If you are still using Facebook, you are part of the problem.
If only Facebook had adopted, and actually followed, one of the early core tenets of Google: Don't Be Evil (sadly, neither company seems to be able to make that claim).
1059
@Beal here's a problem with that: public entities (schools, city government) are using Facebook and in order to be involved parents, citizens are forced to surrender privacy and engage on that platform
33
@H Munro Perhaps parents/citizens should demand that the schools/city governments use a different platform. WhatsApp, maybe, or something else.
49
"If you are still using Facebook, you are part of the problem."
And that goes for like-begging media outlets as much as people.
26
Thank you for your patriotism, Mr. Soros!
31
I don't use Facebook. Mark Zuckerberg and Jack Dorsey have more to say about who gets elected president than anyone else.
Dorsey is clueless. Zuckerberg is evil.
33
Mark Zuckerberg is but a puppet, controlled by private venture capital firms such as Andreessen Horowitz, who are lead by unabashed Republicans.
17
Soros claims: "The social media company is going to get Trump re-elected"
Give me a break.
In 2016....CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, The NYTimes and Washington Post all worked in unison to get Hillary Clinton elected. They failed.
In 2020...FOX, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, The NYTimes, Washington Post and the WSJ are all working in unison to take down Bernie Sanders. Hopefully, they will fail again.
Dear George,
The veil has been lifted.
Most Americans now realize that all media operates with an agenda...and agenda that they don't even try to hide anymore.
Facebook is no different. Twitter is no different. You are concerned because you can no longer control the agenda/narrative.
Good riddance.
15
Facebook is evil.
20
Bravo, Mr. Soros!!
19
Can Michael Bloomberg buy Facebook?
5
Facebook is boring.
14
This is the giga-rich pot calling the billionaire kettle black.
11
NYT, isn't it more truthful to write:
"Mr. Soros is a political activist and philanthropist".
13
Facebook isn’t biased towards Trump, they are biased toward the candidate that pays them the most. Because they were the only ones willing to “work with” Facebook in 2016, Trump won by paying for false ads. So the two have coalesced into a toxic combo. Facebooks should have never allowed political ads, it will be their own downfall.
Am sure that since 2016, Zuckerberg and Trump do have an informal agreement, though this seems toxic in the long run if the Democrats get the Presidency in 2020. The dynamic could very easily turn on Zuckerberg as a deposed Trump will be part of the corrupt elites along with Facebook. Then the Dems will have cause to smash it into little pieces
7
I had forgotten that Sheryl Sandberg hired Definers. How about an analytical story, NYT, based on interviews with Zuckerberg, Sandbrg, and Soros?
"Facebook and COO Sheryl Sandberg’s public stance about who at the company worked with Definers Public Affairs, and what the firm was tasked with researching, has evolved in the two-and-half weeks since a Nov. 14 New York Times report....
Definers pushed the idea that liberal financier Soros was behind a growing anti-Facebook movement in an effort to de-legitimize the campaign, the Times reported ."
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/30/everything-facebook-said-on-sheryl-sandberg-definers-since-nyt-report.html
4
Swap the names Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton in this article. You would never hear a peep from Soros.
12
With all due respect Mr. Soros, this is not the Soviet Union. You cannot just disown private owners of a company. Just in the same way no one should be allowed to throw you our of your private and philantropic endeavors because they don't like you or your political viewpoints.
14
If government can "regulate" or "break-up" Facebook then it can regulate or break-up the NYT.
Like that idea?
13
Hey everyone, where shall we go? What's our alternative? I'm ready to move......
3
Rgs Facebook: Caveat emptor. It's a social media site. You know, cat pics and the like. Get your news elsewhere. Breaking news!!! One billionaire is mad at a different billionaire! Film at 11.
6
Put this article on your Facebook page. Like, right now.
5
I'm with soros. Hooray for censorship! Down with the first amendment!
5
Want Trump out? Leave Facebook!
9
When it comes to political manipulation who is Soros to throw stones?
15
Who are we gonna believe? Facebook executives or our own lyin' eyes?
4
"Mark Zuckerberg Should Not Be in Control of Facebook"
...so you can control Facebook and further stifle free speech!
11
Soros is still sore that his candidate lost the last election, and, much like her, is trying to blame everyone else but the lousy candidate herself for it. Give it a rest.
14
Other social media platforms have stopped political advertising and Facebook should follow their example. But it's also not possible for them to make sure everything posted on their site is truthful. Section 230 is there for a reason.
Under current law if Bob posts on Facebook that John is a sexual predator, John can sue Bob for defamation (assuming it's a false statement) but can't sue Facebook because of Section 230. If Facebook was liable they would have to either somehow block all comments that were negative or investigate every negative claim. Would that really be a better system?
By the way, all you commenters are using social media right now. How long do you think the NY Times would continue to allow comments if they were liable for the contents of those comments?
6
Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.
2
Mr Soros,
Why don’t you buy Facebook and Ban political ads, or twitter? Ok, at least buy enough of it to have a say. While you’re at it, maybe buy Fox... you can go in on it with Michael Bloomberg
2
Folks: quit Facebook/
end of story.
10
Please! Lack of credibility, George. All major media are looking to make money; a bonus if the greater good is served.
7
I wonder how many puts options does George Soros have on Facebook?
7
Mr. Soros:
Mark Zuckerberg should not be in charge of Facebook because he is a thief and stole the idea and technology and code from two other people.
But, since that, apparently, is OK in the USA we have a crook and a thug in charge of Facebook.
In a country that makes theft OK and legal, what do you expect to happen?
2
For Mark, first is money business.
3
Lol. I put a picture of a brown dog, a black dog, a red dog, a yellow dog and a white colored dog. Caption read, “We are all the same animal. Racism is stupid”. I got a notice that my post went against their policy, and was considered spam, so they would not allow it to be posted. I have seen people post some really disgraceful stuff, why they called out this has me really stumped.
9
George is as much of an influence peddler as Zuckerberg may or may not be, his billions go push his agenda. Kettle calling the pot black.
10
He's not wrong.
5
Is Soros not going to remind everyone that he has a personal fight with Facebook (
4
In control? As long as one infant being sexually abused is permitted on Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg should be in jail.
2
The NYT stock price is up 3x since Trump's election.
Kristoff said the average Trump article gets 4x the views in his "my least read articles of 2019". Look at the oped section - Trump sells and engages. Sometimes I just say to myself, does the opeds write about anything else other than Trump?
It isn't Facebook - it is every news outlet that can't get enough. Eyes looking at ads and people visiting the site 10x a day is the engagement they want and Trump gives it to them
6
Liberals still can't get over the fact that they used to control 100% of the media narrative (NYT, WP, ABC, CBS, NBC, et al) and now only control 99%.
They rail against Fox, Rush, and a tiny corner of Facebook.
Why are liberals so afraid of letting the other side have their say?
7
People who think life cannot evolve without social media are lonely sad people. Zuckerberg and the other social media tycoons prey on them as well as media orgs. You must make people have our permission to comment or input to newspapers and other online orgs! Does anyone research how many govt contracts go to these tycoons in exchange for supporting the red state? Does anyone think about how much money Microsoft is making off millions of people who now have to pay Tim Cook to use his products which are loaded on zillions of computers worldwide? Is that fair? Under Trump and his stooges, corporations now control everything coming out of this WH. Vote them out!
2
Facebook will get Trump elected. So will CNN, the NYT, WAPO, MSNBC and Fox News. Because they all know he's great for their bottom lines.
3
When Democrats take control, they should take note of Zuckerberg’s deal with the Devil and put tight restrictions on it and spilt it into pieces. Beware of who you throw your lot in with, Zuckerberg..... it may well come back to bite you, big time. He’s showed us that he is a modern Republican at heart... no heart, no ethics and few morals.
4
yet another impeachable offense!!
To have access to some forgotten site, I joined FB under a nom de plume and never posted a picture and never communicated. It always struck me as a silly scam.
1
Just wondering if anyone else thinks Zuckerberg looks like a robot....silly question of course, but look at the evidence.
2
Libel and slander laws should be applied thoroughly to Facebook, and other social media platforms, to the same degree they are applied to the New York Times, to the CBS Evening News, Time and hometown weekly newspapers. Meaning they should be liable for any defamation that occurs on their "published" sites. Soros is 100% correct about Zuckerberg and Sandberg.
9
‘Facebook’s chief operating officer, Sheryl Sandberg, repeated the worn Silicon Valley cliché that Facebook is trying to make the world a better place.” If she’s not delusional, she’s a liar. One thing is clear, she stands for nothing that is good in this world.
6
I am sorry. Mr. Soros criticizes someone for seeking profits regardless of consequences? The pot calling the kettle black.
4
Mr. Soros is a philanthropist, did he make that up, isn't he a business man and hedge fund first, isn't how he made his money?
Personally Soros is much of a danger to us as is facebook and every other billionaire, their them first attitude is what has us in this problem, so few with all the money and control
shakespeare was wrong we should kill and eat the rich people first
4
Elizabeth Warren already detailed a plan how to curtail the nefarious influence Zuckerburg. In fact he called her a threat to their existence. If you want to stop him, vote for Warren!
14
For those of you who post anti Trump messages or memes on Facebook, the only thing you are doing is helping Facebook.
3
When one literal Bond villan criticizes another literal Bond villan...
5
Facebook is a plague on the world, which many eagerly spread.
3
I stopped using Facebook years ago. Three cheers for Soros.
5
Yes. Watch Facebook -- and watch Trump. Who is Brad Parscale?
Parscale's specific roles [in Trump's 2016 campaign] included heading the oversight of the digital advertising, TV advertising, small dollar fundraising, direct mail, political and advertising budget, and was also the RNC liaison working daily with Katie Walsh who was then the Republican National Committee's chief of staff. He was also the head of the data science and research, which included polling. Parscale claims that after realizing Virginia and Ohio were unable to be swayed, he decided to re-allocate the campaign resources to Michigan and Wisconsin. This shift included the decision to send Trump to Michigan and Wisconsin and focus efforts heavily on the two states. This decision was instrumental in winning the election as Trump won both the historically democratic states....
Parscale did not have data scientists or any digital team during the Republican Primary and did much of the social media advertising from his home...
Parscale was able to utilize Facebook advertising to directly target individual voters in swing states.[22] . Although he hired Cambridge Analytica to assist with microtargeting and Cambridge Analytica stated that it was the key to Trump's victory... [Parscale denies that.] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brad_Parscale
2
Fox is the Republican mouthpiece and Facebook joins it.
M. Soros is absolutely right.
8
George Soros should not be in charge of Soros Fund Management. His citizen bonifides are also problematic.
3
Facebook isn't the only source of misinformation. You know the saying "those who live in glass houses...".
3
Thank you Mr Soros 100% agree. For just this reason I
long ago quit FB. What a scam!! Zuckerberg and Sanders
care only about profit!!
2
Is Mr Soros suggesting that free speech is bad for America? Should government censors approve every Facebook posting and ad?
6
Well when a country worships profit over people this is what you get. Goodbye and goodnight America.
2
George Soros manipulated currencies causing bank crashes around the world, sews discord and social upheaval by funding authoritarian organizations across the globe.... and then has the gaul to suggest that Zuck is a bond villan.... something about a pot and kettle.
2
While we are deleting Facebook, can we get rid of hedge funds and currency speculators who have never created a job with all their billions and now are socialists in Lear Jets.
3
Easy to do, Donald is defeated by large numbers after relying heavily on Facebook and with either the new administration or as a new president we all will take care of Mark Z
1
How will holding Facebook accountable for what's posted on it help? Look at Fox news, who holds them accountable?
2
Zuckerberg is an Allie with the Grand old polluters/GOP party. Facebook needs to be shut down. They are traitors just like Trump and any one who supports him. Shameful. All our constitutional said Trump is a traitor. I sure don’t feel safe with him left in charge.
1
Why are people still using Facebook? Could we act any more like a group of lemmings going to the sea?
3
Before Facebook existed and long before the internet existed, conspiracies and other sorts of lies spread just as easily as they do now. To cite some example: Senator Joseph McCarthy, Senator Huey Long, Father Charles Coughlin, and the Know-Nothings and KKK of an earlier century all spread their influence far and wide without an internet. We would be better advised to focus on the causes rather than the manifestations.
2
I had unfortunately joined Facebook and Twitter years ago and of course they both have lots of data on me.
But after Zuckerberg announced he would allow Holocaust deniers to continue to post on Facebook, in spite of all the eyewitness accounts, Nazi and Allies filmed footage, was the straw that broke my camels back.
I am no longer on Facebook nor Twitter as both have mostly political posts none of which I care to see. What I miss are friends and family postings of photos, good times and bad times (deaths in the family) which I no longer am able to get as people post these on Facebook or Twitter only.
But I do not miss scrolling through the all the political posts which I mentioned takes up the majority of Facebook and Twitter posts. I am just sick of it.
Facebook, Twitter and other "legitimate" companies must be regulated and forced NOT to allow posting of things that are not factually accurate.
The epitome of projection!
George!
Please!
All folks have do is STAY OFF FACEBOOK.
No eyes.
No effect.
See.
Simple.
2
Democrats are furious because they can’t dictate what other adults do.
2
Close your Facebook account. I tried reporting liars and haters; Facebook did nothing but reprimand me. Facebook is a money machine; just like Trump and GOP
2
Aren't we all so exhausted?
2
"The responsible approach is self-evident. Facebook is a publisher not just a neutral moderator or “platform.” It should be held accountable for the content that appears on its site."
This would put the NYT in a bad spot since it has moved to reportorials where its journalists openly take ideological sides.
1
Soros is a menace to freedom and liberty. Since the American Revolution, which inspired the end of rule by elites over the common man and the rise of the middle-class, those elites have aspired to regain their control and reimpose a neo-feudal system upon the masses.
George Soros is advocating censorship to suppress anyone who rejects his marxist totalitarianism.
1
Never used Facebook. And don’t much care for Zuck. But about the only thing that would get me to be a genuine Facebook/Zuck booster is to know that Soros, the election interferer extraordinaire and open border advocate doesn’t like what he’s doing.
No. The democrats are going to get Trump re-elected. Pushing their anti-trump agenda only emboldens him. Yes he’s an idiot, no he should not be in power of the USA, but snapping at his heals throughout his presidency has been wasteful, and they are unable to hit him hard when it’s really needed. Bleat on about social media all they want: they’ve played a poor game and now they (we, the world, the environment) will suffer the consequences of four more years.
I can not express how rich it is that one global manipulator is complaining that another global manipulator is doing better. Soros is a text book Bond villan.
2
It's been clear for years now that Zuckerberg is as awful a human being as Donald Trump. The word is "amoral."
3
George Soros is global maniac-pontificating each day on who should rule one country vs another. Now I guess he would like to take over a company built by someone else-just because it does not join his propaganda bandwagon. The line between hard theft and socialism has always been blurry. I would take Zuckerburg over Soros anyday
1
Facebook is the problem; a totally unregulated media company. Zuckerberg has now declared Elizabeth Warren a “danger to our survival.” She is for regulating his toy.
With today’s vote to not allow witnesses in Trump’s “Impeachment Trial,” we are well on our way towards Fascism, with massive support from Zuckerberg. Right now we are merely an Oligarchy.
2
Curious that Sheryl Sandberg doesn't appear to be leaning in.
1
The Sanders supporters attacking Soros here are the epitome of irony. Are they so blithely unaware of Soros’ compelling personal history, his incredible philanthropy, and his unwavering humanity, all while enduring most relentless anti-Semitic attacks and threats on his life by some of the same forces enamored with Herr Trump?
2
Thank-you for this Mr. Soros!
1
i feel like this op-ed is good for george soros' business.
1
"What’s more, Facebook’s design tends to obscure the sources of inflammatory and false content," Just wanted to point out that the design of this page stated, "Mr. Soros is a philanthropist." That's like saying "Mr. Buffet is a stock trader." Not false, but certainly not nearly the whole truth. The NYT could have easily stated, "Mr. Soros is a philanthropist, hedge fund manager and progressive activist." This would at least give the reader a bit of context as to why Mr. Soros would publish such an article, in addition to his own, well stated and valid arguments about President Trump and Facebook.
2
kinda like this paper is trying not to because it is good for business?
I don't like trump, but let's not pretend.
1
Agreed, Mark Zuckerberg's FB modus operendi is plain wrong and unethical. It allows ad revenue to run the ship. FB and MZ knowingly allowed false news to impact the 2016 election and they are at it again: taking $$ to spread lies. Spoiler alert: FB shareholders greed is also complicit.
What about good journalists like the late Jim Lehrer who helped guide knowledge and human understanding ??
Recommendation: sell the FB shares & invest in honest public broadcasters (NYT, NPR, PBS etc) and GREEN, positively focused companies. Then give some profit, some oomph to Jim's Memorial Fund. https://give.weta.org/page/16408/donate/1?ea.tracking.id=lehrer_fund&appealCode=R2002LW0400000
2
And who will monitor the monitors? I think the person reading the posts should decide what’s fake news.
1
I'm having a hard time getting past the title of this piece- Mark Zuckerberg should not be in control of the company he founded and built into one of the most successful companies in the world? Because, why? Because Mr. Soros does not like his politics? Will the NYT run a piece tomorrow by Mr. Zuckerberg, "George Soros Should Not be in Control of Soros Funds Management"?
3
George Soros is just a sourpuss who thinks his billions entitle him to pick politicos of his choice to public offices. He is a far bigger threat to democracy than Facebook. He doesn’t get to decide who runs Facebook.
3
Who needs facts when we have Trump?
2
Thank you Mr. Soros. G-d save our country, g-d save democracy.
1
No wonder Mr Soros is a gop nightmare.
He promotes truth and goodness.
God help us.
2
By that logic no private interest should be allowed to own any media entity since - as the NYT's fortunes have shown - Trump's re-election is good for every single media company.
2
Facebook:
Just say no.
3
really is pretty funny that these tech people and their businesses that have been going around bleeting ad nauseam about being super great and positive since their inceptions are all basically the worst thing to happen to civilization and culture since the advent of the cotton gin, i suppose the old saying is true, you always wind up being the very thing you said you hate, in this case, hideous corrupt corporate money grubbing criminals...
1
We must begin to elect legislators who will begin to regulate this lawless and predatory new industry.
1
I might have problems with Facebook "control" - But I will rather get George Soros out of our sight the Mark Zuckerberg. I know where mark was during his life so far - But George, You are hiding facts about where you were and what you did in many periods of yourlife.
Your money and donations have a very bad smell.
3
Mr. Zuckerberg lives in billionaire fantasy-land. It's where all your dreams come true and everyone does the right thing. Does he actually look at his creation? Does he see what it has done? Perhaps he has too many "geniuses" working for him - giving really good advice - not! Hey Zuckerberg! Get off your rear and clean up the dang mess you made! It's simple. Don't allow political speech on your site. Period.
2
My hope is that one day America will wake up rid themselves of the borg
I trust the New York Times for news not Facebook. I find the posts vulgar and uninformed so I always turn to this newspaper for up to date information. The true intelligence is not found where anyone can post false information and you have to comment that “I fact checked this story and it’s wrong.” It gets annoying. I feel sorry for those who get their news by Facebook but if I were a republican I would follow Fox News and get it via my Facebook feed. This idea of ignoring the mainstream media seems paranoid and cynical to me. If voters want to get their information from Facebook friends who they agree with they are risking an independent assessment of the facts. Group think was a problem that caused the Iraq war. I didn’t come up with that, my professor did. Group think is dangerous!
1
It shocks me that Zuck will help Trump win for the sake of profits when it will empower a president who will likely support a pogrom that will probably include Mr. Zuckerberg and his ethnic minority wife.
He can claim he has no responsibility to me regarding what appears on his platform only when he agrees to eat whatever food is put before him. He can ask questions about where it came from, and who brought it to his table, but we don't have to answer. Let his own eyes be the judge of the suitability of his meals.
If he can do that good faith exercise 100% of the time, from this day forward, then I will also blindly accept everything he wants to serve me, my family, friends and neighbors.
12
Zuckerberg apparently likes Trump's support for Israel and Netanyahu, as well as the positive effects on his own revenue stream.
It's an ominous sign, continuing the toxic effect of media sources on American politics--and on world politics as well. Given the gridlock in the U.S. congress, there's virtually zero chance of positive change that would restore a level playing field. Beyond that, the right's stranglehold on the supreme court is a final backstop for those who benefit from a "hands-off" approach with respect to establishing fairness rules for the internet.
30
@Robert FB must be regulated.
This article self contradicts its central point. It labels Facebook a "publisher" but it does so based on the fact that Facebook, unlike Twitter and Google, actually chooses NOT to try and play at being an arbiter of Truth and censorship. In that regard it's the farthest from a publisher of any major platform.
Sometimes the truth is disputed, or murky. Sometimes the friends on your timeline honestly believe totally is actually wrong. We have free speech because its important for us to be able to air those wild beliefs and debate them in public.
Who are you, Soros, to wish to censor us? How weak are your ideas that you feel the need to?
28
@AJ Isn't Twitter is the # megaphone for Trump? I guess all twitter cares about is money too because they could have banned Trump years ago for violating policies. I see most of the conspiracy theories on Twitter. It's laughable to think that Google, Twitter, Apple or any company has these superior morals. Tim Cook seems likes to smile hang around Trump and his daughter as long as Apple isn't taxed by China, or Apple gets favorable treatment. Ummm... let's blame everything on Facebook. Makes perfect sense.
@AJ
It's not about censorship so much as it's about propaganda run amok - by Trump and his ilk. Zuckerberg plays into their ego-maniacal plans to turn this country into the Haves keeping the Have-nots down and out (of the country).
What you're saying is that it's okay to spread disinformation and outright lies. And, since Facebook claims it's not a publisher, how can you even call it censorship?
4
@AJ Publishing disinformation, untruths and distortions is not protected speech. It's why we have (or had) an FTC to regulate deceptive commercial claims, an FEC to regulate political activity so that advertisements weren't outright falsehoods and truthfully disclosed the speaker. And we had a fairness doctrine that ensured that media didn't just promote propaganda by one political party.
I don't think we're talking about disputed or murky issues here. We are talking about the complete abandonment of a publisher who takes money for ad placement of an obligation to ensure that they do not publish false, misleading, defamatory and libelous statements that are not free speech.
The NYT is held to that standard. They cannot take money to publish falsehoods. Why is FB allowed to publish lies for money?
This isn't a friend sharing dubious information. It's FB profiting off the sale of ads that are simply false.
7
I agree. Zuckerberg has turned into a cross between Rupert Murdoch and Jared Kushner. Power and wealth corrupt quickly and completely. FB is too powerful a propaganda tool to be in private hands.
35
Mr. Soros, thank you.
Let me start by saying I’m not a democrat or republican, but I wouldn’t vote for trump.
The truth is, trump is able to take advantage of what Facebook is (right or wrong) to get votes and effectively target people for his political gain. Meanwhile, the democrats have been whining about all the things that trump did, but shouldn’t be doing, they pushed the Mueller investigation for 2 years with ZERO gain to them, they’re pushing impeachment which is going no where, and everyone could see that it was going no where.
At which point will they realise that whatever strategy they’re employing is NOT working. Time to get off their high horse and start doing things that’ll win them votes... if they used the last 3 years to get work done and engage voters or may be even pass useful legislation! using Facebook or whatever other channel to enhance their chances of winning, instead of trying to get trump impeached they would be in a much better position for the 2020 elections.
Conclusion: Trump will win 2020... and Pelosi and Schumer need to be replaced with strong, centrist operatives that understand how the modern world works, taking advantage of tools like Facebook vs. Complaining about them... it doesn’t seem that difficult to understand this for me!
8
First, Soros is wrong about Section 230. Repealing it won't affect Facebook with respect to defamation liability against any politician or so-called lies related to political issue advocacy. That's because of First Amendment law limits defamation liability against public figures to essentially knowing lies. Facebook's only practical option will be to stick it's head in the sand to avoid any such knowledge -- any attempts to monitor or screen users' comments will only increase its risk of publisher liability. What you'll get is more of a "wild west" online.
Second, let's be clear what Soros is advocating for: manipulation of news, information and communications to serve political goals. Regulation of what information you and me are entitled to hear.
If you ask me, the more information available online, the better. The world is a complicated place and I definitely don't trust the Thought Police to make it safe for my delicate sensibilities.
And if I were to nominate someone to the board of the Thought Police, it certainly wouldn't be anyone like Soros, who laughably serves up an anecdote from a dinner at Davos. You really couldn't make this stuff up.
26
@Mmm
Let's not forget that he also set up his own university in Hungary and Vienna. He tried to give it legitimacy by appointing Michael Ignatieff (another popinjay and former Canadian politician) as president.
4
@Viv
Perhaps you might want to read more about Soros's Open Society Foundation?
https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/
Hungary is a sad case. The university was forced to close. Hungary also lost its last independent newspaper.
2
Mr. Soros is not a philanthropist.
Mr. Soros is an investor looking for leverage in government.
He was the guy financing Hillary and he is the guy who does not want Trump so win.
He is asking for Mr Zuckerberg, the lead of his a company to step down because he does not like the result?
I do not think it's his place to ask for this just because it is not to his benefit.
110
@AutumnLeaf
I agree. And remember, most Democrats and the media were fawning over silicon valley and Facebook's potential benefits for years prior to 2016 when they used it as one, among many, scapegoats for Hillary's loss.
Had she had a better digital strategy and won, we'd all be singing a different tune about Facebook. Recent NYtimes reports show that the Dems have still not learned and are significantly behind Trump in digital campaigning. We can't blame the technology for our failure to adapt to it.
Social media isn't going away and you can't break up private companies without setting dangerous precedents in the realm of free Enterprise that would hurt our country more than social media can.
42
@AutumnLeaf The difference is that Soros doesn't control a social media platform spewing misinformation and outright lies.
154
@AutumnLeaf Sure it's his place as a concerned citizen to call out what he sees as a threat to democracy. Democracy is depended on a well informed citizenry in order to survive. Misinformation and propaganda can lead to terrible results just ask Germany.
163
There is no question that Zuckerberg and Sandberg care only about profit and not about democracy.
They are part of the confluence of events that is turning us into a democracy in name only. Shameless!
1
And just what would have been so wrong with Hillary's "embedding" (as if it would be some kind of military secret) the Facebook advisors Facebook offered to her? What more would yoI ask of the Facebook than equal access and advice to all contenders? Why was Hillary so foolish as to turn this down? And why is that Zuckerberg's problem if she did?
2
The best defense is a good offense. I plan on actively spreading as many foul lies as I can about Trump.
3
Facebook should ban political advertisements. Will they? No. Personally, I don't understand the appeal of Facebook. Of course it is all for the mighty dollar. Money is the root of all evil. Trump is evil.
2
Facebook has to act this way or vanish, no mystery. It is just a bloody ruthless entity that has one goal and one goal only: no money is dirty, all money is clean.
2
The only viable way to regulate an entity as large as Facebook is to break it up. I'm all for that. It is an engine of intractable stupidity.
3
People need to take a break from Facebook. Only walking away will talk loud enough to make Facebook rehthink their positions. Hitting them in the wallet is the only way to change Facebook.
5
Lies generate more revenue than facts and truth. The failure of capitalism that threw out ethics, morality and integrity. That is if it ever had any. This younger generation has certainly never experienced anything but the poison.
It's like promoting a virus and feeding it. It makes you money but it makes everyone else sick and ill. Sooner or latter society may go septic. We have a massive amount of sewer creatures pouring into the swamp.
3
With great sadness....I stopped using Facebook just less than a year ago. I mention sadness because I do not see my grandkids' pictures in there any more.
And yet, I could not do otherwise. I despise Facebook and what it has done and still doing to us as a nation. How much money is enough/ Really?
Makes me sick.
3
I quit FB, 6 months ago & never looked back. I feel better. Now, I call it Trumpbook.
2
I was skeptical of Facebook years ago when I wanted to get a discount and had to sign on to Facebook, I couldn't understand the connection except I knew my information somehow, some way was going to be comprised. I look at Facebook and the substance of it makes me ill.
That said, the association of Facebook with the Russian interference, a pathway for sociopaths, terrorists and criminals to communicate, and Mark Zuckerberg, cowardly and smug with the satisfaction of nothing of dollars make me sick. Yes, he should be removed. He should never be part of any executive team again. The man is devoid of any ethical or moral fiber.
3
Soros's concerns regarding Facebook should not be ignored by arguments he was once also a culprit; indeed he better than most understands what is at stake. In any case the ability of Republican Senators to close the page on the unfinished narrative of Trump's wrongdoing is the greater threat to a civil society than the inane meanderings of most Facebook comments.
Blaming Facebook for misinformation and maximizing profits is one thing, saying Donald Trump is in an unhealthy relationship with Mark Zuckerberg is something else. Any relationship with Trump is unhealthy.
More than 80% of Facebook users are outside the U.S. and the only example of Facebook interfering in another country is the Rohingyas in Myanmar?
The problem here is not misinformation on Facebook, the problem is the dumbing down of the average American by their interaction with any media platform they use; movies, television and, to a lesser extent, the written word in the form of newspapers, magazines and books. Americans do not read their news, it takes too much effort so, instead of reading the book, they go and see the Hollywood version on the magic silverscreen.
May G-d forgive you for what you have done to the greatest country in the world...
3
Users are the unregulated commodity that social media companies sell. They're data parasites. Kill the industry by banning targeted ads and selling user analytics, require full disclosure on ads and establish privacy as a civil right.
2
Zuckerberg and Trump are in some ways two peas in a pod. Trump is famously a leering misogynist, and Zuckerberg famously kick-started Facebook with a leering, adolescent online competition whereby male students commented on the looks of female students. And both are in it for the money.
I see a lot of Facebook employees here in the Bay Area who are complicit, whether they like to hear it or not, and not a little infected by the arrogance of their employer.
1
I deleted my FB account in protest of the evil FB has done. FB will continue to help Trump in all his evil doings, pretending that nothing is wrong. Zuckerberg will go down in history and in business as an enabler of fake and evil news and information.
3
When are we all going to rise up and slay Zuckerberg, Trump, and all the enablers of democracy's destruction?
I'm asking for a friend.
Ah, yes the old blame facebook routine.
When are traditional media going to take responsibility for their far greater crimes of false equivalency? "But her emails!" indeed. And let's not forget about all the Trumpain "falsehoods". Call him a liar. It's not libel if it's true.
1
I'm so disappointed in everyone I know who still uses FB. You are all responsible for this mess too.
2
Agreed. Zuckerberg should have the humility to know this. His enablers should lean in and give him a clue.
1
You know who else helped get Trump elected and will do it again in 2020? Georges soroses of this world. Far more than Facebook or anyone else, they did it with their greed, their arrogance and their ignorance. They think that getting rid of Trump will somehow save their rotten business model and keep their ill-gotten billions flowing in. Well, they have another thing coming.
3
I do agree with you Mr Soros! This is completely irresponsible to let these things go on. I am really scared about the latest developments by Facebook combined to the cowardice of GOP.
I dumped facebook over 10 years ago when I realized I was their "product." I thought they were slimy then.
Now, I believe they are pure EVIL, plain and simple.
3
Ridiculous. Mark built it. People have a choice to use it or not.
Sores should not be running his company. Why doesnt he lead by example and let a nanny state lead it....
2
Remember, Zuckerberg invented Facebook so he could get laid in college. Self-interest has always been his motivation. No reason to expect anything different now.
3
We are undone by Zuck
A bully like another
I fully expect re-education camps or worse in 2 years
Never forget...
We did
1
Facebook is just another example of the “Cultural Lag” theory proposed by William F. Ogburn. It’s a theory, with plenty of obvious examples, that culture takes time to catch up with technology. Facebook may seem benign to some but it is anything but.
1
George Soros is a multi-billionaire who does philanthropy which is politically targeted or just plain political. He holds extreme left political views and spends hundreds of millions to implement them. I do not like Zuckerberg, but I would rather let his and other businesses run social media organizations. Not have the govt of a George Soros or the current socialist/ex?-communists of the far-left wing of the Democrat party control who has access to the social media of the internet. Once the govt takes over, the political party establishes the controls and the bureaucrats enforce them.
For every Zuckerberg, there are probably three media outlets controlled by and used by those with views on the political left. So there is no real threat of dominance by Zuckerberg.
The real concern of Soros is that citizens and voters with more traditional views tend to use Facebook. Soros wants to get to these voters control the information they can get. Not only are these the unwashed, stupid individuals who shop at Walmart and do all those other crude things cited by the Left, but their main fault is that many support Trump and his ideas. Therefore, it is critical that they be fed the proper left propaganda and vision.
Notice that Soros is described as only as philanthropist at the top. This is a totally biased media that politicizes hard news, analysis, editorials and opinion columns in ways not even contemplated a decade ago.
3
Whatever happened to slander and libel laws? What about false advertising? With the collaboration of the President of the United States and a degenerate mogul of a $565 billion business, is the country beyond the ability to legislate laws against lies?
1
No George, you don’t control other adults. And all the tantrums won’t change that.
2
Trump and Facebook are the root cause of me eliminating all social media from my life.
1
I'm on Facebook and enjoy it for the photo groups I share my work with (all closed groups) and for having given me a chance to interact with many interesting, talented, like-minded people I may never have a chance to meet in real time. I don't click on stupid videos and click bait, hide and delete all the ads, marking them as "irrelevant" as they don't give me options to say what I really think of them. I report anything I see as offensive and block people who disrespect me in comments. I delete all my photos after they've been shared with those I trust. I've even stopped "liking" or commenting on things not posted by people I trust and know. I keep it basic and my privacy settings tight. Zuckerberg is a smarmy, arrogant narcissist whose only interest is making a profit by compromising the privacy of FB's users and controlling the information of users worldwide. No ethics. Even their "community standards" are laughable and applied in a very questionable fashion. He and Trump are a match made in heaven.
2
Facebook and Google need to be regulated.
1
Is it really any surprise whatsoever that a social media site initially launched so guys could rate women on their looks is supporting Trump?
2
Of course Mr Soros didn't want Trump to be elected in 2016 and certainly doesn't want him elected in 2020. Mr Soros would be against anyone he perceives gave help in any way to Trump's victory or soon-to-be victory. Why? Because Mr Soros doesn't own Trump, like he owns Obama and Clinton. Well, good luck with your drive on Facebook. I think you'll lose this fight just like you lost the 2016 fight.
2
Facebook was started by a desire to demean women, thus the name "Face" meaning "In your face". Now supported by both users, who become addicted, and shareholders who seek nothing but money, In your Face.... is embedded in the World Culture as a platform for invidious discrimination while grandmothers love that a picture from years ago pops up on its anniversary. It is the center of the universe for evil to conquer good people where the good people do not realize it. One thing about America, when it was great and before Trump arrived, you could sue a publisher like Face Book for libel, false statements or false statements made recklessly or without regard to the truth for public figures ("malice") but poor leadership combined with uneducated masses equals this culture of In Your Face America and the World! Here that laughter? Zuckerberg and those willing to lie are laughing all the way to the bank and the Whitehouse. Good people do not engage in this behavior so good people no longer stand a chance. The politicians have divided and conquered us. I know as I too can remember when America was educated and stood the high moral ground. No longer, now its just in your face sucka!
This is ridiculous. Obama used Facebook and so did Trump nothing new there.
2
What Facebook are you talking about Mr. Soros? Facebook died for me around 2010. Before then we could just be ourselves without fear of judgement. Like at a pub. Sometime around 2011 the adults, parents, businesses, and corporations joined and everything became a civics lesson. Today Facebook is a cable TV stream of the White Pages, Yellow Pages and something weird. And we live in a time of fearing punishment. And we are.
On the other hand, Mustafa Nayyem used it to make the EuroMaidan revolution in Ukraine possible.
Props Mark.
Long after Mr. Zuckerberg is gone, historians will be rating him one of the most insidious characters in American history. Perhaps inimical is the better word.
Take your pick.
Trump will win for one and only one reason: America has a sufficient number if deplorables. Sad but true.
Democrats think Trump supporters are simply bigots who can’t be reached. But in fact most get their news solely from Fox News and Facebook, and are therefore both uninformed and misinformed. If all they ever hear is how Trump is being picked on, what do you expect them to believe?
Democrats don’t understand that this election is not about real policies; it is a propaganda war and Republicans are winning. Talk to Trump supporters and they will tell you that millions of undocumented immigrants voted, that the Clinton Foundation is corrupt, and yet know nothing about the $2M fine against the Trump Foundation.
Democrats should go all in on micro-targeted Facebook ads. Instead, Clinton refused their help in 2016 and currently Biden is wasting his donors’ money on TV ads. Political malpractice!
1
Facebook is evil. Everyone should cancel their account, everyone.
1
No, Facebook isn't going to get Trump re elected. Democrats refusal to be honest to themselves about why Trump got electedin the first place is what's going to get Trump re elected.
2
I will most definitely be posting this on my Facebook page.
Quit Facebook for one month.
Then ask yourself:
> Am I enjoying each moment of my life more?
> Am I a more attentive friend, partner, parent, human?
> Am I less stressed?
> Have I really missed anything important?
Social media is anti-social. With it, you unplug from the people around you to be a voyeur in someone else's life. Are other people's lives really more important to you than your own?
1
The description under the authors name says he is a philanthropist. Seriously? He is a political activist.
2
Facebook is a problem. But idiocy is what lets it be. Some of the overtly left and right wing posts are so crazy. And yet people fall for them. Our education system isn't teaching critical thinking anymore.
Social media platforms are used, as all media has historically used to spread political/election-related lies back to the foundation of this country (research the Boston Massacre). I don't like it and I use a number of news sources to build a mosaic of "truth" in today's events. Facebook and Twitter are not my primary sources but I can't see a way where there is any apolitical GORT (see when "The Earth Stood Still") that can decern and filter truth and political "truth"
I am not naive enough to think that Mr. Zuckerberg doesn't have a profit motive but, with 2.5 billion users, applying Occam's razor leads to this conclusion: Facebook is its most efficient revenue-generating when the most users see it as passthrough of community interest information. That includes those of the "village idiots" from all ends of the political spectrum. Fundamentally it is a manifestation of the US' First Amendment (no wonder China bans it).
I am a big proponent of removing all barriers for people being able to vote. With that comes the realization that many, perhaps will not vote in the same way I would (democracy - go figure...) Mr. Soros appears to advocate for his vision of thought (laudable in many respects) that leads to a better world. He also points to "low hanging fruit" of abuses of social media that have significantly affected many. Where does the line get drawn? Who gets to draw it? Me? Mr. Soros? As Walt Kelly observed - "We have met the enemy and they is us"
This is one of the dumbest arguments I’ve ever heard. Soros is known for being a “Left figure” so clearly he is biased. Also facebool approached BOTH candidates with offers to help, only one was dumb enough to turn it down. Good job democrats. Where was all this outrage for against facebook for 8 years under Obama? Nowhere. Just like there was no outrage from the left about executive orders under Obama. It’s not facebooks job to identify false speech. They are NOT a news organization. Speaking of which, if fox and nytimes actually did a better job telling the truth, people wouldn’t turn to outlets such as facebook and twitter to know whats going on. It has always been the job of adults to read the news from multiple sources and come up with conclusions. To take that responsibility off of us and put it onto a corporation is infantilizing. Most people primarily get on facebook to keep in touch with their friends, share memes and schedule events. The natural by product of that is discussing things in their lives, including politics. That does not need to be regulated by government. That’d be like going into a barbershop and holding the owner responsible for some outrageous claims somebody is making about candidate so and so. Facebook is basically a national chain of barbershop talk. People talk about cars, girls, guys, politics, war, parenting tips etc...just like they do in a barbershop. I don’t need a billionaire telling me how to talk in my community.
2
@George Soros
Great points George, but the damage has already been done [about 12 years ago]. Nouveau tech rich Whites and Asians gentrified the city of San Francisco, all the African-American residents from Hunters Point were forced from their homes- magically crossed the bay to the town of Lodi.
Sound Familiar?
Where was your mouth and money then?
Zuckerberg is , like Donald John Trump, is doing V. Putin’s work for him. How they can live with betraying their country is beyond me. Al least w Trump he has the excuse of being a whack job narcissist. It’s seems like that modern media forms have spawned an epidemic of toxic narcissism in public figures, and to a lesser degree, in most of us.
1
And neither should Sheryl Sandburg - a woman who could have exited with her head held high, running her LeanIn nonprofit, championing women’s causes (as greenwash as all of that initiative was). Instead, there she is, enabling a child to continue reaping supernormal profits, invading our privacy, lining her designer purses with limitless cash and showing us exactly who she was all along.
Never had a Facebook Account. Never will.
Zuckerberg and Sandburg both strike me - when testifying - as dissemblers with talking points. They do not inspire respect.
This Op-Ed rings true.
1
Hmm, a new level of hypocrisy is achieved! Let's celebrate the little victories, no?
You, Mr. Soros, use the absurd amounts of money you've made speculating in financial markets to produce leftist outcomes for, well, who knows what reason. Perhaps because in your mind its "good for business."
Now you have the temerity to criticize Facebook because its founder sees it as a neutral platform in which neither he nor his company censor speech.
Most people know truth from lies and can decide for themselves. For example, when the NYT explains to me that you are a "philanthropist," well, I know how to evaluate that fact. And I don't want them regulated just because it's not true.
3
And who exactly gets to fact check political ads? Some fact checking organization that pretty much always is liberally biased?
Let the RNC do the fact checking and see if Soros still wants it all fact checked. The media constantly misquotes Trump and takes things out of context.
How many times do we hear the media and left keep repeating the lie that Trump called white supremacists fine people?
All politicians distort the truth in their ads. They soon things. They tell half truths. They say something without context.
Vote against raising social security because the bill also says that the youngest child if every family must be sacrificed at an alter. You opponent will say you voted against raising social security. They will not mention the sacrifice part of the bill.
The left is all for censorship. As long as they are the ones that get to choose who gets to speak. What if the RNC got to decide what people get to say? Would they still want the censorship?
1
Yes, Facebook is not only "too big to fail" in financial terms but also too big in terms of influence to allow itself to suffer financially to any degree, let alone to financially fail.
That is dangerous, as it has the means to cause only their protectors to be elected. simply because of it having infiltrated the neural network of hundreds of millions of Americans.
And the government whose job it is to protect our society from that kind of corrupt control? It appears they are controlled as well, thanks to the manipulation of voters by this same corporate instrument of propaganda and insane amount of campaign funding they need to get elected.
1
Those who can reason and think critically are immune to fake news, mis-information, lies, propaganda, and such-like. If there is a problem then it is the lack of people who can reason and think critically. Perhaps the villain here is the education system and not Facebook.
2
Zuckerberg and Trump are peas from the same pod. Both have happily engaged in fraud in order to achieve their position. In the most devious fashion Zuckerberg defrauded the original creators of the platform which would later become Facebook. Trump's abuses are too many to list but of more recent note is his notorious fraudulent Trump University and his stealing from the charity that he had set up to aid combat vets. With Zuckerberg, Murdoch, and Putin in Trump's corner Western Democracy is in a perilous situation.
1
It is pretty obvious that Zuckerberg is about as greedy as a human can be, and he attempts to hide it behind the 'freedom of speech' garbage argument that they used to con congress into giving them freedom from the normal responsibilities of a publishing platform. Zuckerberg has been perfectly happy to accept payment in rubles for anything anyone wants to publish on the facebook platform.
2
The reality is that no amount of vast fortune will ever restore the good reputation of Zuckerberg and Sandberg. Their children, though insulated by inherited billions, will nevertheless always live under the stain of their parents having broken democracy.
3
I refused to join FB over the years, primarily, because, i dont really like people all that much. I was even smarter than i realized, because i avoided one of the biggest scams since religion. How did people not realize the Zuck was an evil genius from a James Bond film.
3
Facebook and Google are the technological apex of the basic moral failure of the whole US society: the general, tacit acceptance that ethics do not apply to business. "maximize profits irrespective of the consequences" has always been the central US doctrine.
14
To be fair, Mr. Soros, Zuckerberg should be working at Walmart. Perhaps then he’ll learn some humility, but I doubt it. America has always been a place where businessmen and entrepreneurs can become so influential, where the ultimate goal they crave is more money and prestige for their brand. I did something successfully well, I am king of the world!
8
A rather mean-spirited comment that implies that Mr. Zuckerberg merits punishment for the sin of being successful. We use his company's product voluntarily. How is that his fault?
2
Unfortunately Elizabeth Warren simplistically wants to break up big tech companies like Facebook.
For Zuckerberg, the enemy of his enemy has become his friend.
The real issue is that a political party or leader should be elected on the basis of general policy positions that are available in the public domain and which can be assessed and criticised in the public domain.
The use of social media platforms such as Facebook to deliver micro-targeted dog-whistle messages to manipulate voter perceptions should be outlawed because it is impossible to criticise or correct the messages due to their number and variability.
Of all the people on this planet, a member of the Jewish race should be especially sensitive to dangers inherent in the ability of any politician to whistle up a mob with manipulative messages.
17
I disagree as Facebook is a privately owned business and not a government department.
5
Facebook's (Zuckerberg's) "slippery slope" argument on censorship flops in view of their efforts to flag other material as false, such as whimsical pieces of art with no element of truth or falsehood one way or the other. (I can provide an example).
Regardless of any spoken or unspoken agreement between Trump and Zuckerberg, it is plain that (1) Facebook profits enormously from their stance; (2) They have more than enough money to pay staff or outside help to "fact-check" political ads, which much less profitable publishers seem to be able to do.
And Soros is right - they should be regarded as publishers, not just a free media platform. Zuckerberg's defense rings hollow in view of the profit to be made.
17
Thanks Mr. Soros!
I’ve been trying to get those I know to see the many problems with Facebook. If Zuckerberg, who from the very beginning displayed reckless disregard to ethics, won’t reform, perhaps the way to go is to use reasonably effective American antitrust laws....bust it up into at least three pieces. . . Then turn to google next.... let the separate pieces figure out a business model that respects people’s rights, ethics, laws and the value of democracy.
18
I would guess that 99% of the people who have a Facebook Account are there because they want to see pictures of their loved ones and friends, and/or keep abreast of things such as what's going on with their favorite restaurant or their favorite vacation community.
The percent on Facebook who are there to read and digest political information? At most, 1%. That's what Twitter, YouTube, and hundreds of liberal and conservative websites are for.
9
Although I've never had a Facebook account and likely never will, I have had--years ago--various friends exert enormous pressure on me to try to get me to join, and I can well imagine someone unsympathetic to Facebook but not quite as obstinate as me yielding to similar peer pressure. I don't understand what motivates this pressure, but unfortunately it appears to be very real, and I suspect it accounts for a great deal of Facebook's success (success, that is, at generating obscene sums of money for Zuckerberg and success at destroying culture). In any case, if you still have a Facebook account at this late date, there is no better time than now--I mean this very instant--to discontinue it. Don't feed me any rationalizations or excuses. Don't tell me you rarely use Facebook. Cancel your account and don't look back.
13
Regulation of all these sites is called for.
10
'Facebook is a publisher not just a neutral moderator or “platform.” It should be held accountable for the content that appears on its site.'
I agree. Facebook is a media empire. Part of their content is crowd-sourced and part of it is paid promotions. They need to be regulated as much as any other media empire. And fakes (actual fake news, that is falsehoods and propaganda) is going to be harder and harder for the consumer to detect as the technology of photo and video becomes more and more seamless.
The FCC (Federal Communications Commission), which regulates radio and TV needs to update itself (hello, Congress) and get into the 21st Century.
For my fellow Americans: Good Luck.
409
@Lennerd
That is not going to happen, even if the Dems take all in 2020. The FCC is not equipped at all to deal with this type of enforcement or analysis. It is the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) that needs to stop the deceptive practices that are occurring on these platforms.
Something needs to change, I agree with you there. But the FCC is 100% the wrong agency to take on the role of regulating social media.
9
“Facebook helped Trump to get elected and I am afraid that it will do the same in 2020.” I absolutely agree. And it appears to be because profits are more important than Democracy to Mark Zuckerberg. Or could it be that he simply agrees with Trump's actions?
540
@jdmcox
Can you identify one person who wasn't going to vote for Trump who decided to because of a Facebook ad...
In all this time since the election, I haven't seen a report of one.
14
@jdmcox
Interesting remark....Does Zuckerberg have similar
aspirations to trump? What is exactly his power goal?
Is it money, only money, or is there another agenda in the wings?
is Zuckerberg even more powerful than the President
already? Maybe....He has a much larger audience.
8
Um, yeah, like all of my FB driven relatives. Huge family, all news via FB. Because ALL their friends do same.
18
Facebook and other social media platforms who accept money for political advertising should fall under FCC regulations, just like the traditional broadcast entities. Doing this would go a long way in curbing the excesses of this confluence of a new technology and society.
700
@A Centrist Uh, the FCC does not allow political ads to be censored, even when an ad includes false information. So in that respect, Facebook is in line with federal rules.
7
@A Centrist
While I agree that these companies need to be regulated better, particularly in terms of misinformation/deception, the FCC is 100% not the correct agency for it that. The only reason the FCC has jurisdiction over the broadcast networks is due to the public aspect of the spectrum used. The FCC does not and has never regulated advertising or even truthfulness in any claims. It's purpose from the bygone era of broadcasting regulation was to ensure nobody said naughty words, no private parts were shown, and that equal time was presented when the Equal Time Rule actually existed.
This is the Federal Trade Commission's problem under Section 5 of the FTC Act. Section 5 prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices by any content provider. The FTC knows how to enforce this standard and has been charged with doing so for decades, particularly for advertisers. Unfortunately, the FTC is a very small agency for all that it is supposed to regulate.
The DOJ's antitrust division has a role to play in this arena, too. Concentration of these social media companies is making them a force nobody can beat. Concentration is dangerous in general, but particularly so in information markets. Yet, here we are with presumptive blessings from the current DOJ for horizontal mergers (presumed illegal for approx. 100 years) and no oversight of vertical mergers (aside from this Administration's personal vendetta against CNN that troubled the AT&T/TWM transaction).
11
@PB
:-) I was preparing a reply to your first post asking you to explain your reasoning when I scrolled down and saw this. Thank you. Very clear.
1
Even if you don't like Soros, he makes a lot of good points here. Social media is a new frontier that we as a society are still navigating. I personally feel uncomfortable with Mark Zuckerberg-or anyone for that matter- having essentially total control over the flow and presentation of information that relates to political campaigns.
702
@Casey I like Soros. What I don't like (and neither do others) is his patronizing attitude facebook users, i.e., virtually everyone. It inspires backlash. This how we got - and will continue to get - Trump.
7
@Bjh
Any legitimate criticism us how we get Trump? Zuckerberg deserves all the criticism he gets. That’s not condescension. That’s reality.
34
@Casey
The problem is not Mark Zuckerberg.
The problem is Facebook.
And Google.
And Apple.
And Twitter.
And all the rest of the tech outfits whose business model depends on engagement, not truth. Or your privacy.
You don't have to be a Luddite to see where geofencing, placing strobe lights on the Epilepsy twitter account, and lies for profit inexorably lead.
4
The key to Capitalism is using natural resources at will, including people, and The Net.
Part of the deal is that you are responsible for whether or not you are a stupid resource, or a smart one; working hard, or not (due to laziness or inability). Protection of people against business using you as a resource is bad for business; bad for profits in general, bad for the economy (I.e. everyone), bad for those idle rich who live off investments and contribute nothing, per se, to the economy, etc.
The same things being said about Facebook can be said about lots of past enterprises; railroads, roads, oil, and on and on.
Beyond Trump, (for who we focus on his racism, lack of class and morals), is the real question of Capitalism vs. Socialism. Most Trump supporters are very worried about Socialism because it has never worked and they recall the days when Communism was a world threat. Where is Socialism working? Not in China or Russia, nor in North Korea. If you mention the Northwest European nations, they have Socialism because they are under our protection, like kids at college in a frat house.
The real problem with The Net and what we read is we don't really know who we are reading. Am I a Russian operative? How do you know? How many posts a day in the NYTimes are from operations of foreign governments? This is the real problem that needs to be solved: identity verification. We need to evolve into knowing who we are reading and why.
1
With the dirty trinity made up of the anti-democratic electoral college, the unlimited dark money allowed by Citizens United, and the Orwellian reach and greed-driven publication policies of Zuckerberg, already in full flagrant operation for the 2020 election, our republic's democratic goose is soon to be completely cooked.
6
Facebook, so 4 or 5 years ago. Delete your account and go out and talk to a neighbor. Take the pooch for a walk. Drive an elderly neighbor, regardless of party, to a vote in a primary or to a party caucus. We are not a network, we are, after all, Americans. Time, again, to start acting like it.
8
We thought dumbing down the masses would be by continued education decline for many reasons, when it was replacing newspapers and legitimate information with social media and biased conspiracy laden news organizations.
These two men have been playing with fire; we see what happens when other authoritative regimes control social media. They know what they’re doing and it’s a democracy killer.
3
NY Times, when are you going to break your agreement with Facebook? Why should readers ber given the ability to connect to you through Facebook?
I have never had a facebook account. Do not feel that I have missed out on anything. As a matter fact, I believe I have more time to read what I choose to read, unlike Facebook users I know who are being constanly by Facebook's algorithms. Although I am highly educated female in a male dominated field, Sandberg's work words/writings have never appealed to me. She is as fake.
7
With the dirty trinity of the anti-democratic electoral college, the unlimited dark money allowed by Citizens United, and the Orwellian reach and greed-driven publication policies of Zuckerberg already in full flagrant operation for the 2020 election, our republic's democratic goose is soon to be completely cooked.
2
Those who think the problem is that many people don’t educate themselves well enough about information are missing the point. Even if this is true, the word “both” should come to mind. For one, all societies and all people are susceptible to propaganda to at least some degree. Facebook is a major problem because the combination of this nefarious medium and basic human nature form a dangerous vicious cycle. That cycle involves more people becoming polarized into separate universes, more emotional attachment to the site, more profit for the company, and ultimately more resources and incentives to target the susceptible public. In other words, Facebook is a dangerous invention that must be regulated or disconnected before it’s too late
2
What do you mean Facebook embedded it's own people in campaigns?!? Trump took them up on this proposition and Clinton didn't? Why is this even an option? And still with no fact checking? I had no idea. I'm flabbergasted! That sounds like active disinformation propagated by the morally underdeveloped Zuckerberg.
Ditch fb now. Let it be what it aspires to be...a radical-libertarian/authoritarian propaganda, democracy-destroying echo chamber. I'm out.
5
Dear World, Just get off of Facebook and let's all become the miracle that's needed. Amen and Peace.
8
"Mark Zuckerberg Should Not Be in Control of Facebook"
This is America George. It does not work that way.
5
The problem is not Mark Zuckerberg.
The problem is Facebook.
And Google.
And Apple.
And Twitter.
And all the rest of the tech outfits whose business model depends on engagement, not truth. Or your privacy.
You don't have to be a Luddite to see where geofencing, placing strobe lights on the Epilepsy twitter account, and lies for profit inexorably lead.
2
@Steve Fankuchen
I understand your points.... but one cannot undo these technologies. They would not go away.
What would you suggest?
Thus the dilemma: Stay on Facebook and try to counter the misleading statements, or abandon it to its fate?
After Brad Parscale gave his interview on 60 Minutes, I found his account and asked him if he really believed, as he'd stated in the interview, that Russia didn't interfere in our 2016 election. Predictably, he never answered.
That's probably as much as any individual can expect from efforts to correct the record. Still, with enough individuals at work...
2
@Chris Winter Re: "Thus the dilemma: Stay on Facebook and try to counter the misleading statements, or abandon it to its fate?" There's no dilemma here. Drop Facebook immediately, and if you want to counter misleading statements, do it outside Facebook.
5
With 2.5B users, I pretty much understand the non-impact I had when I deleted my FB and Instagram accounts a few weeks ago - after Zuck announced that he will once again support Trump with whatever nefarious efforts he wants to deploy on his platform. But everyone else has this choice as well. If you feed the beast, the beast may eventually eat you.
BTW... I miss FB not one bit. I made sure I had contact info for the friends I wanted to keep, downloaded my content, and am enjoying my recouped and more meaningful time.
944
@JKN
People should start leaving FB in droves, unless their business depends on it.
You can talk to your family and friends and find much more friendly personal way to maintain your connection.
36
@JKN
Indeed. FB is totally useless and the fact that so many people don't realize that is scary...
22
@JKN I did the same and have the same reactions you do. It was one of my New Year's resolutions and one that was easy to keep!
19
As long as we have a "president" who benefits from this platform, and a Senate that gets behind him no matter what, nothing, nothing, will change.
Same with any other form of social media "communication".
Effective tools for propaganda disinformation sharing, a "perfect" form of media for our wannabe (soon to be) dictatorship.
1
Soros is so right. Facebook is pursuing only money and has no higher ethical calling. I used to use Facebook all the time but now go on only when required for work.
You know how Google has the slogan "Don't be evil"? Well, they're not totally accomplishing it, but at least they seem to be trying, unlike Facebook. Facebook IS evil.
7
@FLT
Businesses are in business to make money. Those that don't make money close.
@FLT
"Facebook is pursuing only money and has no higher ethical calling."
this is an unfortunate truth.... and the same one can say about Soros.
We can say that all the technologies: Facebook, Google, Apple etc etc are evil. But they would not be erased by the readers of the NY Times. We must be realistic.
1
@FLT Well, we'll have to wait and see how YouTube affects this year's election. You may have more faith in them than you do FB, but YouTube also allowed the spread of disinformation in the 2016 campaign. Moreover, the two founders of the company, Larry Page and Sergey Brin, have retired. (https://bit.ly/31ervuU)
i agree to all of mr. soros points, but if individuals do not have good sense or the ability to make good and valid judgements about information or their sources, is this not more a fault of of education background than it is of facebook or any social media platform? that same background can be used to temper one's participation as well. one gets tired of constant affirmations and occasionally not only taking hiatus, but one should have some modicum awareness of the opposite terrain.
2
Soros is misguided here.
Solutions to current problems need to be found that do not involve gutting or eliminating Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is critical to a an open and free web.
Section 230 puts the responsibility for content posted on the person (or entity) that posted it, not the website that hosts it. This is critical to avoid tyranny and chaos.
Eliminating 230 would lead to a tidal wave of lawsuits against any perceived deep pocket in Silicon Valley - which could result in a flight of capital.
Eliminating 230 would erode personal responsibility.
Someone could post inflammatory things on Facebook (or wherever) and then turn around and sue Facebook.
Who does Mr. Soros think the so called "fact checkers" should be who will police Facebook and other similar sites.
Soros says: "Facebook can post deliberately misleading or false statements by candidates for public office and others, and take no responsibility for them."
"My proposed tax cut will produce enough economic growth to pay for itself" is likely to be judged as "false or misleading" by liberals/Democrats.
"The regulation we are proposing on clean drinking water will prevent the next Flint and not hurt business" is likely to be judged as "false or misleading" by Conservatives/Republicans.
Forcing any website to "fact check" political speech is a very bad idea.
4
@Nelson Hermance
They could put small print warning labels on all political ads (or all ads) that say something like "Facebook does not guaranty the truth of any of the above/below statements. It is up to the viewer to verify this content"
2
@Nelson Hermance
When have liberals ever been concerned with personal responsibility?
@Mattie
Isn't it obvious to anybody who can think independently?
1
Facebook is a public menace. On the pretext of insuring open access, its managers have lied about regulating libelous content, and it has not protected private data. Now it is cozying up to the Trump administration to insure a steady stream of lucrative advertising, which will open the flood gates to manipulation of news by foreign governments in an election year. The only way to defeat it is for everyone to un-suscribe. I have never used it, nor shall I ever.
21
So, if we use Facebook, we are the problem.
17
@unreceivedogma Yes. But I guess you could also argue that so is filling your car with gas or buying beef raised on former rainforest land. FB and Big Tech can be particularly corrosive because technology is so new, powerful, increasingly omnipresent, often intrusive but not transparent, irresponsibly managed and not well understood by most, esp. lawmakers. Your fridge is probably gossiping about you to your washing machine. With FB, conspiracy rumors have caused massacres of innocent people in minority communities. These guys need regulation, especially Zuckerberg, and for users a sane, mindful, responsible alternative. It's social entrepreneurship.
This scares me more than anything Trump has done.
6
The hypocrisy never stops with the Trump administration. They love to smear George Soros as an all-powerful financier of chaos who wants to bring about the end of western civilization, yet they're doing everything they can help turn Zuckerberg into precisely that kind of man.
11
This is exactly why I quit FB a few months ago. I cannot in good conscience support any platform run by Mark Zuckerberg. His policies are heinous and completely self-serving. I encourage anyone who does not want to see Trump re-elected to walk their talk and get off GB as well.
17
This argument cannot be dismissed.
9
Wait, is this the same George Soros who funded a PAC that poured money into supporting 'progressives' in local elections in New York and Maryland? And he is saying the Mark Z is a problem? Big money is the problem and as long as folks like Mr. Soros and the Koch's can pour money into campaigns that supported their agendas we have problems.
7
@Dave Maybe Soros and the surviving Kochs can make a deal to stop doing that. Meantime, Soros is not a member of ALEC and doesn't appear to support fossil fuel, timber and other lobbies.
Why can't these partisan lies and misinformation that appear on Facebook be countered by massive submissions from a Democratic truth squad?
2
@Jim Benson because there's no such thing as a democratic true squad.
Something about that cold-eyed stare disturbs me. It isn't just this picture -- it's all pictures of Zuckerberg. He always wears a dead expression.
I've never been on FB and never will be. This is company that doesn't care how it makes its money and disdains the truth for being unprofitable.
13
The dangers are obvious, The death and mayhem that FB hs caused is imtolerable.
Obviously the solution is difficult but not insurmountable.
FB or Instagram's popularity come from not Trump but the famous such as Kim Kardashian, etc. What's needed are viable alternatives to FB and a grassroots movement directed towards Hollywood and the music industry to switch to a new platform not controlled by Zuckerberg. All it takes is painting FB as an enabler of genocides and then have the Clooney's start making some phone calls to their friends.
At the same time go after corporations that advertise on FB. Adverising on FB = supporting genicide.
4
When you are on Facebook, you are the product. That's why you're on for "free".
Facebook behaves, and they're not the only ones, but they behave like the tobacco companies. Pick your poison.
Although i must say, that this company seems a notch more disingenuous than most. Bringing us together? By the way, I've got a bridge for sale.
8
Rather than calling out the iniquities of the opposition, Mr. Soros should be addressing the unbridled incompetence of the Democrats.
4
@Daedalus You just did. Please elaborate.
Zuckerberg and King Donald I help each other plunder the world for mutual benefit. They are both cut from the same corrupt cloth.
Wm. Carlos Williams noted that the "pure products of America go crazy." And there are no purer products of America, that exemplify the heart and soul of America, than Zuckerberg and America's first king - King Donald I.
8
@Michael You're right. The unnatural fiber they're cut from often has a perverse reaction to any kind of suggestion or criticism like being called out for and especially presented with evidence of bad behavior.
It's time Facebook goes the way of My Space: Into history's dustbin.
15
I can’t stand the thought of one more “Big Brother” entity trying to influence me. I did Facebook for three months and very quickly hated the feeling of too many people being voyeurs, and I didn’t broadcast every detail of my life by a long shot. I see my friends wasting precious free time looking at the made-up life stories on Facebook, at the same time they lose real face to face contact with friends and family.
That’s crazy. And crazy too is the idea that a PRESIDENTIAL election will be influenced by an unchecked publisher of lies. Facebook has much more of a responsibility than this, but greed obviously is their main goal.
9
FB stock made me a lot of money but I have sold it all on principle.
Zuckerberg and Sandburg have a lot of power and influence but they clearly don't have the corresponding good judgement and wisdom. They are risking their company and possibly going to prison for some additional dollars.
They should follow the lead of Jack Dorsey at Twitter and simply stop all political ads.
Otherwise, at some point in the future when Democrats have control, FB should be broken up and these greedy frauds put in jail and throw in Peter Theil and other board members for good measure.
15
@DS It's OK for you to give your FB profits to charity or to organizations fighting corruption.
People choose to be on Facebook, when you can leave in a few clicks.
People are gullible enough to be misled by easily verifiable falsehoods, which could be disproved in a few clicks.
Why are we blaming Zuckerberg for human nature or human failings?
8
@Pete because he is monetizing those things to our great detriment.
@Pete Because does not encourage better. He perpetuates and profits from the Great Dumbing Down
Hell hath no fury like a liberal scorned. And so it goes with Facebook.
3
@Toni
Fiddlesticks!!
This is nothing but ad hominem.
Facebook and Google are publishers and news agents. Its clear as a bell. They are not just "platforms". A platform does not use algorithms to promote its interests. When that happened, FB crossed a line.
5
That is exactly what a platform does.
Worse for me is that Zuckerberg is never going to spend all his billions.
He could afford to do the right thing and it won't affect the way he lives his life.
8
@Independent
What is the right thing? It's his money that he worked for and earned.
3
@James
That's easy.
It's called morals.
It's called not putting your personal gain ahead of the good of the whole.
Do the right thing for our country and not permit political ads with lies.
Old fashioned right and wrong.
8
@Independent do you have more money than you need for a some life? You should give it away to people with less. Get a smaller home. Buy an older car. Give away your money. If you don't, you are not thinking about the good of the whole.
1
Yep, this all goes to show. Show what? That it ain't the old ball game. And Biden and Buttigieg and the rest of the 'moderates'
just don't get it. The team on the other side are playing by Roy Cohn Rules. We ain't. By 'we' I mean the Dems of which I, except for loyalty oath (I owe that only to the USA, and I don't need to repeat it) consider myself a member. By that I don't mean we should play their rules or even their game. All we have to do is to live up to the New Deal. Sanders and Warren do and they've proven they can fight.
Last night I saw Ted Koppel interviewed on PBS (Ammanpour & Co.) and I didn't like it. Because he thinks what I think. Trump may not step down if he's defeated, and there's a long time from there to the inauguration. We don't need or want a moderate to go up against that. We need someone who'll stand up to the commander of the 82nd Airborne and demand that officer defend the Constitution and not Donald J Trump and the GOP.
9
@James F Traynor lol. Trump won't step down if defeated. Lol! You're hilarious! Not a chance he's getting defeated come November. Bet!
There has been some circumstantial evidence that Google helped Hilary Clinton by strategically altering search results in key demographics in the 2016 election. Why not call for the ouster of Mr. Pichai? I’m sick of people finding excuses, any excuse, for their party losing. As a Democrat, I’m not in denial that the reason we lost 2016 was a defective candidate. This time it will be because there won’t even be a Democrat running.
4
@Every Op-Ed Should Have To Pass The Shoe On The Other Foot Test
How can Hilary be thought of as a "defective" candidate when running against someone like Trump? Trump and the Republicans manage to neutralize all the bad stuff that was known about trump for decades. And here we are with a POTUS that in private Republicans say is corrupt and doesn't belong in office.
FB was one contributor to spreading the lies that hurt the Dems in 2016. The real solution is to ban social media platforms from posting ANY politically related ads or posts PERIOD. I quit responding to any political posts of my friends because crazies, people I've known for years, were getting into heated squabbles.
Zuckerberg is in over his head - created a monster that has made him billions and he has no desire to control it because it is connected to his pocketbook AND even if he wanted to, he does not have the expertise or smarts or morality to design any kind of solution.
The high time now appears for the new entrepreneurial market alternatives.
Thank you for this. Facebook is indeed a publisher and should be responsible for material posted there to the extent it is false, misleading or inciting violence. The standards are not easy either in concept or enforcement, but the company certainly easily has the resources. I am sure it's reluctance to act responsibly is due partly to competitive fears - those have to be put to rest by appropriate rules governing all social media. In any case, Facebook appears to be the most amoral and disingenuous of all.
6
The problem with Facebook is that there were never ANY safeguards on privacy, foreign election bots, the platform for disinformation, and the belief that profit is still more important than the United States of America where the founder supposedly was born in.
5
Use antitrust to break up its different components and treat its platform as a publisher that is liable under the same laws on defamation that govern all media.
28
Facebook's algorithms know how to find messages that align with the apparent or demonstrated interests and opinions of users. Little did Mark Zuckerberg or most of the rest of us realize how essential it is for our own welfare to hear contrary opinions and information, or at least to have such information weighed and presented by information gatekeepers, such as newspaper editors and media managers trained in the ethics of responsible journalism. Now we are paying the penalty for our naivete, and a severe one it is. But hey, free enterprise and laissez faire economics will naturally correct this oversight, right? Just like for climate change.
10
If you like topics, you will get all the contrary news you can stand. It is not up to FB to force feed it to you.
1
Soros, too, followed only one guiding principle: maximize profits irrespective of the consequences. That's how anyone becomes a multibillionaire, and Zuckerberg followed Soros down this same road.
Now that Soros has no further need for that guiding principle, he can speak of its great menace in all his philanthropic glory. (This, too, is standard preaching once one is elevated into the "philanthropic" class. Gates, inter alia, does the same thing.)
The real purpose beneath this propaganda from the corporate multibillionaire class—which ALWAYS has access to corporate-owned mainstream media because this same class either owns mainstream media or is its primary sponsor—is to use the widespread public ire against Facebook to further push the public away from the vital issues in this democratic campaign, and get them to focus solely on beating Trump—a strategy which will most effectively shut off the spotlight now shining on how private corporate ownership of this country is also what controls the show in government, so that it works at its best for the 1%—and the 99% can scrabble for the remaining scraps.
Whatever else he's saying, Soros is gunning for Sanders here, because Sanders is the one candidate who was denouncing this one guiding principle back when Soros was following this very principle to become a multibillionaire.
Sanders can trounce Trump, and this is the greatest fear of the multibillionaire class. So, it must now instill the fear that he cannot.
2
@Tom Wilde With you, Tom. I just told my boyfriend that Soros is actually part of the problem. Boyfriend will never believe me, though!
1
The problem is not Mark Zuckerberg.
The problem is Facebook.
And Google.
And Apple.
And Twitter.
And all the rest of the tech outfits whose business model depends on engagement, not truth. Or your privacy.
You don't have to be a Luddite to see where geofencing, placing strobe lights on the Epilepsy twitter account, and lies for profit inexorably lead.
5
Facebook exists because it is a way for many of us to "meet" people we wouldn't normally meet. But the way it's being used/abused now means it's also a huge source of disinformation, bad information, and disharmony. It would be different if there weren't trolls and others trying to stir the pot.
There have always been rumormongers, spies, tattletales, and other rogues who upset the social fabric. Some of them did it on a vast scale for the times. Some were caught and executed. Others started movements for change. What's different about Facebook is that it's bringing out our worst attributes. The intolerance on Facebook can be compared to the intolerance some minorities experience every day.
Mark Zuckerberg has made a ton of money with Facebook. Facebook is the genie that ought to have never been released without safeguards. Usually there's a social or judicial penalty for slander and libel and threatening people. Online anything goes and that fear is what drives many people not to say anything. For an app that was meant to bring people together, Facebook is a definite failure.
9
I need to delete my Facebook account. I already deleted my mobile app. Not I just have to pry my fingers from the web version.
10
believe me it will be freeing!
3
Facebook has agreed (1/31/20 cnn.com) to take down fake cures and misinformation related to coronavirus.
If it does this, but refuses to take down lies and misinformation that persist to the detriment of civil democratic society, then aren't they making a judgment about what is worth defending against dishonesty and what is not?
We have sent soldiers to die in war for ideas of democratic government.
But we would give Facebook a pass and say, go on and censor for an immediate public health crisis, but resume a specious position of neutrality when it comes to a longer-term civic health crisis.
9
I sense Facebook is reaching its tipping point. As powerful as it has become as a platform, it "cool factor" washing out. Its initial appeal was university students, now it is the Trump base. Truth will come out, like Republican senators who want to distort and hide from the truth, Facebook will lose its credibility.
In a way I am sad for both Face book and the republican party from what they could have been. Yup - past tense.
3
Propaganda has always existed. The problem is that in this day and age of mega-data and computer generated algorithms, those who wish to game the system for their own advantage have a social media nuclear weapon.
The Republican party put this plan into effect during the Regan admiration. The first part of the plan was to nullify the publics right to hear both sides of an argument, when Regan did away with the fairness doctrine.
Things progressed, when after a life time of Democrats ruling the Congress, both houses went to the Republicans in 1996. They immediately went to work to assure that telecommunication companies would face no liability.
All the while, the likes of Limbaugh and Fox News were funded and put out into the mainstream.
And here we are today, in a place where phycological warfare is practiced upon the citizenry, not only with the consent of our Government, but with their complicity.
9
I do not understand the appeal of Facebook. It is less a vehicle to facilitate intelligent communication between people and more the application of public relations and advertising practices on the personal level. I find that hideous. Plus - the advertising you are bombarded with is just downright repulsive. When I have something to communicate I send an email - usually one-on-one. My answer to Facebook? Opt out.
20
@Garrett
An additional thought. I think its popularity is linked to a level of contemporary culture that is barely literate. It's for people with the ability to post pictures but whose thoughts about the world really don't rise much above the absolutely superficial. There's more to life than amaze and amuse. Much, much more. Think about it. Is it really possible to have an authentic circle of friends that numbers in the hundreds or thousands? No. We live in a world where the norms of bombarding people with trivia and nonsense have completely displaced meaningful interaction and meaningful thought.
20
Get a grip. It is very easy to disregard advertising . You just flip on by. FB provides tools to block people within groups. If someone gets out of hand, you block them. No big deal. They simply disappear, never to trouble you again.
As for control: he built it, he owns it, he runs it. When you own things, you decide what to do with them.
1
I'm not sure I've ever seen a political ad that is fully truthful. Most take their opponents' comments out of context, morph their statements, use cherry picked or downright misleading data and make a host of other factual decisions. Would any ad survive actual scrutiny? Then, a follow up: Who does the scrutinizing? Can we trust Facebook to do it themselves? Who are the mystical non-partisan "fact checkers" we plug in to do this? It's a problematic proposal that, frankly, overrates the influence of political advertising in general, in my view.
5
George Soros has all the right enemies, so he must be doing something good.
Yet in a sign of our new dark age, this comes off as a Billionaire tit for tat, like Bloomberg against Trump, which it isn't.
I don't need Elon Musk to tell me Amazon should be broken up on Anti-Trust grounds. Or Richard Branson to tell me Google should be broken up on Anti-Trust grounds.
That's the real argument against Facebook.
Even if Zuckerberg were a fine man with an ethical record or Facebook was owned by a not for profit trust instead — there should not be a Media Company that large. It's inherently anti-democratic to have so much concentrated in a single market. It goes against all we know.
Murdoch as well should never have been allowed to acquire so much trans-platform media in so many markets. Even if he wasn't who he so obviously is.
We won't get rid of Billionaires soon, but we can force them to diversify their fortunes for the common good by simply enforcing the anti-trust regulations.
29
President Trump is hardly the most prominent reason that Facebook must be brought to heel. The sheer power of this behemoth, which, arguably, has no redeeming social qualities whatsoever, is more than enough reason to rein it in. Let us hope that someone can get this ball rolling in the near future. We can leave it to social and economic historians to explain precisely why it took so long.
16
@BayArea101
Yang speaks very eloquently on this
Consumers have a lot more clout in this discussion than Mr. Soros does.
Zuckerberg can't be shamed into doing the right thing; he's amply demonstrated this. He's called amoral, instead of immoral, to reflect that his interest in making money means he'll take up for the side that pays best.
If all people of good conscience were to leave that platform, it would soon be nothing more than a fancy playground for those of the gab, telegram, and parlez persuasion -- the antidemocratic, anti-pluralistic, reactionary, conspiracy-minded, and bigoted. Zuckerberg might choose to make his product less inviting to that crowd, or he might make them feel right at home.
The rest of us would be motivated to start from scratch to create a place to connect, share photos, and have discussions online without the toxicity and bad faith that attends arguments from the rightwing in the US.
14
Already, we have a worst case scenario for social media with a President who uses it as a weapon against innocent people. What more evidence is needed? The power Zuckerberg has is technology. We are in an age when technology can influence our lives more than any other factor. Going forward citizens must have some control over the impact of social media and other social technologies. The only solution is regulation.
9
@Patty
Give Yang a shot at it!
I think that a person with a lot of money needs to develop an advertising campaign that will focus on the unreliability of the political ads on Facebook with examples daily.
8
People would not pay for them if the ads did not reach the targets. If that was not evidence, exhibit 2 is hundreds of hysterical comments. FB provides plenty of detail to customers, vastly more than mainstream advertising channels. I am sure those channels would love the business of anti-FaceBook ads given the gaps in their business created by customers moving business to Facebook.
@Jerry
Couldn't that same person start a subscription based, non-profit, non data collecting platform that performed a lot like facebook?
1
Facebook is a very powerful company. It can manipulate millions of people. An entity powerful like this and controlled by pure greed cannot be good for democracy. It must be shutdown.
22
I agree. The one insurmountable problem is that Facebook is a publicly-traded company. The only changes can come from their Board of Directors and Mr. Z controls them and enough stock to negate any loss of control. The whole argument is nothing more than wishful thinking and a waste of time.
1
@Michigan Michael You might be right. I think the comments section is where the value of this article lies - all the calls for regulation. We've come to that conclusion for arguably less intrusive giants - Ma Bell, and I hope the political climate swings back towards a place where we choose to regulate/force divestiture, again. This technology is too powerful to be left to any board of directors, let alone one man, who seems clearly intent on squandering one of the biggest opportunities given any individual in the history of humanity.
7
@Michigan Michael
Delete your account.
@Michigan Michael
Delete your account.
Really Mr Soros? Even if Facebook did deliberately distribute false and or biased information, even if that info influenced voters in the 2016 election (despite most analytical assessments suggesting that it did not), and even if Zuckerberg had his own favorite candidate to support, then, no, in this country we do not violate ownership to satisfy partisan political goals.
Unless, of course, you want to consider the same process turned on you. You have outsized resources and influence (e.g. column). Why do you get to skew the political discussion?
24
Sure, quote first amendment rights. But under the law, people who publish lies that slander others can be held responsible. Facebook cannot. It is beyond time for that to change. When it does, no stockholder will want Zuck at the helm. That’s the way market capitalism is supposed to work, unless you’re so rich you can buy laws to suit yourself and your business ventures. Time for change.
8
@Bob Krantz
A person sharing his opinion, under his own name, is not equivalent to agents creating and spreading memes willed with false information. FB allows the latter. Why do they get to skew the political discussion?
@Bob Krantz Agreed! Thank you bob! This is enough to make me cancel my subscription.
Mark Zuckerberg's coding genius coupled with his obvious deficits in basic social skills have created a worldwide platform based on personal preferences that limit meaningful communication. In retrospect, that facebook now encourages fake and untrue postings seems inevitable. The real question is, Why have we followed?
33
@Nancy Lederman That's my question, too. I never got sucked in by Facebook, because I spent the 90s in the Silicon Valley and learned enough to suspect Facebook from the start. But why is it more of the supposedly rational Democrats and Progressives haven't quit it, and made a show of WHY they are quitting it?
I don't mean saying "Oh, I hardly ever look at it anymore", but actually removing yourself from their list of users. If 40 million or so users suddenly quit them it could start a very useful discussion about regulation that might actually lead to sensible laws.
And what about the rational Republicans and Evangelicals and other religious? Don't you want a world where most of your information is NOT controlled by a handful of elites?
1
Soros is absolutely right that Facebook should legally be considered a publisher, just like a newspaper. Many other have also stated that. I would never have a Facebook account but millions of Americans do, many seriously addicted to Facebook many others not addicted, and it is said to be the number one source of news for Americans, which sounds like a tragic situation. Facebook should be regarded as a publisher and be responsible for everything that it publishes.
30
No doubt Mr Soros is correct about amorality at Facebook. But I just can't help thinking that the nefarious micro-targeted ads bought by the Right, though full of mistruths, are showing up in the already-true-believers' feeds and probably don't do anything to change anyone's mind. Did any sane "undecided" voter get caught up in Pizza-gate and cast a vote for Trump (or not show up for Hilary)?
3
@HowieBsd
The micro targeted ads were much more insidious than that. They precisely played to each individual's doubts and insecurities about voting for a certain candidate, or voting at all. (Data collected by Cambridge Analytica etc). https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/10/181025103303.htm
We wish a very long and healthy life to Mr. Zuckerberg. This column made us think in "Citizen Kane". We remember that at the end of the movie the last word he says, before dying, is "Rosebud"
"Rosebud", is an expression of regret for the turn his life took.
Please take into account that bad people could take advantage again of the vast audience of Facebook, in order to create misery and havoc. Fact checking in political advertising can be made by third parties anyway, but it is an obligation if Facebook wants to maintain a good image.
8
Facebook should have long since banned the use of microtargeting for political ads. Campaigns shouldn't say anything behind our backs that they aren't willing to say to our faces.
30
Until some way is found to ensure there is truth in political advertising, it should be banned on social media, namely Facebook. Facebook users can continue to print personal news to their friends, can continue to market their companies, can recommend restaurants and other businesses, can speak of their hobbies, etc. Let political speech be reserved for another medium. Further Facebook should be broken up into more than one company as it is now a monopoly.
39
@Harold Johnson I breathed a sigh of relief when 1984 came and went without the dystopian future of that novel having come to pass...yet. But every time I read a comment like yours I'm remind that there are those who would happily usher in such a regime.
4
Have to agree and I would limit it to two days a week if Democrats win. Hard to believe Zuckerberg has turned himself into such a villain. He wants more even at the risk of our democracy. If necessary end Facebook on January 21st.
18
After the November elections, if Facebook faces external regulatory intrusion, Trump will not return Mark Zuckerberg’s call.
14
Zuckerberg is the reason I never joined FB and never would unless they start paying users royalties for monitizing their data for power and profit. I also don't like plagiarists.
But where is the alternative to Facebook? To Google services? To Apple's sandboxed apps and increasingly mediocre products? To any other tech company that seeks to stifle innovation through patents and predatory practices as they race to become King of the Iot?
I'd gladly support fee-based non-profit or contribution-based versions that promotes growth without trying to rule the entire world.
Mr. Soros....?
20
@Gypsy Mandelbaum You asked for an alternative to Facebook. Facebook is less than 20 years old (give or take). In fact social media - twitter, google, instagram and all of the other social platforms on the internet.
Use the telephone to talk to friends. Meet friends for breakfast, lunch and dinner. Go do something fun or else talk. If friends live a distance away use the mail to mail pictures or write a letter.
I'm 64 and I remember the good old days when there was no such thing as social media. I truly believe that social media could be a downfall of our society if used inappropriately.
4
@KLM KLM, I'm up there too and still use the phone, converse, dine out and correspond. My point is that FB's draw is connection that reaches around the world and has potential for great good. Yet its owner is willfully off his own mark. I meant a connected alternative to FB. Put another way, fight bad tech with a more, er mindfully managed tech. Eliminate the profit motive.
Meantime, you'll find me seated at the counter w/notepad and pen; I'm the one with the white hair.
1
@Gypsy Mandelbaum Why does there need to be an alternative to Facebook? So what if there were no Facebook?
I don't think it is simply about money - Zuckerberg has plenty of it and more won't make any difference to his life. It is about power and megalomania. He wants Facebook to be the all encompassing medium (not just social, but all) and doesn't care if that creates horrific problems and outcomes.
55
@Larry Figdill
People who have money and who make money in the name of their stock holders always want more. Always. There is no end to it. Trump, for example, claimed to have billions yet he was paid $400,000 a show to pretend to be a great businessperson on television. He said about that salary, "You never get tired of it." I read that the late actor/comedian Bob Hope had a net worth of 50 million (back when that was real money) yet he always was buying more California real estate and taking million dollar contracts.
Power? No doubt you are right but those with extreme wealth also see their money as power, too.
24
Never signed up for Facebook and haven’t regretted it. I took one look at Zuckerberg and didn’t trust him. Turns out I was right.
69
The subtitle gives it all away. If you think that it’s Facebook that will get Trump re-elected, you’ve got a serious problem. Maybe nominating an extreme leftist like Sanders might get Trump re-elected ? Surprise, maybe billionaires don’t quite understand how regular people think.
19
More and more people state they get their news from Facebook. And people are more likely to trust a story when they know the person sharing it. Why wouldn’t it have an impact?
And why else do so many more people believe disinformation?
18
@Class Enemy
We, meaning everyone, have no idea how many votes were changed in 2016 by disinformation but, if I had to bet my life on it, I would say it probably swayed the election to Trump. Just before the election I interviewed a woman in Frederick, Md., who said that she had read that the Clinton's had transferred 2 billion dollars from their foundation overseas to the middle east so they would have plenty of money if she lost. (This would be a crime, by the way.) There was nothing anyone could say that would change that woman's mind. She believed Hillary was a criminal.
When I returned home it took me less than five minutes to find out that this claim was false. Yet, people believe what they want to believe without checking. ("What a fool believes, he sees.")
We, meaning almost everyone, are not trained to sort through propaganda. Most people slept through 10th grade civics and even most college graduates have very little more education in history and our system of government. If someone sees something that seems to confirm what they want to believe, they normally take it in, accept it and act on it.
3
@Class Enemy
And if you think that the principles of advertising -- repetition, a simple message, dishonesty, pretend problems their product can solve for you -- aren't effective when transferred to dank memes, you have a poor appreciation for how media affects us.
The fact you see Sanders as an extreme leftist, when his ideas and Warren's have the support of the majority of American citizens, shows how you uncritically adopt the ideas you come across, over and over, in your feed.
While I agree with much of what Mr. Soros says about Facebook, I feel the real problem lies with the people who are willing to abandon critical thought and assimilate unquestioningly anything they see there.
83
@gesneri - Sure, but look at our "educated" senators who accept anything they hear.
Facebook political ads can be very, very targeted. The politician being targeted will likely never know that an ad ran with complete lies, and can never refute it or address it directly, unlike a TV ad, which is not private. Do you see how much more dangerous that is? The Trump team IS doing this. (Read a recent NY Times article about their digital strategy.)
10
I could 't agree with you more. I can't believe I actually used to support Sheryl Sandburg
37
I deactivated my account about three months ago in protest to FB's political ad policy (or lack of one). Thank you George Soros for this Op Ed. I'm going to go online right now and go one step furthers and DELETE my account. I had hoped that Zuck & team would have copped to their mistake and come out with a reasonable policy (e.g., Twitter), but that's clearly not going to happen. If you are on Facebook and feel similarly, I hope you'll do the same as me and end your account.
Oh, and FWIW, I haven't really missed FB. Sure, it was nice to share photos with family and friends, but I've found other ways of doing that... And on my last b-day I received actual phone calls and personal texts and emails (far more than in prior years when I was on Facebook.)
Do it!!!
77
@NoMo FB
It's been 1.5 years for me. I was sad to leave FB, only did it for moral reasons around not being able to participate in the imposition of fascism, but like you I have been pleasantly surprised by how much I don't miss it.
I feel it's a serious civic duty to cut this cancer out of our democracy. It's harmful. And it hurts less than people might fear.
4
@NoMo FB
Well done, it continues to mystify me as to why perfectly rational people continue to be as fodder for a company that is willing to subvert democracy itself for selfish ends,leaning in indeed, but into subversion on a grand scale
4
"Facebook’s chief operating officer, Sheryl Sandberg, repeated the worn Silicon Valley cliché that Facebook is trying to make the world a better place."
I believe that about as much as I do Trump's claim that he was concerned about corruption in Ukraine.
99
Soros should be commending rather than condemning Zuckerberg and Facebook for their stance. It makes it a lot easier for him and his agents to meddle in the US electoral process.
Seriously, if even knowingly false information gets published, the old liar's paradox favors the Democrats. Everybody already knows that Trump is lying (if his lips are moving), meanwhile Democratic lies have a better than 50-50 chance of being believed.
5
@DLS The argument that it is alright for Trump and his supporters to disseminate false information because everyone already knows he/they are lying is hard to deal with. Trump evidently has a loyal base of supporters who are completely unwilling to tolerate any person or source of information that challenges him.
@DLS I suppose you could say, crime pays.
If Twitter blocked Trump and Facebook became responsible, Trump wouldn't have a chance of being reelected. Follow the money trail, these two companies care only about the money.
24
Good idea. Facebook and other social media sites should block those whose views their owners don't agree with. They are private companies. For business reasons Zuckerberg should ban Warren and Sanders too.
2
Trump shouldn’t be banned because his views are different. He should be banned from social media for making threats, which is against every platform’s terms of service. If he wasn’t the president he would have been banned a long time ago.
4
Who goes to Facebook for truth anyway? It's DNA is a scrolled sequence of one-dimensional images and try-hard social commentary delivered and enjoyed by people who want to step out of reality.
Those interested in truth, especially in a political advertisement, should focus their efforts on campaign finance reform as the root of the problem, and leave Facebook to the duck-faced masses.
7
I've long believed that, regarding democracy, its veneration and preservation, Donald Trump remains enemy number 1 while Mitch McConnell comes in at enemy number 2. Number 3 is Mark Zuckerberg.
All three are enemies of your state and need to be pushed aside as soon as possible by any legal means available.
52
@Charles Sager
I'm not sure about your rankings...if we could get rid of number 2, we'd have a better chance of getting rid of number 1. So, should number 2 be number 1?
Amy McGrath, retired Marine Corp Lt Colonel, is running against Mitch McConnell in Kentucky.
7
To anyone who still believes Facebook is trying to "make the world a better place" -- I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.
When social media platforms are "free" -- YOU are the product. On top of everything else raised here.
We'd all do better having friends IRL. And not looking at political ads at all.
26
Facebook is so passé. I wish there was a way we could keep it from buying up all its competitors. I have friends who use it all the time and I only have an account for that. No personal information other then my name is in my profile. Instagram is/was great but now it’s owned by FB. Just post pics of innocuous stuff and stay away from all the political stuff.
What’s to stop democrats from running ads on FB? The ads about trump could be all about his deadbeat past and what a conman/grifter he is to this day. Ads about how he’s using the office to enrich himself. The ads would not be lies but let’s see what FB would do about it. Zuckerberg is totally in the tank for trump.
11
Like all parents, we want you to grow up in a world better than ours today. - Zuckerberg letter to his daughter.
I seriously doubt the sincerity of the letter they wrote to their daughter.
13
“Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
Mark Zuckerberg is an egomaniac, and a tyrant. It is fair to say he did not start that way. But the power at his fingertips has made his judgement damaging to the world. Not just the United States.
By selling hundreds of billions of individual data points on 2.2 Billion people to the highest bidder, he is the most powerful person in the world. Able to fix almost any election around the world that he wishes.
He alone has the sole power to choose the winner of the upcoming election by editing the content that hundreds of millions of Americans see. It’s true that most Americans are disengaged from politics. They don’t bother to verify any information they read that pops up in their feeds, and Zuckerberg knows that.
It’s true that Zuckerberg will help elect Trump. He will deny it of course. But lots of guilty people deny wrongdoing. If we were sane, we wouldn’t let social media company executives get away with this. But we are not a sane society.
21
@Austin Ouellette “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
George Soros is an egomaniac, and a tyrant. It is fair to say he did not start that way. But the power at his fingertips has made his judgement damaging to the world. Not just the United States.
By Upending the Bank of England and Thailand and using proxy funded groups to sew social upheaval, he is the most powerful person in the world. Able to fix almost any election around the world that he wishes.
He alone has the sole power to choose the winner of the upcoming election by rigging financing and funding groups that sew malcontent. It’s true that most Americans are disengaged from politics. They don’t bother to verify any information they read, and Soros knows that.
It’s true that Soros tried to help elect Hillary. He will deny it of course. But lots of guilty people deny wrongdoing. If we were sane, we wouldn’t let global elites get away with this. But we are not a sane society.
@Mystery Lits I'm sorry. Are we now conflating support for a candidate for public office with accepting payment for false and misleading advertising? Just wondering.
@Austin Ouellette ...
Zuckerberg doesn't sell to the highest bidder. To continue to think like that is to put your head firmly in the sand at the bottom of the Marianas trench.
Zuckerberg will sell to anyone who is willing to part with money to get his Facebook to do their bidding.
Facebook is a company without a conscience that is acceptable to the norms of civil discourse.
It's pretty clear that Zuckerberg is now openly aligning himself with the interests of Peter Thiel, Trump and the Republican party. It's a disgusting sight to behold. Will Facebook employees have any response to this?
23
Between Facebook, Twitter and Fox, Trump has all the disinformation tools he needs to continue his authoritarian march.
78
I have made a small fortune on FB stock. I am disinclined to lose it.
Consequently, the general public may have an educational moment when Facebook is looked at as a wealth generatiing platform and less like a politically subversive entity.
Much like climate change, wealth and it's generation will always trump the public interest no matter how dire the consequences. Because we act in our own self interest, the future is sacrificed on the alter of immediate gratification and personal well being.
Solve that problem and you can talk to me about my FB holdings.
3
I sold mine on principle and refuse to use their products.
Does my index fund have the stock? Likely, but I chose honesty over self interest.
37
One does not have to act in pure financial self interest. This is a choice as we are not devoid of free will. There is something disingenuous and immoral in claiming an almost lack of control over ones decisions in the face of easy financial gain. The question becomes what is lost in making these financial gains? What is lost in a society where freedom of speech is twisted into something where the financially able and the powerful can use lies in a tool created under the claims of freedom of speech to get richer and more powerful? A select few get richer and the masses twist and struggle under the manipulation of freedom of speech.
11
@LK you can feed the beast all you want. It will eventually eat you
Soon, we will simply be told what to think. We will be rewarded for right thinking, and punished for wrong thinking. Facebook and other social media facilitate such control. Those with authoritarian inclinations recognize this and are exploiting Facebook to disseminate propaganda, knowing that most people on Facebook are incapable of discerning the truth when confronted with well polished lies and conspiracy theories.
16
@Mark ...
The sad part, Mark, is that there are more than a handful of users on "social media" who will actually BELIEVE what they are told to believe.
That is far scarier than anything that Donald Trump could do.
1
@Mark
Or, frankly, with NOT well polished lies.
Facebook is equally available to everyone running for office and everyone who wants to Express themselves about those running for office. Facebook is also massive beyond comprehension. No one human lifetime would be enough to view everything on facebook. All this focus on facebook is a distraction. Someone who gets thier news from MSNBC will have a different view than someone who gets news from CNN.
9
@Mkm somehow, television and radio stations fact check ads on their platforms.
Surely, a company with the wealth of Facebook could afford to hire fact-checkers, especially as ads generate revenue. Just price the ads according to the cost of hiring people.
That's what the rest of the business world does.
12
@Mkm Views and information on Facebook are not confined to those who use or read Facebook (same as Twitter). Posts and ads become fodder for other venues and so disinformation is spread. That's the point.
6
Wrong.
Advertisers can provide a list of emails to ensure you see what they want you to see.
As for your other argument, it seems one party is quite comfortable with lying and propaganda, while the Democrats choose honesty.
7
I have never been on Facebook and somehow have managed to stay informed, maintain friendships, live a pretty good life. Apart from its evident deleterious influence, it also seems to be a massive waste of time that could be better spent doing any number of things!
59
@MH That's great. I've never gotten cancer. Does that mean I get to ignore all the people that have cancer? I've never abused meth or opioids. Should I ignore the people that have? Bubbles are dangerous places to stay in.
4
Cancer isn’t a choice (yes, lifestyle matters). I think the poster was encouraging people to make the choice not to use Facebook.
17
@Disillusioned I don’t understand your comment. Are you saying Facebook is necessary to function effectively in life?
4
Whether or not Facebook has the ability to fact-check, what it does have is a business model wherein its profit is the greater the more incendiary the content.
And, it conceals the sources of its ads. How can this practice possibly be in the interest of free elections?
29
Rather than actually face the underlying problems that led to the election of Trump and Brexit, elites like Soros love to deflect blame onto platforms like Facebook and allegations of Russian interference. It's beyond delusional to think some fake news posts on Facebook had this monumental effect on our elections and caused tens of millions of people to change their vote.
17
Perhaps, as you say, not one vote was changed. The evidence stands against, but ok.
Question: should the biggest media outlet in the country be immune from liability for liable? Should they be allowed to claim they have no responsibility for what appears on their pages?
Facebook obviously, obviously, should be treated as a publisher. If it’s accepting money for specific content, and broadcasting that content, it is a broadcaster, no less than CBS.
Make Facebook subject to FCC regulation, like every other broadcaster, and Zuckerberg is reduced to Murdoch. That’s not enough, but it’s a step toward sanity.
28
@John Chenango It's funny.
Mark Zuckerberg is far wealthier than George Soros, and yet he's not the elite you're complaining about.
And Zuck, as one of the most elite humans on the planet, is doing the very deflection you write of. He is refusing to "actually face the underlying problems" his company has created and is instead blaming others.
As for your claim that it's "beyond delusional to think some fake news posts on Facebook had this monumental effect on our elections and caused tens of millions of people to change their vote."
No one said anything about tens of millions of people. The 2016 Presidential election was decided by about 80,000 votes in three states. Not many out of the 130 million or so cast.
15
@John Chenango It would be delusional if people were 100% rational actors and had myriad sources of news and an ability to digest it in a way that informs a logical worldview. Unfortunately, most Americans are completely incapable of doing so. They tend to get news from a limited number of sources, and given the literacy of the average American, aren't sensitive to nuance.
What's delusional is thinking that a large segment of Americans *wouldn't* be influenced by fake news.
1
Sandberg and Zuckerberg will go down in history as the exemplars of a time when personal greed undermined American democracy.
There seems no limit to their willingness to sacrifice the very country that gave them the opportunity to be wealthy to the point of being above the law.
At some point a reckoning must come.
113
@Janice Smith When they lean in it's only to grab as much moolah as they can get their hands on.
1
Facebook and its effect on American politics?
Americans seem obsessed with misdirection to me, adjusting problems and proposing solutions where they see fit rather than seeing the actual problem and attempting to solve it. It's extremely popular in America these days to make a big noise about being for truth over falsity, scientific accuracy, honesty and integrity of statement, and to point the finger at institutions and people who depart from these ideals and goals.
And of course Facebook and other media behemoths are under scrutiny for departing from these goals and ideals. But the fact is truth is not in anyone's interest apparently, there is no political party or other institution in America particularly dedicated to truth. What exists rather is a framework by which people more or less get along and arguments about that framework, sort of like arguing about the frame of a painting rather than being particularly clear about the painting itself.
If AI really gets off the ground, really becomes capable and conscious, probably one of the first things it will remark is that humans have a vast storehouse of knowledge and wisdom which has been built up, as can be seen from any good library, but all of public life is a conversation which acts as if all that is much too much of a burden and must be passed by in silence, and if not passed by in silence people embarrassed and boastful, acting as if all about the truth, acting as if all about shouldering that weight.
4
I close my Facebook account 3 years ago, after 7 years as a member. I never went back. It took me about 3 days to forget all about it. The friends and family members that I followed can always contact me via email, skype, phone or better yet, in person, when possible. It’s entirely possible to stay connected and informed without Facebook. As for Zuckerberg, I don’t trust him at all. He strikes me as the worst example of a libertarian who cares about his fortune and can’t or won’t understand the consequences of his creation.
126
@Michel Forest I just quit Facebook this week. Hopefully, I won't go back. I just couldn't take it any more. I have had numerous incidents of invasion of privacy. We put so much information about ourselves & our lives on Facebook. And I don't like the fact that they won't police their political ads.
24
@Michel Forest I deleted my account on Jan 1 of last year. I couldn’t be happier. I haven’t lost touch with those that truly matter, and the added time on my schedule allowed me to reconnect with other old friends like Herman Melville, Dan Simmons and Karen Armstrong and to make new ones like Marcel Proust and Norman Mailer. I’ll never go back.
They have much to answer for.
24
With their vast reach, Facebook, Instagram and their ilk have effectively become public utilities, and they should be regulated as such at the state and/or federal level. Social media platforms rife with untruthful, extreme, violent, misogynistic or otherwise normally unacceptable content impacts millions and does a great disservice to society. But if they were deemed a regulated public utility and subject to fines and other sanctions, watch how quickly they'd clean up their act and become more reliable arenas for reasonable, truth-based exchange. The First Amendment isn't at risk here. Decency is.
54
@JoeC - Sorry, can't agree. It'd be gvt overreach at this point imo. The only difference between these services these days and opinion columns and letters to the editor in print's heyday is the level of public interaction. The vile lies and hate-mongering have been a staple of political palaver since about the country's birth. Where you should focus, again my opinion, is where there is already public control, the public airwaves. Specifically, murdoch.
Murdoch sought, and was permitted, residency and then citizenship, solely for his purpose of gaining media control. Not for love of country, not for humanitarian need, and not for any special skill he had other than to manipulate media for his own gain. He took on ailes with the specific goal of gaining audience share. Ailes used the goebbel's template of the lie and repeat the lie to draw in the too large faction of the US electorate pre-disposed to the specific propaganda chosen, and added to it with those disaffected by negative, for them, economic change. In effect, lie, lie and repeat the lie.
Now, i don't know the tenets of the test for qualifying for use of the public airwaves. I do know truth in advertising (is it still there or has trump dispensed with that safeguard as well?). If there is such a rule in the qualifications for use of the public airwaves that's akin to truth in ads, then go after murdoch.
8
@JoeC You can make a case for internet access as a public utility like the telephone and telegraph in the past, electricity and water now but facebook and instagram? There are far better sources for news and information and nearly endless other platforms to communicate with people, unlike the limited options for showering and flushing the toilet. If one doesn't like the creepy advertisements, idiotic posts, or worst of all cat videos, they can cancel their account and get their news from a site like this one. Or maybe until we make newspapers public utilities too.
2
Thank you, Mr. Soros. If only we could get everyone to delete their accounts, sigh.
38
Or to learn about better social media alternatives... to make social media a better place.
3
The first amendment is problematic for a growing number of people and institutions.
Let's assume you get your way. Will any political ads be allowed on unregulated media? What if people driven from Facebook use message boards or email lists? Why are you afraid of people exchanging ideas? Are your views and arguments that weak or illogical?
18
@Brian
The problem is not the first amendment, which prohibits government from suppressing the free speech of the press and individuals, but illogical and irrational responses such as yours. As you should know, Facebook is not government and can publish or not publish what it pleases. And as you should also know, there are limits on free speech that have been adjudicated in the courts. Internet hate, disinformation and manipulation have presented a new dilemma in the interpretation of the 1st amendment, but I'm sure great minds will be up to the task.
7
@Brian No problem as long as their thinking is correct. It is implicit in the author's piece that it is fundamentally wrong that Trump was elected, despite the election result and despite the fact that Clinton's campaign was offered the same advertising services and declined. The fact that this was written by someone who has contributed so heavily to PACs makes this all the more laughable.
2
@Sweeney Contributing to political campaigns and accepting payment for false ads aren't quite the same thing. Complicated, I know.
Nothing about this piece suggests barring only ads by one party or supporting one view.
Do we really have an issue with not holding FB to the same standards as the NYT and Fox about paid political ads?
I wonder if Mr Soros sees the irony of one billionaire who tries to control elections criticizing another billionaire who does the same thing? Democracy will survive when neither of them have the power to affect our elections.
24
@Abbott Hall Great. I think we have common ground.
Let's put something in to law that prevents both from having an effect on elections!
I say we both regulate Facebook AND limit money in politics. I'm all for it. I've been supporting both ideas for years.
5
Trumps a billionaire. Let’s get rid of him first.
Thank you Mr. Soros! I have always been suspicious of FB. When it first appeared I opened an account but closed it the next day. I just didn’t trust it. My innate feelings have proven correct. As it stands today FB should be either blocked or, perhaps more feasible, Mr. Zuckerberg should go. He is one of the super rich who has allowed his wealth to impair his judgment, (unlike you, Mr. Buffet and Mr. Gates who appear to have level heads). For all the good that FB has had to offer Mr. Zuckerberg has allowed the bad to take the upper hand. With our very democracy in balance it is time for him to step aside or even, be removed.
21
@Hortencia I am deleting Trump posts every day on my FB
Who gets to be the gatekeeper of truth? Gee, I'll bet it will be simple to get people on both sides of the political spectrum to agree on that.
Absent such agreement, Facebook's approach makes sense. Let people decide for themselves what to believe and what not to believe.
16
You seem not to realize that libel is a thing. It was never true — and isn’t now — that you can say and print whatever you like, and the audience will sort it out.
Reckless disregard for the truth is the standard for libel of public officials.
Facebook is insulated from liability by the same law that protects ISPs from liability for content posted on websites they host. That’s ridiculous. It must change.
7
@JD How come television and radio stations and newspapers have no trouble fact-checking the ads they run?
Seems that if these operations, which make far less money than Facebook, can do it, then Facebook can as well.
Better yet, the FB people love to tell us how smart they are. Surely they can invent a better way to fact check.
7
@JD Not "who" but what. I like evidence and logic myself.
Oh, please. The progressives are already conceding defeat and blaming entities other than their own lackluster political party? Trump will be re-elected because the Democratic Party has shifted too far to the left, ignoring the centrist majority. So be it. They shouldn't be concerned with the WH as now the House is in jeopardy from their own foolishness.
27
How far to the right of Nixon and Regan does the party have to be to not be too far to the left?
45
@Mike Wait until you see what happens to the Senate
I am shocked to see Mr. Soros propagating a conspiracy theory which on its face is ridiculous. Zuckerberg and Trump 'conspiring" together?
Mr. Soros links to "Media Matters" - a conspiracy seeking left wing site. And then blames Facebook for the Rohingya massacre?
Frankly, I have always been interested in what Mr. Soros has to say about finance and politics.
Not any more....
21
@Steve M, Trump has had meetings in private with Zuckerberg, that is the plain and simple fact, the Democrats have talked about making facebook accountable as a publisher, a plain and simple fact, it is in facebooks interest, and therefore Zuckerbergs that the status quo continues. No one, in this piece blamed facebook for the Rohingya massacres, no one, please re read the article, and check your facts please. All that is being said here is that facebook should be held accountable for any lies and misinformation published as any other publisher.
8
@Bob Tonnor
The UN blamed Facebook for the Rohingya massacre. The UN is NOT a "left-wing conspiracy site."
There is also credible evidence that Facebook--helped by good ol' Steve Bannon--influenced the Brexit vote.
So the billionaire activist who helped finance Hillary is pointing fingers at the billionaire tech mogul who tried to play both sides?
Who am I rooting for exactly?
25
@Joel don’t forget that he made his fortune by betting against the Bank of England. It’s like hearing the devil tell you how bad the monsters are.
@Joel You are rooting for the chaos magician. You just don't know it, yet.
I'm no Trump or Zuckerberg fan. But, George, you're not helping by being patronizing of facebook users ( as well trump supporters), i.e., a LOT of people. And I'm not a millenial - far from it - but to this I say "Ok, Boomer."
13
@Bjh Don't voice your views if it may upset a FB user or Trump supporters, got it. Any attempts to rebut any of Mr. Soros's views or opinions?
17
@Cody
I'm glad you made the point that all Mr. Soros has offered are opinions and views. He did not include a scrap of evidence for any of his claims. Him claiming Trump is conspiring with Facebook is no more supported then the claims made by Trump supporters that Mr. Soros is conspiring with others to enforce his view on the US population.
5
Like Trump, Soros desires to stifle media that displeases him...Being a billionaire does tend to make men pompous...It would be nice if they were all as wise as Jed Clampett!
1
In late 19th Century America the Pennsylvania Railroad, employing the latest technologies of the day, extended its rail lines westward eventually crossing the Mississippi River. The PRR became the largest railroad in the world using the metric of revenues and traffic.
Facebook, 140 years later, employing the latest technologies of the day, extended its connected users eventually across the globe. Facebook has become an electronic information analog of the PRR, based on the similar metric of revenues and information traffic.
An important 19th Century concept is both relevant and transferable to today. The concept is that of the Robber Baron. Robber Barons were admired for their acquisition of wealth and power. They were hated and reviled for the harm they inflicted on the health and financial well-being of others, on politics and later, on the environment. A Baron is a title of nobility – that is a class above the larger population. It is also an inheritable title and rank in society.
There are entirely practical day-to-day implications for Americans in the ascendancy of Facebook, and hence Zuckerberg. One has only to read Thomas Piketty, “Capitalism in the Twenty-First Century” and subsequent work by him and other workers and consider his “U-Shaped Curve” to grasp the changes taking place in America and in her politics.
6
"Speaking at a cocktail party in Davos"
All these references to "Davos" are all I need to hear. Elites trying to control the rest of us. Two billionaires having an argument.
I will give Zuckerberg this - Facebook is his company that he created. People have the option to not use it if they don't want to, and billionaire currency manipulator Soros should mind his own "business" (its hilarious he is listed as a "philanthropist").
In the end stop making excuses. Trump didn't win in 2016 because of Facebook. He won because Hillary did not and could not speak to the midwest.
42
@Dave Donald Trump won because, despite the fact that Clinton had 3 million more people vote for her, the lines that have been drawn by Republicans could ensure that democratic votes did not matter.
104
@Dave
Not an excuse at all. Trump won in part due to a disinformation campaign carried out on Facebook, which included Russian trolling directed by Putin. That is an undeniable fact.
We may never know how significant a factor that was. But considering that Trump won the electoral college by a few thousand votes spread across a few states, we can be sure that it was important.
Facebook became a useful platform for a lot of people. I choose not to use it, but I see why people do. It my be Zuckerberg's company, but he has a responsibility. He can not harm the public good. We would generally agree, I think, that a chemical company should not poison a river, even if the owner can say, "well, it's my company." Similiarly, Facebook cannot be allowed to poison our electoral process.
51
@Justine
Trump won Ohio which has a lot of electoral votes. Why didn't Hillary?
Democrats keep making excuses. Hillary didn't have a real message for the Midwest and didn't put enough effort into campaigning there. Instead she called them "deplorables". It didn't help, and an obsession with the electoral college won't either.
10
I keep wondering when Americans are going to finally figure out that the Silicon Valley moguls are nothing more nor less than this era’s robber barons. There’s no substitute for that AP US History class I had in 11th grade. Thank you Mr. Clement!
32
Please - boycott Facebook. I closed my FB account about a decade ago, almost as soon as I had opened one. I haven't missed Facebook for a single minute. Studies have shown that people without Facebook accounts are happier than those with. I am a very happy person!
60
Why are leftists always in favor of censorship?
21
Everyone supports laws against libel, slander, and false advertising. That isn’t censorship. The people who are most in favor of censorship in schools and libraries are Evangelical Christians, easily. Are they on the left?
26
Jackie, “censorship” would fall into the legal framework of a publisher. Indeed, Facebook is a de facto publishing company. Good call!
4
@Jackie
Book-banning is usually done by the religious right.
6
“He’s done a hell of a job, when you think of it.”
Perfectly put, Mr. T.
Mr. Z. is the creator and chief defender of a media platform that favors loud lies over quiet truths. Worse, it refuses to remove harmful political lies even when their untruthfulness is proven and pointed out to them.
FB is not a "social network." It's the antithesis of that. It's an antisocial network, and MZ is fully responsible for the damage it's doing to our democracy.
51
@Sixofone While I agree with you, no-one is forced to use Facebook. The question we should be asking is why so many people are willing to go along with whatever Zuckerberg does.
8
Fortunately I never joined Facebook, originally thinking it was an immature, albeit clever form of communication, in a world that has survived for centuries with more discerning means.
Periodically viewing Zuckerberg's antics, decidedly his lack of responsibility and diminished ethical values, illustrates he has no sense of the exponential dynamic he has unleashed or the equation of values.
17
I stopped using Facebook -- and I don't miss it. In fact, I recommend not using it. It's basically a snoop/surveillance machine.
That is the point, at least from Facebook's standpoint. Gather together a whole big punch of people, track the hell out of 'em, vacuum up all the personal data you possibly can, then sell all data to whomever will pay for it. (After all, anybody can be an "advertiser.")
People who are willing to let anybody who pays for it have access to unlimited amounts of information about them--their romantic lives, sex lives, habits, political views, business dealings, travels, tastes, medical histories (the list goes on)--is just plain reckless.
It's not so much that Zuck sucks--the whole idea does. All this talk about bringing people "together" is deliberately deceitful Pied-Piper talk, as anyone who actually ooks at the socio-political impact can attest.
Wake up! Befriend yourself by kicking the Facebook habit.
15
I quit facebook for exactly these reasons - while not designed expressly to propagate and spread false news and outright lies in the political realm, it is incredibly efficient at doing so. And for the few times facebook has censored MY posts - in private groups where nobody is going to be offended - it seems like they could at least be willing to ban outright, blatantly lying political posts. But they won't.
Many people say "I deleted my facebook account and I don't miss it." I miss it very much (it's been about 2 months since I closed my account). I've opened accounts at a few other social networks, and frankly, they are worthless. I may eventually go back. Besides the many friends I've made on facebook from all over the world over common interests - music, art, authors, something, I also miss the utility of facebook - using it as a log-in for many other places or apps, and finally, as a "phone book" - it is easier to go to a restaurant/store's facebook page to see their hours and whether they are open on a holiday than to go to their actual web page or (gasp) phone them.
Anyway. The old adage "If you are not paying for the product, then you are the product" holds. Zuckerberg has not become a billionaire from collecting user fees.
7
Facebook should be treated like a commutation company on par with a telephone network, and required by law to make its customers/users accessible to other social networks. Imagine if Verizon customers can only access other verizon customers: it would become a monopoly like Facebook and it would be hard not to use it. The laws that apply to communication networks must also apply to all social networks. Social networks ARE communication companies at least, if not broadcast companies. Social networks should not be allowed to become monopolies perverting advances in technology that could be beneficial. It is hard for people to suddenly drop Facebook and lose contact with their friends. If they can change networks and still have access to their friends but not remain at the mercy of Facebook, they will ...,,in tens or hundreds of millions. Boycotting companies that advertise while continuing to use Facebook is one option for now.
If social networks are required to open up to other more ethical networks, then there is competition and citizens of a democracy have a choice.
The Chinese must be glad they banned Facebook. It is ironic that a one-party state understood Facebook but it takes the realty of Trump for a democracy to confront Facebook’s lie that its goal is to “make a better world”.
11
I think this outburst is final recognition from the left and people like Soros that Trump would be re-elected. But why not. There are jobs plentiful, trade deals right left & center, unemployment is at record lows, the US military has been rebuilt, illegal immigration now under control. Why not? I lost my job in a startup and found a job again 6weeks that even paid more - So censoring Facebook is not the answer - Could it be that Trump performed & delivered and therefore, qualifies to be re-elected? Is that a scenario the liberals are willing to consider?
18
@Jeffery Fischer they never will. Every time I see someone try to present the other side of the coin in a so called liberal group, name calling ensues, followed by shutting down the person. These same folks then turn around in bewilderment and wonder who could have voted against their beliefs and why...
2
Dear Fischer: I agree. If Trump is back in the White House for a second term, it will be because the left failed to make their case, not because of Facebook. But the Trump “prosperity” comes at a cost: a trillion dollar deficit, a bitterly divided country, emboldened racists and neo-nazis, no promised “better health care”, no better infrastructure, no political finance reform, degrading environment, and politics without a conscience, and truth is whatever one wants to believe in, distrust in even the media that do very careful fact checking. The voters will decide if that cost is worth it. My guess: Trump will be back in the White House in 2021. Because the US is tribal in its politics: loyalty to party is stronger than loyalty to principles of democracy, on the right and the left. After all, we live in a country in which winners get to define what democracy is! Putin is laughing!
What seems to be missing from this discussion is an acknowledgement that banning political candidates' ads accomplishes nothing. The Trump machine is not just sophisticated in SMM, they've already mobilized millions of supporters - individuals with FB pages - to offer Trump's disinformation online, presented, say, as their own opinions. How do y'all plan to deal with that? Maybe Mr. Soros, given his apparent political opinions, would be better served to dump a few billion into the Democratic coffers so they can try to play catch-up. And where would that lead us? Who will we crown King?
5
Great article Mr. Soros! I hope everyone will delete their Facebook account after reading this article!
7
Nice one sided take on the issue to try to hurt Trump. What about Google/Youtube and Twitter and other tech companies that have a liberal bias. Facebook isn't even taking a side they are simply allowing ads in general. Of course liberal Soros wants them to cut out disinformation, but he no doubt has a very biased view of what would and would not qualify and would likely not be happy unless such a similarly biased viewpoint was used by Facebook to screen ads.
10
“Facebook is a publisher not just a neutral moderator or ‘platform.’” This is a key point: publishers and broadcasters are held to certain standards regarding political advertising. It is hard to understand why FB, which competes with those companies for the same main source of revenue— ad dollars— is not made to play by the same rules.
16
Facebook has a double standard with ads ! If I tried to advertise an "evidence based" cure for cancer pill-Facebook would NOT accept the ad! Clearly a false statement, but if it is a political ad, no problem, Facebook takes the money and RUN. Sealing the fate on our democracy.
12
I'm deeply saddened by Zuckerberg's quest to treat political fake news as free speech, and Russian trolls as the people next door. I had believed that Facebook was a creative and honest way to connect with family. In fact, I found a before-unknown full-blooded sister there, and it felt amazing! But the dark twist of Trump and foreign interference in US elections has left me feeling that Zuckerberg has abandoned our country and made money his entire morality. I am cutting off FB come Nov. 3rd. Looking forward to not turning back.
14
High priase to Mr. Soros and The New York Times for fearlessly publishing this.
With greatest respect, it goes beyond your argument. Although Zuckerberg and Sandberg are insufferably arrogant, and have gotten in bed with Trump, the worse news is that Facebook itself--no matter who runs it--is an evil thing.
Facebook must be shut down, just as Napster was years ago. It serves absolutely no valid social purpose, and trails bad effects behind it.
The first step is to repeal Section 230. The second step is to use the anti-trust laws to the ultimate to break it up.
Those might be enough to drive it out of business, without shutting it down outright. If not, OK--then shut it down outright.
15
Mr. Soros, you are spot on. Maybe, directing your Quant team to short FB stock would be a good way to reduce the market value of the company. It seems that Zuckerberg and Sandberg pay a lot of attention to how often the cash register is ringing. Perhaps companies like NY Times can stop advertising on FB ?
I stopped using FB for my company ads about a year ago. They are truly a social evil.
22
Mr. Soros did not get where he is making dumb investments. Shorting FB stock anything more than a minor insurance play would be a dumb investment.
I understand Mr. Soros' frustration with Facebook, but I do not understand what remedy does he have in mind? Censorship? Why, and under what pretext? If National Inquirer, Fox News and Breitbart can publish what they publish, content created on their own mind you, why would Facebook be censored for merely letting other people publish what they want? What is the legal mechanism of "Mark Zuckerberg should not be in control of Facebook"? It's his company, he controls the majority of voting shares... so hat does Mr. Soros propose?
10
I have friend who started a Facebook page a long time ago but never used it. When he went to delete his account he noticed he had multiple “friends” he did not know who spoke Russian. He tried to delete his account multiple times in different ways but it will not delete and has been taken over by some strange group of Russians. It is not a joke- he showed me the page when I did not believe him.
16
Mark Zuckerberg is a signer of giving pledge. The question is what is the point of giving your money when the money is acquired on the death of American Democracy? Perhaps Zuckerberg has no plan to honor the pledge since money is so important to him.
9
I don't use Facebook, but this is just pure nonsense. This is a free country with freedom of speech. Just because Mr. Soros doesn't like what someone has put on Facebook or the relationship Mark Zuckerberg has with President Trump, doesn't mean he should step down the company he founded. I know Mr. Soros has a personal axe to grind with Ms. Sandberg and I don't fault him for that, but unless he's a major Facebook shareholder then this is simply none of his business.
8
Sorry, but if the motto is to “move fast and break things”, Facebook is fair game to be broken too.
Mr. Soros is absolutely spot on. I am doubly glad that it came from him. Naming Zuckerberg and Sandberg as being solely profit minded would have been interpreted as an anti-semitic comment coming from anybody else.
16
While I admire so much of the work you do, I do not admire your lack of any commitment to supporting culture, which badly needs your support. And societies without culture are not healthy societies.
Mr. Soros was wrong when he wrote: "... there is a longstanding law — Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act — that protects social media platforms from legal liability for defamation and similar claims. Facebook can post deliberately misleading or false statements by candidates for public office and others, and take no responsibility for them."
What is wrong about this statement is that, if Facebook, as a legal entity, posted false or misleading statements on their website, they would indeed to be subject to prosecution for libel.
The badly-misnamed Communications Decency Act shields PUBLISHERS from liability if they publish posts or comments that are libelous from contributors.
1
Twitter should ban Trump for hate speech/inciting violence. Also, no social media platform should be used as a political figure’s main mode of communication with the public, even if legal.
8
I doubt Twitter is President Trump’s main communication method. He has the massive PR departments of all the executive departments that do the bulk. They likely each crank out thousands of words each day on White House policies. I doubt the total number of words in all his tweets since Inauguration would exceed the words spoken in two weeks’ worth of those Marine One Q and A sessions.
I suggest that one half of this country should cut their Facebook accounts. That would get Zuckerberg to turn his head and clean up their act. Hit them at their basis, their back account. We cannot support an on line giant that keeps allowing fake news and comments that taint our elections in favor of any group. It is just wrong. Cut the cord!
12
Zuckerberg and Sanders do not care about anything at Facebook except making money, period. They will destroy American democracy to continue to do so while pretending to care about our First Amendment rights. They are deplorable and Facebook should be boycotted for what it is, disinformation and fake news.
7
Cheryl Sanders, not Bernie.
Zuckerberg lives in a world of impunity unlike the rest of us mortals. And his company Fakebook is as much a threat to democracy as Fox News and the GOP.
9
Only 300 comments? I'm surprised so few comments! But, then, I'm surprised that people use Facebook to get their news! Newspapers and print media are subject to libel laws, and they have built institutions which include codes of ethics, schools of journalism, standards, editors, and fact checkers. Facebook "news" has nothing like this, and yet people get their "news/information" from it. Facebook, as Mr. Soros says, profits from their incendiary content and from the lack of people they employ and from the lack of humanity involved in their business model. They should not be shielded by Section 230. They are an enemy of the people.
7
Even my mama, a trump-loving, Fox watching conservative to the bone, was severely dismayed just last week when I showed her my FB feed next to hers.
A college educated successful businesswoman, she had thought the her feed was the same for everyone - that everyone was posting and agreeing with the pro-trump/conspiracy nonsense on her feed.
Many folks - especially the over 50 set - have no capacity to separate FB feed from actual, vetted news. It's a huge problem. And when Zuck is old enough to consider his legacy, he'll look back in shame at his alliance of convenience with the fascist, racist elements of his country.
27
@Aerys ...
Sorry, but at age 75, I assure you that I can distinguish fact from fiction. It takes time and a fair amount of reading, but unless one willfully excludes himself from the reportorial winds of the world, it is not that difficult...
I would match my abilities to filter fact from fiction against yours any day of the week.
I think it appropriate to note that Facebook has enabled hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people to cut themselves from the world, and in doing so, from the competing voices that allow one to distinguish fact from fiction in the real world. People see Facebook as this large, noisy city square with hawkers in every shop and on milk crates in the cobbled arena.
Facebook offerings become gospel even before that people have been able to process the cacophony.
Shutting down the town square is not the answer. Muting the amplification of the megaphone is.
3
@Aerys
Kudos to you! What a wonderful thing to do! Thank you for sharing this!
1
@The Owl My apologies - I did not mean to impugn everyone over 50 years old! It was just an example.
The re-election of President Trump is good for business AND good for America.
6
@Brewster’s Millions - Even if built on a foundation of purposeful lies and rot? Where is our moral center? Let's make Orwell's 1984 fiction again.
@Brewster’s Millions On the contrary, he’s intent on putting our democracy into a death spiral. I can’t believe how many people refuse to look beyond their next quarterly statement. Our democracy is dying more every day!
@Brewster’s Millions Great for fascism! Great for dictatorship! Great for corruption! Great for emoluments! Great for nepotism! Great for putin! Great for the 0.1%! Great for fossil fuel pollution!
no thank you.
And the Democratic party, and the NYtimes, WaPo, and CNN do the same for the democrats, with likely substantially larger impact. This editorial is also implying those that vote democrat are more susceptible to misinformation than those that vote republican- I agree with that. Vote for Bernie!!!, not the closet republican Biden.
3
Strange. Nobody complained when Obama used Facebook to get elected and re-elected.
Mr. Soros, please keep out of it. You and your money have done more to help Democrats than Facebook will ever do to help Trump.
9
@Conservative Mom Did Obama have Russian bots boost his candidacy? Did Obama outright lie dozens of times a day?
1
@Conservative Mom That's was four years behind the curve. Now the WH is "partnering". I'm complaining.
Obama spread his message of hope for a more just, and compassionate country on FB. He did not lie.
What the Fox “News”, Breitbarts and InfoWars, etc of the world spread on TV and FB is nothing but half-truths, lies and out-and-out hatred to frighten people.
To say that what Obama did was “the same” — is a false equivalency in the extreme.
1
Right now, we are worried about trump being in charge of our country.
Mark Z is small potatoes. We ain’t got no time to worry about him.
Unfortunately Mr. Soros is correct in all he writes.
Even more unfortunately, practically no one cares.
14
@j. courtney This is what was happening in Germany in 1933. Distractions and lack of interest.
1
Soros is a 90 year old man with a wealth of experience; he is a proponent of the "Open Society" and advocates for governments that are responsible, tolerant, humanistic. A voice we must listen to. Zuckerberg is an infantile playing with big guns, and reckless!
14
Mr. Soros:
Even if what you say is true, despite your lack of any real evidrnce, companies support political candidates all the time based on the actual or perceived benefits of that candidates polices.
2
The problem with forcing any media platform to decide what's a lie and what's the truth is that lies and truth depend greatly on your own point of view. Already I am seeing women of my political persuasion punished on both Facebook and Twitter for stating biological fact; I've been one of them. I don't want someone with a political agenda deciding what it is okay and not okay for me to say, and I don't care if their politics mostly agree with mine (not that I'm saying George's do; I don't know enough about him to determine that).
And while we're at it, the Electoral College -- not any Trump campaign trick, not the machinations of Facebook -- got Trump into office. Anyone serious about ensuring that we never get a President like Trump again needs to leave the electing of Presidents to the very "mob rule" which prospect horrified the Founding Fathers. It's good enough to elect a state governor, and none of us have collapsed into a sinkhole yet (though, keep an eye on Florida, I think...). I've been saying we need to get rid of the EC since Bush vs. Gore. How much more pain does this nation need to suffer before we finally admit the Founders were wrong about this one?
9
@Dana
It is curious to see Democrats so universally opposed to the Electoral College, but they hypocritically establish for their own party a nomination process heavily empowering "Super-delegates"....a very anti-democratic structure much akin to the Electoral College structure
There is no benefit from and no need for the Electoral College structure when the outcome is the same in the Electoral College as in the national popular vote.
The Electoral College was created to protect less populated states from exploitation by more populated states. It is the same purpose as the structure of the Senate versus the House
The founding fathers knew that democracy was not inherently good. Rather, democracy is generally the least bad method of choosing leaders and choosing the laws we must live under. But democracy is still the tyranny of the majority. The majority still subjugates the minority. A pure democracy could easily authorize slavery or any of a long list of evil actions. That is why the founders wrote a Constitution which ingeniously created a democracy combined with anti-democratic features. The Senate is one, the Electoral College is another
The most revered feature of our Constitution is the most anti-democratic feature, the Bill of Rights, the true source of our individual liberty. Our fundamental rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights protects us even if a super-majority votes to take them away. Those rights protect us from democracy's tyranny
7
could the good philanthropist mr. soros please direct me towards all of the companies not focused on maximizing profits? do they have safe space teams to manage every consequence?
3
The only suspicious piece of "evidence" in favour of this conspiracy is that Zuckerberg and Trump met for dinner and Zuckerberg claimed it was private.
I think people who don't want to use FB don't have to use it. Those who're stuck on social media likes need to get over themselves and these people aren't always Trump supporters.
4
@RamS The other issue is that Facebook makes money off of its users' data without really compensating them for it. I don't see why your data block has to be so undervalued and I deal with it by messing up their algorithms (have multiple users share the same account).
The only inconvenience is that ads are no longer tailored to you but if you buy based in response to ads you're a lost cause anyway (shop actively, not passively, needs vs. wants).
1
If you don’t like what someone is paying you, you normally quit. If you don’t like the deal, leave FaceBook.
Because it would much better if a billionaire who supports global government and is dramatically oppposed to the second amendment was making these calls. Also complaining about a company doing what's good for business verses what's right seems odd from someone who started a war with the bank of England over the value of the pound sterling and "broke" the sovereign currency of one of our allies.
9
I dropped Facebook because of the way they loosely handled data a few years ago and also because of their slick way of selling their past negative activities as innocent mistakes; it certainly wasn’t my idea of the concept of “leaning in.”
In their defense, I believe they did do some good too. Take Instagram: I really appreciate that most advertisements are comment-able which means that shoddy advertisements can be challenged by knowledgeable individuals. That’s a really good thing! Where else does that happen besides twitter? So, my new view is they, Facebook, have promise; they’re not perfect but still with possibilities.
Mr. Soros appears to desire us to return to a world where the standard news media / government decides what we do or do not see. I really appreciate great organizations like the New York Times but I certainly do not want to close down open discussion on delicate topics from other sources, so Mr. Zuckerberg should stay, perhaps with more data-source controls.
Mr. Soros has been introduced here as a philanthropist and that’s a great thing but he wrote this about Facebook: [They] “maximize profits irrespective of the consequences.” And that comment is especially damaging—even to Mr. Soros, because right or wrong, the detractors of Mr. Soros accuse him of having sometimes done exactly the same thing to amass billions of dollars at the expense of others.
So where does that leave us? The first amendment is what we swear to uphold so we should do it!
4
@William Perrigo (U.S. Citizen) No one with any sense (this does not include the loons on the far left or the far right) is suggesting that we should eliminate these social media platforms. What many are saying, however, is that the days of Facebook and others being the "wild wild west" of information may need to be reigned in.
Mark Zuckerberg and Sheryl Sandberg don't seem to care what is put on their platforms, as long as it generates revenue. Even Fox News and MSNBC seem to know where the line is most of the time. Facebook seems to be daring the Government to establish that line.
4
@slime2 — Indeed. But exactly there is where I get confused and concerned, If today and in the past, top tier media companies can/could put together expensive mud-slinging political commercials for the halftime show of the SuperBowl, not to mention similar locally all accross the nation for all kinds of elections, which often is just flabby banter or Super-Pac negative media blitzes, where does one draw the line?
The media has been the great receiving receptacle of all that massive political donation money and Facebook represents a danger to that cash-flow, correct?
Certainly some level of accountability should be required, but this should cover all media outlets because I for one get upset about hearing the daily totals relative to how many millions of dollars of campaign money has been collected, in which I (we) know said money will go to a media outlet instead of schools or clean water projects, etc. That just blows my mind away.
@William Perrigo (U.S. Citizen) That's what happens in a free society. In the House of Commons, Churchill attributed the following quote to an unknown author, “Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those other forms that have been tried”.
Democracy is messy, especially when people are lazy and let others think for them.
It is up to Congress (don't hold your breath) to put the social media platforms under the same policies and scrutiny as the broadcast media.
Mr. Soros wrote -- "Facebook can post deliberately misleading or false statements by candidates for public office and others, and take no responsibility for them." Let me correct this "misleading or false statement." What section 230 of the Communications Decency Protects is content stored at the direction of a user. It treats the user and not the platform provider as the "speaker." Facebook cannot claim immunity under CDA 230 for its own corporate speech, though. It is a complex law, but that is the core principle.
5
If there could be some objective standard for truthfulness in political speech I would be in favor of enforcing it--just tell us what it is.
6
The answer is simple: regulate. The FCC already does this by requiring political ads be accompanied by a funding disclosure. Why should Facebook be any different?
5
@Ronald B. Duke
Truth and politicians mix about as well as oil and water. Always have, always will.
Candidates and their supporters using false or misleading statements during campaigns has been standard practice since campaigns began. The only difference in 2016 was the addition of a new source of those messages and addition of another forum for making them.
Soros insuIts aII Americans by cIaiming we are easiIy manipuIated, What Soros therefore really wants is not to end manipulation of American voters but rather to change who is manipulating them to the political factions he favors.
8
@Errol You're right but I don't think it's an insult to say that humans are easily manipulated. Do you think FB has influence on elections or not?
FB is denying it puts the thumb on the scale. The issue is whether it does.
In some ways Soros is even right WRT to media like the NYT and WaPo. Trump sells clicks so they write about him which generates attention. So they too are responsible but it is not direct.
I would be happier knowing what Zuckerberg and Trump talked about. In an ideal world, that dinner wouldn't have happened or it would be transparent but nonetheless I don't think an explicit thumb on scale is unlikely.
3
@RamS
I have never used Facebook. I refuse to use all social media.
I don't believe anything Zucker et all say in their own defense. Same for all social media, google, Apple, any of them.
But I am strongly opposed to censorship. I don't trust anyone who claims to be an arbiter of truth....they always have their own agenda.
1
@Errol I see where you are coming from. I completely agree with you from a censorship perspective (I'm a free speech absolutist).
I'm not sure that is what is what Soros is advocating and it doesn't make sense. My sense is that her is advocating breaking up Facebook so it's an anti-trust issue which I do believe in.
Thanks George. That’s excellent.
Simultaneously many customers are looking for the new providers of self-hosting social media, such as iMessages — essentially an alternative social media platform already with greater security.
Apple can curb Mark and Sheryl, not only in the negative of the Facebook app availability as done once already, but with seemingly simple iOS feature build-outs. Google can do similar.
9
So here, and thanks to George’s prompting, I propose to the much more powerful computer business interests new basic OS built-in app enhancements and self-storable features:
Apple Socials and Google Socials
Everyone should delete their FB accounts today and any apps associated with it. Also, if you own FB stocks, sell them! A world wide boycott needs to happen to get Zuckerberg out and someone more responsible at the helm. DO IT!
25
While I would prefer Trump not be elected again I fail to see any verifiable fact in this column. Perhaps there might be some fact behind the claims made but their is little or no verifiable information provided. If the author and others would like to know why Trump will be elected again it is precisely due to this sort of baseless claim being propagated by many Democratic campaigns and supporters. Instead of constantly criticising each other and spreading rumors about each other as Mrs. Warren's campaign has done they should pay attention to the reasons people do support Trump.
12
In perusing many (not all) of these comments, the focus seems to be how to get off FB or how to regulate it.
In my reading of the op piece nothing is as important as Soros’s
prediction:
Zuckerberg will get Trump re-elected.
No outrage? A domestic Putin and the focus is on FB.
What’s more significant to our country, the unchecked social media company or 4 more years of Trump?
6
"Move fast and break things" is a fine slogan, if you are fine with only breaking your own things. It's entirely something else if you break things that don't belong to you--then you are liable and need to pay to fix what you broke. Like what "Unsafe at Any Speed" did for the auto industry, it's time for us to recognize the damages that unregulated mass-media social platforms are doing to us all and impose a regulatory framework that forces the industry to be a better contributor to society instead of just a blind profit-seeking machine.
15
What FB is doing is dangerous to our democracy and they must know it. But the way they use their influence to make money is part of a wider problem of voter suppression, outright cheating, and stealing our votes and our right to vote. For the sake of the future of democracy please turn your attention and your financial power to this wider problem. And may all the billionaires allied with the Democratic Party do the same. If you look up National Popular Vote Bill you will see what one group of scholars and serious students of democracy has done. They have written a bill to neutralize the Electoral College and have created an organization to bring that bill before the legislatures of every state. Of the 270 electoral votes needed, full passage of the bill into law now requires passage by states with only 74 electoral votes that have in fact already passed the bill in one legislative chamber. We are so close to being free of the EC yet no one is talking about it. Please donate to the group behind this bill, learn about and publicize their work, further their goal of making the EC no longer able to chose our president, no longer able to annul the popular votes we cast for our actual choice.
8
Mr. Soros is correct in his assessment of Facebook.
But a key word is completely missing from this column, as well as from practically all of the comments: Antitrust.
Facebook needs to be broken up into multiple, competing companies. In the 20th century, it was understood that a competitive marketplace was essential for an efficient economy with a minimum of corruption. That idea seems to have been lost, and we need to bring it back.
I would also add Apple, Amazon, and Alphabet (Google) to the list of major companies that should be subjects of antitrust laws.
19
Facebook doesn't WANT to control the misinformation it spews out. Zuckerberg and Sanders lean in and laugh all the way to the bank.
17
@Jacquie Why is he a giving pledge signer when money is so important to him? Maybe he has no intention of keeping the pledge.
1
@Jacquie Zuckerberg only does things that look good publicly he probably has no interesting in actually donating anything. Maybe he was planning to give Trump a huge donation when they had lunch the other day.
1
This is such a sad article. People should realize that Trump won because half of the country supported him and the Democratic Party failed to impress.
Anyone who put the blame on Facebook is not looking at the issue.
18
@SC It's both. However it was so close in some states (and Clinton won the popular vote by 3 million) that it doesn't take much to tip it to Trump.
12
@SC I think you might have reversed cause and effect: Facebook led to Trump being liked.
By the way, less than half of the country liked Trump. Clinton got 3 million more votes than Trump did.
12
Just a little effort to make a bump. Maybe one stop in Michigan or Wisconsin the last weekend by Secretary Clinton instead networking in CA for something that made no difference? I assume that would have had more impact than some juvenile FB ads.
1
Delete it. Just delete it. Facebook can't keep deceiving us if we refuse to look at it. Take away its power. I did it months ago and don't miss it at all
62
@Laura I deleted it last year and have felt better about myself every since. I do blame Facebook, in large part, for the election of Trump. Zuckerberg and Sandberg should not be allowed to continue their deplorable money-making monster. Are they not rich enough? Haven't we all had enough?
3
@Laura
I got rid of the antichrist when I got hacked in 2011. There is nothing good to say about Facebook. I was one of the ivy leaguers who were approached in 2002 and I thought, whoa this is a high school corridor with lockers and bullying. Believe me, it still is.
@Laura I never had a Facebook account and never will.
But Facebook tracks you whether or not you have an account with them. So it's important to block their cookies on your web browser because many websites including, I believe, NYT, sell your data to Facebook without your permission or knowledge. Even if you pay up for a subscription.
I never created a facebook page, although I have had my own website created in 1999 to further my art as a painter.
It seems certain I could have gained by joining FB, but I smelled a rat from the start.
I still sit as a starving artist, but I am proud to not be a contributor to the Zuckerberg powered societal demise.
Yes, the dark side of social media is leading to a societal decline, with facebook leading the way.
Just as fast food dominates, leading to societies' health problems, so does FB.
Can it be stopped?
Probably such an effort has as much chance as stopping the dollar deal at MacDonald's.
Too bad for the health of the world.
14
We need to seize Facebook. Once we have control, we can immediately place a moratorium on all advertising on the platform. Then, we can take a little time deciding whether Facebook will be nationalized or just turned off. I vote we just get rid of it and start fresh, perhaps as a non-profit corporation with public support, like the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
“For a pledge of just a dollar a day, you can help support public broadcasting and get a free NewFacebook membership.”
I like it.
8
Mr. Soros should perhaps consider his own role in Brexit, and the election of not only Donald Trump but also reactionary anti-immigration populists like Victor Orban of Hungary, Matteo Salvini of Italy, Denmark's Mette Frederiksen and a host of others.
Simply put, the citizens of these countries do not seem to be in favor of agendas that Soros supports, and they vote accordingly.
Even if one were to ascribe the most benign of motives to Mr. Soros, he has enormous blind spots when it comes to evaluating how he is perceived, and the manner in which his politically motivated, partisan philanthropy triggers angry backlash from voters who see flaws or downsides to what he supports.
As far as Facebook is concerned, it is a platform that undoubtedly serves as a conduit of biased or even false news, and it does so by design. But given the pattern of political donations coming out of Silicon Valley, as well as the political and corporate culture (which is as "woke" as it gets and 180 degrees opposed to Trump on immigration policy), one would have to be self-deceptive to an almost delusional degree to conclude that Facebook is in cahoots with Trump.
12
Maybe there should not be a Facebook at all. As a culture, we are not mature enough to handle the awesome power of these social media platforms. It is like giving a 4 year old an Uzi.
Seriously. Some of us are responsible and mature enough to handle these platforms (less than 50% of adults maybe) but, unfortunately, there are enough of us who are not to make these applications an existential threat.
11
@AR See the First Amendment to the US Constitution.
2
@AR it is true. The connectivity of this medium is astonishing and we do not fully understand it yet, so those who shield themselves are better off.
Especially since there are those who are realizing the immense value of a propaganda that can seem like magic for those unable to understand the technology.
Tweet away, Nero.
Zuckerberg should be removed not just because of Mr. Soros's reasons which I agree with, but also because Facebook is part of the vast corporate and government effort to take away our right to privacy.
24
What I find both hilarious and sad is that in recent decades, many Americans have shunned newspapers as old technology, preferring to get their news from Facebook or other spurious sources. Now their indifference and ignorance is coming back to bite them as Facebook erodes their freedoms. This is what you get, folks, when you allow the rise of media with no professional gatekeepers.
34
@LIChef Yes. I regularly admonish my 'friends' to read their news on the journal's website BEFORE they get on FB. Keep a handy chart on your desktop showing the bias levels of their sources. Don't share until you read and vet the article. This is no different than the anti-fraud tips given to protect your assets, etc..Same behaviors! You can 'fight' back by using the tools FB gives you like 'hide' 'report' etc..Avoid the ads like the plague. Google 'facebook users tools to fight back against Facebook' and find plenty of recent articles on ways to push back. Stop whining and get active!!
3
@LIChef People got duped into preferring Facebook and other services because they are free. They simply forget that "If it's free, you are the product." Or maybe they never actually understood that.
5
We'd all be better off if we get off a social media platform that allows toxic political ads and lies. Time to switch to Twitter. Facebook is a dinosaur now anyway.
9
@Alk
Twitter is a social media platform that [dis}allows toxic political ads and lies?
Better to say" We'd all be better off if we get off.. social media".
1
Really? Yes there will always be people who buy spray dye at 3am
to cover their bald spots and FB users who think Trump supports
pre existing conditions. But before you start making claims
of advertising swinging a election you might want to more
closely follow the millions of impressions Koch Brothers, Tom Steyer, Michael Bloomberg and others have spent and with mixed results.
Clearly Mr Soros you have not gotten on FB or Googles Ad platforms where ANYONE can obtain prime placements by
simply bidding more than everyone else.
This should be the LEAST of your worries with FB. The electorate
is better informed than you give them credit for and it is only the 50/50 split of the electorate that is amplifying focus on false political threats. FB s surveillance is designed to build limitlees
tools to track, identify and sort human beings in ways unimaginable to most of us. That needs to stop.
If you wanted to make a difference why don't you create incentives to move 250,000 blue state residents to North and South Dakota and save our Republic. I want even send you a bill.
1
@Joe I almost thought I was the only one who thought of moving Democrats to other states. But the Dakotas? No way. We need more Californians to move to Texas, which actually has jobs and cool cities to go along with the facts that it could be flipped blue and it's a massive state. Moving to Colorado and Florida could be great as well.
4
@Daniel Moving 250k democrats to the Dakotas would flip the Senate, which would go a long way towards saving our Republic.
There are at least 50-60 million Trump voters in America who will not budge no matter what content is posted on FB. Nothing matters to them but reelecting a Rightwing Dictator in the style of Mussolini.
The rest of the voting populace are more intelligent, get their news and form opinions outside of FB. I realize that Soros is probably a lot smarter than me, but I think he's too pessimistic about the next election. I think the American people and formidable forces for good will trounce Trump.
Dear Geoge - put your vast wealth into informing the public and hammering Trump's policies and behavior before the election, run anti-Trump ads on FB and other media platforms. Get your best people on the job. We CAN win.
6
Thank you Mr. Soros for saying what informed and responsible citizens know to be true. This is an unprecedented circumstance of corrupt social media with terrifying power to destroy our election.
14
I agree with George Soros.
The plutocrats in the US who seek a Trump to mirror the oligarchs paying fealty to Putin in Russia forget history.
When consolidating power, Putin gave the oligarchs free reign to plunder the Russian people. Once achieved, Putin turned his focus to jailing, killing and robbing the rich oligarchs.
Trump will be worse, but America’s plutocrats think this impossible.
Facebook, Twitter and other such mechanisms are complicit in undermining the rule of law, truth, and democracy.
Those with the vision and resources to protect the rule of law, the Constitution, freedom and democracy must act in concert to protect America before it is too late.
10
Fundamentally I agree with Mr. Soros, but he makes a critical error at the beginning of his piece where he says the 1996 Communication Decency Act “protects social media platforms from legal liability for defamation and similar claims.” It doesn’t because “social media” (a product of more recent internet technologies) did not exist in 1996. Consequently, the application of that law to protect the likes of Facebook is an extreme category error. In 1996 website hosts (which the law was intended to protect against liability) were like bookstores. The 1996 Act was modeled after case law that protected bookstores (distributors of content) from liability, but not content publishers. Web hosts in 1996 were akin to bookstores upon which website creators published their sites. The website creators were still subject to civil liability suits. However, in the age of Web 2.0 things are much more complicated because Facebook is not like a passive website host but has algorithms that structure content in far from passive ways. In that sense, even though it’s machine algorithms as opposed to humans that are constructing what’s presented to the subscriber, those algorithms were written by humans with specific human motivated goals. Congress needs to revisit the Communications Decency Act in accord with the vast changes that have occurred in the internet since 1996 (24 year!) and come down squarely in defense of objective truth and not algorithmically driven distortions of truth.
5
@TimothyG
"... the 1996 Communication Decency Act 'protects social media platforms from legal liability for defamation and similar claims.'”
Thank you for your comment. I think you and Soros are both right.
It wasn't intended to protect social media platforms when it passed -- but it does now. Agree! All the more reason to revisit Section 230 and change it.
AOC to Mark Zuckerberg
"So, you won't take down lies or you will take down lies? I think that's just a pretty simple yes or no."
He waffled and hemmed and hawed.
So, what is to stop the democrats from launching their own misinformation campaign on Facebook? Nothing.
4
Has anyone noticed child pornography is not a thing on Facebook.
Because they have cut it off, because they can.
If they wanted they could stop interfering in elections . But why would they do that?
10
Does George Soros deserve his billions any more than Zuckerberg deserves to head Facebook, a company which he started and helped guide to the top? Keep in mind how Soros made his billions.
In a similar vein, it more right for Soros to use his power to influence the public by writing editorials for the New York Times than for Zuckerberg to be influencing the public via Facebook? Everyone has their own idea of what's right and what's wrong, and I dislike this whole billionaire vs billionaire fight to use wealth to manipulate public opinion.
9
@Michael They're just doing it openly now. Where have you been? This has ALWAYS been the fight for humanity's progress! 100 years ago it was the same and now it is the same. I thought Zuckerberg would be on Soros' side though but then he had that dinner with Trump...
1
Thank you for this...These people will hold a very bad place in history. Zuckerberg is as creepy as he was portrayed in the movie about his rise -- shaming his ex-girlfriend -- it's been downhill since then and look how much money he's made. His bad behavior, just like the Trumps just keeps getting rewarded and all they can talk about are the Bidens.
5
So Soros can influence all over the world and when he can't get Facebook to go completely liberal (they are already a silicon valley liberal company) - he throws a fit. Great going Mr.Soros.
12
Soros - the great leftist interrupter - complains about Facebook because it (surprisingly) refuses to suppress conservative voices and so doesn't adequately toe the left wing agenda of 90% of the MSM. Yes the truth will out in surprising ways. I look forward to a crushing Trump defeat of the forces of the leftist elite and it's misinformed followers.
10
Mr.Soros believes he has the moral authority to tell others what is "right"? and what they "should" do...? Mr.Soros is hardly a saint.
If he thought FaceBook was actively trying to prevent Trump from being President, in order to maximize revenue, that would be OK, right George?
a little biased as we throw stones in our glass house
10
Facebook did not help Trump get elected and Zuckerberg would never vote for Trump. He is typical of anti-authoritarian members of his generation--control and regulations are generally anathema to this crowd which leans libertarian. What got Trump elected is the foolishness of the American people. The ones who decided not to vote for Hillary or Trump, failing to see the vast difference between. The ones who sat it out--unhappy that Bernie wasn't the candidate or else because they were too tuned out to bother to vote. All of this led to an Electoral College decision that put Trump in the Oval Office despite the fact that Hillary had 3 million more votes. The problem lies with this: the American people have sloppy minds--they are unable to spot fake ads and videos (whether Right or Left wing) posted on Facebook and other social platforms. Mental flabbiness of the body politic is what got the unfit Trump into the White House.
4
Mr. Soros makes excellent points. There are over 3000 peer reviewed research articles on the NIH website about the effects of FB and social media on society, and most of them are not positive. Its not just politics and these are just a few of possible "FB effects". FB has been linked with increased polarization and misinformation about life saving vaccines; is related to increased social distress among heavy users (including social media addiction which leads to maladaptive cognition and increased rates of self harm); is linked to casual attitudes about vaping among teens; is related to increased loneliness among active adolescent users and a host of other social problems for adults, teens and children alike. It affects attitudes about climate change. FB employs passive cognition; these relationships are not really real but the information collected by advertisers and social media about users is real, and valuable. Is this social control? Who would put up with this for a few baby pictures?
4
The issue we need to focus on is that Facebook, with its enormous resources, should filter and be responsible for the content of the platform.
It will take an army if people and good software to do it, and the rules on how to go about it will take time to hammer down, but we need to start now!
4
@Luis I agree with you.
If user-generated content is owned by Facebook (and no longer by the user who made it), then Facebook should be responsible for the content that it owns!
1
@Luis No, the real issue is that do we revoke the First Amendment because we do not like what other people say? Apparently the vast majority of anit-Facebook posters are willing to do just that.
4
Could not agree more. Great article!
5
If you can't responsibly publish paid political speech, you should not be in the business of publishing paid political speech.
This is a matter of law, but also ethics. Facebook could refeuse all political ads, accept the loss, and use this as a sales tool to try to get disaffected anti-trump humans to come back to their platform.
They don't. That's a bad business decision, but also a bad ethical decision. The result is bad for all.
10
Facebook says it does not "fact-check" claims, but it does "reduce the distribution of "fake news". Seems a reasonable distinction between easily confirmed falsehoods and claims which require analysis. Anybody who has read a fact-check analysis knows that requiring this of a means of communication like Facebook would be a completely impractical responsibility. Facebook has a long list of dangerous prohibited practices. Facebook like all of social media is an unprecedented form of communication. People should acquire the necessary skepticism or move to China where you always know the source.
Trump got elected by a cultural divide for which liberal arrogance is at least 50% responsible. Deal with that, Mr Soros.
3
Good article. Social media regulations need updating. Facebook and others are publishers, no doubt. Original laws were framed at a time when no one knew the true impact of those platforms but that doesn’t mean they should remain as is. Facebook will survive and it will adapt to a new operating environment, and probably become a better user experience. Aren’t we entering an age of corporate Environmental and Social Governance?
2
From my days in algorithmic modeling and data analysis in Silicon, I wanted to make one point. In social media, there is one set of models (among many) that leverage human social behavior that I think fits this article. It is often called the Typing of Social Interactions - made up of Altruism, Cooperation, Spite, and Selfishness.
On any social media platform, there are hundreds of algorithms determining your social interaction interests and uses this information to then "help" you find groups of similar interests - your own tribes. A major reason I left Silicon Valley was that the powers of incitement politics (Trump, Fox, Beck, Limbaugh, etc.) drove people to spiteful and selfish relationships and the sites that support these views on a variety of platforms (Facebook, twitter, etc.), basically leaving altruism and cooperation in the dust. I and my peers have no technical remedy for this. This is about human nature and not technology.
A few nights ago I was watching Frontline's America's Great Divide. This documentary is made up of interviews of leading social analysts, including Robert Reich, David Axelrod, Frank Luntz, Steve Bannon, and others. Their dialog very much addresses the uncontrollable power of social media. And how spite and selfishness along with incitement politics impact social and voting behavior. You can see the individual interviews (which I recommend) on YouTube. Social media is purely a weapon that brings out the worst in us - period.
92
@Joe Frank That's a very interesting observation, and I must conclude that it is very true. From my own experience, people rarely comment on a post that is informative or helpful, but they will routinely comment on a post that they disagree with. In general, unless you are speaking to a close friend, the number of insulting comments far outweighs the number of complimentary ones.
Basically, Facebook is promoting bad behavior, and social disconnect. In actuality, Facebook is a very 'anti-social' network. Facebook is making people more jealous, angry, agitated and anxious.
In other words, Faceboook is an agent of chaos.
1
You know, I’ve stayed because I didn’t want to give up the ease with which I could get back in touch with folks with whom I’ve fallen out of touch, but I’ve never had much respect for such an addictive and more recently dark platform. I suppose it’s long past time to cut it loose.
Facebook will never clean up its act because that’s not its business model. That is the cost of this “free” service.
16
The way forward is simple. Facebook should be held accountable for the content that appears on its site. It is a publisher. The other way? Get off Facebook. Now.
29
I recently read that FB will block misinformation about Corona virus. However, it will not block lies in political ads. Which will prove more damaging?
42
@Jess Wondrin What type of lies in political ads should FB block? Who gets to decide what is "true" in a political ad? Sample ad: "Hillary will raise your taxes!" True or false? Depends on which taxes you are talking about, what your income is, etc. Multiply this by one million ads a week.
Demanding that FB fact-check political ads is completely impractical. Why don't you just say what you really mean, which is, "Let's take away the vote from people I deem too stupid to exercise it responsibly."
I’ve never used Facebook. I prefer to communicate and keep in touch with friends by either telephoning (extended communication); texting (for a quick note); or the truly archaic method, writing a personal note. All work just fine. I feel sorry for those who feel like they’re “missing something” if not on FB. What they’re missing is human contact.
37
I've never had a FB account and certainly don't plan to, and that's because I doubted the security and information I might give them would be protected, even way back then.
As an experiment in social networking, the Internet in general has been a mixed bag of success and has mostly undermined the ability for accurate information to be transmitted to the user in a dependable fashion. Combine that with Capitalism at all costs and you get a nightmare come true. I agree with other posters who say: "just walk away."The consumer is the one in control. If you don't like a product, just pass on it and try something else.
13
Mr. Soros is right on what's wrong, but not why and what to do about it.
Why: Facebook couldn't regulate truth, even if it wanted to. It's not technically possible.
What to do about it: ban political advertising on all search and social media platforms, all the time, and ban political campaigns from using non-public political data sourced from search or social media.
Why: Facebook is simply not capable of regulating the truth of what's said on its platform. The software that can scale to billions of users and trillions of posts simply cannot be made to stop and magically evaluate those posts. Any moderating system with humans in the loop -- even humans paid at the mechanical-turk wages of $1/hour -- would overwhelm any revenues Facebook makes (about $8/user in the U.S.).
Facebook is controlled by Zuckerberg as the dominant shareholder. He would have to give up his life and business and his billions. This is both a case of a man's paycheck depending on seeing truth a certain way, and a case of the extraordinary power given to wealthy individuals. Nothing in Zuckerberg's biography indicates he is a particularly evolved or even well-educated person. It really shows how stupid we are to believe that concentrated wealth results in better economic (and social) decisions.
46
Dear Me: If it is not possible for Facebook to check facts, then it should not be disseminating “news”. It can do well by simply having a user fee and blocking all ads including political ads. But mr. Z is greedy!
So maybe it is not the Russians who are the big threat. Maybe the threat is not "external" but "Internal". Maybe the monster was bread at home by our own lack of regulation and responsible overseeing. Maybe the threat is not only internal, but it has become an "external" one to other countries (just as we claim the Russians are the main culprits of our political disarray). Maybe we should look inside for the enablers of the political mess in which we find ourselves. But, of course, it is always easier to find the enemy outside, rather than inside.
8
@tdb You know there's more than one threat. There's no "the threat". You can get a cold, or the flu, or the new coronavirus. There's more than one disease and if you don't face that, you could die. There's more than "the threat" too- and the consequences are just as tangible. "The Russians" aren't a threat- it's the Russian government. And propagandist misinformation works, is widely disseminated, is hard to effectively debunk (because of confirmation bias), is unregulated, and profitable. That's a dangerous combination.
4
The truth is that NO ONE should be leading Facebook. Facebook as well as (Instagram and Twitter) does nothing but dull our minds, create division among people, utterly distort and corrupt meaningful human interaction, and undermine democracy. It should be shut down, and its leadership should be put in the hands of the bankruptcy court.
8
Unfortunately, Zuckerberg Is just the latest example of what happens when in the pursuit of ever greater dominance and wealth you leave your principles and integrity at the door. He's likely becoming a caricature of the man he thought himself to be - unmoored from his principles - no doubt justifying himself all the way: it's too hard, too expensive, yadda, yadda to do the right thing.
The fact is, though, his company is aiding and abetting people like Donald Trump. I would hate to have that on my conscience.
12
@cort Hey, Trump's rubles are as good as anyone's!
George Soros obviously should be solely in charge of who does, and does not, get elected.
14
@Susan That is in no way the point of his article. He is not asking to be in charge, but the opposite: that no political party has unrestrained access to Facebook. You should turn your own comment around at Trump, who is the one who desires that his voice is the only one that counts in this country.
32
Thank you Mr. Soros. It's amazing that Zuckerberg and Sandberg have made billions of dollars off the information the public supplies them freely and with those billions he has caused havoc in our and other countries with no penalty, as well as lined their pockets extremely well.
I have never used Facebook and have gotten along fine without it. When the rest of the world realizes the destructive force that Facebook is and starts dumping the app will we able to get rid of them and possibly bring democracy back to life.
11
If you are a young person in any business today you cannot ignore fb, your livelihood dépends on their advertising you have to have an account/
If Trump's campaign received, tomorrow, an infusion of one trillion dollars, funding thousands of additional ads, would you get off the fence or change your mind and vote for him? I wouldn't.
2
If Facebook is to become the echo chamber for the GOP — so be it. Smart folks realize Facebook was a passing fad.
My kids have long since left for more accommodating platforms where they can relate with friends across the world.
6
I wonder what “accommodating platforms” your kids are on? Instagram= FB, whatsapp = FB, Snapchat = FB
Mark Zuckerberg should be in control of Facebook - after all, he owns a majority of company stock.
As Facebook has branched into other outlets from "pure" social media ( catching up with friends/classmates, etc.), including news streams, it no longer falls into the pure realm of social media that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act was designed to protect.
Posting misinformation/disinformation by Facebook users not paying for such posting is one matter (even if done maliciously). Posting misinformation/disinformation by paying customers designed to influence an audience is entirely different.
9
@padgman1: Ever heart if the First Amendment to the United States Constitution? Here it is:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
4
@Jeff
You do understand that that applies to government suppression of free speech -- and has limitations?
If I dissed my employer publicly -- in most situations that would get me fired.
And the classic limit is that you cannot shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater (unless I suppose there is a fire -- perhaps still not the best idea?)
1
As I understand it....I could take out a full page ad on the NYT describing you ( or President Trump, or anyone) in vulgar detail and detailing falsehoods about your life and character and I have the freedom of speech to do so, but could be taken to (civil) court for libel ( as well as the NYT) if the accusations could be proven to be false.
But I can take out a similar paid ad ( not a post) on Facebook and have the freedom of speech to do so, and may be taken to court for libel, but Facebook would not be held libel for this.
Am I wrong in this ? And if not, why not?
I found the easiest way to get off of Facebook. It's very similar to the easiest way to quit smoking.
Don't Start.
And if you did start on Facebook, get off of it. Otherwise don't complain when Zuckerberg and Sandberg sell your personal information to the highest bidder.
213
@slime2 I quit 18 months ago. It was hard for about 2 weeks. Life has been way better ever since. Same goes for his other properties (what's app/Instagram).
4
@slime2
Quit 3 years ago & haven't missed it for a minute.
Believe me - There is life without Facebook.
7
@slime2 this is not the issue. You will probably not die of lung cancer, and in any case, not of a lung cancer you got from smoking yourself (maybe from second hand smoke). You will also not be misled by a false add in Facebook. But there are a lot of misinformed citizens out there either smoking or getting their information from Facebook or both. And both these practices are costing all of us a lot, either in increased health care costs or in the damage Facebook is doing to our society and to our democracy or both.
9
Mark Zuckerberg continues to run Facebook like the company he developed while still a teenager at Harvard. He should definitely step away from control and Facebook should be broken up because it is indeed a monopoly. Perhaps Mark is naive or worse someone who prefers autocrats in charge. He could easily prevent dis information from being distributed on his platform - he has more than enough money to accomplish the job. Sad to see that Mark constinues to believe his misguided ideas. I agree with George Soros in this case.
15
@Angela Joy there are literally hundreds of other social media outlets that are free to use. You apparently, don't understand what a monopoly is.
I dumped Facebook several weeks ago and have not regretted it for a second. I like knowing I'm not contributing to Zuckerberg's wealth. I wish him every unhappiness.
59
Excellent analysis, based on facts, from a true patriot. Facebook is an addictive bad habit much like tobacco and vaping. It is possible to simply use email and other technologies, however, it takes much more effort to get your information sharing "high". Much like the tobacco company model if you look at it coldly and honestly. It is absolutely clear that facebook news and other functions are a media outlet and should be regulated as such. However, much like Uber not "being a Cab" company, in the current political environment nothing will come of it.
We are on a way to a very bad place in this country and unfortunately like other historic republic meltdowns will only see it when it is too late. Remember, "News is fake" and education, specifically, history and ethics, are "socialist liberal threats".
Truly sad and dangerous for what was once the USA as the light of freedom in the world. The country will, hopefully, at some time wake up to the truth, but so much damage has already occurred, and at what price?
The obvious medicine, difficult to execute, delete your facebook account, now.
26
I disagree that Facebook helped get Trump elected. James Comey and his Press Conference with 10 days left got Trump elected.
9
@Craig G Both statements are true. Both factors helped get Trump elected.
14
@Craig G Hillary Clinton got Trump elected. Had she put Bernie Sanders as her VP she would have had the election in her bag, regardless of Comey.
1
Mr. Zuckerberg's college made Frankenstein might add the final nail to the coffin of what's left of this country.
I have heard too many people say they get the majority of their news from FB - as they are too busy to do otherwise.
(They have time for FB though, with the pics of the grandchildren and keeping up with what the old boyfriend is doing....)
I'm terrified.
15
We should convey our disagreement with Zuckerberg by our feet, so to say. I was an avid Facebook user in my old age as it did some good by helping me to connect with my long lost friends. If there us a mass exodus of Facebook users, Zuckerberg and Sandberg will 'lean on" towards right direction.
10
Bravo, Mr. Soros! Refreshing to read a clear-sighted, plainly spoken analysis of the Frankenstein society an emotionally and morally challenged college drop-out has infected us with. 2020 is all about clear vision. It's time to hold people like Zuckerberg accountable through regulation and the rule of law. If not, we can expect our world descend further into "a manufactured reality" that breeds hatred and violence for many and huge profits for a few.
28
If you don't like what Facebook is doing, vote with your dollar: delete your account. I did two years ago and I've never looked back.
My 'real' friendships haven't suffered. I'm less distracted by mindless online clutter. I've never felt like I'm 'missing out.' I'm better educated about current events because I spend more time reading legitimate news and less time scrolling through Facebook.
26
@KT Unfortunately Facebook's tentacles run deep - they own Instagram and WhatsApp, two hugely popular social media/messaging sites. It's getting harder to disentangle yourself if you still want to communicate with friends and participate in your community.
7
@Ian Yes, I understand. But I do want to assert that it may not be as hard as you think - that it's worth giving a try. I honestly thought I would miss Facebook when I deleted my account, but I haven't. Not one bit. In fact I LOVE that I've cut that type of communication from my life. When you close the door to Facebook, new and better ways to communicate with friends and community may open up. They did for me.
8
@KT Agreed. I don't miss it one bit. While I haven't deleted it, it is now simply a way to communicate through messenger with new people I meet until we decide to exchange cell phone numbers and move to texting. I never read the feed, though. If I want your opinion, I'll ask for it.
I can say that I've never missed anything of importance.
Antitrust laws exist for a reason. Since the Reagan years our government has abdicated its role in making sure that monopolies don’t grow to the point that their power is contrary to the public good. Whenever a social network gains a following, Zuckerberg and Sandberg snap it up, making it impossible for the rest of us to participate in what has become our public squares without lining their pockets. The loss in innovation (as Facebook uses its size to squelch competitors), choice (they own most of the social networks), and responsibility (their algorithms encourage extremes, and their policies encourage fraud) all point to the fact that they have accrued too much power for a private company and that power is perverting our democracy. Break them up.
44
Mark Zuckerberg the founder of Facebook should remain in control as long as he wishes to. He has given his heart and soul and his entire adult life to take Facebook to where it is today. Mr. Soros will never ever make such an outstanding contribution as Mark has to bringing together friends that are physically continents away. Thank you Mark for giving me an opportunity to connect with friends I made during my self imposed exile in the tip of Africa after the election of GW Bush around the turn of the century, who I may never meet person ever again. Mark's infinite innovation called Facebook is a great gift to the world and the finest expression of philanthropy unlike the selective philanthropy of George Soros to questionable causes.
12
@Girish Kotwal
Wow is all I can say. Glad you can stay in touch with people you met in Africa but Facebook is hardly a gift to the world. That is just laughable. Facebook is about making money and it always has been. I left Facebook long ago when I saw how bad it was about putting fake and outright lies on the feeds I was receiving from them.
But when our checking account was just about wiped out by a person that was a third party contractor for facebook. It took over 2 months to get the money back. If it had not been for our bank getting involved I wonder if we would have gotten any of it back. Sorry what you think of Facebook is just flat out wrong.
3
@Girish Kotwal
Last time I looked Mr Soros contributed to such questionable causes as promoting democracy in the post Soviet states. He has also contributed to promoting voting rights in this country. He has provided aid to promote education, medical and agricultural aid to villages in Africa to help them out of extreme poverty.
While none of these contributions involve sharing cute videos of cats with your friends, which of these do you consider to be questionable causes?
4
@Girish Kotwal It's not a gift if we're paying with data and democracy - it's a Trojan horse.
3
Why did Z. and Trump have a private meeting whose content was never revealed? Z. wanted assurance that FB would not be impeded by Trump. For that assurance, Trump exacted something valuable to him in return. What? It's how he works.
20
@blgreenie If the content was never revealed, how do you know what was discussed?
@blgreenie the same reason Jack Dorsey and Jeff Bezos have. It’s none of your business.
Mark Zuckerberg has no sense of responsibility. He, according to him, has never made a mistake in his life. He does respond to copyright takedown notices and that makes the case that he could respond to factual takedown notices if he so chose. He's become the poster child for why we don't need tech billionaire children.
51
Isn’t this the logical conclusion of a political system that is built on advertising dollars.
Give everyone a fixed budget and no ads beyond that. Nobody wants to see this mind numbing stuff anyway.
18
@Me Your 'solution' is not constitutional. Free speech and such.
Well written Mr. Soros. Our only hope is that the youth of America (who are abandoning Facebook in favor of other social media platforms) actually turn out to vote.
I recently learned just how powerful propaganda can be. During the Rwandan genocide villages that didn't have radio reception weren't effected. Hutus and Tutsis continued living and working peacefully side-by-side. Only the areas where the French and Belgians broadcast the false Hutu narrative did slaughters of families who were peaceful neighbors occur. Facebook has taken the place of radio in spreading hate and fake news in America.
101
Facebook doesn't create content; its users do. And Facebook recommends content because users are likely to interact with it (i.e. like it, comment on it, share it, click on it, watch it etc.). So if misinformation or toxic/inflammatory posts circulate on facebook, it's because users are interacting with them; not because Zuckerberg is promoting that content to line his pockets. The facebook recommendation algorithm is based off of the actions of real users, not on the preferences of the company.
Now is that the best system? Probably not, and Soros points out why. But it's just not clear to me what you are going to replace the existing algorithm by. It's easy to say things like 'get rid of anything which is misleading or inflammatory' or 'hold companies accountable'. How does that get implemented in practice? Do you want some beuacratic entity deciding what flies and what doesn't, which punishes companies which don't comply? I think we can all see the slippery slope which is trying to moderate content.
In conclusion, Facebook is not a net positive to our society. But so far I haven't seen any ideas on how to actually fix the problem.
7
@DFK Well written opinion. Only disagree with your conclusion that Facebook is not a net positive to our society. Or course it is. How many friends or relationships have been deepened or rekindled because of it? One billion users obviously don't agree with your conclusion.
@Robert
I think you're ignoring the meaning of "net positive". Deepened and rekindled relationships is a huge positive... but the discussion here is about the costs. You may conclude that the benefits outweigh the costs, but you can only do so by first recognizing the costs with clear eyes.
It can also be helpful to consider what other tools might be used to deepen and rekindle relationships which may have lower costs or risks.
3
@DFK part of the problem is that the public can't even agree what is true - so how can an algorithm?
I can't understand why we, the Left, are not weaponizing Facebook ourselves. Post conspiracy theories and outrageously fake news, and target the low-information citizens who will see this junk out of the corner of their eye. Even if they swerve around 99 posts, the 100th might cause them doubt. And anyway, if we cannot stop this weapon from being available, for heaven's sake we should use it for our benefit too.
9
@Maria We, the Left, have principles. We don't go that low.
6
@Another Name
You may be happy with your leaders playing by a high-minded different set of rules from the opposition, but I want to see mine at the helm.
Maria is correct.
1
@Maria
"The ends justify the means."
I don't think so.
Run clean, win clean.
1
Until the day Facebook is held lawfully responsible for its misdeeds delete the app. I've managed to live just fine without a Facebook account since its inception.
23
Is disinformation protected under free speech? Last I checked it was.
12
@Just Sayin’ considering disinformation is often in the eye of the beholder of course it is.
I could write Andrew Yang is the best candidate ever.
that could be called a lie by some, disinformation by others, and truth by a few more. the problem is, people want to label opinions as wrong or not factual, when all they are are thoughts. Lots of people post their thoughts - and then they are treated as facts.
1
@Just Sayin’
Just to add to this: there is freedom of religion. Many faiths and religions purport the existence of God. Where's proof? Where's the truth? Evidence? As far as I know, the disinformation has persisted for thousands of years. And yet it is protected in the first amendment. From the framer's perspective, disinformation about religion is protected. Can't see why disinformation in general shouldn't be.
1
@Just Sayin’
Is paid advertising on Facebook free speech. Last I checked it wasn't.
It's paid speech. Zuckerberg owns Facebook -- so he sets the rules. He could set different rules.
1
Mark Zuckerberg is in a privileged position to lead, as a member of the an elite group of business leaders. But we are constantly hearing bad bad criticisms of him. Rise to the challenges that confront us Mark! Be a force for good not evil, nor an enabler of evil.
6
It has been said many times, when the product you use is free, you are the product. Your face, your shopping habits, your recreational interests, your family and friends, and their activities and interests, now your democracy and your choice of president, are no longer yours. They belong to Facebook, to be used and sold in disregard for the consequences outside of their bottom line. If you think their is no cost to you, what value do you place on your freedom to make personal decisions, live your life free of interference, and influence public policy through your vote? It is past time to regulate Facebook as a media enterprise, end their monopoly status, and hold the company accountable for their unethical practices.
7
Soros is upset because he blew $10 million on the 2016 election.
He needn’t worry though.
Bloomberg’s gonna spend a billion or more this year.
Trump though will spend a lot less and because he has the right message will win again.
12
@Arch Stanton
Apparently the "right message" consists of fear of people who are different, hate of liberals and people who are different, and lies about what Trump is going to do for this country.
We need the truth and it cannot be found on Facebook.
6
@Arch Stanton
Please enlighten me on what is his "right" message is please. Because I have not heard anything that is a right message to us.
4
Yes, let’s seize control of Facebook away from the guy that started and built it - because we don’t like the effect it’s having on politics.
That won’t alarm moderates and small business owners at all.
The arrogance, self righteousness and entitlement represented in this piece surpasses almost everything Trump has said or done over the last 5 years.
15
@Michael Brian Burchette I haven't seen much evidence it has the influence described.
@Michael Brian Burchette How did Soros earn his money? And should we take away his livelihood because of his views?
I suggest shutting selfiebook down because of the immense waste of time it stimulates. People hooked on it are not only addicted consumers but spiritually weakened entities.
7
@Feldman: So you approve of government censorship? Go read the First Amendment. There is a reason our founders put it first.
Yes, only George Soros and his billions, should be allowed to influence politics in the United States (and globally).
13
@Robert
If you don't know about Shledon Adelson, the Koch family, and all the other conservative billionaires pouring money into Trump's pocket you have not spent enough time reading - or you only listen to Fox News.
Citizens United was a push from the right to allow unlimited contributions from wealthy conservatives so they would have the best government they could buy.
My voice - and yours too if you are not wealthy - is not heard because I cannot contribute to the campaign fund. Our democracy is being lost.
Also, globally, Soros has been spending money to promote democracy. How is that a bad thing?
3
big difference between Soros political public donation and Zuck's enabling false and inflammatory propaganda. To say nothing of the questionable meeting with trump, a beneficiary of this evil.
2
@Robert
Please read "Dark Money" by Jane Mayer to get an accurate account of who really spends billions to influence politics in the US. Hint - it ain't George Soros. It's these very rich, ultra conservative families: the Kochs, Mellon Scaifes, Mercers, Adelsons & others with their think tanks - Cato Institute, American Enterprise Institute, Heritage Foundation, Institute for Liberty, Americans for Prosperity et al. These are the guys who HUGELY influence politics in the US.
2
What an awful column. The gist seems to be that it's in Facebook's economic interests to support President Trump, so they are doing so. We should shut down Facebook, or if we can't do that, we should fire it's founder and chief executive, Mark Zuckerberg.
First, it's not the slightest bit clear that Facebook can or should vet political commentary. There are laws against libel and defamation, against revealing information that jeopardizes national security, and probably against fomenting violence. But after this, we need to draw the line. Vetting political speech is a non-starter; it is unworkable, and would seriously undermine the free speech guarantees of the Bill of Rights.
The New York Times and much of the liberal mainstream media regularly supports and endorses political candidates. And, incidentally, the largest NY Times stockholder is a citizen of Mexico, a foreign country. The Times very much achieves economic benefit from leaning to the left, matching the political persuasions of much of the paper's subscriber base.
Would you like to shut down the Times, Mr. Soros?
Most of the commentary that appears in social media, including Facebook, likely leans to the left, so I don't know why you are concerned. But if you are worried about the evils of conservative expression, why not take out some left-leaning ads yourself? You can afford it.
The solution to (most) objectionable speech is not to suppress free speech and a free press. It is more speech.
17
Facebook exists in a realm outside of established judicial procedures. Facebook is a mind control device. This goes way beyond free speech as outlined in our Constitution. The technology used by Facebook circumvents rules regarding public information. It a virtual brainwashing device, where the victims input the mind control information voluntarily. In that regard, Facebook has enslaved much of humanity to bend to its will.
But how does a platform have a will? Easy. It has the will to make as much money as possible. It sells its mind control to anyone who can pay them. How does it do that?
Facebook is expert at clickbait. They know how to spread whatever is being bought to the most customers. That's how they make their money. This is a highly developed science, getting people to click on their ads and links.
The entirety of the public has been placed under their control, without them even knowing it. Herein lies the danger.
Facebook creates an alternative reality for people that is usually at odds with true reality. This virtual world wields immense power over vast segments of the population.
Facebook is the tool that has the capacity to rip societies apart, all for profit. Don't believe me? Allow me to present exhibit one. The Senate impeachment trial.
7
George Soros is correct. Mark Zuckerberg' s FB policies are reckless, immoral and compromises democracy. FB should be broken up; it needs desperately needs oversight, and it's desire to allow fake news in the form of political ads is very dangerous.
8
Fox News intentionality misleads millions every day and has caused far more damage to our nation with its misinformation. Where are the calls to shut down Fox News or regulate it? Take it away from the Murdoch’s? There’s no such outcry.
It’s also worth noting that the FCC will not allow broadcasters to censor political ads for federal office seekers, even when an ad is deceitful or misleading. The government can change that, but does not. Why?
So as Soros blames Facebook for the nation’s political woes, he actually misses culprits of far greater influence. Americans still consume more TV than any other source of media.
Free speech. It’s a quandary that defies simplistic rhetoric.
6
Yes, Fox News is much more lightly regulated than the broadcast new stations because Republicans set up rules for cable broadcasters to make it easier to have News-propaganda stations. That too was a really bad choice that has helped to fracture our society. Fox MSNBC together are not better that broadcast channels that have rules about what they can and cannot say... lets fix that regulatory mistake too, at the same time as we try to fix the Facebook regulatory mistake. Or we may truly crush a democracy that survived — however imperfectly — for 2 centuries.
I couldn't agree more. Zuckerberg seems frighteningly uninformed, with too much power in his hands than he knows how to do good with.
He is completely unequipped, socially awkward, and utterly incurious to be trusted to responsibly handle complex political, economic and social issues that face this country and the world at large.
5
"...there appears to be “an informal mutual assistance operation or agreement developing between Trump and Facebook” in which Facebook will help President Trump to get re-elected and Mr. Trump will, in turn, defend Facebook against attacks from regulators and the media."
More than likely, this mutual assistance operation is formal, as it was in 2016. Facebook sent its personnel to set up rooms within or next to the Trump campaign. It will only get worse. YOU and your data are the product of Facebook, and they and Trump will use it against you.
4
I BLOCK pages for sponsor (paid) ads I don’t like. I am not a faceless pit that facebook can dump on. The way I see it, Facebook is spending money not showing me things I don’t want to see.
2
The problem is not with Facebook.
The problem is that millions of Americans seem unable to understand they are being manipulated. In their minds, the entire world is a professional wrestling match. Bluff and bluster and threats of murder and mayhem are the only skills they admire. All problems can be solved by stomping your opponent into submission, over and over if needed. Thunderdome rules! Either that or slavish devotion to the words contained in a book written by charlatans posing as prophets and disseminated by self aggrandizing pulpit-pounders whose only reason for existence is self enrichment.
Or, often, both.
Meanwhile, with the people thus distracted, the purveyors of the message are busy turning the world into a piggybank for their exclusive use; and your government into their tool.
And the rest of the world is left to watch in horror as the country we trusted to lead the way turns turtle instead.
5
Should read -- The social media company is going to get Trump re-elected — because it’s good for business and the country.
4
Soros doesn't go far enough. Whats App and Instagram should be separate companies and Facebook should be shut down for at least 3 months before the election.
8
@Harris silver Shut off Facebook? For the billion or so users around the world who rely upon it for many things besides political news? Why don't you just delete the app?
Americans are smarter than the media and many politicians give them credit for and can make their own judgement without more regulations!
3
FB is objectively "the malevolent platform of doom".
If you support our democracy, please delete your FB data then delete your FB account.
Whatever benefits you think you're getting, it's simply not worth the price.
You will still have your family and friends, just fewer mind-numbing distractions and democracy-eroding micro-targeted lies.
9
Facebook is an uncensored venue for any kind of thought, depending on your personal position: good or bad.
Depending on your political leanings if you look at the NYT, they are bad guys, if you look at the WSJ, they are the good guys.
Print media stakes out a political side and influences things in favor of that side. The big issue is the position that has the most potential to remain profitable.
Zuckerberg has staked out a position where he makes money from both sides. There is no editing or monitoring of what's being published.
Facebook is the absolute perfect position to make money - no matter the direction of the political tides. Soros is definitely in the liberal camp - hence Facebook is bad.
The Democrats need only look in the mirror to see who is responsible for providing the right almost unfettered access to an enormous number of people.
Hillary used a public server in her job as secretary of state, the DNC lost a server full of email information. Did the DNC do anything to upgrade its presence on Facebook - no! Does the DNC have a meaningful grasp on how to use the internet for political again - no!
Looking at the Republicans, I see nothing but a mass of people whose thinking, beliefs, and actions are disgusting. Looking at the Democrats I see total disaster.
After Roberts brings down the final gavel the Democrats collectively ask, "What do we do now?" They don't have a plan, and that will continue until there is no Democratic party.
3
The Trump campaign’s use of Facebook to manipulate voters would not be a serious issue IF the half-witted, geriatric Democratic leadership used Facebook in a similarly effective manner.
Sometimes in politics, you just have to do what it takes to win.
With the future of humanity at stake due to human-induced climate change, the Democrats winning the 2020 election is critical.
3
Interesting comment from one of the biggest international currency manipulators ever.
10
@LA Woman
Have you followed Zuckerberg's plans for the Libra -- the blockchain currency -- and can you help me understand it?
I can't get past the anonymity and how that works with taxation and regulation.
References?
@LA WOMAN — And he’s proud if it too!
Mr. Soros, would you be willing to fund a nonprofit competitor to Facebook?
1
Mr. Soros, I am no fan of Zuckerberg or Facebook, and I am all in favor of breaking monopolies so that we can have a thriving ecosystem of companies. I dislike Trump and believe he is a conman and a crook who is weakening America by corroding our institutions. But this nonsense about Facebook will get Trump elected verges on mental disorder.
Who stops Democrats or Libertarians or Independents from running candidates who can match Trump in charisma and popularity? Zuckerberg?
Long story short, Trump won not because he ran a winning campaign. He did because Hillary ran a losing campaign. His victory was under 70,000 votes in the right states, while she had 3 Million more, just not in the right places. She lost over 400,00 votes in Michigan which Obama had won, and they blame Bernie for it. She lost another chunk of Black voters in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, blue collar voters in Pennsylvania and so on. None of this had to do with Facebook or the odious Mr. Zuckerberg.
Trump's campaign worked like everything depended on it, Hillary's campaign ran like it was a nuisance they had to take care of before the swearing-in/coronation.
Solve the problem - the smugness, the "centrist" dogmatism, the lack of charisma in convincing the American voter at that crucial second in the voting booth that a vote for you is the right thing to do. Closing.
All of this talk about Zuckerberg, Bernie Bros, Socialism, etc... is more pseudo-intellectual elitist nonsense - to voters it is just noise.
9
@Suppan How is it that Trump knew what the "right states" would be? Read the opinion piece from Tom Edsall on NYT two days ago. Provides great context for what Soros is saying. I believe Brad Parscale would disagree with you that Trump's advantage has "nothing to do with Facebook."
Brad Parscale. Remember that name. I’m guessing a year or so from now he will be going to jail for something and Trump will claim to never have known him.
6
The real issue is this. FB was intended to be a connection medium between friends. It has been used for many other things since its early days. And that has largely been driven by its users. So, some users use it for malicious purposes. Some to troll and spew hateful thoughts. Some to extol their opinions. Twitter has become much the same except one is limited in the size of the posting to a small amount. People who are ignorant and hateful who would never have the intellect, drive, or ability to spew their distortions or hate via other mediums that take work and aptitude find it very easy to do on FB and Twitter. The only way FB would eventually be able to prevent distorted or hurtful speech would be to fully take on the role of publishers. There is no 1st amendment right that says FB must post anything I wish to post. They have the right to censor it or not post it. But they simply do not want to do it. So that takes us to the root cause. Ignorant and unethical people who post, and really dumb people who are influenced by social media.....I don’t see that changing.
3
trump will not be re-elected as the most corrupt and dishonest and foul president in history. If he is, America will be lost to the world and itself, will fall in stature and it has the last 3 years, and become more isolated and laughed at than it is now.
4
Best reason yet to close your FB account ASAP and have all data removed.
5
FB didn't elect Trump in 2016, Hillary Clinton did by ignoring the plight of 80 percent of US workers--saying she just didn't care.
She had help from Obama in her Trump election efforts every time the Obama or the likes of the NY Times said "the US economy is good"; they were telling people to "vote Trump of stay home".
No one paid any attention to silly Facebook memes about buff Bernie or Jesus and Onanism.
Furthermore, in the fall of 2016, team Hillary was explicitly warned they were taking Michigan, Florida, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania for granted. But team Clinton ignored the advice from Donna Brazile that they massively increase the on the ground campaigning in those states--instead relying on "metrics"--prior voting patterns.
Indeed the claim that FB elected Trump is fake news--much akin to "Russia elected Trump".
7
Why can’t Democratic candidates use Facebook to the same advantage as Trump?
3
Between Putin and Zuckerberg/Sandberg, our nation is on an ever increasingly dangerous trajectory. After the 2016 election, Zuckerberg denied that Facebook was a factor in the election results. The lack of changes Zuckerberg/Sandberg have made is glaring. While Jack Dorsey has made an effort, Zuckerberg/Sandberg have maintained they are more dedicated to their bank accounts than they are to our nation. Their arrogance is disgraceful. Shame on them!
2
Gee, I don't remember anyone complaining when Obama campaigned on social media.
4
@M No one's really complaining about campaigning on social media. The complaint is more about one sided discourse being disguised as legitimate news sources and fake "people's" opinions being inserted into the dialogues of real people. The complaint is about deception masquerading as truth, with specific intent.
3
@Brooklin — Political attack ads on TV do the same thing, no? Since decades. Only they are produced by agencies who know how to, for example, carefully place the word RAT in an anti-democrat spot for tens of thousands of dollars! As opposed to some “creative genius” with a free app and a mom paying for an internet connection.
Zuckerberg claimed that FB wouldn't regulate political ads because it supported free speech. However, he didn't make the clear and obvious distinction that a political ad is not free speech. In fact, it is paid speech, and the fact that FB makes money off of these ads, which are free to state whatever falsehood they want, corrupts the political process. Fine to allow an individual, including Trump, to spout whatever they want from their own FB (or Twitter) account. Totally something else to allow anyone to say anything in a paid ad that generates revenue for FB. Obfuscating such an obvious difference under the guise of adhering to some higher principle does not place confidence in Zuckerberg's leadership.
5
Trying to cut the Facebook cord is difficult. In 2008, I joined Facebook after the birth of my first daughter because it made it much easier to share photos and videos of the new babe with all our far-flung family and friends. Since then, I have joined various creative groups, neighborhood groups and often use my FB login credentials to log in to web sites--even NYTimes.com. Also, FB actually houses many many "memories"--all those old posts pop up and make me feel nostalgic, which is lovely. In 2020, cutting the Facebook cord for me means no longer being dialed in to my literal and virtual communities. Still, because I'm appalled at the platform's lack of ethics or integrity, sickened by its leadership's laissez-faire attitudes about honesty and morality, my goal for this year is to avoid FB as much as possible. Already, I rarely post personal photos anymore. I've stopped using FB to login to sites, and do not "share" articles anymore, either. It is now time to sacrifice the visceral and utilitarian benefits of Facebook because in his undeniable hubris, Mark Zuckerberg has demonstrated that he couldn't care less about truth, justice, or the direction of this country. Now, Instagram...that's another story. (Jeez, Zuck really has a monopoly.)
5
@Gabriel
When social media first broke on the scene I studied it and concluded it would develop into the train wreck it has become. Part of the problem is the lack of friction in the system - it's "free". Of course users pay with their privacy, but they either don't realize it or don't care.
The only hope for society now is that we will develop resistance to social media in the same way our bodies reject dangerous infectious agents. There are signs that it may be happening.
2
The only recourse is to delete Facebook. It's hard but it can be done. The shareholders will take care of the rest.
8
@kalix1 Thanks. I deleted about 18 months ago and once you are off, you realize the ONLY thing you miss are the daily birthday reminders. The rest serves no utility. We can do it people!!
2
@kalix1 I was on Facebook short term, and disliked everything about it. I was unable to figure out how to delete it, so took my page down years ago, before the Cambridge Analytical scandal. I had a very bad feeling because it was so easy to get on Facebook and so difficult to get off it. They have created a maze of obstacles to a simple “delete.”
1
I agree partially with George Soros.
The problem with Facebook, and also with Twitter, is that these social media platforms encourage superficial thought.
With Facebook, just a click and you can send a message to 500 facebook friends. There is no need to provide original content, just copy a story you saw somewhere else and express "outrage.
I have facebook friends on opposite sides of the political divide so I see these one-sentence "outrage" comments. They facilitate formation of "in-groups" which can then pressure all of us to take action.
The problem is that the action is never fully thought out.
It would be better if people could only forward essays they had written with original content. This would at least force them to think the issues through.
An example is Jane Fonda marching about global warming and getting arrested. The problem is that we need a low-emotion discussion of HOW to fight global warming. It is not really an issue that should divide us into us-versus-them.
The development of Facebook and Twitter does threaten our democracy. It increase partisanship without thought. The slow discussion of solutions would help us realize that there are at least two sides to every issue, as Jim Lehrer, a journalist from an earlier era, used to tell us.
I don't know the solutions. But we need to find ways of encouraging greater depth to our analysis of political issues.
6
Zuckerberg and Sandberg are using Facebook to allow the Trump re-election campaign to spread lies throughout the application most likely because of a quid pro quo between Zuckerberg and Trump: For Trump, permission to use Facebook to spread as many lies with as much user data as he needs to maximize his re-election chances. For Zuckerberg, agreement to block the federal government from regulating any aspect of Facebook's business model. These are two dealmakers who have met privately to work out their secret deal. Americans who use Facebook should unfriend everyone with whom they have a connection, not forward uncorroborated "news", and search for truthful information elsewhere.
4
@me
And do not forget those wonderful middle class tax cuts that actually only helped large corporations and the wealthy. I think Zuckerberg might just be one of those wealthy people.
2
Complaining about losing the election because of Facebook is like one team complaining about losing the game because of the rain. Both teams have to play in it, and thus the disadvantages and advantages accrue equally to both sides.
5
@Dr B Wouldn't the better analogy be, "like playing in a game where the ref's don't call it when one team starts bringing pipes onto the field and clocking their opponents knees." Sure, the refs weren't calling it so both teams COULD have had done the same thing but it's not much of a sport anymore, is it?
5
@Dr B
Yours is a race to the bottom argument. It's true that in a game with no rules both sides have equal opportunity to win by any means necessary, but it's only a "level playing field" if both sides are equally willing to use any means necessary. The idea of rules in a game is not just to keep things fair... it's to make the game something we all want to play or watch.
If there's no penalty for lying, and no constraints against it, then we can expect that whoever is most willing to lie will control the narrative most effectively. It's not "cheating" if there are no rules against it... but that doesn't mean it's how we should choose our leaders.
This isn't an abstract game, it's our country and our elections. We have a common interest in precluding an "any means necessary" competition.
3
@Dr B
And, don't forget, there are the domed stadia, too.
2
I agree, Mr. Soros. Murdoch and Zuckerberg both have the same goal — maximize profits overall else.
18
The most socially responsible thing Facebook could do put a disclaimer on any and all advertising clearly stating that Facebook has not vetted the advertising for truth and user should be advised that any advertising should be checked to insure it's accurate.
5
@Carl I admire your optimism in people's willingness and capacity to fact-check but it is accepted fact of human psychology that people persistently believe in false ideas even after they are proven false.
4
@Anita I don't believe that.
Mr. Soros's views in this editorial help to explain why he is a frequent target of right-wing ire. He raises some excellent points. There does seem to be a clear conflict of interest here, but COIs are completely normal now, in the Time of Trump. Trump has scores of conflicts and Congress and the Justice Dept. don't seem to care, nor (sadly) do most Americans. Facebook is a business, so naturally they want to maximize profits. As a business, they are entitled to support a candidate, I suppose. What they should not be allowed to do, however, is pretend to be neutral when they clearly are not.
13
Soros, the most partisan of the Democratic Party mega-rich, would have no problem with Facebook and Zuckerberg if Hillary Clinton had been elected President. The Democrats have been able to rely on the mainstream media for 60 years to support their candidates in national elections. With the exception of Fox News in the last 20 years, and talk radio for the last 25 years, the message of the Democratic Party has been dominant in all forms of media.
Now control of the media has been broken by several institutions, including Facebook. It has been added by the Left to the list of media outlets like Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity that need to be censored for not supporting the informed guidance of the intellectual elite.
The problem for Soros is that all of his money now and in the past, invested in advertising, have not overcome President Trump and the Republicans.
10
Keep drinking the koolaid. I can tell you're enjoying it immensely. Anyone who's watched the media knows that Fox was unique in the extent of it's biased reporting - which imagine is why you like it. No need to think for yourself anymore. So much easier that way...
There would be very little outcry about Facebook but for the hypothesis that those posting and advertising there will help reelect Trump. The level of hysteria about this, together with the residual whining about 2016, goes on and on as if every voter does nothing else but sit scrolling through nonsense all day on social media. The time might be better spent by Trump opponents on cultivating those several million swing voters in the six states that matter with their own targeted advertising. That and finding a decent candidate.
20
Why do the traditional media companies continue to dismiss the idea that Americans can filter through fake news and make a safe, educated decision using multiple sources? Go Facebook!
13
@Pilot
"Why do the traditional media companies continue to dismiss the idea that Americans can filter through fake news and make a safe, educated decision using multiple sources? "
Because many Americans did such a lousy job of it in 2016.
72
@Carl
Thank you, Carl. I was just about to say the same thing, but in a ruder, more stark way.
8
Comments such as these, to the effect that the outcome of the 2016 election proves the need for media censorship, actually only demonstrate that the basis for these efforts at media control are partisan and elitist. Voters should be given more information, not less. Democrats seem to be arguing for some sort of state-regulated media, akin to China or Russia, to ensure that only the officially correct narrative is available. No thanks.
1
Why not create a better product that incorporates the attributes you desire, if it is so needed? You, George Soros and others such as Michael Bloomberg for example, have the resources. Facebook needs a worthy competitor with a different ethos. Gather a think tank, then put out a product. I believe there a number of people, news organizations, marketers, and families that would welcome a better supervised format that would complete. It is not impossible. See TikTok vs. Instagram.
12
When politicians – left or right - push Facebook, Google, etc. to suppress speech that they don’t like, they are trying to make an end run around the First Amendment. They want the corporations to do on their behalf what the Constitution prohibits them from doing themselves. The effect is just the same – censorship.
10
@Tench Tilghman But there has always been some form of censorship in news media. Before the advent of the Internet and the proliferation of smaller news networks, there were only a handful of companies that actually engaged in distributing information. Even today, with so many smaller news networks (and unofficial ones like blogs, YouTube channels etc.), the number is still finite, and they can still engage in "censorship". The decentralization has made this harder, but it's also allowed for unprecedented spreading of misinformation or outright lies, which seriously threatens our democratic institutions. How can people vote if they don't understand what they're voting for -- or worse, if someone is outright lying to them?
2
@Tench Tilghman
What is the purpose of the first amendment? It isn't purely speech for the sake of speech.
It's purpose is to hold authority accountable, period. If you have information that are bold faced lies to protect tyranny how is the first amendment working?
That is the problem. How about a simple solution. Facebook has proven it promotes lies. It can no longer post information about politics and must remove all such posts for 3 months before an election until it has passed. Unless of course we simply want the liars from all over the world and within our country to install tyranny.
(correction - first amendment)
1
@Tench Tilghman
What is the purpose of the first amendment? It isn't purely speech for the sake of speech.
It's purpose is to hold authority accountable, period. If you have information that are bold faced lies to protect tyranny how is the second amendment working?
That is the problem. How about a simple solution. Facebook has proven it promotes lies. It can no longer post information about politics and must remove all such posts for 3 months before an election until it has passed. Unless of course we simply want the liars from all over the world and within our country to install tyranny.
Clash of the Titans.
The winner gets to redefine "Philanthropy" to mean "Political Decisions That Favor My Business Interests..."
9
Exactly. Like the Great Soros Currency Manipulations.
2
As much as I admire Mr. Soros' philanthropy and as closely as I hold views in line with his, I have to say it is wrong to be a billionaire. He's given away four times as much as he has, I know, but it's not enough. Think about what $8,000,000,000 could do. No brownie points for participation.
1
@Andrew Roberts I respectfully disagree. I always object to this line of "why don't they do more?" reasoning. Mr. Soros made his money, and it's his choice to decide how it's spent.
5
How could Facebook possibly fact check the accuracy of a trump related ad and not point out the lies that are embedded in everything trump says. This would obviously not work out well for the revenue stream Facebook is generating from the trump campaign.
Facebook can make all the claims it wants to, but the fact remains that Facebook is like a bad disease. The only way to defeat or change this is to stop using Facebook and Instagram. A change of command will not result in a change in its business model.
Life is much better, clearer and happier without it.
31
You can't totally blame Facebook, but I do agree, I wouldn't trust Z to wash the dishes, much less run an influential media company.
11
There is always the obvious solution to Facebook's influence: Don't use it.
48
@Rob If only it were that simple. FB will still attract far more people, the very people who are most likely easily herded by cynical manipulation. Sign off and you won't even have a clue about what to push back on, let alone how to do it. It really puts truth seekers in a bind.
5
@Rob
The problem is the people who DO use Facebook are unable to use critical thinking and are therefore influenced by the false claims and misleading advertising. So the solution is not to drop Facebook, it is to eliminate Facebook completely (like that is going to happen!)
4
Saying, that "Mark Zuckerberg should not be in control of Facebook" is like saying "'Frank' should not be in control of Frank's Pizzeria over on Main Street." Sure, the size and scope of the two businesses are enormously different, but the concept is the same. You want to control a business? Then start one of your own.
The envy on the left has gotten way out of hand. The left thinks it should have full control of all businesses and everything we do. We need smaller government, not bigger government. Capitalism is what has made America great. Socialism and government control of every aspect of our lives (including our speech) is becoming a cancer to this country.
15
@ABC123 I don't think George Soros has any reason to envy Mark Zuckerberg. As a billionaire, he has done quite well for himself. He is trying to point out that Mark Zuckerberg is not being responsible. He is putting profits ahead of everything, and is destroying our democracy
16
@ABC123 Ah yes, the "socialism" of the US (I don't suppose you're referring to the "corporate socialism" whereby Uncle Sam smiles upon our financial institutions). Way to paint in broad brushstrokes about the boogeyman "left".
1
@ABC123 I've had about enough of bad faith conservatives claiming the left broadly wants socialism. They don't. I'd encourage you to behave like a mature adult and quit lying.
Even Bernie, the only "socialist" in the presidential campaign wants something more like the capitalist social democracies of Europe, not a Soviet-style command economy. Both of us know this, and yet you lie.
1
I'm looking forward to the 2028 or 2032 season when Facebook, Twitter, and others collectively decide that if people keep accusing them of influencing elections they might as well go ahead and do it. Prez Zuck will introduce sweeping technocratic reforms and usher in an odd but endearing era of prosperity and peace.
3
@Michael
They influence elections now because all advertising platforms influence. That's why companies spend billions on advertising dollars; they believe it works.
1
The trail of facts supports Soros. Zuckerberg has been irresponsible in his ad position on the capriciousness in what Facebook allows. Trump takes advantage of this in his re-election advertising. The ability of others, such as the Russians, to plant false information has already been confirmed. We need legislation to curb Facebook’s tendencies to corrupt the facts.
111
I remember my college-aged children using Facebook during its infancy, rightly complaining about it when it was open to anyone with an email address, and soon dumping it when it began to foreshadow the behemoth it is today. It’s where advertising and hate speech share the same platform. It’s too firmly entrenched in society for it to go away. It must be regulated.
81
Advice from a man (Soros) used to financially influence elections in all countries he pleases, however he pleases, and with a global infrastructure of NGOs meant to design support and achieve election interference. A financier who made his fortune by betting against the British pound and other national currencies, and with many other tactics far worse than Facebook.
38
@Alexgri
Great point. The rules of fairness don't apply to liberals. They are like 3 year old brats changing the rules when they can't win.
@Alexgri
So because Soros uses tactics you don't approve then whatever Facebook does is OK?
Says Mr. Soros: "I repeat and reaffirm my accusation against Facebook under the leadership of Mr. Zuckerberg and Ms. Sandberg. They follow only one guiding principle: maximize profits irrespective of the consequences. One way or another, they should not be left in control of Facebook."
From Forbes:
"George Soros is a celebrated hedge fund tycoon who managed client money in New York from 1969 to 2011.
In 1992, Soros shorted the British pound and reportedly made a profit of $1 billion. He became known as the man who broke the Bank of England."
https://www.forbes.com/profile/george-soros/#27e9a0cf2024
If it's OK for George Soros to make a profit, then he shouldn't criticize anyone else for doing the same thing. If George wants to make a real difference, he should use some of those hedge fund profits and create competition for Facebook.
40
@hm1342
Soros is NOT the problem here. The reach of FB is huge, and Zuck has no compunctions about allowing ads that are full of lies which will influence a gullible, often confused public.
8
@hm1342
There's a BIG difference.
Soros was making money the way people have always made money.
Facebook makes money by allowing misinformation, lies, and hate to intersect and converge.
12
@Sage: "Soros is NOT the problem here. The reach of FB is huge, and Zuck has no compunctions about allowing ads that are full of lies which will influence a gullible, often confused public."
@Moehoward: "Facebook makes money by allowing misinformation, lies, and hate to intersect and converge."
Then FB is no different than most of the media, regardless the political ideology they follow.
Peter Zenger: George Soros Should Not Be in Control of a Huge Chunk of the World's Money.
Zuckerberg provides us with a popular web service that he invented - what does Soros provide us with?
That's my opinion.
27
@Peter Zenger
Well actually he didn't invent it he just ran with someone else's idea.
And let's not assume that something that is 'popular' is somehow good for society.
Social media has pretty much put the final nail into the coffin of Truth. Thanks mostly to Facebook and Twitter.
64
As if it isn't obvious a ton of actual philanthropy. I imagine you prefer Trump's form of philanthropy; the kind he uses to line his pockets.
4
@zigful26
In terms of expressing ideas, there is absolutely no difference between print media and social media web sites.
Abraham Lincoln got his start in politics, by writing anonymous letters to newspapers savaging people running for office, as a favor to their opponents, who were delighted when Lincoln's brilliant satire was published. Nothing but the medium has changed.
The medium is not the message. If we can limit web communication, we can limit print communication as well.
You probably didn't realize it, but basically, your comment supports the "book burning as a good thing" concept.
1
Advice for a man (Soros) used to financially influence elections in all countries he pleases, however he pleases, and with a global infrastructure of NGOs meant to design support and achieve election interference. A financier who made his fortune by betting against the British and other national currencies, and with many other tactics far worse than Facebook.
15
Attack the argument, not the man. This is the last bastion of defense for the indefensible.
16
@Alexgri
Explain more, please, about how George Soros works "to financially influence elections in all countries he pleases, however he pleases, and with a global infrastructure of NGOs meant to design support and achieve election interference."
"A financier who made his fortune by betting against the British and other national currencies, and with many other tactics far worse than Facebook." Explain, please.
What do you think of Mark Zuckerberg's proposed Libra built on blockchain technology?
Ever heard of S and H Green Stamps? See if this sounds familiar. A private company gives stamps to private retailers to give to customers that collect the privately issued stamps to buy things. You could swap money for stamps. You could also trade stamps with friends and family without government oversight. The company had privately owned stores all across America. Think it was a small operation? They issued more stamps each year than the Post Office in the Sixties. Getting the catalog was a big deal in many middle class families. Fed Reserve had no role. The process Facebook wants to do is essentially the same.
Somehow the Republic survived.
I agree with Mr. Soros’ perspective. Zuckerberg’s hands-off view of FB’s role in political disinformation is dangerous and irresponsible. Unfortunately removing Zuckerberg from FB’s leadership doesn’t seem feasible unless FB’s bought out. Trump advocate Peter Thiel is an influential Board member. I don’t know about the rest of Zuckerberg’s Board members. FEC regulation theoretically is a more achievable goal but not with Trump’s current did I’m powered Commission. $$$ talk. Individuals closing their FB accounts won’t have impact unless there are massive numbers. I favor organizing a boycott FB campaign. Will Mr. Soros get behind that strategy?
11
George Soros is right.
I encourage people to also read the WSJ article today.
Facebook’s Relationship With Democrats Hits a Low Point
Party operatives and campaign officials say recent policy decisions [E.g., allowing lying campaign ads] favor President Trump.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebooks-relationship-with-democrats-hits-a-low-point-11580380202
This issues are particularly politically tricky when Antitrust concerns have been raised about Facebook quashing competition.
Any politician taking a position on that issue (Elizabeth Warren comes to mind) is inevitably either contending with or supporting Facebook.
24
There should be no Facebook or Twitter.
They have no filter that can separate the nonsense from the truth/facts.
Facebook and Twitter are akin to getting rid of peer review in scientific publishing and expecting that facts, not fiction, determine what natural law is.
Loss of fact filters is what will end democracy.
75
Facebook's business model doesn't require peer review; that's for academic journals. How about encouraging people to question the veracity of what they read? The audacity of FB to not do everything on a free service!
5
@Randeep Chauhan I don't disagree with this one bit; however, it's been depressing to see some of my mostly college-educated peers on Facebook post clickbait pieces with content that could be easily dismantled with a Google search or a read of a Snopes article. So while it's great in theory to encourage people to question the veracity of what they read, I'm less inclined to think that will actually happen.
6
@Nora White Right, but whose responsibility is it to make sure they have the right information? If I read about potential side effects of psychiatric medications on Facebook that were false, and passed it along to the patients, I'm held accountable. As it should be. Which is why I study the recent literature, and seek expert opinions like my job depends on it. Because it does. Zuckerberg isn't responsible if a charlatan says mental illness is a social construct.
I understand Mr. Soros's complaint, and I agree that Facebook's "not my circus, not my monkeys" approach to political lies is harmful to us all. But I think the last sentence in his oped, "One way or another, they should not be left in control of Facebook," is a cop-out.
Mr. Soros, please explain. What is your "one way" to get those two to stop being in charge of Facebook, and what is "...another?"
I ask because I don't think you have a way in mind to achieve what you want... unless those two executives just decide they want to resign.
4
The problem with Soros efforts to remove Zuckerberg is that it is for the wrong reason. To remove him because you oppose a political candidate that will use the Facebook platform to win an election is a fools errand.
Instead, Soros should be using his fortune to show the danger that social media platforms pose to Democracy and the fact that Facebook is in violation of US and EU anti-monopoly laws and should be forced to break up its company. This would be the first salvo in undercutting the influence Facebook and other social media platforms on our Democracy.
Zuckerberg is not the problem. Failure by the US and the EU to regulate the monopolistic behavior of Facebook is.
33
@Mike
It's not only an anti-trust issue. It's not about opposing a candidate; it's about allowing the platform you control to spread disinformation and conspiracy theories that poison public discourse and corrupt the democratic process -- because, like Fox News, you can make more money that way.
All media that spread false and slanderous information should be censured in the same way. Boycotts are a start, but regulation would be essential.
3
@Mike Yes, if Hillary won, he would't be complaining.
It's fairly obvious. Facebook is a demonstrable threat to this nation and needs to be dismantled. In fact, the internet itself needs to be removed from the private sector (cable companies, etc) and made into a public utility for the benefit of the people.
The only individuals who think otherwise are money-hungry capitalists, autocrats (and pretend autocrats, like Trump) and their deluded stooges.
17
Facebook as a concept had a potential to be a force for good, however, the blatant right wing bias and the fact that Trump loves Facebook and Mark Zuckerberg, which is set out in this article say's everything.
Do we all need to be brainwashed by social media?
People need to make serious political choices based on truth and evidence, not biased hysteria.
7
Social Media is Media with no regulations. Reality TV is TV with non-union actors. We’ve had 30 years of this nonsense. It’s led to today, when a majority of the Senate will proclaim that truth and justice do not matter and that some Americans are above the law. The price of our booming tech and media success is too high and benefits too few.
13
Soros is now a philanthropist... - well, well, astonishing how wrong our perceptions can be...
That aside, I abhor Facebook for its merciless exploitation of individuals and the ruthless marketing of the "loot" made ... and not because the functionality of Facebook could work in favor of the re-election of President Trump.
4
????? Soros has donated most of his wealth tp philanthropic causes.
"...Facebook should be judged by what it does, not what it says." Indeed, but that train has left the station. Thanks to Facebook and Twitter, we now live in a United States of Narcissism where the average citizen is a con-man or woman. Marc is just an ultra-wealthy, powerful example of the populace. In my own family is a tweeter who tweets about how appalling Trump is and yet this person has never performed an act of service for another human being in her life or volunteered her time to anything that didn't directly benefit her. Cognitive dissonance. Look at what I say, not what I do. See, I'm a good person because I vote for Democrats. Perhaps someone as powerful as George Soros could make some real efforts at being a lion and not a lamb and stop with tepid essays in the NYTimes and put a plan of action together. With all due respect, if we're all talk and no action, I'm not sure how we differ from the evil-doers.
3
I agree that there are plenty of “all talk, no action” agents in the world. But Soros isn’t one of them. He has backed up his stated beliefs with ample expenditures and effort.
7
Don't forget that Zuck stole the idea for Facebook. That should tell you everything you need to know about his character. He and Trump were made for each other. Not a shred of integrity between the two.
27
It's like trying to regulate stupidity. How in the world are there still people who continue to believe what they read on fb? That's really the scary part.
14
Facebook usage is completely voluntary. It does not stream onto your devices or into your home without action on your part. I do not use it and have more concerns about Soros-approved fact checking than no fact-checking. It is up to the individual to research all things political.
6
The Senate show trial has been one of the worst things, after Bush's destruction of Iraq, that we have seen in the last 100 years or more. Facebook has had no positive effect on American process. None.
5
It's so weird... when Google employees had a revolving door with the white house for Obama (voted twice for him and Hillary) nobody cared.
It's utterly ridiculous that tech gets upset when someone they don't agree with uses their tools to accomplish something alternative to their ideas. This is the exact narrative the right uses to describe how hypocritical the left is.
5
George Soros is shamelessly asking for Facebook to censors the free speech of an American citizen, most notably that of the President of the United States.
Facebook is allowing all people and all political candidates level access to the same advertising tools, without discrimination, and without favor toward the Trump team.
Every candidate and every product sold online and advertised embellishes facts, and to start policing advertising would put the entire industry out of business.
Besides what is not right for Soros is right for at least half of American people, so taking the path of having Soros what I should read on Facebook is downright fascist. I don't want Soros to decide what I read on Facebook, or anywhere online or in print, because I disagree with all his positions.
If Trump team is doing a better job on Facebook than other candidates, we live in a country where competition is king and the best wins. Nobody prevents his opponents to outdo him.
Trump has been slandered and slaughtered on Twitter, with multiple fake Twitter Trump accounts passing as his own spewing nonsense and lies. Where was Soros to complain about Twitter allowing the lies and exaggerations of the so-called Resistance?
A policy works only when equally applied both to the party and speech you agree with and to the one(s) you oppose.
I respect Facebook and Zuckererg for now cowing to Soros.
9
@Idealist "I don't want Soros to decide what I read on Facebook, or anywhere online or in print, because I disagree with all his positions."
So you disagree with each and every position Soros has? Do you even have an idea what they are?
The more you talk about breaking up Facebook, the more you will push them to help the Trump campaign. Trump makes deals and he will make a deal with Facebook that if they allow unsubstantiated pro Trump information on the platform he won't bother them when he gets another term. Did we learn nothing from Ukraine?
Why can't the solution be that every political ad, video, podcast put up on Facebook state clearly who the authors are. Whether a campaign or an individual. If you are proud to support your candidate you should be proud to put your name on it. This should be a democracy that functions in the light with tolerance. Allowing people to operate in the dark flames division.
2
@sec
Facebook moved to a policy something like this. Allegedly, there is a database that lets you look up the entities paying for ads.
It is less helpful than it might be because the names are not very transparent. (A bit like regulating shell companies?)
I will advocate for Zuck to back into the shadows and relinquish all his power as soon as the writer of this article will does the same... This is flat out ridiculous that Soros thinks facebook is too powerful as he throws money all around the world in an open effort to destabilize governments and currencies. What is good for the goose is good for the gander Soros.
5
George Soros is shamelessly asking for Facebook to censor the free speech of an American citizen, most notably that of the President of the United States.
Facebook allows all people and all political candidates equal access to the same advertising tools, without discrimination, and without favor toward the Trump team.
Every candidate and every product sold online and advertised embellishes facts, and to start policing advertising would put the entire industry out of business.
Besides what is not right for Soros it is right for millions of other people, about half of American people, so taking the path of having Soros decide what we should read on Facebook is downright fascist.
I don't want Soros to decide what I read on Facebook, or anywhere online or in print, because I disagree with all his positions.
Trump has been slandered and slaughtered on social media and especially on Twitter, with multiple fake Twitter Trump accounts passing as his own spewing nonsense and lies. Where was Soros to complain about Twitter allowing the lies and exaggerations of the so-called Resistance trolls?
A policy works only when equally applied both to the party and speech you agree with and to the one(s) you oppose.
I respect Facebook and Zuckerberg for now cowing to Soros.
5
Social media is boring and corrosive. Delete Facebook, Instagram and Twitter. They are bad habits, just like smoking tobacco cigarettes. Quitting is good for you! You will be OK.
6
Ah, the opinions of warring billionaires are always so relevant to the common folk, and last I checked nobody is forced to either utilize or believe Facebook. No doubt Soros is also deeply troubled by the political contamination of “objective news coverage” in the NYTimes and will suggest a management change there as well - or is it only those institutions with whom he disagrees where change is required?
5
Trump is going to lose the POTUS election on Nov 3rd in a landslide vote & turn-out, electoral votes and popular votes, it's inevitable at this stage in his despicable game ...and yes: even with Russian interference, whatever level of gerrymandering and voter suppression played hard by the GOP, who today, are an full-fledged organized crime family
3
What might happen if we all quit Facebook?
Why not?!
9
Sandberg said Facebook wants to “make the world a better place” while Trump claims to want to “make America great again”. Sounds like they’re both on the same page to me but, ironically or not, both equally unworthy of a single “like”.
4
And who's going to censure Fox news when the president spews all his lies pre-superbowl interview? You're barking up the wrong tree unless telling lies are outlawed. The antidote or inoculation to telling lies is education so most educated people won't be swayed. But education is not in the liars best interest, is it?
3
He owns the company. Build your own if you don't like what he is doing. Whining and complaining is the mantra of the Democrats, which is why they are nowhere.
6
Very informative. Thanks for publishing this!
4
The only “news” I get from Facebook is that someone I went to elementary school with became a grandparent. I do not want Mark Zuckerberg, George Soros, or anyone else deciding what I cannot read. We also do not need anyone to tell us that Facebook tries to make money. So does the New York Times. So does George Soros.
9
Look out below, George! Those are crocodile tears falling on you, shed by those of us who have no sympathy for people who were late to the social media party. While you and Hillary were busy fawning over each other, the technology train left the station without you.
Better luck next time.
5
I'm trying to figure out what's more self-serving & hypocritical - Mr Soros' Op-Ed, or the editor's description of him as a "philanthropist" only?
Mark Zuckerberg must have had a good laugh after being criticized by George Soros for only being interested in what's "good for business"!
9
Thank you so much for this article. I can't understand why any Democrat, or anyone who cares about democracy in this country, still uses Facebook. It's the ultimate triumph of corporate power, profits over people, that is the central domestic national security threat we face.
Divest, people. Do not continue to make Zukerberg richer and our country poorer.
7
Dear Mark Z.,
I get it. You're still on top of the world. Facebook is a huge company, and you control it. You must feel invincible. But please note that the following privately-held companies were all nationalized at some point in their existence for a variety of reasons:
General Motors
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
Citigroup
GMAC
Smith and Wesson, Co.
Conrail and Amtrak
Continental Illinois Bank and Trust
Resolution Trust Corp.
the entire Airport Security industry after 9/11
major swaths of the coal, mining and railroad industries in the mid-century.
This list goes on, but I think you get the point. You may think that the more powerful Facebook gets, the more secure it is. Wrong. One day, the American Congress and Senate will wake up and realize you're controlling weapons-grade communication data and take corrective measures to ensure the safety of Americans and the country's political systems.
Thanks for reading this.
13
Those companies went bankrupt. I am pretty sure the US has never taken over a firm that had the same market value position in Fortune 500 that Facebook has.
January 31, 2020
So its let the seller beware!
Nonsense - let the leaders that know give counsel and remedy to transnational / transaction culture -with profits and then asks ourselves can be live better and so thanks for Soros and his enlighten talents for the best way of American operational success.
3