Nah, I don’t buy the McDonald’s analogy – for one, lest we forget, McD’s pays for those potatoes, they don’t get paid by the supplier. We’re not Facebook’s customers, the advertisers and marketers are.
What, that some dude in a Message Board gets wound up in an argument and forgets that a law to forbid political advertising would not even make it to committee? The allegedly-Republican *President *at one point brainfarted that redflagged people should have their guns seized first, then given due process later.
…there isn’t anything particularly “wrong” about people who get their “political news from Facebook”. Its how the system has been set up to work. Algorithms determine what sort of things people would like to see, then it shows those things on their daily feed, people read then absorb it. This isn’t “wrong”. Its perfectly normal. But the system has been hijacked. Weaponized by people who figured out how the algorithm worked, and they’ve used that knowledge to broadcast specific propaganda to specific vulnerable people. It becomes a feedback loop: the more they consume a certain type of media, the more of it shows up in their news feed. If Biden were to post a rebuttal to an advert containing lies from Trump & Co the person being force-fed a diet of daily propaganda would never-ever see it.
Have you seen me calling for the “government to step in and fix this?”
Which is why a “pause” is the best, most responsible thing Facebook could do right now.
I haven’t done that. I advertise on Facebook daily. I have a social media person who constantly posts on Facebook. I find Facebook useful. Why would I attack, insult and shame them?
To a degree we are all influenced by what we consume.
And I certainly haven’t attacked, insulted nor shamed the people who are influenced by stupid memes or other propaganda. That isn’t my point. That’s not what I’m here for. The people most likely to attack, insult and shame these people are the ones that don’t think there is a problem.
Its the fucking pit. Its the place to rant. Did you come here to learn something? There are better places for that.
More harm? LOL. Who are we hurting here?
Ummm, yes? You read my cites didn’t you?
Fake news, crap-posts, mostly from fake accounts created specifically to spread disinformation aren’t a problem. Pay close attention to Jack-from-twitter’s-argument here:
“A political message earns reach when people decide to follow an account or retweet. Paying for reach removes that decision, forcing highly optimized and targeted political messages on people. We believe this decision should not be compromised by money.”
If a fake account screams in the forest nobody will hear them. Twitter aren’t placing limits on peoples free speech. Organic reach (who gets to see what a “fake account” is saying) is limited to people who follow that account or who happen to view a retweet. Paid reach changes that dynamic completely. And if the person paying for that reach has the resources of the United States government or the money to be able to hire a company like Cambridge Analytica, then all of a sudden these people have the power to literally steal an election.
By limiting the ability of people to be able to pay for reach for certain types of content.
That should be pretty obvious by now.
The executive branch of the United States of America at the moment is (to use the words of Sarah Kendzior) is a “transnational crime syndicate masquerading as a government.” They broadcast propaganda daily using institutions that used to have a degree of independence. Maybe, hopefully, in a few years time, we might get to the point where these criminals are kicked out of office and they can start to maybe fix this goddamn mess. But they won’t do that now. Because they are loving this. It helps keep them in power. Its exactly what they want.
I’m much less incensed that people get their fake news from Faceplant than I am that they’re getting fake news from CNN and MSDNC. Watch 24 hours of either of those networks and you’d swear that Bernie Sanders isn’t even running for president. Big difference here is that Faceplant is a social media platform and CNN and MSDNC are presented to the world as actual NEWS ORGANIZATIONS that are carefully curating and shaping what “news” they decide to present to the world–when this happens in other countries we call it “propaganda.” That’s a much bigger problem than inaccurate memes being disseminated by regular people (or even bots masquerading as regular people) on social media. There’s a huge difference in scope and access between these two things that can’t be ignored and I prefer to focus on the larger problem than the relatively insignificant one.
Anyone who gets their news from cable TV is getting tilted-to-one-side news at a minimum. Facebook is where the straight up bullshit gets published. And although my aunt Rita is someone I used to consider smart, she buys that bullshit, shares it and votes.
Twitter’s solution, while inelegant, is possibly the best one can expect. There are still plenty of ways that bot farms can game their system, but it takes paid access off the table. Facebook could do the same, which at the very least would save Zuck from facing the boneheaded questions of 400+ representatives and the tough, intelligent questions from < 5 representatives. But there is really no way that Facebook can, nor should, be the arbiter of truth in advertising. There is way too much grey area, and even then, are we just talking national elections, or will we include every state, county, and local election? If someone is running a campaign with an honest ad 1-2 days before election day and it gets flagged as dishonest, which will happen (and it will happen in the opposite direction too), what is the remedy? Lose the reach at the most critical time?
This is yet another case of seeking simple answers for complex problems. Low and no information voters are still going to be low and no information. No one is addressing the Fox problems, or Breitbart/Infowars/et al (and while it has its issues, don’t even try to pretend MSNBC is as bad as Fox, or that there is a left equivalent with the reach of Breitbart). It’s not addressing that the fucking, and hopefully very soon convicted former, President of the United States is personally eroding trust in true journalism, telling the low/no info voters it is okay to disregard news that is inconvenient. It’s barely a band-aid trying to cover a 12" long gash.
Do you really not understand how using a particular tactic can turn people away? I’m not talking about hurting people, I’m talking about hurting a cause. I’m talking about counterproductive techniques that, instead of influencing people to agree with your views, can make them vote against your cause. And if you can’t see how the OP’s techniques might hurt his cause, then I don’t know what else to tell you.
Like I said. If political advertising is the actual issue, then the solution is simple. The federal government has the ability to affect campaign reform laws which can include rules which forbid advertising on social media platforms.
“One thing I am certain of, is that attacking, insulting, and shaming people who 1) find Facebook useful;2) are not influenced by stupid memes or other propaganda;3) aren’t ashamed or paranoid about the “private” information collected by internet-based business and social media”
was not addressed to the OP, it was addressed to me. I answered appropriately.
Like the particular tactics you are using, right here, has turned me away from your position?
You’re complete and utter ignorance and refusal to take anything I’ve said seriously hurts my cause infinitely more than a rant by someone in the pit.
I patiently explained to you, with cites and everything, about the scale and the problems with both how Facebook does things, its vulnerabilities to being weaponized, and the fundamental problems with Facebook’s position on political advertising in contrast to one of its rivals, Twitter.
And in response to this you write:
You kind of ignore the salient point here (with thanks to TimeWinder) that the Federal Government is doing the lying. The people in power benefit from this. They exploit this. That’s my entire fucking point.
If my entire fucking point completely goes over your head, even though I went through the extra effort of explaining my point extremely carefully, then what the fuck do you even want at this stage? How is the OP hurting my cause? Its fucking obvious you aren’t going to listen even if something is explained to you politely. So why not fucking rant instead?
The pox on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and all the rest of their fucking houses. They have all contributed to the ruin of people’s self-esteem and enabled addictive attention seeking behaviour. People aren’t connecting so much as trying to impress everyone they’ve ever known, and complete strangers they’ve never met, with the illusion of “living their best life ever” - It’s pathological and pathetic.
Still, some are just sharing happy news with friends and family.
So, as rants go, it was well deserved but lacking in originality. I give it: 2/5.
Zuckerberg is a hypocritical two-faced lying asshole.
When it suits him, Facebook is a platform. When it suits him, Facebook is a publisher.
When it comes to laws, responsibilities, liability, AND TAXES, these are two completely different things.
Additionally he says he does not believe in censoring anything - meaning far right alt right lies and incitement, but has NO problem censoring other things.
@ Gary Kumquat — I hope you will answer me. As I discussed above, you objected strongly to one of my posts. I then demonstrated that the views I was espousing were the opposite of what you claimed they were. Your understanding was completely backwards!
I think some of you (or most of you? :o ) find something objectionable in my tone; and don’t bother to understand my points. Then, whatever viewpoint on that subject you find wrong or stupid is the viewpoint you (baselessly) ascribe to me!
I was hurt and confused by the exchange. If Gary doesn’t answer, will someone else please help me here?
If it bothers you that the President of the United States is able to lie, then why the fuck do you want to allow a repeat of what allowed him to be elected in the first place? Fake news and false political ads are the same thing. And the number of people who believe the fake news is high enough, and the margin of winning low enough, that I can’t believe that stopping fake news at the time would have likely meant Trump wouldn’t have been elected.
We got all so mad about that fake news then, and every single social media platform decided they’d do something about it. Now Facebook is saying “Nope. We don’t care.” And people are defending this nonsense.
So the fuck what if there is gray area? There are also things that are black and white. Why should the existence of a gray area mean that the black stuff not be dealt with? It’s such an idiotic argument. “You can’t do it perfectly, so you shouldn’t even try.” Fuck that bullshit.
Why is it nonsense? I don’t care what Facebook puts on its site. And I don’t care if they don’t care. Why should they care? Are they under some obligation to make sure morons don’t get elected? I don’t see what you envision their obligations are.
