's exhortation to denounce government, because "government is not the solution, government is the problem"
Government must resume the authority it once had over the airwaves and assert authority over cable and the internet. We are a democratic republic. Our government can be the expression of the public will. It has become prostituted by money. Capitalism is like a wild animal. Capitalism must be domesticated, house broken, muzzled, and be restrained. Pollution is not a right, abuse of basic human needs is not tolerable, exploitation of human weaknesses: racism, misogyny, greed, hatred and fear are pathological. Some pretend that all of this is an expression our freedom. They want to exploit this sentiment. "Freedom Caucus" "Tea Party" "Club for Growth" should remind Americans of Robspiere's "Committee for Public Safety".
Government must resume the authority it once had over the airwaves and assert authority over cable and the internet. We are a democratic republic. Our government can be the expression of the public will. It has become prostituted by money. Capitalism is like a wild animal. Capitalism must be domesticated, house broken, muzzled, and be restrained. Pollution is not a right, abuse of basic human needs is not tolerable, exploitation of human weaknesses: racism, misogyny, greed, hatred and fear are pathological. Some pretend that all of this is an expression our freedom. They want to exploit this sentiment. "Freedom Caucus" "Tea Party" "Club for Growth" should remind Americans of Robspiere's "Committee for Public Safety".
2
Problem is, that way too many people still believe everything they read on social media, especially if it agrees with their viewpoint. For instance, suppose I believe some absurd "fact" like dish soap kills fleas. I post this on Facebook. Others who believe the same alternative fact will re post it to others who believe the same drivel. Rational readers will not be fooled, and refuse to spread the mis information, so I will be preaching to the choir, who dutifully spread the word to other believers.
1
Facebook, what's that? I'm not on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter or whatever other app du jour is currently spitting out misinformation. I stopped watching TV years ago, and no longer own one. Obviously I still read newspapers online. There are some good magazines out there. Remember those? And books. Caveat emptor.
7
I wish people would take a holiday from the internet, Facebook etc. I have a friend just back from Cuba and she mentioned how difficult her first day was without connectivity and then the next was bliss with out it.
2
Dark hour for democracy. Facebook doesn't care and is not going to change as long as it can keep selling more ads. It wants to "connect everyone" "be the platform for civic discourse" etc. just to have eyeballs and make money. It's desperately trying to get into China and toe the Communist Party line to increase revenue. The answer is simple -- get off Facebook. No, you don't need it, and it's a waste of time and societal productivity, and you're helping to feed an evil monster. The cons outweigh the pros. And, please, absolutely don't trust any news that comes out of social media.
266
Facebook is entitled to make money? No one is entitled to make money. Everyone is entitled to "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness". We have the Four Freedoms: of religion, of expression, from want and from fear. These are not corporate rights or rights subordinate to money, they are individual rights. Facebook is a business without individual rights. Facebook's corporate charter was granted by a state, an elected government. Facebook's existence is dependent upon the state. Facebook and every other corporation is a creature of elected government and can be dissolved at the whim of the state if they violate their charter or are deemed a harm to the state or it's citizens. Notions that corporations are people or citizens is a usurpation of human rights and cannot be tolerated. Americans are not immortal and are subject to law. Corporations are ageless and are never executed or jailed for the grave harm that they have inflicted on real people. It is time that real people demand that their government protect us from corporations and dissolve corporate charters that harm us, endanger our lives, and threaten our freedom.
Facebook acted as a conduit for Russian propaganda and claims of innocence or claims that their "freedom" cannot be curtailed by regulation is patently false.
Facebook acted as a conduit for Russian propaganda and claims of innocence or claims that their "freedom" cannot be curtailed by regulation is patently false.
@RBSF
I concur ( social media is highly addictive and starts to take over your life )
However, the real answer is to take Democracy seriously, by not only voting ( volunteering and getting involved ) but to actually think for yourself and not to be so easily swayed by such propaganda or fake news.
Just a thought .
I concur ( social media is highly addictive and starts to take over your life )
However, the real answer is to take Democracy seriously, by not only voting ( volunteering and getting involved ) but to actually think for yourself and not to be so easily swayed by such propaganda or fake news.
Just a thought .
2
Yeah RB, me and FB are at odds and I will exit FB today.
Democratic values vs Earnings per Share. Its not even a close debate.
7
If fake Facebook pages had torpedoed Trump, we would not hear a peep out of this paper. Zuckeberg would probably be given some unrelated award and begged for donations, invited to openings, etc. all wonderful and progressive.
Not that I think Facebook had one thing to do with Clinton stumbling over her own exposure as a lousy candidate, or that I think Russia interfered materially either. Just sayin'. And in fact I voted for her in NH (after voting for Sanders in the primary), where she just barely won in a state with an all female Congressional group. That razor thin win was telling, people resisted the "it's her turn" idea of electing a President.
Not that I think Facebook had one thing to do with Clinton stumbling over her own exposure as a lousy candidate, or that I think Russia interfered materially either. Just sayin'. And in fact I voted for her in NH (after voting for Sanders in the primary), where she just barely won in a state with an all female Congressional group. That razor thin win was telling, people resisted the "it's her turn" idea of electing a President.
10
I think we would hear from the NYT if Trump had been targeted by the Russians. The difference though is that Trump isn't qualified to be president. So the impact would be good for the country. Instead we had low information, easily swayed and fearful people manipulated by Russia AND Trump into thinking he was for real. Ad to that the republicans who put party over country and Voila! President Trump.
Facebook is a monstrous spying and propaganda machine. Sociologists and psychologists have documented how social media is causing children to lose, or never properly develop, interpersonal and socialization skills. Who would give up their privacy to be targeted by advertisers and rogue states such as Russia? Who allows children to be harmed by Facebook? Social media, we will recall, gave rise to cyber bullying. Thus what our technological prowess has delivered for mankind: Facebook?
My easy solution to the Facebook problem: delete my account, which they make as difficult as they possibly can.
A blackout should be imposed on any political content 3 months before an election. If they can't publish the source,and fact check the content, then nobody sees it. I think this is what the Europeans will do. There is surely a point where protecting democracy is more important than protecting the First Amendment.
My easy solution to the Facebook problem: delete my account, which they make as difficult as they possibly can.
A blackout should be imposed on any political content 3 months before an election. If they can't publish the source,and fact check the content, then nobody sees it. I think this is what the Europeans will do. There is surely a point where protecting democracy is more important than protecting the First Amendment.
12
Unwittingly or not Facebook now has dirty hands in the election. It did seem odd that Trump was able to muster up those votes at the last minute. Now we know how.
Ah Facebook, bless its heart.
Ah Facebook, bless its heart.
4
The only thing that I can think of that would be relatively easy to do is to vilify and shun the creators of Facebook and Twitter until they write software that catches false accounts and reviews ads. They all made their fortunes while living in the USA including those who were born in and lived some years in Eastern Europe. There used to be some loyalty to the nation among some creators and business owners such as Mark Zuckerberg. I say slam he and the others in every media outlet every day. None of them could have developed their products in Russia unless Putin had his thumb on the content and his greedy hand in the pot. It's time to draft them into an army that defends our freedoms even if they take a hit in their billions of dollars of profit.
4
Facebook has little motivation to clean up their act, because they make money by conveying these Russian attacks on Western democracy. And since Republicans will defend Facebook against any attempt to regulate this kind of anti-American activity, we'll have a three-way power alliance: Russia, Republicans, and Facebook. If they win they can carve a new Mt. Rushmore featuring Putin, Trump, and Zuckerberg, and our descendants can take their children to it and marvel.
2
I haven't signed up for Facebook because I knew they have no social conscience. Money makes the world go around.
5
Social media and the NYT and other high profile news organizations were consistently pro-Clinton during this past election. We know that the DNC leadership favored Hillary over any challengers, and that Donna Brazile gave Hillary debate questions in advance of her opponent.
In fact, Facebook (and Marc Zuckerberg) showed the same pro-Hillary bias. While it may be soothing for Hillary and her supporters to consider that Facebook is yet another site that is to blame for her loss, the reality is that Hillary lost an election that was rigged in her favor, not rigged against her.
In fact, Facebook (and Marc Zuckerberg) showed the same pro-Hillary bias. While it may be soothing for Hillary and her supporters to consider that Facebook is yet another site that is to blame for her loss, the reality is that Hillary lost an election that was rigged in her favor, not rigged against her.
6
Facebook is a media company that applies tech, it's not a tech company. Media makes it money selling ads. Zuckerberg makes his billions from selling ad space.
Wanna stop the propaganda aspect? Hard to do. First amendment such a problem. Unless Facebook is required to register legally as representing foreign interests, i.e. govts,. This is already required for lobbyists and similar. If Facebook fails to register, then the company - and maybe its senior execs - can be prosecuted.
Wanna stop the propaganda aspect? Hard to do. First amendment such a problem. Unless Facebook is required to register legally as representing foreign interests, i.e. govts,. This is already required for lobbyists and similar. If Facebook fails to register, then the company - and maybe its senior execs - can be prosecuted.
2
I teach community college students. They have moved on from Facebook to other social media, firmly believing that Facebook is what their parents and grandparents use. Perhaps they know something most of us don't....perhaps the solution to Zuckerberg selling democracy to the highest bidding Russian is to simply close your Facebook account.
5
These are the same folks that walk into trees while staring intently at their smartphones - yeah - they know something...
1
Despite the number of people who say I have to have Fecesbook so they can send me pictures I don't have it and never will. I have sent an occasional picture (very rarely) and received many on my email address for many years. Why do I need another platform for it. As it is they send them on my telephone and text accounts. They delete just as easily from there too. Your email address is safe
with me. You'll get no cartoons or jokes and a picture if you ask for it.
My wife's not too technically oriented and I have to help her once in a while. It astounds me to see the amount of pictures her family sends out. Really? Did the baby change so much in one day that you had to send another picture?
Call me a Luddite, I don't care.
with me. You'll get no cartoons or jokes and a picture if you ask for it.
My wife's not too technically oriented and I have to help her once in a while. It astounds me to see the amount of pictures her family sends out. Really? Did the baby change so much in one day that you had to send another picture?
Call me a Luddite, I don't care.
5
Breaking free of Facebook is a convoluted and technologically complex process. Most interesting of all was the 14 day waiting period before your leave taking becomes finalized. I kept expecting my computer to say " Resistance is futile." Hopefully some tech savant will figure out a way to provide the benefits of a social network and still make money without the dark side.
1
"The service is popular among advertisers for its efficiency, effectiveness and responsiveness."
...and lack of accountability and transparency. Just jab and run.
...and lack of accountability and transparency. Just jab and run.
7
Fake new was the hobgoblin of US politics at the turn of the 20th century. Anonymous speech is protected under the constitution. Cancelling the 1st Amendment always seems to be the preferred corrective for getting rid of disagreeable speech.
3
Anonymity may be protected. Pretending to be someone else is identity theft on one hand and an abuse of freedom on the other.
Don't play into Russian hands thinking you are protecting freedom. You're only protecting " freedumb" at that point.
The Russians love it and are happy to work with you. Or better, work you over.
Don't play into Russian hands thinking you are protecting freedom. You're only protecting " freedumb" at that point.
The Russians love it and are happy to work with you. Or better, work you over.
I wish it was as easy for me to disable seeing Facebooks ads as it is for Russia to buy them.
Despite deleting every "category of interest" Facebook has assigned to me, and checking the "no ads" boxes (all of this difficult to find), I came to discover that ads shown on my desktop computer are different than those on my phone. My newsfeed is still full of ads no matter how many times I click "hide ad." It also continues to suggest "new friends" to me, people I have no interest in knowing.
The only reason I'm still using Facebook is to follow real life friends, see photos, and attend events. But even doing that is becoming more work than I want.
Despite deleting every "category of interest" Facebook has assigned to me, and checking the "no ads" boxes (all of this difficult to find), I came to discover that ads shown on my desktop computer are different than those on my phone. My newsfeed is still full of ads no matter how many times I click "hide ad." It also continues to suggest "new friends" to me, people I have no interest in knowing.
The only reason I'm still using Facebook is to follow real life friends, see photos, and attend events. But even doing that is becoming more work than I want.
3
App developers to the rescue. Can't you crib up an app that launders all face book ads?
Or would that take Facebook to the cleaners?
Or would that take Facebook to the cleaners?
If you want to send a message of concern to Facebook. Delete your account. This is the one thing that Facebook will understand and would lead to reform.
5
I live 5 miles from Facebook and drive by it twice daily as I drop off/pick up my son from high school. Zuckerberg and his wife have been very responsible, giving citizens to my community. I seriously doubt the accusations this author are projecting will happen. I can't imagine Zuckerberg not taking action of some kind or another.
1
Your proximity is giving you the illusion of a humanity within Facebook. Almost by definition Facebook denatures humanity.
You're projecting your own on to Fzcebook I'm afraid.
You're projecting your own on to Fzcebook I'm afraid.
2
One of the purposes of name brand philanthropy is to make you think the donors are nice people. They may be. But they still like making lots of money. When the fake news issue came up after the election, Zuckerberg said it would be "crazy" to think that it could have had an effect on the campaign. I couldn't believe he was serious when he said that. Of course it did. On election day, the anti-women's suffrage posts that were flying around the web were not coincidental ("Susan B. Anthony was a racist!"). They were designed to suppress the vote, and they were being reposted, over and over.
20
If you have not dropped out of Facebook by now, don't wait. Massive exit from Facebook is our only hope. Does anybody really think that Facebook or our elected leaders will solve this problem?
6
Is it worse that Facebook can be used by a foreign power for propaganda that impacts the American election process, or that it can be used by tiny groups of Americans, like the Koch Brothers, or ALEC to impact the election?
Both can upend democracy - that's the whole idea behind propaganda.
We can legislate around this, by requiring that all political ads get equal time. If Facebook collects money, they have to give equal time.
Fake news and distortion are tougher to fight. Just recently I got a post (share if you agree...) about a college refusing to fly the flag. The problem with the post? It was old, the issue was in the past, and it was misleading: the college wasn't rejecting the flag, but having an issue with students and protests.
I would love if we could tag these permanently with a "Go to Snopes" label, with the hope that someone out there would think first, get outraged later. But outrage feels so good, it is a pipe dream to hope for cool logic instead.
Both can upend democracy - that's the whole idea behind propaganda.
We can legislate around this, by requiring that all political ads get equal time. If Facebook collects money, they have to give equal time.
Fake news and distortion are tougher to fight. Just recently I got a post (share if you agree...) about a college refusing to fly the flag. The problem with the post? It was old, the issue was in the past, and it was misleading: the college wasn't rejecting the flag, but having an issue with students and protests.
I would love if we could tag these permanently with a "Go to Snopes" label, with the hope that someone out there would think first, get outraged later. But outrage feels so good, it is a pipe dream to hope for cool logic instead.
4
Facebook has been attacking children for more than a decade. It is an incredible waste of time.
Why now is the NYT so concerned about Facebook?
Why now is the NYT so concerned about Facebook?
3
It is like atomic energy. Once it comes about, we have to learn to deal with it. Democracy will probably survive, but not without encountering many bumps in the road.
3
The election happened 10 months ago and the ads were running long before then. Facebook came out this week with the news of the saturation, so we have to take anything they say they are going to do in the future with a grain of salt. You are correct when you say there are no incentives. ( especially when they make tens of billions of dollars every year in advertising revenues )
I made a comment on another post ( and have been saying the same for a long time ) and that is we need mandatory voting on a national holiday by mail and via paper ballot. That is even without eliminating the electoral college for one person ~ one vote.
Until we do the above, low information voters are going to continue to be swayed by propaganda\fake news that will permeate even further in the future.
It's all about the clicks and behind that all about the Benjamins.
I made a comment on another post ( and have been saying the same for a long time ) and that is we need mandatory voting on a national holiday by mail and via paper ballot. That is even without eliminating the electoral college for one person ~ one vote.
Until we do the above, low information voters are going to continue to be swayed by propaganda\fake news that will permeate even further in the future.
It's all about the clicks and behind that all about the Benjamins.
30
Both Facebook and Twitter hold themselves not legally accountable for the content published on their sites, unlike traditional media, based on Federal Internet law. Federal law has to change in order for these so called tech giants to do something. Contrast this against new German law penalizing Facebook for millions of euros when it publishes hate messages on its network. That seems to work. Maybe USA should follow that example.
64
@CC
Not feasible in the same way in relation to German law ~ that pesky first amendment thing gets in the way.
Not feasible in the same way in relation to German law ~ that pesky first amendment thing gets in the way.
2
I don't believe that Facebook is not able to monitor the boosted ads on their network. I manage a Page for our business and several times over the last few years, I have had ad posts refused by Facebook because they contained too many words - they have built an algorithm that measures the % of the ad surface that contains words and if that percentage is too high, Facebook will not allow me to boost that post. I can only speculate as to why Facebook has decided to prevent me from placing ads with too many words, but they clearly are able to monitor what is posted as ads on their network - when it suits their purposes. So their management is clearly lying about what they can and can not do.
72
Moreover, the tech giants -- Facebook, Google, Apple, Amazon -- have near monopolies over their respective markets, and there is no sales tax associated with their transactions, even as they eviscerate local communities of customers and real interpersonal contact. Basic anti-trust laws could break these up, just as breaking up ATT many years ago was a key step toward creating our competitive cellphone network market.
36
The real objective of this initiative is censorship. If we can destroy anonymous speech, and we've already demonstrated that we're willing to threaten, vandalize and stalk anyone who has their name associated with the opposition, then we can completely destroy any opposition.
Look at what we did to people who supported proposition 8 in California last decade. This is not good, and to destroy any ability for anonymous speech is deliberately an effort to destroy the most important of free speech, polical speech.
Look at what we did to people who supported proposition 8 in California last decade. This is not good, and to destroy any ability for anonymous speech is deliberately an effort to destroy the most important of free speech, polical speech.
4
Freedom of speech has become much more devious and unsavory. If everyone went about spewing anything they want on public media, it would and has turned media into trash talk. Facebook is increasing full of bizarre ads, political hysteria, bias, and information from whence we have no idea where it originated or why it is on our feed. The news buys into it and we have a daily dose of Trump and crisis. It feeds and builds public reactivity. Do we really need to read material designed to upend our day every day. Do we need political ads requesting $...maybe 20+ a day. Do I want to read posts by strangers who insult and slur stating freedom of speech. Anyone can call another names. By behaving the way he does, Trump has set a tone. Facebook is using it. I have blocked nearly political sites and anyone who uses it for a platform for bashing others. If I cannot manage it, I will drop it like so many others I know.
>> The more that Facebook saturates our lives, families and communities, the harder it is to live without it.
I'll bet you could live easily, and well, "without it."
I do. I've never joined as FB - admittedly without much first-hand knowledge - struck me as an advertising model applied to one's self: what would my life be like as an ad?
Not interested, I never signed up. I've lived just fine so far. And I even got to encounter bots and shenanigans in other ways.
I'll bet you could live easily, and well, "without it."
I do. I've never joined as FB - admittedly without much first-hand knowledge - struck me as an advertising model applied to one's self: what would my life be like as an ad?
Not interested, I never signed up. I've lived just fine so far. And I even got to encounter bots and shenanigans in other ways.
79
Yes, a person who has never become involved is less likely to feel out of touch or disconnected. A person who has never used cigarettes or heroin is unlikely to develop an addiction to either. Personally, I've started, maintained and deleted several FB accounts. I can quit anytime. I just need to to use my current account awhile longer. You know, until the current crisis is past.
Same here. The day I ended my Facebook account was the day I started to breath normally again. People think they need it and they are wrong. Like any addiction, you have to quit, just quit.
1
Same here. No Facebook. No Twitter. No Instagram. Never signed up and blissfully unaware of every detail of everyone else's life.
1
Zuckerberg and Facebook, the current 30-somethings, need to grow up and take responsibility for their product that is easily misused.
One cannot assume that All FB users have 'critical thinking skills', as I read on someone else's comment. Those are the folks who are easily manipulated. Let's hope FB can regulate itself in the first instance.
One cannot assume that All FB users have 'critical thinking skills', as I read on someone else's comment. Those are the folks who are easily manipulated. Let's hope FB can regulate itself in the first instance.
12
The election happened 10 months ago and the ads were running long before then. Facebook came out this week with the news of the saturation, so we have to take anything they say they are going to do in the future with a grain of salt. You are correct when you say there are no incentives. ( especially when they make tens of billions of dollars every year in advertising revenues )
I made a comment on another post ( and have been saying the same for a long time ) and that is we need mandatory voting on a national holiday by mail and via paper ballot. That is even without eliminating the electoral college for one person ~ one vote.
Until we do the above, low information voters are going to continue to be swayed by propaganda\fake news that will permeate even further in the future.
It's all about the clicks and behind that all about the Benjamins.
I made a comment on another post ( and have been saying the same for a long time ) and that is we need mandatory voting on a national holiday by mail and via paper ballot. That is even without eliminating the electoral college for one person ~ one vote.
Until we do the above, low information voters are going to continue to be swayed by propaganda\fake news that will permeate even further in the future.
It's all about the clicks and behind that all about the Benjamins.
1
And what next? Ban of the social media for sake of saving Democracy? How much should one disrespect Democracy and the citizens of these country to suggest that few thousands political ads on FB in sea of millions of such ads through all kind of media including FB could drastically change outcome of elections? It reminds me authoritarian regimes that blame popular anger against the Government on foreign propaganda.
6
Putting "Facebook" in the headline is a sure way to get more clicks. Good job!
What you write applies to just about all advertising outlets, online, print, television... Very little if any of it is restricted to Facebook.
"A core principle in political advertising is transparency"
Since when? It's been a dirty business since as long as I can remember, well before the internet.
"Ads could stoke ethnic hatred..." ... "could" being the operative word here. Yes, ads could. But they would also be breaking Facebook's explicit advertising policies which prohibit advertisements that promote "discrimination against people based on personal attributes such as race, ethnicity, ..." and a host of other attributes.
The problem you identify is a real problem, but a general problem connected with advertising in a society that places a very high value on free speech, to the extent that its protection is coded into our founding political document.
The problem here isn't Facebook. It's far bigger than that. I hope we find a solution that supports free speech and confronts bad messages with good ones, rather than a solution that simply attempts to suppress them.
What you write applies to just about all advertising outlets, online, print, television... Very little if any of it is restricted to Facebook.
"A core principle in political advertising is transparency"
Since when? It's been a dirty business since as long as I can remember, well before the internet.
"Ads could stoke ethnic hatred..." ... "could" being the operative word here. Yes, ads could. But they would also be breaking Facebook's explicit advertising policies which prohibit advertisements that promote "discrimination against people based on personal attributes such as race, ethnicity, ..." and a host of other attributes.
The problem you identify is a real problem, but a general problem connected with advertising in a society that places a very high value on free speech, to the extent that its protection is coded into our founding political document.
The problem here isn't Facebook. It's far bigger than that. I hope we find a solution that supports free speech and confronts bad messages with good ones, rather than a solution that simply attempts to suppress them.
3
Facebook has made a relative few very, very rich. We're the ignorant mass when it comes to economics. Whether the Wal-Mart oligarchs or the new-tech kings and queens, we seem accepting of 'our lot'. We're too lazy to have a democracy.
Yes, lazy, politically. We most surely are; for hundreds of years. We don't understand our responsibility. We don't rise to the occasion (for the occasion is never-ending and ever-complex). We drink, watch sports, social media, whatever; no real effort to deal with poverty, inequality, pensions, carbon, etc. We're overwhelmed and retreat.
And so, democracy sold to the cunning few, who so like their growing lot. But they're blind to what they help create: not a place to live in, for them or their children, and future generations. Such inequity and lucre-love is bound to decay and/or explode. Or both.
Taxation. Taxation without representation of those 'with the least' is emptiness. No, worse; it is the unholy seed that creates our current situation. And, not just here. Look around, it abounds in most every country. We just play along. As Trump might say, 'Sad!'
Why are we here? Let's figure that out. And if we're here to love, then things can change for the better. Democracy and quality of life can prosper. They can. They will; as soon as we change.
Yes, lazy, politically. We most surely are; for hundreds of years. We don't understand our responsibility. We don't rise to the occasion (for the occasion is never-ending and ever-complex). We drink, watch sports, social media, whatever; no real effort to deal with poverty, inequality, pensions, carbon, etc. We're overwhelmed and retreat.
And so, democracy sold to the cunning few, who so like their growing lot. But they're blind to what they help create: not a place to live in, for them or their children, and future generations. Such inequity and lucre-love is bound to decay and/or explode. Or both.
Taxation. Taxation without representation of those 'with the least' is emptiness. No, worse; it is the unholy seed that creates our current situation. And, not just here. Look around, it abounds in most every country. We just play along. As Trump might say, 'Sad!'
Why are we here? Let's figure that out. And if we're here to love, then things can change for the better. Democracy and quality of life can prosper. They can. They will; as soon as we change.
12
What’s alarming is that Facebook executives don’t seem to grasp, or appreciate, the difference.
Yeah they do, but still they do it. And that's what is actually alarming.
Yeah they do, but still they do it. And that's what is actually alarming.
5
Don't let it go unnoticed that Facebook only mentioned ad buys and did not describe the extent of fake accounts. Fake accounts are free and AstroTurf comment threads of many news stories/posts to do much more damage to public opinion than $100,000 in ad buys. They won't acknowledge this because their business is data and it wouldn't be as valuable if the full extent of fake accounts was transparent. Companys wouldn't pay as much for ad space if they knew a percentage of "people" they were reaching weren't real so Facebook allows these accounts to proliferate because it inflates what they can charge. The most powerful way to fight it though is just to quit the site. You won't see fake posts and you won't be providing them your data currency. I quit last year and haven't looked back!
2
Targeted advertising of all kinds is best regarded as manipulation, and sadly both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton's campaigns used it during the election to sway voters. Facebook's use of the technique to track the habits of users is particularly insidious. Russia or no, these companies are gaining too much power over people's lives and should be regulated or broken up, as they pose a potentially serious threat to democracy if allowed to continue to grow unabated.
2
Alina: "Targeted advertising of all kinds is best regarded as manipulation, and sadly both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton's campaigns used it during the election to sway voters."
Yes, and candidates have done this forever. But there is a dark twist to this type of "advertising." You don't actually know who is posting the "ad" (or divisive "news" story); and only a select group sees it so no one has a chance to post a rebuttal or refute the story.
Yes, and candidates have done this forever. But there is a dark twist to this type of "advertising." You don't actually know who is posting the "ad" (or divisive "news" story); and only a select group sees it so no one has a chance to post a rebuttal or refute the story.
1
The election happened 10 months ago and the ads were running long before then. Facebook came out this week with the news of the saturation, so we have to take anything they say they are going to do in the future with a grain of salt. You are correct when you say there are no incentives. ( especially when they make tens of billions of dollars every year in advertising revenues )
I made a comment on another post ( and have been saying the same for a long time ) and that is we need mandatory voting on a national holiday by mail and via paper ballot. That is even without eliminating the electoral college for one person ~ one vote.
Until we do the above, low information voters are going to continue to be swayed by propaganda\fake news that will permeate even further in the future.
It's all about the clicks and behind that all about the Benjamins.
I made a comment on another post ( and have been saying the same for a long time ) and that is we need mandatory voting on a national holiday by mail and via paper ballot. That is even without eliminating the electoral college for one person ~ one vote.
Until we do the above, low information voters are going to continue to be swayed by propaganda\fake news that will permeate even further in the future.
It's all about the clicks and behind that all about the Benjamins.
3
I opted out of Facebook shortly after it first started up. It was way too far in my sneakers thank you but no thanks. Opting out was not a simple process which more than confirmed my decision to leave.
3
As a Democrat I was sickened by the constant attacked on President Obama and Secretary Clinton on Facebook and Twitter in the run-up to the presidential election.
The same right wing propaganda is still going on - nonstop - social media, right wing radio/television/cable, email are being manipulated 24/7 to brainwash Americans against Democratic principles. It is working to the detriment of our nation, the lives of Americans, and the world.
So what can be done about it? Nothing, that's what.
All I can do is speak out against it and encourage others to do the same. It truly is "us-against-them." Let's hope "we" win this argument or else we will give away our nation to the right wing who intend to own our minds, values, speech, education, and religious beliefs while robbing us of our financial resources.
The same right wing propaganda is still going on - nonstop - social media, right wing radio/television/cable, email are being manipulated 24/7 to brainwash Americans against Democratic principles. It is working to the detriment of our nation, the lives of Americans, and the world.
So what can be done about it? Nothing, that's what.
All I can do is speak out against it and encourage others to do the same. It truly is "us-against-them." Let's hope "we" win this argument or else we will give away our nation to the right wing who intend to own our minds, values, speech, education, and religious beliefs while robbing us of our financial resources.
22
Just start a rumor on facebook and twitter
"the internet is the anti-christ" and the right wing might fly away.
"the internet is the anti-christ" and the right wing might fly away.
Right. Trust the government to tailor the message and regulate the messenger so that ignorant, credulous voters can remain unaccountable for disastrous election results. Political (and most other) ads have dumbed down for a reason. Other countries wouldn't even TRY meddling in US elections if they believed they were dealing with an intelligent, well-informed electorate.
3
1. The Internet has erased national boundaries. This time it was Russia with anti-Hillary ads. Another time it could be another country meddling in some other way. There is a place for national boundaries in how we run our country, but, I am afraid we will not accept this before a few other similar debacles have occurred. For example, I doubt it is hard to implement a rule on Facebook or Google that an account based in Russia or another country deemed hostile cannot buy ads targeting US consumers. Particularly if those ads are not for tangible goods? What is lacking is the will on the part of Facebook, but also on the part of federal regulators.
2. If the ads worked, it was because the individuals who were targeted were already predisposed to their message. And to the extent that the ads swayed or solidified their thinking, I blame the MSM - their narrative is in lockstep in only one direction. Example: coverage of the recent DACA ruling. They don't even allow for a sincerely held non-racist view that disagrees with this new amnesty. If the MSM was more balanced, people would be less inclined to seek alternate (unfortunately dubious) sources.
3. As other commenters have noted, some of the blame for believing these ads falls to the people who believed them. Not sure what can be done to make people better thinkers and better informed.
The bottom line is that we are too divided as a country. A house divided cannot stand.
2. If the ads worked, it was because the individuals who were targeted were already predisposed to their message. And to the extent that the ads swayed or solidified their thinking, I blame the MSM - their narrative is in lockstep in only one direction. Example: coverage of the recent DACA ruling. They don't even allow for a sincerely held non-racist view that disagrees with this new amnesty. If the MSM was more balanced, people would be less inclined to seek alternate (unfortunately dubious) sources.
3. As other commenters have noted, some of the blame for believing these ads falls to the people who believed them. Not sure what can be done to make people better thinkers and better informed.
The bottom line is that we are too divided as a country. A house divided cannot stand.
2
2016 wasn't the start of this either. In the 2014 NY State Senate elections I was targeted by anonymous paid attack ads on Facebook, targeting my Senator and one in an adjacent district. Suspicious, I did some searching and found 10 vulnerable state senators all being targeted in similar attacks. These were accompanied by a phony immigrants rights group ad thanking these senators, making immigrants look like greedy takers looking for a free ride at the expense of US taxpayers. All of these ads, including the immigrants rights group, were up through election night, and all, including the suspicious immigrants rights group, were gone the morning after the election.
None of these had any information identifying who was behind them. I don't suspect the Russians in this, more likely a US party organization, but the problem of Facebook profiting off anonymous propaganda ads is the same.
I tried reporting to Facebook in 2014. They responded that the ads didn't violate their standards.
I tried reporting to the state Board of Elections division of election law enforcement. They didn't tell me their outcome, but I can't see that they did much about it.
In 2014 I saw and tried to report anonymous propaganda by what I expect was a US source. Nothing was done, and in 2016, we now see the same coming from foreign sources.
Something needs to be done about companies like Facebook (Twitter too) allowing their platforms to be used for paid propaganda ads that likely violate election law.
None of these had any information identifying who was behind them. I don't suspect the Russians in this, more likely a US party organization, but the problem of Facebook profiting off anonymous propaganda ads is the same.
I tried reporting to Facebook in 2014. They responded that the ads didn't violate their standards.
I tried reporting to the state Board of Elections division of election law enforcement. They didn't tell me their outcome, but I can't see that they did much about it.
In 2014 I saw and tried to report anonymous propaganda by what I expect was a US source. Nothing was done, and in 2016, we now see the same coming from foreign sources.
Something needs to be done about companies like Facebook (Twitter too) allowing their platforms to be used for paid propaganda ads that likely violate election law.
2
The fact that this is even an issue shows what a bad idea democracy is. (Democracy via universal suffrage in a country as large as the USA, anyway).
When a state is essentially run by the electorate, and a significant portion of that electorate is so stupid and so careless that their vote can be changed by putting fake-news Facebook ads or blatantly tendentious TV ads in front of their faces, is it clear that the system of government is fatally flawed.
Yes, perhaps you could minimize the impact of certain outside agendas (e.g. those of foreign governments) by legislating censorship in advertising or campaign finance. But the knuckle-dragging voters susceptible to such influences don't magically become wise statesmen when you prevent a couple voices from whispering in their ear. They're still suckers dumb enough that they would have fallen for it, and that stupidity will show in their votes.
(Especially if the aristocratic party establishment fails to dictate their choices -- that's how we end up electing Donald Trumps.)
When a state is essentially run by the electorate, and a significant portion of that electorate is so stupid and so careless that their vote can be changed by putting fake-news Facebook ads or blatantly tendentious TV ads in front of their faces, is it clear that the system of government is fatally flawed.
Yes, perhaps you could minimize the impact of certain outside agendas (e.g. those of foreign governments) by legislating censorship in advertising or campaign finance. But the knuckle-dragging voters susceptible to such influences don't magically become wise statesmen when you prevent a couple voices from whispering in their ear. They're still suckers dumb enough that they would have fallen for it, and that stupidity will show in their votes.
(Especially if the aristocratic party establishment fails to dictate their choices -- that's how we end up electing Donald Trumps.)
6
The best corrective for any media, whether print, broadcast, or internet (the technology information dissemination is largely irrelevant), is not government control, European or American. The best corrective is an educated electorate able to discern "fake news" from real data, to discern advertising from reportage, to discern opinion from fact. The real assault on democracy is not from Facebook, Twitter, et al. The real assault on democracy is from those who would (and have) defunded public education and changed its focus from teaching students how to be good thinkers and independent decision-makers toward teaching students how to be good consumers and good employees.
2
Thank you. "Never believe everything you read." Google is endless, with links to anything one can imagine. If a post appears shady or ridiculous, research it. Part of this problem is the laziness and ignorance of Americans. Read! There are always three points of view: yours, mine and the truth.
2
There has been talks about undemocratic use of social media, so I ran few experiments on different platforms. I did find compelling evidence of suppressing and encouraging information selectively on many platforms. In fact wherever there is a scope of human intervention on display, a very small group of individuals can dominate the public opinion by actively or passively penalizing the counter opinion. I found an interesting pattern of multi-layered intervention where the source as well content is controlled selectively. At least use of information technology can help us understand why the democracy is not representing the majority. I am sure the same behavior patterns plays out in the physical world as well but the lack of data does not allow us to recognize them.
"Facebook has no incentive to change its ways. The money is too great. The issue is too nebulous to alienate more than a few Facebook users. The more that Facebook saturates our lives, families and communities, the harder it is to live without it."
Facebook is only half of the equation. For Russia to succeed with its micro-targeted political ads, you have to have a gullible population susceptible to the ads themselves.
I'm no Facebook fan, but like many, keep an
account to see the latest photos of friends and family. But to use Facebook as a reliable news or post designed to change my thinking about a particular candidate? No way.
Donald Trump loves to attack CNN, the Washington Post, and the New York Times for being "fake news." But here on free-wheeling medium where you haven't the faintest idea who is behind a political ad is the highest irony: Trump more than likely profited from this Russian manipulation of vacillating voters in key swing states.
The more comes out about this, I hope investigators are able to determine who helped Russia place these ads. Putin and his computer crew are clever, but it's unbelievable to think they "just so happened" to place anti-Democrat links in key districts in key swing states in the hopes of appealing to undecided voters who use Facebook for news.
They had to have had help from US experts in digital operations--and I hope they're nailed soon for conspiring with a foreign power.
Facebook is only half of the equation. For Russia to succeed with its micro-targeted political ads, you have to have a gullible population susceptible to the ads themselves.
I'm no Facebook fan, but like many, keep an
account to see the latest photos of friends and family. But to use Facebook as a reliable news or post designed to change my thinking about a particular candidate? No way.
Donald Trump loves to attack CNN, the Washington Post, and the New York Times for being "fake news." But here on free-wheeling medium where you haven't the faintest idea who is behind a political ad is the highest irony: Trump more than likely profited from this Russian manipulation of vacillating voters in key swing states.
The more comes out about this, I hope investigators are able to determine who helped Russia place these ads. Putin and his computer crew are clever, but it's unbelievable to think they "just so happened" to place anti-Democrat links in key districts in key swing states in the hopes of appealing to undecided voters who use Facebook for news.
They had to have had help from US experts in digital operations--and I hope they're nailed soon for conspiring with a foreign power.
107
The irony of all of this in a sense is "thumbs up" or hands down sad depending on your point of view or values.
6 years ago, the social media platform Facebook, with all its advancements in technology gaining a strong foothold with their apps in the use of mobile devices was gaining praise for its contribution in the rise of the "Arab Spring" for their part in broadening democracy around the world by radically changing the way how people can communicate instantaneously on a mass scale. But how sentiment can quickly brew up a fire storm of exploitation since the social media giant is now finding blame for playing their part, perhaps unknowingly and profiting in the downfall of democracy.
Years from now or even much sooner, this will be a classic study of how good intentions went awry, however, what is even more troubling is how naïve a professor of media studies is unveiling one’s self to be, yet their judgment is on par with the quality of education being taught in higher education institutions at a time when a significant percentage of college graduates entering the workforce rarely have the basic skills to contribute quality work not only for their employers, but to society all in general.
The phrase Marshall McLuhan coined in 1964, “The media is the message” is more significant today, which sadly is less understood, allowing theories to manifest about how democracy was lost in the 2016 Presidential election.
6 years ago, the social media platform Facebook, with all its advancements in technology gaining a strong foothold with their apps in the use of mobile devices was gaining praise for its contribution in the rise of the "Arab Spring" for their part in broadening democracy around the world by radically changing the way how people can communicate instantaneously on a mass scale. But how sentiment can quickly brew up a fire storm of exploitation since the social media giant is now finding blame for playing their part, perhaps unknowingly and profiting in the downfall of democracy.
Years from now or even much sooner, this will be a classic study of how good intentions went awry, however, what is even more troubling is how naïve a professor of media studies is unveiling one’s self to be, yet their judgment is on par with the quality of education being taught in higher education institutions at a time when a significant percentage of college graduates entering the workforce rarely have the basic skills to contribute quality work not only for their employers, but to society all in general.
The phrase Marshall McLuhan coined in 1964, “The media is the message” is more significant today, which sadly is less understood, allowing theories to manifest about how democracy was lost in the 2016 Presidential election.
9
Right. Backwards, though. When near the end of our conversation, my sister said she was worried about looting in Houston, I knew (again) where she gets her so-called news.
Foreign bots with a political position which undermine our country, should be regulated and/or identified and exposed. An exception needs to be made to countermand them. There has to be precedent almost back to the formation of of our country. Further, more recently,wasn't there similar regulation and/or prohibitions during WWII and during the Soviet cold war era?
6
Making Facebook accountable for interdicting fake identities and news GLOBALLY, particularly before it has an impact, is a non-starter. Among other reasons, it erects immense barriers to entry for upstarts that can't afford the billions in software and human eyeballs to attempt the chore, which effectively gives Facebook a perpetual sinecure in the market it created -- like outlawing generic drugs and tolerating forever what the original inventor defines as adequate drug function and appropriate price.
One school of thought argues that "democracy" doesn't work without an informed electorate, and that we should take efforts to educate and inform our electorate in balanced ways; but in the end we get what we pay for and we deserve what we get. Another argues that unless fake news supports Democratic candidates, we risk a cataclysm. Neither probably is completely right, and it's only certain that the latter is completely wrong.
A workable balance must be struck to limit fake social media identities and news with nationalist ideological and patently hateful objectives while not going so far as to suck up ALL resources that might otherwise be used to innovate and to pay people, or make it impossible for competitors to match the ability to make such investments in interdiction.
The electorate needs to be held accountable for SOMETHING. Getting it right before a vote is cast by informing oneself broadly from numerous and opposed sources needs to be part of that.
One school of thought argues that "democracy" doesn't work without an informed electorate, and that we should take efforts to educate and inform our electorate in balanced ways; but in the end we get what we pay for and we deserve what we get. Another argues that unless fake news supports Democratic candidates, we risk a cataclysm. Neither probably is completely right, and it's only certain that the latter is completely wrong.
A workable balance must be struck to limit fake social media identities and news with nationalist ideological and patently hateful objectives while not going so far as to suck up ALL resources that might otherwise be used to innovate and to pay people, or make it impossible for competitors to match the ability to make such investments in interdiction.
The electorate needs to be held accountable for SOMETHING. Getting it right before a vote is cast by informing oneself broadly from numerous and opposed sources needs to be part of that.
9
Propaganda has always been a problem. Anyone with money could take out an add, Trump and the central park 5 is a prime example. What's scary is that with the advent of Facebook and Twitter these things happen in secrecy rather than out in the open which makes it harder to combat.
While it would be nice if Facebook and Twitter didn't allow such secrecy it's up to us to use our critical thinking skills and fact check information on these sites. I'm rarely on Facebook and use the main stream media for information knowing that it's generally accurate but I know that not everyone will do that. I still hear my teachers voices talking about the importance of credible sources that can be sited but that's just me.
While it would be nice if Facebook and Twitter didn't allow such secrecy it's up to us to use our critical thinking skills and fact check information on these sites. I'm rarely on Facebook and use the main stream media for information knowing that it's generally accurate but I know that not everyone will do that. I still hear my teachers voices talking about the importance of credible sources that can be sited but that's just me.
40
Web "Oligopolies" Facebook, Twitter, Linked-In, the graphic images can link to email accounts. This stuff is big data "gold mining" for control of behavior for them to make profit, make life easier, one source at it's best.
Linked In accesses gmail accounts, sending invitations in the gmail account holder or any mail client account holder, people unknowingly let them in; once in, they link all information across all sources. Locations are mined, it's great for FB. People live on FB. I like the term sinecure; Posts in FB, LI, (Twitter; too weird; not!) Pininterest, Drop Box, a few of them are very handy, link, shift, sort and mine data; happy, spending Americans, on the web, no longer buying papers come up with ways to direct thought according to salary, education, blah, blah, blah.
Credibility was a big deal, it still is, I do what I can to read other sources, but now due to the climate of where we are in society, I skim NY Times, but dig sources like Quartz and a few others out there. Love the article.
Credible Sources are important. Citizens must refuse fake news whether on the right or left political spectrum. I do not see that happening. Three sources are important, but I swear, I'll get 80 stories, same words in 80 news sites. Breitbart or one of these other crazy papers will report a different spin than the 80, where 75 should have never been written.
Linked In accesses gmail accounts, sending invitations in the gmail account holder or any mail client account holder, people unknowingly let them in; once in, they link all information across all sources. Locations are mined, it's great for FB. People live on FB. I like the term sinecure; Posts in FB, LI, (Twitter; too weird; not!) Pininterest, Drop Box, a few of them are very handy, link, shift, sort and mine data; happy, spending Americans, on the web, no longer buying papers come up with ways to direct thought according to salary, education, blah, blah, blah.
Credibility was a big deal, it still is, I do what I can to read other sources, but now due to the climate of where we are in society, I skim NY Times, but dig sources like Quartz and a few others out there. Love the article.
Credible Sources are important. Citizens must refuse fake news whether on the right or left political spectrum. I do not see that happening. Three sources are important, but I swear, I'll get 80 stories, same words in 80 news sites. Breitbart or one of these other crazy papers will report a different spin than the 80, where 75 should have never been written.
1
Sorry, our "best hope" about Facebook is not some government policy in Europe. Our only hope in this area, or any mass media info is the ability of individuals to filter news vs noise, real vs false. That's basically it. This is NOT a given, but necessary for everyone. So much money and energy is focused on a person to influence them to many positions because it works. Still, nothing can do a better job with this than every individual.
I don't have a Facebook account anymore because of all the noise. I don't want to know about much of the things my "friends" post to the public either space. I'd rather have a conversation of some sorts. And I especially don't want to be marketed obviously or covertly by what is SO clearly displayed on Facebook and other sites. So, I say: sure, use the Internet how you want, but pay some attention to what's going on with the control and influence. AND...get outside, read a book, talk to a friend in person, etc.
I don't have a Facebook account anymore because of all the noise. I don't want to know about much of the things my "friends" post to the public either space. I'd rather have a conversation of some sorts. And I especially don't want to be marketed obviously or covertly by what is SO clearly displayed on Facebook and other sites. So, I say: sure, use the Internet how you want, but pay some attention to what's going on with the control and influence. AND...get outside, read a book, talk to a friend in person, etc.
103
@DukeOrel
Cant add a thing and precisely the correct remedy to the situation.
Excellent comment.
Cant add a thing and precisely the correct remedy to the situation.
Excellent comment.
1
While being just as distressed as the author at how Facebook was manipulated by the Russians, let's not forget how MSM prostituted themselves in service of the same politics, as succinctly expressed by CBS head Les Moonves on Feb. 29, 2016:
"It may not be good for America, but it's damn good for CBS."
A larger ethical problem for media in general has been exposed, and the author is correct that in a democracy, if truth cannot be sifted from lie by the voters, democracy will die.
"It may not be good for America, but it's damn good for CBS."
A larger ethical problem for media in general has been exposed, and the author is correct that in a democracy, if truth cannot be sifted from lie by the voters, democracy will die.
230
Are you surprised? All these rich techies have not a trace of morality left behind. Google started with "do no harm," now it's the most serious threat to democracy and maybe even mankind. They all start with noble ideals and quickly succumb to the venture capitalists demands for monetization. The start out with principle and great ideas and wind up with "monetization." Principles, well, not so much, they really aren't that important. Zuckerberg created a monster. Off course, he talks with lots of platitudes but it's all "do what I say, not what I do." A billion dollars or two enslaves you, deludes you and makes you a bad person. It's really simple but people don't want to admit it.
229
It's very easy to blame Facebook because it's the where so many of the fake stories appeared and were then shared over and over again. But that's not the full story. Traditional news sources like CNN, MSNBC and the New York Times gave Trump and his surrogates free unfiltered access to their audiences for months before questioning the flood of fake news and alternative facts that spilled form their mouths before ending up on the very social media sites now being blamed for the hacking of our 2016 elections.
2
While it is very true that traditional news sources gave Trump much more attention than he deserved which simply served as unpaid advertising for him, these Facebook ads are significantly more damaging because they are targeted. And the recipients are not aware that they are being manipulated. Remember that this election turned on a very small vote difference concentrated in a few districts. And the Trump campaign’s digital operation was overseen by Jared Kushner, presidential son-in-law who was desirous of opening back channel communications with the Russians and who is in significant financial debt squeeze.
Perhaps he assisted his Russian friends with their sophisticated voter targeting and fake news attacks on Hillary Clinton. We still don't know what documents were exchanged at the infamous Trump Tower meeting of June 2016. The truth about this election has not yet been revealed. But I've smelled a rat since election night and it surrounds the entire Trump operation. We need to get this right if we are ever to trust our elections going forward.
Perhaps he assisted his Russian friends with their sophisticated voter targeting and fake news attacks on Hillary Clinton. We still don't know what documents were exchanged at the infamous Trump Tower meeting of June 2016. The truth about this election has not yet been revealed. But I've smelled a rat since election night and it surrounds the entire Trump operation. We need to get this right if we are ever to trust our elections going forward.
2
The new golden rule....Stick it to others before they stick it to you.
1