5 ms·

Because Americans are scared. They had one election with traces of foreign interference (something the US does a lot of, by the way [1]) and a candidate most pe

by aylmao 8y ago

Because Americans are scared. They had one election with traces of foreign interference (something the US does a lot of, by the way [1]) and a candidate most people didn't vote for won-- because for some reason that's something that can happen in their democracy. Media outlets noticed there is a lot of spam and misinformation happening on social media, and saw not only great headlines to garner clicks, but also an opportunity to make people distrust smaller sources of information in favor or big, established brands and companies. They drove subscriptions up by creating an aura of mistrust and impending doom [2][3] after historical decline due to the internet. Did the inflammatory posts actually affect the election? It's unclear, and if so it was likely less so than the coverage of traditional media outlets [4]. That being said, there are inflammatory parties on the internet, and since Americans now seem to think the future of their country depends on removing them, Facebook needs to abide for the sake of PR. Note: this actually costs Facebook time and money (they are hiring a lot of people for this effect [5]) but they've been bashed so much on the media they need all the PR stunts they can get. It is a slippery slope, I agree. But it's the one people in the US want to follow, again, because they are scared. Fearful people take slippery slopes and focus on apparent short-term solutions instead of long-term objectives (fixing the American political system so the population actually votes for who is president would be a good place to start). There's that quote from the Star Wars trilogy (the best line in the prequels, IMO): "So this is how liberty dies...with thunderous applause." This comes to mind here. People will willfully act against their interests out of fear. [1]: https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/americas-long-history-of-meddling-in-other-countries-elections https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/americas-long-histor... [2]: https://money.cnn.com/2016/11/17/media/nytimes-subscription-rise/index.html https://money.cnn.com/2016/11/17/media/nytimes-subscription-... [3]: https://money.cnn.com/2017/09/26/media/washington-post-digital-subscriptions/index.html https://money.cnn.com/2017/09/26/media/washington-post-digit... [4]: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-much-did-russian-interference-affect-the-2016-election/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-much-did-russian-in... [5]: https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/31/facebook-senate-testimony-doubling-security-group-to-20000-in-2018.html https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/31/facebook-senate-testimony-do...

dibstern 8y ago
Your comment reeks of hubris, hatred for Americans, and self-delusion. You question the value of ridding the world of bad-actors. Why? Why would this be a bad thing, if one company ensures it cannot accidentally allow foreign powers to interfere in elections? You have one ‘source’ that claims, without evidence, that the impact of Russian meddling was minimal. To be so confident of your pretty big claim, with only that source to go on, that’s pretty crazy. You also make it out like all of the US is actively working on this. Ridiculous. People all around their country are attempting to strengthen their democracy, to find ways to make it better. That you think this is a bad thing... it makes it obvious how much you hate America. Deny it all you want. And I’m not even an American.
- AndrewUnmuted 8y ago
  What a bizarre reply. This kind of evasion is reminiscent of the neoconservative responses to people dubious about the Iraq war back in 2003. Not only did the poster point to source material for his claims, he constructed a sound argument based upon the age-old wisdom of asking the question, "Who benefits?" I didn't even see one value judgment about the US in the comment.
- aylmao 8y ago
  I don't think it's a bad thing (: I'm sorry you felt my comment was of hatred towards Americans, it was not. It's mostly to provide the perspective of someone who is not from the US and who as such isn't as scared of the Trump election, and thus thinks this whole situation is about more than good and democracy vs evil and Russian tyrants. Let me address some points: 1. Never did I mention Facebook shouldn't rid its platform of bad users-- I'm glad they are (and if this hadn't happened they probably wouldn't have, again, cause it takes time and money). 2. Never did I say Americans were dumb or insult them in any other way that should make someone believe I hate them. Saying a people is scared shouldn't be taken as an insult, many peoples and individuals are scared of different things. 3. I didn't expect this to be read as a research paper haha. I'll add more references next time. In regards to the one you pointed out (wether the Russian meddling had high impact), I'd suggest these other articles by The Verge [1] and the New York Times [2] to form an opinion. I'd also suggest watching Jon Stewart's appearance on CNN Crossfire [3]: he was talking about the loss of civilized discourse and transformation of American Politics into a divisive "me vs. you" game back in 2004, before social media was widespread. [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.nytimes.com/2018/02/18/world/europe/russia-us-election.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/18/world/europe/russia-us-el... [3]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFQFB5YpDZE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFQFB5YpDZE

by aylmao 8y ago

dibstern 8y ago

Your comment reeks of hubris, hatred for Americans, and self-delusion. You question the value of ridding the world of bad-actors. Why? Why would this be a bad thing, if one company ensures it cannot accidentally allow foreign powers to interfere in elections? You have one ‘source’ that claims, without evidence, that the impact of Russian meddling was minimal. To be so confident of your pretty big claim, with only that source to go on, that’s pretty crazy. You also make it out like all of the US is actively working on this. Ridiculous. People all around their country are attempting to strengthen their democracy, to find ways to make it better. That you think this is a bad thing... it makes it obvious how much you hate America. Deny it all you want. And I’m not even an American.

AndrewUnmuted 8y ago
What a bizarre reply. This kind of evasion is reminiscent of the neoconservative responses to people dubious about the Iraq war back in 2003. Not only did the poster point to source material for his claims, he constructed a sound argument based upon the age-old wisdom of asking the question, "Who benefits?" I didn't even see one value judgment about the US in the comment.
aylmao 8y ago
I don't think it's a bad thing (: I'm sorry you felt my comment was of hatred towards Americans, it was not. It's mostly to provide the perspective of someone who is not from the US and who as such isn't as scared of the Trump election, and thus thinks this whole situation is about more than good and democracy vs evil and Russian tyrants. Let me address some points: 1. Never did I mention Facebook shouldn't rid its platform of bad users-- I'm glad they are (and if this hadn't happened they probably wouldn't have, again, cause it takes time and money). 2. Never did I say Americans were dumb or insult them in any other way that should make someone believe I hate them. Saying a people is scared shouldn't be taken as an insult, many peoples and individuals are scared of different things. 3. I didn't expect this to be read as a research paper haha. I'll add more references next time. In regards to the one you pointed out (wether the Russian meddling had high impact), I'd suggest these other articles by The Verge [1] and the New York Times [2] to form an opinion. I'd also suggest watching Jon Stewart's appearance on CNN Crossfire [3]: he was talking about the loss of civilized discourse and transformation of American Politics into a divisive "me vs. you" game back in 2004, before social media was widespread. [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.nytimes.com/2018/02/18/world/europe/russia-us-election.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/18/world/europe/russia-us-el... [3]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFQFB5YpDZE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFQFB5YpDZE