5 ms·

I wonder if a large part of this social media psyops/fake news "crisis" is because the "bad guys" won. The bad guys here being Trump, Bannon, and the alt-right

I wonder if a large part of this social media psyops/fake news "crisis" is because the "bad guys" won. The bad guys here being Trump, Bannon, and the alt-right, who are disliked by both traditional democrats and republicans. Why did we not question Obama's original campaign and their use of social media? It is widely understood that Obama leveraged social media in novel and cutting edge ways to directly target voters predisposed to his message and to rally huge amounts of voters into action. Isn't this essentially what happened leading up to the election of Trump? Obviously there are some other factors at work like the involvement of a foreign entity and very questionably ethics in the gathering and compiling of these massive data sets. But do we really think that this is the first time Russia has meddled with US elections? And since when are we surprised when a politician (or their hired guns) exhibits unethical behavior? I'm not trying to excuse Facebook or the other platforms here. I would think they would be the first ones trying to combat this behavior and expose people leveraging their ecosystem without permission for some personal agenda - if, for no other reason, than the sheer pride of not being taken advantage of. And now these companies certainly need to take action to avoid huge social and political backlash (or try to stem the backlash that has already occurred). But I do wonder how large this backlash would be had Hillary won the Whitehouse in 2016. Edit: I hadn't seen ryanx435's comment and the corresponding replies before posting. While it's easy to dismiss his comment as purposely obtuse, I also think it's very easy to do so too quickly, thus avoiding actually thinking about this issue and perhaps falling into the same echo-chamber/bubble mentality that many accuse Trump supporters of.

mnm1 9y ago
"Obviously there are some other factors at work like the involvement of a foreign entity and very questionably ethics in the gathering and compiling of these massive data sets." I think you answered your own question. Those other factors are the crucial factors that make this situation different. Crimes were allegedly committed. This isn't about using social media, it's about the alleged crimes. I don't even see how you can draw a parallel to Obama's campaign. What crimes did Obama's team allegedly commit?
- joejerryronnie 9y ago
  But what specific crimes were committed? Is it illegal for Russians to buy Facebook ads? Was it illegal for these researchers to harvest Facebook data and was there explicit laws preventing them from using that data in other ways? Certainly there is massive ethical issues but technically illegal?
  - krapp 9y ago
    A merely "massively unethical" secret targeted psyops and propaganda campaign involving a foreign power should still be a cause for concern. Especially if it turns out it worked.
    - joejerryronnie 9y ago
      Would we see these activities as unethical if the message was one of hope rather than hate? For instance, how upset would we be if Sweden purchased a bunch of pro Bernie Sanders Facebook ads and Bernie Sanders ended up getting voted in as president?
      - krapp 9y ago
        There's more being alleged here than another country merely "buying ads" for a candidate. That in and of itself is neither illegal nor unethical. I'm probably more laissez-faire about that then many people ... I wouldn't care if the 50 cent army posted here so long as they were up front about their affiliations. I don't object to the attempt to sway people to one or another point of view, I object to doing so through duplicitous means. You may be correct in implying that one side is using partisanship to fuel interest in what is, objectively (I believe,) a legitimate concern. But why is the other side is so adamant to dismiss those concerns, regardless of their legitimacy? It shouldn't matter either way, either there's fire or there isn't.
        joejerryronnie 9y ago
        For what it's worth, I agree with you. One general exception I have is that the backlash is disproportionately targeting big tech/silicon valley, when the backlash should be more societal in nature. Yes, tech should look at making improvements and implementing checks and balances but at what point do we accept responsibility for our actions and stop trying to pawn off our own insecurities, biases, and dark impulses to some far off tech company?

mnm1 9y ago

"Obviously there are some other factors at work like the involvement of a foreign entity and very questionably ethics in the gathering and compiling of these massive data sets." I think you answered your own question. Those other factors are the crucial factors that make this situation different. Crimes were allegedly committed. This isn't about using social media, it's about the alleged crimes. I don't even see how you can draw a parallel to Obama's campaign. What crimes did Obama's team allegedly commit?

joejerryronnie 9y ago
But what specific crimes were committed? Is it illegal for Russians to buy Facebook ads? Was it illegal for these researchers to harvest Facebook data and was there explicit laws preventing them from using that data in other ways? Certainly there is massive ethical issues but technically illegal?
- krapp 9y ago
  A merely "massively unethical" secret targeted psyops and propaganda campaign involving a foreign power should still be a cause for concern. Especially if it turns out it worked.
  - joejerryronnie 9y ago
    Would we see these activities as unethical if the message was one of hope rather than hate? For instance, how upset would we be if Sweden purchased a bunch of pro Bernie Sanders Facebook ads and Bernie Sanders ended up getting voted in as president?
    - krapp 9y ago
      There's more being alleged here than another country merely "buying ads" for a candidate. That in and of itself is neither illegal nor unethical. I'm probably more laissez-faire about that then many people ... I wouldn't care if the 50 cent army posted here so long as they were up front about their affiliations. I don't object to the attempt to sway people to one or another point of view, I object to doing so through duplicitous means. You may be correct in implying that one side is using partisanship to fuel interest in what is, objectively (I believe,) a legitimate concern. But why is the other side is so adamant to dismiss those concerns, regardless of their legitimacy? It shouldn't matter either way, either there's fire or there isn't.
      - joejerryronnie 9y ago
        For what it's worth, I agree with you. One general exception I have is that the backlash is disproportionately targeting big tech/silicon valley, when the backlash should be more societal in nature. Yes, tech should look at making improvements and implementing checks and balances but at what point do we accept responsibility for our actions and stop trying to pawn off our own insecurities, biases, and dark impulses to some far off tech company?