3 ms·

Facebook is in trouble because it sold political influence at a price that previously non-mainstream actors could afford I’m curious exactly what you mean by t

Facebook is in trouble because it sold political influence at a price that previously non-mainstream actors could afford I’m curious exactly what you mean by this. If you’re saying that their paid ads system works well, that isn’t specific to political influence. Further, the recent scandal was over data abuse by third parties, and the reported effects of that have been proven to be dramatically overblown [1], so I assume that isn’t what you’re referring to. Finally, the notion that enough votes to change the election results were suppressed/changed by some Russian fake news articles mostly written in broken English is laughable. So what exactly are you referring to here? [1] http://www.businessinsider.com/cambridge-analytica-facebook-scandal-trump-cruz-operatives-2018-3 http://www.businessinsider.com/cambridge-analytica-facebook-...

closeparen 9y ago
>Further, the recent scandal was over data abuse by third parties The most recent wave of Facebook's ongoing scandal revealed that data abuse by third parties was one implementation detail of Facebook's complicity in Trump's election. Facebook's troubles (calls for breakup, regulation, etc) started over its crime of making political influence too readily available to extremist ideologies.
- downandout 9y ago
  Again, you aren’t explaining your basis for the idea that Facebook actually has political influence to make available to anyone. The idea that CA’s strategies worked to any degree has been disproven. Also, not to get political, but would you be this upset over it if the other side had won and it turned out that they had employed a similar strategy (even if it had been proven ineffective, as CA’s strategy has)?
  - closeparen 9y ago
    Did I indicate I was on board? Absolutely not. I think it's a disgrace that polite society is gearing up to wreck free speech on the internet just because we didn't like the result this time. But of the people calling to punitively regulate the tech industry now, only the tiny minority who've drunk the HN kool-aid are approaching it from a data-privacy perspective. The actual movement here is about Facebook's assistance to Trump and other extremist politicians, effective or not.
candiodari 9y ago
You're right, but that's exactly why you're seeing this. Fact: the "wrong" candidate was elected (according to >50% of voters and >80% of American billionnaires). (wrong between quotes because obviously in a democracy there is no wrong election outcome, and that's a very good thing indeed, even if it is not what I would have liked) Fact: he did so while being dramatically outspent by the other candidate (and with pretty much all tv stations supporting one candidate with the one exception being Fox, which cannot reasonably be accused of uniform support for Trump) Fact: The entire bay area is up in arms about this, and has shown itself prepared to destroy people's careers over this. (and yes, it was the economic situation created by Bush, and (much more so) by Obama, I get it. However, most voters do not get this) Now you're right. Even if the Russians supported Trump, it cannot have been a great factor. Fake news is another issue that I find hard to believe swayed the election. And, truth be told, there is both democrats and republicans rigging votes, it's not going to make a huge difference. You're right, BUT, seeing this, as a democrat in California or Florida, requires realizing 1) that they've lost. They were in power and fucked up the economy bad enough that they lost the election. The thing about elections is simple: there is always a change of the guard if the economy does badly. Always. 2) (on the part of large tv stations, newspapers, etc) that they've lost their influence. That Jeff Bezos' money spent on the Washington Post was just wasted money. That the owners of NBC, CBS, ABC ... cannot influence people more than facebook can. 3) Have you seen any interviews with Hillary's election team ? I mean I voted for her (DESPITE the war comments, wtf Hillary ?), but damn, these people are NOT taking a "live and let live" attitude here. At one point I thought she was going to attack the interviewer (for asking "why she failed" after she explained that they didn't fail, they were robbed). So if you haven't noticed yet, people, especially in the Bay Area, are attacking anything and everything that is even remotely perceived as being on the side of Trump. And of course, Facebook has/had Peter Thiel, and nobody is happy with him. You are right, the fault is with the democrats and how they handled governing, and how they handled the election, not with Facebook, Russians, Peter Thiel or whoever else will get blamed next month. The fault is with them. They can either admit fault or attack these evil outsiders, and, well, clearly they don't agree the fault is with them. Any conversation that even veers slightly in the direction of politics immediately gets prefaced with a warning that Trump got elected. And we all know, this is a warning that if you support him, for the love of God, keep your mouth shut (I'm convinced that this merely hides his support, and he therefore has a LOT more support than is generally thought. I mean between 1/3 and 1/4 voted for him in the heart of the Bay Area. Where are these people ?). Personally I find blaming myself a very healthy attitude to failure. Step 1. It's my fault. Why ? Because what I do myself is the only thing I can change, and that's the only tool I have to create a different outcome next time. So that's where I need to focus my effort. And yes, I can attack who "made me fail", real or perceived, or with conspiracies, but it's not going to get me a different outcome, it'll simply cement in the failure.

closeparen 9y ago

>Further, the recent scandal was over data abuse by third parties The most recent wave of Facebook's ongoing scandal revealed that data abuse by third parties was one implementation detail of Facebook's complicity in Trump's election. Facebook's troubles (calls for breakup, regulation, etc) started over its crime of making political influence too readily available to extremist ideologies.

downandout 9y ago
Again, you aren’t explaining your basis for the idea that Facebook actually has political influence to make available to anyone. The idea that CA’s strategies worked to any degree has been disproven. Also, not to get political, but would you be this upset over it if the other side had won and it turned out that they had employed a similar strategy (even if it had been proven ineffective, as CA’s strategy has)?
- closeparen 9y ago
  Did I indicate I was on board? Absolutely not. I think it's a disgrace that polite society is gearing up to wreck free speech on the internet just because we didn't like the result this time. But of the people calling to punitively regulate the tech industry now, only the tiny minority who've drunk the HN kool-aid are approaching it from a data-privacy perspective. The actual movement here is about Facebook's assistance to Trump and other extremist politicians, effective or not.

candiodari 9y ago

You're right, but that's exactly why you're seeing this. Fact: the "wrong" candidate was elected (according to >50% of voters and >80% of American billionnaires). (wrong between quotes because obviously in a democracy there is no wrong election outcome, and that's a very good thing indeed, even if it is not what I would have liked) Fact: he did so while being dramatically outspent by the other candidate (and with pretty much all tv stations supporting one candidate with the one exception being Fox, which cannot reasonably be accused of uniform support for Trump) Fact: The entire bay area is up in arms about this, and has shown itself prepared to destroy people's careers over this. (and yes, it was the economic situation created by Bush, and (much more so) by Obama, I get it. However, most voters do not get this) Now you're right. Even if the Russians supported Trump, it cannot have been a great factor. Fake news is another issue that I find hard to believe swayed the election. And, truth be told, there is both democrats and republicans rigging votes, it's not going to make a huge difference. You're right, BUT, seeing this, as a democrat in California or Florida, requires realizing 1) that they've lost. They were in power and fucked up the economy bad enough that they lost the election. The thing about elections is simple: there is always a change of the guard if the economy does badly. Always. 2) (on the part of large tv stations, newspapers, etc) that they've lost their influence. That Jeff Bezos' money spent on the Washington Post was just wasted money. That the owners of NBC, CBS, ABC ... cannot influence people more than facebook can. 3) Have you seen any interviews with Hillary's election team ? I mean I voted for her (DESPITE the war comments, wtf Hillary ?), but damn, these people are NOT taking a "live and let live" attitude here. At one point I thought she was going to attack the interviewer (for asking "why she failed" after she explained that they didn't fail, they were robbed). So if you haven't noticed yet, people, especially in the Bay Area, are attacking anything and everything that is even remotely perceived as being on the side of Trump. And of course, Facebook has/had Peter Thiel, and nobody is happy with him. You are right, the fault is with the democrats and how they handled governing, and how they handled the election, not with Facebook, Russians, Peter Thiel or whoever else will get blamed next month. The fault is with them. They can either admit fault or attack these evil outsiders, and, well, clearly they don't agree the fault is with them. Any conversation that even veers slightly in the direction of politics immediately gets prefaced with a warning that Trump got elected. And we all know, this is a warning that if you support him, for the love of God, keep your mouth shut (I'm convinced that this merely hides his support, and he therefore has a LOT more support than is generally thought. I mean between 1/3 and 1/4 voted for him in the heart of the Bay Area. Where are these people ?). Personally I find blaming myself a very healthy attitude to failure. Step 1. It's my fault. Why ? Because what I do myself is the only thing I can change, and that's the only tool I have to create a different outcome next time. So that's where I need to focus my effort. And yes, I can attack who "made me fail", real or perceived, or with conspiracies, but it's not going to get me a different outcome, it'll simply cement in the failure.