8 ms·

People miss the main point. The democratic voting of two countries was manipulated using social media, it puts at risk our rights, and freedoms. And this happen

by kartan 9y ago

People miss the main point. The democratic voting of two countries was manipulated using social media, it puts at risk our rights, and freedoms. And this happened with collaboration, direct or indirect, from Facebook. Privacy concerns are an important motivator. But we have already things a lot more tangible than that. I like the concept of social media, of sharing moments with people I know but I don't have day to day contact, of communicating with my family that is in another country. But the way it's implemented is scary, and it has lasting world-wide consequences. I would not mind paying X$ monthly to have quality social media. But this can't happen while it competes with free social media where your data is the product. Regulate the market, force it to move in a more healthy direction and let new companies grow and drive inside the new game rules, and make the old ones to adapt.

herbst 9y ago
I don't get the thought that additional unauthorised propaganda somehow changes the outcome of a voting in a negative way. In other words who says the authorised propaganda is better or more true. The are doing the exact same and the deeper the pockets the deeper their social media influence is. Why is it Suddenly ok that propaganda has to be authorised to be 'valid' It's all just additional information. Isn't it the peoples job to build their own image? Do we really want to regulate what perception people get of 'things'? I hope someone can follow what I am trying to say...
- rjsw 9y ago
  The issue for me is that it was personalized propaganda and that there is no record of who was shown what message.
  - qeternity 9y ago
    What constitutes propaganda? And why does it matter that its personalized?
    - lmkg 9y ago
      Accountability. When someone sends false or misleading information through a broadcast medium like TV, they can be called out and corrected (up to and including criminal penalties). When each person receives their own unique messaging, there's no way to find out what lies might be spread and therefore there's no way for anyone to take corrective action.
      - herbst 9y ago
        So you are suggesting that we regulate the Internet and make people who spread 'lies' (or in other words things they might actually believe) liable for their actions? How about conspiracies that turned out to be true? What about current conspiracies that will turn out to be true. Should we ban all these 'missinformations' just because people are to stupid to build their own perception?
        lmkg 9y ago
        > So you are suggesting that we regulate Nope. I'm answering a question about the practical difference between targeted and non-targeted propaganda. I was only pointing out the problem, not suggesting any specific of general solution. > Should we ban We don't ban such things on broadcast media, either. As I said above, in broadcast the problem is self-correcting because other parties have a chance to make countering claims (legal solutions are available but that's an extreme that doesn't happen often). The only thing I would consider trying to implement is visibility into targeted-message mediums. I also don't have a detailed proposal for how to do this, it's just wishful thinking. > just because people are to stupid We can't lay 100% the blame onto the people being misled if there are significant resources being spent by sophisticated actors trying to mislead them. And regardless, if a voter is misled they are not the only person impacted by that. Their failing is an externality to society as a whole, which justifies the consideration of safeguards.
      - qeternity 9y ago
        Slander and libel are only applicable to knowingly false and damaging information. Opinions fall squarely within the first amendment. If CA et al really manipulated the general populace to the degree suggested, I am far more concerned that people went out and voted based on whatever manipulation came across their Facebook, without doing any research or critical thinking.
- jiveturkey 9y ago
  > additional unauthorised propaganda not just that, but also that it's personalized so in theory more effective > changes the outcome of a voting in a negative way indeed, i don't know that that has been shown to be true. but keep in mind there are two powerful ways to influence: 1) sway a fence-sitter's opinion 2) get a believer to vote who otherwise wouldn't have voted
  - herbst 9y ago
    How was it more personalised than 'legal' propaganda? Is there any reason to believe they used different methods? Why wouldn't politics make personalised ads as well? (as everybody does when using FB ads anyway) Both points you mention also are valid for 'legal' propaganda.
    - JumpCrisscross 9y ago
      > Why wouldn't politics make personalised ads as well? You don’t see the difference between a politician buying ads for themselves and a foreign company illegally using foreign persons to carry out campaign activities [1] ? [1] http://www.chicagotribune.com/g00/news/nationworld/ct-cambridge-analytica-foreign-campaign-advisers-20180325-story.html http://www.chicagotribune.com/g00/news/nationworld/ct-cambri...
      - herbst 9y ago
        Not really. Both follow their own agenda and use the same methods to get people buying into it. I too use the Internet to help spreading ideas I think are important. Those are not always in line with the current political agenda but important to me. Is that a bad thing now that I use my time and money to help change?
      - 627467 9y ago
        Practically speaking, are we calling UK company "foreign" on this topic? What is so foreign about this interference? Hows is propaganda, domestic or foreign a new element in elections? How about political funding? Does that not qualify as foreign interference in elections when politicians get foreign funds?
- zimablue 9y ago
  It's a decent question, here's the reason why people are upset... Politics is something that we create to allow sharing of power between people NOT only in direct proportion to their money/military power but one man one vote. Now as you notice it's not quite that simple because there is propaganda, which has to be paid for. So some of this propaganda is paid for by specific interests, but all countries have limitations on this. Eg. in the UK we're currently on the borderline of arresting people because they may have exceeded campaign spending limits. All our politicians have complicated rules about donations, spending limits and broadcasts around elections. Now the US has some of the loosest rules around this, because your supreme court ruled that (broadly) money is speech, so unlimited campaign donations to superpacs are allowed (I'm not an expert on US politics I think this is roughly right). But even in the US there are limitations, eg. no money from foreign entities, the lawyer thing that they're trying to string up for where him paying off the hooker is effectively donation. So why are people angry - because the thin wall we've tried to create between raw financial power and controlling people through propaganda with no control or limits has been eroded. Because the legislation (and enforcement) is from an old era when newspapers, radio, television were the most important things. If you're saying that maybe we should just rip down all the regulations and have unlimited political donations across borders then maybe you can have an argument about that, but I don't think I'd agree. I like that it's at least a little difficult for US companies to bribe UK politicians to relax our regulations, and supposed to be near impossible for Russia to lobby us. I think that argument would be some kind of anarcholibertarian which isn't really my bad but might be popular on here.
  - herbst 9y ago
    Thanks for this insight. This is the first time someone gave me arguments that make actual sense, instead of 'wrong information is bad mkey'. I can totally see how this is a issue. However as I see this we can not fix this 'issue' without breaking the Internet. But I also see that 'free for all' only leads the to rich getting more influence.
    - zimablue 9y ago
      I agree with what I think your perspective is, that the internet is kind of impossible to regulate. But maybe in this situation it's not so impossible to do something useful, Facebook is so effective at the moment because it's a centralized, surveilling monopolistic social network. This centralisation makes them easy to regulate. You can imagine decentralised networks which would be impossible to regulate but it feels like they'd then also be harder for advertisers/propagandists to access effectively and use to control people's ideas.
- thousandautumns 9y ago
  I get what you are trying to say, although I think you hit on what the actual problem is. I don't think the issue is that there is unauthorized propaganda vs. authorized propaganda. I think the issue is just that there is more propaganda out there. Yes, it's "all just additional information", but it's too much information. I think people in general struggle to objectively weigh the information they are presented with, but they struggle so much worse when they don't have the time or ability to sift through the amount of propaganda being thrown at them. When social media was first finding its roots, many people, myself included, were excited for the prospect of the empowerment and new voice being given to the masses. But not all voices are created equal. Its the equivalent of going from an auditorium of people watching a panel debate a topic to literally everyone in the auditorium trying to debate by shouting over each other. No one has time to consider, let alone fact check, all of the information being presented to them. Its practically gotten to the point where people pick their own reality, with different sets of "alternative facts". Don't like what someone is saying? No problem, there is a never-ending supply of voices out there backing up whatever opinion you want to believe. Additionally, perhaps the entities most empowered to push their agenda have been the already empowered. 99% of the public does not have the resources or the expertise to collect and analyse data being generated by social media. The people who do are government agencies, political campaigns, and corporations. They have more information on you, how you live, and how you think than at any other time in history. And they can influence public opinion with that information, along with new vehicles of propaganda like botnets, in a way that no regular person can. So even if social media was originally supposed to bring people together and give a voice to the masses, the reality is that it has resulted in a more divided, disenfranchised populace than before, in my opinion.
  - herbst 9y ago
    I totally agree but the issue is how even smart people shout for more regulation totally ignoring the disaster we get ourself into when we allow central authorities to filter our information. IMO the issue is the people who use this information overload to build perceptions. People could simply not have a opinion if they don't have the time to build it, but that doesn't fit our voting mentality where 'every vote counts' even the most stupid ones. People also could use traditional media as their main information source instead of biased republished trash sources on Facebook. Hence our school system should teach kids how to parse information.
- vorpalhex 9y ago
  It's not authorized or unauthorized. We have laws that say somebody pushing political ads has to have their name associated with it so the target of that ad can decide the trustworthyness. Somebody who is conservative might distrust information paid for by the DNC and vice versa. When foreign actors are allowed to subvert that rule and are aided by an American company selling access to Americans, that's a problem. No other country would ever allow such a thing - can you imagine if the US started taking out political ads on Baidu against the current Chinese administration?
  - herbst 9y ago
    Americans use propaganda in other countries to enforce their own political agenda. Even if we just look at Hollywood. The thing is everybody knows and expects America doing this, and this is happening for years so it's not a current news spectacle.
    - vorpalhex 9y ago
      Producing movies that clearly list where and by whom they are made is not propaganda. That's just a movie. Most countries produce movies and sell them abroad.
cm2187 9y ago
Politically motivated medias isn't a new thing. In fact pretty much every major newspaper and tv channel has a political bias. Why is it ok to have politicised regular medias, but scandalous for social medias campaigns?
- achileas 9y ago
  It actually wasn't up until the fairness doctrine was rescinded in the 80s.
  - cm2187 9y ago
    Would have be entertaining to apply that doctrine when covering a clash between liberal militants and white supremacists...
CNJ7654 9y ago
>The democratic voting of two countries was manipulated using social media, it puts at risk our rights, and freedoms. And this happened with collaboration, direct or indirect, from Facebook. Voter manipulation has been happening on a massive scale for decades. Research has already shown that ~90% of the time, the candidate that is seen more (in billboards, lawn signs, television ads, etc) is the one who gets elected. Its very important to remember that most voters are not making informed choices and are just picking the name that they heard most recently. Regardless of what happens to Facebook, or any other social media platforms, voter manipulation will never go away unless every candidate is placed on equal ground both financially and in terms of exposure to the public.
psyc 9y ago
Propaganda and disinformation campaigns by world powers will proceed by any available channel. Perhaps it may help to reduce the attack surface area, but I question how much it will actually help. I detect a little availability bias here. People are all focused on Facebook like it's the source of this problem. Fix Facebook, there will still be disinfo. Maybe it's worth a temporary improvement.
dilap 9y ago
"The democratic voting of two countries was manipulated using social media" This seems like a very weird thing to say to me. Democratic voting is always manipulated, every media source and conversation and political speech you see is "manipulation". Why is social media any different? Cynically, or conspiratorially, I think everyone is making a huge deal about this because it's manipulation that's not happening through the officially-controlled and sanctioned channels.
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago
  Domestic manipulation is fine; that’s discussion. Foreign subterfuge is not. That’s what Cambridge Analytica did [1]. [1] http://www.chicagotribune.com/g00/news/nationworld/ct-cambridge-analytica-foreign-campaign-advisers-20180325-story.html http://www.chicagotribune.com/g00/news/nationworld/ct-cambri...
  - dilap 9y ago
    Still doesn't make sense to me. Why is foreign influence bad but domestic influence OK? American foreign policy has huge effects on the rest of the world. Shouldn't they have a say? How about undocumented immigrants living in the country?
    - vorpalhex 9y ago
      So is it OK for Russia to push Brexit? What about pushing for Ukraine to give up land to Russia? Obviously not. Foreign countries are always going to act in their own interest. They are not interested in the stability or longterm prosperity of other nations, usually quite the opposite. Those affected by foreign policy have other ways of exerting influence (tariffs, their own policies, immigration policies, etc) they don't get to alter my day to day life. Freedom of the press and Freedom of speech in the US is a critical and fundamental right - China doesn't get to throw money at shutting those down because they're inconvenient to Chinese policy.
      - marcosdumay 9y ago
fogzen 9y ago
Manipulated? Isn’t that the entire point of a political campaign? To convince people to vote for a candidate?
murderself 9y ago
Better shut down the Internet during the election period (or forever?) if you think that liars online is "manipulation" of the democratic process. Or should we lock people up and isolate them to make sure they are not influenced by liars or uninformed people? Mainstream news media is more dangerous as far as "manipulating" people goes.
zerostar07 9y ago
It seems then the problem is with democracy. Time to disrupt it!

by kartan 9y ago

herbst 9y ago

I don't get the thought that additional unauthorised propaganda somehow changes the outcome of a voting in a negative way. In other words who says the authorised propaganda is better or more true. The are doing the exact same and the deeper the pockets the deeper their social media influence is. Why is it Suddenly ok that propaganda has to be authorised to be 'valid' It's all just additional information. Isn't it the peoples job to build their own image? Do we really want to regulate what perception people get of 'things'? I hope someone can follow what I am trying to say...

rjsw 9y ago
The issue for me is that it was personalized propaganda and that there is no record of who was shown what message.
- qeternity 9y ago
  What constitutes propaganda? And why does it matter that its personalized?
  - lmkg 9y ago
    Accountability. When someone sends false or misleading information through a broadcast medium like TV, they can be called out and corrected (up to and including criminal penalties). When each person receives their own unique messaging, there's no way to find out what lies might be spread and therefore there's no way for anyone to take corrective action.
    - herbst 9y ago
      So you are suggesting that we regulate the Internet and make people who spread 'lies' (or in other words things they might actually believe) liable for their actions? How about conspiracies that turned out to be true? What about current conspiracies that will turn out to be true. Should we ban all these 'missinformations' just because people are to stupid to build their own perception?
      - lmkg 9y ago
        > So you are suggesting that we regulate Nope. I'm answering a question about the practical difference between targeted and non-targeted propaganda. I was only pointing out the problem, not suggesting any specific of general solution. > Should we ban We don't ban such things on broadcast media, either. As I said above, in broadcast the problem is self-correcting because other parties have a chance to make countering claims (legal solutions are available but that's an extreme that doesn't happen often). The only thing I would consider trying to implement is visibility into targeted-message mediums. I also don't have a detailed proposal for how to do this, it's just wishful thinking. > just because people are to stupid We can't lay 100% the blame onto the people being misled if there are significant resources being spent by sophisticated actors trying to mislead them. And regardless, if a voter is misled they are not the only person impacted by that. Their failing is an externality to society as a whole, which justifies the consideration of safeguards.
    - qeternity 9y ago
      Slander and libel are only applicable to knowingly false and damaging information. Opinions fall squarely within the first amendment. If CA et al really manipulated the general populace to the degree suggested, I am far more concerned that people went out and voted based on whatever manipulation came across their Facebook, without doing any research or critical thinking.
jiveturkey 9y ago
> additional unauthorised propaganda not just that, but also that it's personalized so in theory more effective > changes the outcome of a voting in a negative way indeed, i don't know that that has been shown to be true. but keep in mind there are two powerful ways to influence: 1) sway a fence-sitter's opinion 2) get a believer to vote who otherwise wouldn't have voted
- herbst 9y ago
  How was it more personalised than 'legal' propaganda? Is there any reason to believe they used different methods? Why wouldn't politics make personalised ads as well? (as everybody does when using FB ads anyway) Both points you mention also are valid for 'legal' propaganda.
  - JumpCrisscross 9y ago
    > Why wouldn't politics make personalised ads as well? You don’t see the difference between a politician buying ads for themselves and a foreign company illegally using foreign persons to carry out campaign activities [1] ? [1] http://www.chicagotribune.com/g00/news/nationworld/ct-cambridge-analytica-foreign-campaign-advisers-20180325-story.html http://www.chicagotribune.com/g00/news/nationworld/ct-cambri...
    - herbst 9y ago
      Not really. Both follow their own agenda and use the same methods to get people buying into it. I too use the Internet to help spreading ideas I think are important. Those are not always in line with the current political agenda but important to me. Is that a bad thing now that I use my time and money to help change?
    - 627467 9y ago
      Practically speaking, are we calling UK company "foreign" on this topic? What is so foreign about this interference? Hows is propaganda, domestic or foreign a new element in elections? How about political funding? Does that not qualify as foreign interference in elections when politicians get foreign funds?
zimablue 9y ago
It's a decent question, here's the reason why people are upset... Politics is something that we create to allow sharing of power between people NOT only in direct proportion to their money/military power but one man one vote. Now as you notice it's not quite that simple because there is propaganda, which has to be paid for. So some of this propaganda is paid for by specific interests, but all countries have limitations on this. Eg. in the UK we're currently on the borderline of arresting people because they may have exceeded campaign spending limits. All our politicians have complicated rules about donations, spending limits and broadcasts around elections. Now the US has some of the loosest rules around this, because your supreme court ruled that (broadly) money is speech, so unlimited campaign donations to superpacs are allowed (I'm not an expert on US politics I think this is roughly right). But even in the US there are limitations, eg. no money from foreign entities, the lawyer thing that they're trying to string up for where him paying off the hooker is effectively donation. So why are people angry - because the thin wall we've tried to create between raw financial power and controlling people through propaganda with no control or limits has been eroded. Because the legislation (and enforcement) is from an old era when newspapers, radio, television were the most important things. If you're saying that maybe we should just rip down all the regulations and have unlimited political donations across borders then maybe you can have an argument about that, but I don't think I'd agree. I like that it's at least a little difficult for US companies to bribe UK politicians to relax our regulations, and supposed to be near impossible for Russia to lobby us. I think that argument would be some kind of anarcholibertarian which isn't really my bad but might be popular on here.
- herbst 9y ago
  Thanks for this insight. This is the first time someone gave me arguments that make actual sense, instead of 'wrong information is bad mkey'. I can totally see how this is a issue. However as I see this we can not fix this 'issue' without breaking the Internet. But I also see that 'free for all' only leads the to rich getting more influence.
  - zimablue 9y ago
    I agree with what I think your perspective is, that the internet is kind of impossible to regulate. But maybe in this situation it's not so impossible to do something useful, Facebook is so effective at the moment because it's a centralized, surveilling monopolistic social network. This centralisation makes them easy to regulate. You can imagine decentralised networks which would be impossible to regulate but it feels like they'd then also be harder for advertisers/propagandists to access effectively and use to control people's ideas.
thousandautumns 9y ago
I get what you are trying to say, although I think you hit on what the actual problem is. I don't think the issue is that there is unauthorized propaganda vs. authorized propaganda. I think the issue is just that there is more propaganda out there. Yes, it's "all just additional information", but it's too much information. I think people in general struggle to objectively weigh the information they are presented with, but they struggle so much worse when they don't have the time or ability to sift through the amount of propaganda being thrown at them. When social media was first finding its roots, many people, myself included, were excited for the prospect of the empowerment and new voice being given to the masses. But not all voices are created equal. Its the equivalent of going from an auditorium of people watching a panel debate a topic to literally everyone in the auditorium trying to debate by shouting over each other. No one has time to consider, let alone fact check, all of the information being presented to them. Its practically gotten to the point where people pick their own reality, with different sets of "alternative facts". Don't like what someone is saying? No problem, there is a never-ending supply of voices out there backing up whatever opinion you want to believe. Additionally, perhaps the entities most empowered to push their agenda have been the already empowered. 99% of the public does not have the resources or the expertise to collect and analyse data being generated by social media. The people who do are government agencies, political campaigns, and corporations. They have more information on you, how you live, and how you think than at any other time in history. And they can influence public opinion with that information, along with new vehicles of propaganda like botnets, in a way that no regular person can. So even if social media was originally supposed to bring people together and give a voice to the masses, the reality is that it has resulted in a more divided, disenfranchised populace than before, in my opinion.
- herbst 9y ago
  I totally agree but the issue is how even smart people shout for more regulation totally ignoring the disaster we get ourself into when we allow central authorities to filter our information. IMO the issue is the people who use this information overload to build perceptions. People could simply not have a opinion if they don't have the time to build it, but that doesn't fit our voting mentality where 'every vote counts' even the most stupid ones. People also could use traditional media as their main information source instead of biased republished trash sources on Facebook. Hence our school system should teach kids how to parse information.
vorpalhex 9y ago
It's not authorized or unauthorized. We have laws that say somebody pushing political ads has to have their name associated with it so the target of that ad can decide the trustworthyness. Somebody who is conservative might distrust information paid for by the DNC and vice versa. When foreign actors are allowed to subvert that rule and are aided by an American company selling access to Americans, that's a problem. No other country would ever allow such a thing - can you imagine if the US started taking out political ads on Baidu against the current Chinese administration?
- herbst 9y ago
  Americans use propaganda in other countries to enforce their own political agenda. Even if we just look at Hollywood. The thing is everybody knows and expects America doing this, and this is happening for years so it's not a current news spectacle.
  - vorpalhex 9y ago
    Producing movies that clearly list where and by whom they are made is not propaganda. That's just a movie. Most countries produce movies and sell them abroad.

cm2187 9y ago

Politically motivated medias isn't a new thing. In fact pretty much every major newspaper and tv channel has a political bias. Why is it ok to have politicised regular medias, but scandalous for social medias campaigns?

achileas 9y ago
It actually wasn't up until the fairness doctrine was rescinded in the 80s.
- cm2187 9y ago
  Would have be entertaining to apply that doctrine when covering a clash between liberal militants and white supremacists...

CNJ7654 9y ago

>The democratic voting of two countries was manipulated using social media, it puts at risk our rights, and freedoms. And this happened with collaboration, direct or indirect, from Facebook. Voter manipulation has been happening on a massive scale for decades. Research has already shown that ~90% of the time, the candidate that is seen more (in billboards, lawn signs, television ads, etc) is the one who gets elected. Its very important to remember that most voters are not making informed choices and are just picking the name that they heard most recently. Regardless of what happens to Facebook, or any other social media platforms, voter manipulation will never go away unless every candidate is placed on equal ground both financially and in terms of exposure to the public.

psyc 9y ago

Propaganda and disinformation campaigns by world powers will proceed by any available channel. Perhaps it may help to reduce the attack surface area, but I question how much it will actually help. I detect a little availability bias here. People are all focused on Facebook like it's the source of this problem. Fix Facebook, there will still be disinfo. Maybe it's worth a temporary improvement.

dilap 9y ago

"The democratic voting of two countries was manipulated using social media" This seems like a very weird thing to say to me. Democratic voting is always manipulated, every media source and conversation and political speech you see is "manipulation". Why is social media any different? Cynically, or conspiratorially, I think everyone is making a huge deal about this because it's manipulation that's not happening through the officially-controlled and sanctioned channels.

JumpCrisscross 9y ago
Domestic manipulation is fine; that’s discussion. Foreign subterfuge is not. That’s what Cambridge Analytica did [1]. [1] http://www.chicagotribune.com/g00/news/nationworld/ct-cambridge-analytica-foreign-campaign-advisers-20180325-story.html http://www.chicagotribune.com/g00/news/nationworld/ct-cambri...
- dilap 9y ago
  Still doesn't make sense to me. Why is foreign influence bad but domestic influence OK? American foreign policy has huge effects on the rest of the world. Shouldn't they have a say? How about undocumented immigrants living in the country?
  - vorpalhex 9y ago
    So is it OK for Russia to push Brexit? What about pushing for Ukraine to give up land to Russia? Obviously not. Foreign countries are always going to act in their own interest. They are not interested in the stability or longterm prosperity of other nations, usually quite the opposite. Those affected by foreign policy have other ways of exerting influence (tariffs, their own policies, immigration policies, etc) they don't get to alter my day to day life. Freedom of the press and Freedom of speech in the US is a critical and fundamental right - China doesn't get to throw money at shutting those down because they're inconvenient to Chinese policy.
    - marcosdumay 9y ago

fogzen 9y ago

Manipulated? Isn’t that the entire point of a political campaign? To convince people to vote for a candidate?

murderself 9y ago

Better shut down the Internet during the election period (or forever?) if you think that liars online is "manipulation" of the democratic process. Or should we lock people up and isolate them to make sure they are not influenced by liars or uninformed people? Mainstream news media is more dangerous as far as "manipulating" people goes.

zerostar07 9y ago

It seems then the problem is with democracy. Time to disrupt it!