4 ms·

This isn't a case of Facebook influencing the election. It is a case where they outright took money from a foreign government to help them interfere in the demo

by tensor 8y ago

This isn't a case of Facebook influencing the election. It is a case where they outright took money from a foreign government to help them interfere in the democratic process to the foreign governments benefit. It's borderline treason, not simply using it's resources to speak louder via lobbying or broadcasting as many other companies have done. This is not a case of "all sides same" as much it seems that many posters here want to keep pushing that narrative.

BLKNSLVR 8y ago
"outright took money from a foreign government to help them interfere in the democratic process to the foreign governments benefit" That gives the idea that it was Facebook's intent. They took money for advertising from someone who was gaming the system - FB didn't know the system was being gamed. They're just selling targeted advertising (reprehensible for different reasons), which is just what FB does as a business. That's also somewhat why I used the example of a media mogul obviously having enough power to have a Prime Minister of a country replaced. That's well beyond what should be considered legal. It's not treasonous because it's in corporate interests as opposed to a foreign power, but how big does a 'corporate' need to be before it's considered a foreign power? It's still against the interests of the country. The shame of it is, most efforts to increase transparency and close loopholes in political bribery (cough donations cough) are watered-down: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-11-15/labor-and-coalition-reject-changes-to-political-donation-laws/10502660 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-11-15/labor-and-coalition-r... Facebook were passively, not actively complicit. Greedy and naive, stupid and blind; not malicious. The irony is that they ARE actively malicious when it comes to selling out their users' privacy to the highest bidder, but that's not what this is about. I haven't read everything about all the angles on this topic, so if I'm obviously missing specific information about how Facebook actively colluded with foreign powers (allegedly or otherwise), please point me to it. Fundamentally, Facebook shouldn't be used as a scapegoat for Trump winning the election. (US) politics has been a cesspool of corruption since long before Zuck had any influence on the world. Wholly and solely blaming FB would be an injustice whilst allowing the more fundamental injustices to continue unpunished.

by tensor 8y ago

BLKNSLVR 8y ago

"outright took money from a foreign government to help them interfere in the democratic process to the foreign governments benefit" That gives the idea that it was Facebook's intent. They took money for advertising from someone who was gaming the system - FB didn't know the system was being gamed. They're just selling targeted advertising (reprehensible for different reasons), which is just what FB does as a business. That's also somewhat why I used the example of a media mogul obviously having enough power to have a Prime Minister of a country replaced. That's well beyond what should be considered legal. It's not treasonous because it's in corporate interests as opposed to a foreign power, but how big does a 'corporate' need to be before it's considered a foreign power? It's still against the interests of the country. The shame of it is, most efforts to increase transparency and close loopholes in political bribery (cough donations cough) are watered-down: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-11-15/labor-and-coalition-reject-changes-to-political-donation-laws/10502660 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-11-15/labor-and-coalition-r... Facebook were passively, not actively complicit. Greedy and naive, stupid and blind; not malicious. The irony is that they ARE actively malicious when it comes to selling out their users' privacy to the highest bidder, but that's not what this is about. I haven't read everything about all the angles on this topic, so if I'm obviously missing specific information about how Facebook actively colluded with foreign powers (allegedly or otherwise), please point me to it. Fundamentally, Facebook shouldn't be used as a scapegoat for Trump winning the election. (US) politics has been a cesspool of corruption since long before Zuck had any influence on the world. Wholly and solely blaming FB would be an injustice whilst allowing the more fundamental injustices to continue unpunished.