6 ms·

Non Facebook user question: Are we being unfair by only pointing to how FB had a negative impact on the US election? They had a very positive impact on other e

Non Facebook user question: Are we being unfair by only pointing to how FB had a negative impact on the US election? They had a very positive impact on other elections and helped (indirectly) overthrow bad governments.

kosei 9y ago
Yes. This is a witch hunt right now.
m52go 9y ago
I think the important take-away here should be that Facebook has tremendous (nondemocratic) power to sway elections. Sometimes that power can be used for good, and sometimes that power can be used for bad. But the fact that it's controlled by a small number of people (who've made it clear that they aren't afraid of using their power to sway political opinion) AND that its very business model means it's always powered by the richest & most strategic advertiser should be alarming to any citizen of any country.
- kosei 9y ago
  Couldn't you make that same argument about news or TV organizations? Tremendous power to sway elections and public opinion, run by a few who aren't afraid to use that power for their own devices?
  - m52go 9y ago
    Facebook is 1 entity, and even though mass media has consolidated quite a bit, it's still not all controlled by just 1 entity. Also, advertisers in mass media can't algorithmically target consumers with specific ideological messages. Mass media is still largely run by advertisers targeting relatively vague customer profiles with product branding messages. You're right that there's a similarity, but I think the magnitude of Facebook's power is vastly different.
    - aylmao 9y ago
      Am I the only one who thinks this "algorithmic targeting" thing is overblown. Well, I actually know I'm not [1]. I'm a bit more scared about TV. Sure, Facebook is one entity and it'd probably make sense to regulate it and/or break it up, but I'd assume TV is probably more of a homogenizing force. On the internet you have a lot of people sharing their opinion, and it's two-way. With TV, news sites, etc, you have one "Fox News", slowly turning all conservative people paranoid, and it only goes one way, or one "CNN" banking on excessive coverage of things blown out of proportion, etc. Hell, John Stewart, when he went to Crossfire caused the show's cancellation was talking about how CNN was making politics a sports show, with two teams, strong feelings, and black-or-white loyalty. TV had been polarizing politics for years before social media even existed. This is, again not just me speaking. Polarization is increasing the most amongst those who use the internet the least. The internet gave us a grassroots independent movement (wether you agree or disagree with him, it's impressive where Sanders got to without Super PACs) [3]. Similar people to non-heavy social media users gave us Donald Trump (old, no-college education, etc) [4][5]. Not saying online advertising didn't sway anyone, but to think "Facebook/Twitter/social media elected Trump" sounds more like just an emotional response than a facts-based conclusion. [1]: https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/20/17138854/cambridge-analytica-facebook-data-trump-campaign-psychographic-microtargeting https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/20/17138854/cambridge-analyt... [2]: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/4/12/15259438/social-media-political-polarization https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/4/12/15259438/s... [3]: https://www.vox.com/2015/6/2/8708331/bernie-sanders-president-internet https://www.vox.com/2015/6/2/8708331/bernie-sanders-presiden... [4]: http://www.people-press.org/2016/08/18/1-voters-general-election-preferences/ http://www.people-press.org/2016/08/18/1-voters-general-elec... [5]: http://www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheet/social-media/ http://www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheet/social-media/
      - m52go 9y ago
        Impressive reply. I find this topic fascinating, and you've given me a lot to think about. Yes, TV is terrible, but also keep in mind that social media's role in the world has changed dramatically too--often it straight-up drives TV coverage when used effectively, as Trump does (like it or not). In the 2016 election, it seemed like CNN and Fox were often rushing to cover (and spin) Trump's latest tweet (as they still do), so-and-so's latest Facebook note, etc. reactively instead of proactively crafting their own coverage. > On the internet you have a lot of people sharing their opinion, and it's two-way. Yeah but the echo chamber effect on the internet might be even stronger because it's 2-way. It's been shown that being exposed to opposing political opinions on Twitter actually strengthens peoples' original political opinions (recent academic study...can't find link now, but it's on my other machine, and will update this post this evening). From [2]: > Remember, it was seniors — only 6 percent of whom use Twitter — who pushed Trump to the White House. Women, minorities, and others supported Trump way more than expected (in historical terms compared with recent elections, and certainly way more than mass media had us believe), so I'm not sure where the author is coming from here. Also the data cited in the article only goes to 2012, and a LOT has changed since then, so I'd be careful to relate these conclusions to events after 2016.
  - 411mrc 9y ago
    Facebook is but one example of the neutering of the once powerful media. Long ago in the US, there were three tv networks, one or two local newspapers and that's it. A guy named Walter Cronkite single handedly swung public opinion against the war in Vietnam. No one holds that single power today.
y4mi 9y ago
They had a very positive impact on other elections Every negative impact is a positive Impact for the other side. indirectly) overthrow bad governments. Are you talking about the arab spring? I thought it was generally agreed that the new regime is way worse/more oppresive than the displaced one ever was?
- Zimahl 9y ago
  Are you talking about the arab spring? I thought it was generally agreed that the new regime is way worse/more oppresive than the displaced one ever was? Social media helped facilitate the uprising, but isn't responsible for what replaced the previous regime.
finnh 9y ago
Well, FB's also actively being used to promote genocide against Rohingya[0][1]. It takes a lot of "positive impact" on elections to outweigh a genocide [0] https://qz.com/1170111/is-facebook-playing-a-part-in-myanmars-rohingya-genocide/ https://qz.com/1170111/is-facebook-playing-a-part-in-myanmar... [1] https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/3/21/17144748/case-against-facebook https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/3/21/17144748/c...
the-dude 9y ago
Which one?
kerng 9y ago
Part of the problem might also be that Mark Zuckerberg didn't realize until rather recently what power and influence FB has. His initial statement after the US election was sort of "no way, we could have had any influence on this". Now as investigations and leaks show, it is much to the contrary. Maybe FB has become just too big and powerful? Similar things could be said about other large companies of course, but FB is the focus at the moment.
- sweezyjeezy 9y ago
  > Now as investigations and leaks show, it is much to the contrary. So far, these investigations have only proved what people were trying to do. I would imagine that these things had some effect, but I don't think that anything that's come out so far has proved that conclusively shown that they swayed the US election one way or the other.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
treebeard901 9y ago
This is probably an unpopular opinion but I think Facebook has done exactly what everyone predicted they would do. I don't think that means they are not at fault in certain ways but ultimately the power to sway the election doesn't come from Facebook directly, it came from Americans seeming hatred of each other. If we had some basic level of civility and compromise on both sides, then Facebook would not have the power it does to sway elections. This is really the root cause of a lot of problems right now and blaming everything but the polarization is probably just making it worse.
- Yetanfou 9y ago
  Deeper still it comes from the de-facto two-party political system in the USA which forces the whole political discourse into an us/them discussion.
Zimahl 9y ago
Are we being unfair by only pointing to how FB had a negative impact on the US election? Unlike the other platforms, Facebook and Twitter are the only ones that also manage the content that the end-user sees. This would be fine if it was only targeted ads, but it's all content that can be manipulated. A user may think they are seeing a legitimate news story or a post 'liked' from their friends. This gives it much more weight than an Adsense ad on a website. There's also the social metrics that can be used to target you - many people were targeted with anti-Hillary news (true or fake) even though they weren't Trump supporters. This was done to sew voter apathy into the election, turning a 'might as well vote Hillary' (say, Bernie supporters) into a 'why bother' - no vote is half as bad as a vote for the other candidate. And this exact thing happened in swing states where Hillary ended up with really bad turnout, thus costing her the election. I can't think of a way Google or other ad networks could pull this off, that's why it's fair to attack Facebook over this.

kosei 9y ago

Yes. This is a witch hunt right now.

m52go 9y ago

I think the important take-away here should be that Facebook has tremendous (nondemocratic) power to sway elections. Sometimes that power can be used for good, and sometimes that power can be used for bad. But the fact that it's controlled by a small number of people (who've made it clear that they aren't afraid of using their power to sway political opinion) AND that its very business model means it's always powered by the richest & most strategic advertiser should be alarming to any citizen of any country.

kosei 9y ago
Couldn't you make that same argument about news or TV organizations? Tremendous power to sway elections and public opinion, run by a few who aren't afraid to use that power for their own devices?
- m52go 9y ago
  Facebook is 1 entity, and even though mass media has consolidated quite a bit, it's still not all controlled by just 1 entity. Also, advertisers in mass media can't algorithmically target consumers with specific ideological messages. Mass media is still largely run by advertisers targeting relatively vague customer profiles with product branding messages. You're right that there's a similarity, but I think the magnitude of Facebook's power is vastly different.
  - aylmao 9y ago
    Am I the only one who thinks this "algorithmic targeting" thing is overblown. Well, I actually know I'm not [1]. I'm a bit more scared about TV. Sure, Facebook is one entity and it'd probably make sense to regulate it and/or break it up, but I'd assume TV is probably more of a homogenizing force. On the internet you have a lot of people sharing their opinion, and it's two-way. With TV, news sites, etc, you have one "Fox News", slowly turning all conservative people paranoid, and it only goes one way, or one "CNN" banking on excessive coverage of things blown out of proportion, etc. Hell, John Stewart, when he went to Crossfire caused the show's cancellation was talking about how CNN was making politics a sports show, with two teams, strong feelings, and black-or-white loyalty. TV had been polarizing politics for years before social media even existed. This is, again not just me speaking. Polarization is increasing the most amongst those who use the internet the least. The internet gave us a grassroots independent movement (wether you agree or disagree with him, it's impressive where Sanders got to without Super PACs) [3]. Similar people to non-heavy social media users gave us Donald Trump (old, no-college education, etc) [4][5]. Not saying online advertising didn't sway anyone, but to think "Facebook/Twitter/social media elected Trump" sounds more like just an emotional response than a facts-based conclusion. [1]: https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/20/17138854/cambridge-analytica-facebook-data-trump-campaign-psychographic-microtargeting https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/20/17138854/cambridge-analyt... [2]: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/4/12/15259438/social-media-political-polarization https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/4/12/15259438/s... [3]: https://www.vox.com/2015/6/2/8708331/bernie-sanders-president-internet https://www.vox.com/2015/6/2/8708331/bernie-sanders-presiden... [4]: http://www.people-press.org/2016/08/18/1-voters-general-election-preferences/ http://www.people-press.org/2016/08/18/1-voters-general-elec... [5]: http://www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheet/social-media/ http://www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheet/social-media/
    - m52go 9y ago
      Impressive reply. I find this topic fascinating, and you've given me a lot to think about. Yes, TV is terrible, but also keep in mind that social media's role in the world has changed dramatically too--often it straight-up drives TV coverage when used effectively, as Trump does (like it or not). In the 2016 election, it seemed like CNN and Fox were often rushing to cover (and spin) Trump's latest tweet (as they still do), so-and-so's latest Facebook note, etc. reactively instead of proactively crafting their own coverage. > On the internet you have a lot of people sharing their opinion, and it's two-way. Yeah but the echo chamber effect on the internet might be even stronger because it's 2-way. It's been shown that being exposed to opposing political opinions on Twitter actually strengthens peoples' original political opinions (recent academic study...can't find link now, but it's on my other machine, and will update this post this evening). From [2]: > Remember, it was seniors — only 6 percent of whom use Twitter — who pushed Trump to the White House. Women, minorities, and others supported Trump way more than expected (in historical terms compared with recent elections, and certainly way more than mass media had us believe), so I'm not sure where the author is coming from here. Also the data cited in the article only goes to 2012, and a LOT has changed since then, so I'd be careful to relate these conclusions to events after 2016.
- 411mrc 9y ago
  Facebook is but one example of the neutering of the once powerful media. Long ago in the US, there were three tv networks, one or two local newspapers and that's it. A guy named Walter Cronkite single handedly swung public opinion against the war in Vietnam. No one holds that single power today.

y4mi 9y ago

They had a very positive impact on other elections Every negative impact is a positive Impact for the other side. indirectly) overthrow bad governments. Are you talking about the arab spring? I thought it was generally agreed that the new regime is way worse/more oppresive than the displaced one ever was?

Zimahl 9y ago
Are you talking about the arab spring? I thought it was generally agreed that the new regime is way worse/more oppresive than the displaced one ever was? Social media helped facilitate the uprising, but isn't responsible for what replaced the previous regime.

finnh 9y ago

Well, FB's also actively being used to promote genocide against Rohingya[0][1]. It takes a lot of "positive impact" on elections to outweigh a genocide [0] https://qz.com/1170111/is-facebook-playing-a-part-in-myanmars-rohingya-genocide/ https://qz.com/1170111/is-facebook-playing-a-part-in-myanmar... [1] https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/3/21/17144748/case-against-facebook https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/3/21/17144748/c...

the-dude 9y ago

Which one?

kerng 9y ago

Part of the problem might also be that Mark Zuckerberg didn't realize until rather recently what power and influence FB has. His initial statement after the US election was sort of "no way, we could have had any influence on this". Now as investigations and leaks show, it is much to the contrary. Maybe FB has become just too big and powerful? Similar things could be said about other large companies of course, but FB is the focus at the moment.

sweezyjeezy 9y ago
> Now as investigations and leaks show, it is much to the contrary. So far, these investigations have only proved what people were trying to do. I would imagine that these things had some effect, but I don't think that anything that's come out so far has proved that conclusively shown that they swayed the US election one way or the other.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

treebeard901 9y ago

This is probably an unpopular opinion but I think Facebook has done exactly what everyone predicted they would do. I don't think that means they are not at fault in certain ways but ultimately the power to sway the election doesn't come from Facebook directly, it came from Americans seeming hatred of each other. If we had some basic level of civility and compromise on both sides, then Facebook would not have the power it does to sway elections. This is really the root cause of a lot of problems right now and blaming everything but the polarization is probably just making it worse.

Yetanfou 9y ago
Deeper still it comes from the de-facto two-party political system in the USA which forces the whole political discourse into an us/them discussion.

Zimahl 9y ago

Are we being unfair by only pointing to how FB had a negative impact on the US election? Unlike the other platforms, Facebook and Twitter are the only ones that also manage the content that the end-user sees. This would be fine if it was only targeted ads, but it's all content that can be manipulated. A user may think they are seeing a legitimate news story or a post 'liked' from their friends. This gives it much more weight than an Adsense ad on a website. There's also the social metrics that can be used to target you - many people were targeted with anti-Hillary news (true or fake) even though they weren't Trump supporters. This was done to sew voter apathy into the election, turning a 'might as well vote Hillary' (say, Bernie supporters) into a 'why bother' - no vote is half as bad as a vote for the other candidate. And this exact thing happened in swing states where Hillary ended up with really bad turnout, thus costing her the election. I can't think of a way Google or other ad networks could pull this off, that's why it's fair to attack Facebook over this.