8 ms·
Facebook hid webpages bragging of ability to influence elections
- cctt23 9y agoAsked about the delisting, a Facebook spokesperson said that “a number of the studies have been archived, but they’re still available at the individual links.” Asked why the “Government and Politics” section had been removed entirely, the spokesperson did not reply. I’ll just bet they didn’t. “We’re covering our ass like it’s on fire” is probably a bad PR, move, but it’s painfully obvious that’s what’s happening. The funny thing is they’re hurting themselves even more with half-baked apologies. They’re going back to the playbook they’ve used for the last dozen scandals, but this is different. Facebook the company might survive this, but Facebook the social network is going to die.
- trophycase 9y agoThat spokesperson should be ashamed of themselves. Absolutely disgusting.
- mwilliaams 9y agoThey're just doing their job. It's company leadership that should be ashamed.
- politician 9y agoSome people don't believe folks are let off the hook because they are "just following orders." Other people believe that following orders lets people off the hook. We see this over and over again in every discussion about corporate malfeasance (not to mention war). It appears you're of the latter mindset while the parent is of the former. Consider not down voting what amounts to a legitimate philosophical difference.
- boomboomsubban 9y agoIf they don't follow orders, than there's no statement as opposed to no reply on that issue. The spokesperson's job is to tell the public what they're told to, they likely don't have the information to answer that question if they wanted to.
- mwilliaams 9y agoI would say I'm in the middle. It depends on how unethical/bad the orders are.
- sho_hn 9y agoNah. People outside our bubble don't care.
- dingo_bat 9y agoI bet half the people inside the bubble don't care. I don't care, for example.
- surferbayarea 9y agoYou don't care, doesn't mean you SHOULD not care. Public apathy from smart people was probably behind what happened in 1930s Germany.
- tcpabc123 9y agozuckerberg is raised jewish don't throw around nazi facebook comparisons you're better than that
- ekianjo 9y agono, that is not really what happened in 30s germany. You had a country in deep economical crisis, and huge political fight for power. Smart people were far from passive, on the contrary they took sides.
- duncan_bayne 9y agoApathy? A lot of smart people were active supporters of the National Socialists, at least before they started losing the war. The Ominous Parallels[1] explores this, and the parallels with current American politics: The Nazis did not gain power against the country’s wishes…The Nazi party was elected to office by the freely cast ballots of millions of German voters, including men on every social, economic, and educational level. In the national election of July 1932, the Nazis obtained 37 percent of the vote and a plurality of seats in the Reichstag. On January 30, 1933, in full accordance with the country’s legal and constitutional principles, Hitler was appointed Chancellor. Five weeks later, in the last (and semi-free) election of the pre-totalitarian period, the Nazis obtained 17 million votes, 44 percent of the total… In 1933, when Hitler did establish the system he had promised, he did not find it necessary to forbid foreign travel. Until World War II, those Germans who wished to flee the country could do so. The overwhelming majority did not. They were satisfied to remain… [1] https://www.amazon.com/Ominous-Parallels-End-Freedom-America/dp/081282850X https://www.amazon.com/Ominous-Parallels-End-Freedom-America...
- dawhizkid 9y agoAnd while FB is destroying democracy I just got an email from Pinterest with subject "St patricks day (sic) Pins picked just for you" 8 days after St. Patrick's Day. I guess at least I don't have to worry about Pinterest interfering with elections.
- analognoise 9y agoI laughed way too hard at this.
- smsm42 9y agoThey'll send you their 2016 election picks any day now, watch out!
- spondyl 9y agoIt's totally anecdotal but I asked a few people about this and everyone had never heard, or seemed particular interested in hearing about Cambridge Analytica. I mentioned the whole thing about phone contacts and the response was basically "Wow, sucks to be them I guess". I wonder if it clicked that it probably affects them too.
- feelin_googley 9y agohttps://www.google.com/ads/elections/ https://www.google.com/ads/elections/ https://www.google.com/ads/elections/campaign-playbook/mobili https://www.google.com/ads/elections/campaign-playbook/mobil... ze/ https://business.twitter.com/en/help/ads-policies/restricted-content-policies/political-campaigning.html https://business.twitter.com/en/help/ads-policies/restricted... (lest the implication be misunderstood, it is that "hiding web pages" is a non-story, unless i have missed the authors point. online ads for candidates are still not regulated in the same way as similar ads on "traditional" broadcast media such as TV, radio, cable, satellite. google, twitter, etc. are still open for business.)
- legostormtroopr 9y ago> "Win the moments that win elections." They aren't subtle about it. I also wouldn't mind as much if the tech industry were politically neutral - but its been shown time and time again that Silicon Valley, where a lot of this power is held, has a very obvious political bias.
- losteric 9y agoIndividual or company bias? Does Google discriminated between their customers? I can't recall any political groups complaining Google wouldn't take their money.
- smsm42 9y agoThere are many complaints Facebook suppressed speech by political groups [1]. Twitter is known for suspending accounts for political speech they deem unacceptable. Google was recently observed ham-fistedly removing search results about guns from Shopping, which was discussed at length on HN and the hilariously incompetent way it was done was source of much entertainment. Google is also pushing out gun-related content from Youtube. [1] https://www.dailywire.com/news/28313/study-heres-proof-facebooks-crushing-conservative-james-barrett https://www.dailywire.com/news/28313/study-heres-proof-faceb...
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- JumpCrisscross 9y agoI have a difficult time coming up with a better solution than one: Facebook must be broken up under anti-trust law. Social network share is as dangerous as, if not more dangerous than, market share.
- ekianjo 9y agoOh since when Facebook is a monopoly? There are dozens of social networks out there. Even Google Plus exists. You dont have any ground to pull an anti trust on FB.
- JumpCrisscross 9y agoIt is a myth than companies must be absolute monopolies to fall afoul of the law. The Sherman Antitrust Act was specifically drafted to take on politically-powerful groups from which unilateral consumer (user) or supplier (advertiser) defection was not reasonable. “A Section 2 monopolization violation has two elements: (1) the possession of monopoly power in the relevant market; and (2) the willful acquisition or maintenance of that power as distinguished from growth or development as a consequence of a superior product, business acumen, or historic accident” [1]. It would be a difficult, but not impossible, case as is. Facebook’s market power, acquisition history and evidences of abuse and cover-ups would make a legislative extension of antitrust statute to social media perfectly reasonable within the original intent of the law. This is far from a unique opinion [2]. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act [2] https://stratechery.com/2017/everything-is-changing-so-should-antitrust/ https://stratechery.com/2017/everything-is-changing-so-shoul...
- realusername 9y agoGoogle Plus is kind of irrelevant nowadays in the social media space.
- ekianjo 9y agoIt does not matter, it still exists.
- ggg9990 9y agoAnyone selling political ads is selling the ability to influence elections. Why else would a campaign buy any?
- thisisit 9y agoI am no fan of Facebook. Even though I have an account I barely use it. But, Facebook sells ads. So, it is not surprising that they want to show off their "influence". I am sure similar language can be found even on cosmetic, electronic etc product "wins". The only issue here is Facebook trying to hide the page. And, that is the worst thing they can do in the given climate.
- kosei 9y agoOkay, let’s all settle down here with the pitchforks. It is totally reasonable for Facebook to a) sell politics are and b) want to tout their effectiveness. It is even reasonable for them to c) pull the pages down in the midst of this PR nightmare. Facebook deserves most of what they're getting right now, but this is sensationalist media.
- gandutraveler 9y agoI don't understand how using Facebook for political brainwashing is scarier than using it for brand awareness, product marketing etc. It's the same. If Trump used it for his gain then I must say he was just better at marketing. Hilary should have done a better job at selling herself. If Pepsi markets it's product better than Coke to me then I'll choose Pepsi :) Yes, the data was mined and illegaly sold to Cambridge Analytica, but there are so many other entities who did the same. It's safe to assume that vast majoritybif not all of member data is out there being used/sold unless nobody in your friend list gave permissions to these apps or you have no friends.
- grzm 9y ago> "I don't understand how using Facebook for political brainwashing is scarier than using it for brand awareness, product marketing etc. It's the same." Setting aside the partisanship for a moment (because I think it's something people should be concerned about regardless of their politics), I think influencing the electorate or the government (or sowing distrust amongst different segments of society) is more likely going to have an effect on my life than influencing which brand of cola sells more unit sales (to use your example). So, yeah, I think it's potentially scarier to use it for "political brainwashing" (again, your words).
- vectorEQ 9y agoplease, keep taking your political advice from social media sites and ad networks, and if it turns out to be bad advice, try to sue them. :s
- nkkollaw 9y agoThe press is really kicking Facebook's ass lately. I guess it's because it's newsworty now and gets clicks? Because, I don't think Facebook was any better 1-2 years ago, but you hardly ever heard about it in this light.
- grzm 9y agoDo you think it's something people should be concerned about? Do you think everyone becomes aware of something or changes their mind at the same time? Would you rather people didn't think it was a concern now? Do you think the news coverage is outsize compared with your concern? Yeah, it can be frustrating when others don't seem to be concerned about something you're aware of. And yeah, people are fickle, and for some their concern will fade once there's something else to catch their attention. Does that mean we shouldn't take advantage of the situation now, if it's something you're concerned about?
- nkkollaw 9y agoAh, it's all good--I'm not particularly fon of Facebook, I just know it won't last long.
- idrios 9y agoMore than that, the traditional press hates Facebook because Facebook is stealing its business. I thought Wired ran a good story about it [1]. [1] https://www.wired.com/story/inside-facebook-mark-zuckerberg-2-years-of-hell/ https://www.wired.com/story/inside-facebook-mark-zuckerberg-...
- notacoward 9y agoNot just traditional press. Facebook also competes with forums and blogs. Somebody who has worked hard to achieve prominence in those formats and venues will naturally feel threatened as they become less relevant. Some of the criticism might be justified, some of it might be sincerely meant, but the (lack of) emphasis and perspective is often driven by that fear. Bloggers' and forum heavyweights' comments about $target should be taken with the same grain of salt as NYT or Wired commentators'.
- coruscate 9y agohttps://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/23/magazine/the-obama-campaigns-digital-masterminds-cash-in.html https://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/23/magazine/the-obama-campai...
- zaroth 9y agoJust a few years ago, the talking heads were fawning over a few politicians you might know, who claimed their social media strategy was the linchpin in winning the election. Political campaigns of a certain bend would brag about how rich their voter targeting data was and how much more effective they were with their advertising dollars online. What I’m trying to understand is if the average reader thinks these methods are bad in general, or just bad when the “wrong” person uses them well? Political advertising is actually important - we want issue focused ads helping communicate candidates stated positions on hot button issues. And yes, we even want the hit jobs when behavior warrants it and should be highlighted. Is “influence elections” supposed to be a scary way of saying getting your word out? If the ads were lies, report them to the FTC or FEC. If the ads were effective, isn’t that the whole fucking point?
- jimmytidey 9y ago1) Yes, there is a certain degree of hypocrisy in commentators lauding the sophistication of the Obama campaign machine and then complaining about the Republican strategy. At the same time, some of the most celebrated aspects of the Obama campaign were not about social media. This is not (or should not be) treated as a partisan issue. 2) Political advertising is beneficial to democracy only if it improves voter's ability to vote in an informed way, which might not be the case. 3) If all competitive candidates require huge advertising budgets, that limits who can run and makes them beholden to sponsors. 4) The particular concern here is the lack of transparency. However much advertising helps inform voters, if voters are also able to understand what advertising strategies are being used they will be more informed. Social media seems particularly opaque with regards to what has been paid for, manipulated or occurred organically.
- chimeracoder 9y ago> Yes, there is a certain degree of hypocrisy in commentators lauding the sophistication of the Obama campaign machine and then complaining about the Republican strategy. The complaints are generally with respect to a targeted effort to direct people towards sites publishing outright false information[0] as propaganda, and doing so by coordinating with a foreign government. There is no such claim about the Obama campaign machine - certainly that's not what people laud when they talk about it. [0] Not misleading or biased, but completely false - as false as the headline "Humans Land On Mars", or "Moon Landing Revealed to be Hoax" would be.
- smsm42 9y agoOne thing is this article is completely correct: WHEN MARK ZUCKERBERG was asked if Facebook had influenced the outcome of the 2016 presidential election, the founder and CEO dismissed the notion that the site even had such power as “crazy". It is indeed "crazy". US voters decided the outcome of the 2016 presidential election. Millions of venues were used to hold the debate about it, Facebook included, but in no way unique. Presenting it as if only Facebook mattered is undoubtedly very flattering to Facebook (do you want to advertise your business in the place where decisions about US elections are made, or on some dead trees painted with dirt?!) but is completely insane if you take your head out of the Red Scare promoted by the media, take a breath and give yourself a minute to think and analyze the data. Of course Facebook, as any advertising platform, brags about how powerful they are. And Facebook specifically has been caught claiming wider audience than 100% of the target demographics (don't have the link handy but wouldn't be hard to find it). But it's just that - bragging.