7 ms·

the company had hired a right-wing opposition research group, Definers Public Affairs, to dig up dirt on George Soros, after Soros gave a blistering speech at t

by blfr 8y ago

the company had hired a right-wing opposition research group, Definers Public Affairs, to dig up dirt on George Soros, after Soros gave a blistering speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos decrying the power of social media, especially Facebook and Google, for their “far-reaching adverse consequences on the functioning of democracy, particularly on the integrity of elections.” What is this about? Because it's weird friendly fire. Both Soros and Facebook/Google want largely the same outcome from elections: liberal politicians who keep the markets humming while allowing for easy international trade and migration.

asianthrowaway 8y ago
Pot calling the kettle black.
Juliate 8y ago
You might be mistaken about what Facebook "wants".
- sattoshi 8y ago
  Facebook is nautorious for silently banning anything right of center.
  - pjc50 8y ago
    Hardly - they let the entire leave.eu campaign alone, and there are plenty of far-right organisations on there. I believe that eventually, after much public pressure, they banned Infowars? That's about it.
    - gaius 8y ago
      Who says leaving the EU is a right-wing thing? The current leader of the Labour Party is far more anti-EU than the current leader of the Tories! Some things just don’t fit the classic left/right model.
      - Juliate 8y ago
        It's an extreme/desperate-wing thing (left or right, doesn't matter). Because that's the only way they know they can grab power: by making their people miserable, blaming the centrists or moderates, and triggering a revolt. That's the playbook for Brexit and so far, it worked. That's the playbook running in France right now as well - although they're trying to piggyback the still popular, uncoordinated movement. They're not even shy about it.
        jessaustin 8y ago
        Lots of people are already miserable. Not the "experts" who have sold their intellects to maintain the status quo for the billionaires, of course. Lots of inequality, lots of bureaucracy, lots of rules, lots of violence, gives them lots of levers to pull. Unless you're such an expert, you shouldn't fear change.
        Juliate 8y ago
        I'm not an expert - and I'm well aware of people having miserable living conditions already. And I'm well aware that in Europe, misery is more a matter of relative appreciation and of dynamics (which the media and the social networks nurture and feed on) than of absolute. Europe is rather well endowed, compared to the rest of the globe. Still... What I fear is disorder, irrational, unwarranted violence, managed by unaware & unapologetic kids who make money on it today and will write history tomorrow. Facebook/Twitter/Instagram & co are heavily contributing to set the world on fire by blowing on people's weaknesses and susceptibilities. The question to me is not if/when their demise will happen. The question is how to make it happen faster: either they lose, either balanced democracies lose.
  - pbhjpbhj 8y ago
    They've worked with others (CA) to hand the UK over to the right wing. Do you have specific examples?
  - ben_w 8y ago
    A very close friend of mine is a self-described “revolutionary” (Communist? Marxist? Something like that). She is convinced Facebook is biased against the left and secretly censoring all their content.
starbeast 8y ago
>Both Soros and Facebook/Google want largely the same outcome from elections I think we are consuming wildly differing news sources.
TictacTactic 8y ago
I think Facebook would like to be perceived as a liberal tech startup but keep in mind they knowingly sold the user info to Cambridge analytics for the republicans. The truth is their in it for the money like every other company. Apart of that means maintaining public perception.
- beaconstudios 8y ago
  I think it would be reasonable to assume they sold user info to anyone who could afford it.
  - paganel 8y ago
    Afaik the Democrats had done the same thing in 2012 with their micro-targeting "strategy" and they were praised for doing that (even here on this website). From here[1]: > They used classic micro-targeting online advertising to reach those groups. Obama's team's use of Facebook this time was also very clever, tapping into Facebook's individual profile data. A million users downloaded the Obama 2012 app on Facebook. The app was able to identify their Facebook friends that fit favorable profiles located in key swing states, encouraging them to contact these friends to remind them to vote. Sources say one in five of those contacted this way were influenced positively by this contact. If it matters I'm not a US citizen and I've never set foot in the States so I had almost no direct stake in the 2012 and the 2016 US elections. [1] https://www.mediavillage.com/article/how-data-and-micro-targeting-won-the-2012-election-for-obama-antony-young-mindshare-north-america/ https://www.mediavillage.com/article/how-data-and-micro-targ...
    - specialist 8y ago
      Overtly. With opt-in. Big difference.
      - paganel 8y ago
        > A million users downloaded the Obama 2012 app on Facebook. I'm pretty sure that the friends of those 1 million people that had opted-in were not consulted about anything, though, but I may be wrong of that. And I'm pretty sure that those friends were the real target of said campaign.
ben_w 8y ago
I think what you identified is merely a shared instrumental goal, not an objective goal for either of them. I think, from how they talk, that Facebook wants to have everybody watching it all the time. From how they talk, more even than making money. I think Soros wants intellectual freedom. Not so sure about that, but it looks that way from the philanthropy. Both just happen to be using free markets to work towards their goals.
- ForHackernews 8y ago
  I've never understood why Soros is such a bogeyman to so many people. As far as I can see (from my position as a believer in so-called "western values" like freedom of speech, rule of law and fair elections), his goals seem entirely noble. I get why despots like Viktor Orban hate Soros, but what about all the others? Do they hate him because he's rich and spends his money on politics? Because he comes off like a meddler, butting into other countries' affairs? Because he's (apparently?) Jewish? What is it?
  - M2Ys4U 8y ago
    >I've never understood why Soros is such a bogeyman to so many people. Anti-Semitism.
    - vixen99 8y ago
      Simple solutions for ...
  - drewmol 8y ago
    While I'm not well informed enough to have a strong opinion on the matter, the bad things I've heard are mostly related to his profits from currency speculation and similar, which many people feel were immoral actions taken by Mr. Soros and untimately harmful to the nations who's currency he profited off by shorting. That's plenty of information regarding his past financial dealings if you are interested.
    - 8y ago
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
rsynnott 8y ago
I mean, it says it right in the article. Soros (like many people) is worried about social media pseudo-monopolies. That's obviously going to be threatening to said pseudo-monopolies.
seanhunter 8y ago
George Soros is very open publicly about what he wants to achieve. If you read "The Open Society and its Enemies" by Karl Popper, that's the intellectual foundation of what Soros is shooting for. THat's why his foundation is called something like the "Open Society Foundation". So: Democracy, scientific reasoning, strong institutions etc. He has been extremely critical of the large tech monopolies (eg his Davos speech covered here and elsewhere https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jan/25/george-soros-facebook-and-google-are-a-menace-to-society https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jan/25/george-soro... ) so it's no surprise that Facebook would do "opposition" research on him. Facebook has a very large pavilion and visible presence at Davos so the criticism must have been particularly embarrassing in that context.
- aokiji 8y ago
  His society is anything but "Open", given the state of affairs of his subversive endeavors and him admitting on 60 minutes that he cannot and does not care about the moral consequences of his actions.

by blfr 8y ago

asianthrowaway 8y ago

Pot calling the kettle black.

Juliate 8y ago

You might be mistaken about what Facebook "wants".

sattoshi 8y ago
Facebook is nautorious for silently banning anything right of center.
- pjc50 8y ago
  Hardly - they let the entire leave.eu campaign alone, and there are plenty of far-right organisations on there. I believe that eventually, after much public pressure, they banned Infowars? That's about it.
  - gaius 8y ago
    Who says leaving the EU is a right-wing thing? The current leader of the Labour Party is far more anti-EU than the current leader of the Tories! Some things just don’t fit the classic left/right model.
    - Juliate 8y ago
      It's an extreme/desperate-wing thing (left or right, doesn't matter). Because that's the only way they know they can grab power: by making their people miserable, blaming the centrists or moderates, and triggering a revolt. That's the playbook for Brexit and so far, it worked. That's the playbook running in France right now as well - although they're trying to piggyback the still popular, uncoordinated movement. They're not even shy about it.
      - jessaustin 8y ago
        Lots of people are already miserable. Not the "experts" who have sold their intellects to maintain the status quo for the billionaires, of course. Lots of inequality, lots of bureaucracy, lots of rules, lots of violence, gives them lots of levers to pull. Unless you're such an expert, you shouldn't fear change.
        Juliate 8y ago
        I'm not an expert - and I'm well aware of people having miserable living conditions already. And I'm well aware that in Europe, misery is more a matter of relative appreciation and of dynamics (which the media and the social networks nurture and feed on) than of absolute. Europe is rather well endowed, compared to the rest of the globe. Still... What I fear is disorder, irrational, unwarranted violence, managed by unaware & unapologetic kids who make money on it today and will write history tomorrow. Facebook/Twitter/Instagram & co are heavily contributing to set the world on fire by blowing on people's weaknesses and susceptibilities. The question to me is not if/when their demise will happen. The question is how to make it happen faster: either they lose, either balanced democracies lose.
- pbhjpbhj 8y ago
  They've worked with others (CA) to hand the UK over to the right wing. Do you have specific examples?
- ben_w 8y ago
  A very close friend of mine is a self-described “revolutionary” (Communist? Marxist? Something like that). She is convinced Facebook is biased against the left and secretly censoring all their content.

starbeast 8y ago

>Both Soros and Facebook/Google want largely the same outcome from elections I think we are consuming wildly differing news sources.

TictacTactic 8y ago

I think Facebook would like to be perceived as a liberal tech startup but keep in mind they knowingly sold the user info to Cambridge analytics for the republicans. The truth is their in it for the money like every other company. Apart of that means maintaining public perception.

beaconstudios 8y ago
I think it would be reasonable to assume they sold user info to anyone who could afford it.
- paganel 8y ago
  Afaik the Democrats had done the same thing in 2012 with their micro-targeting "strategy" and they were praised for doing that (even here on this website). From here[1]: > They used classic micro-targeting online advertising to reach those groups. Obama's team's use of Facebook this time was also very clever, tapping into Facebook's individual profile data. A million users downloaded the Obama 2012 app on Facebook. The app was able to identify their Facebook friends that fit favorable profiles located in key swing states, encouraging them to contact these friends to remind them to vote. Sources say one in five of those contacted this way were influenced positively by this contact. If it matters I'm not a US citizen and I've never set foot in the States so I had almost no direct stake in the 2012 and the 2016 US elections. [1] https://www.mediavillage.com/article/how-data-and-micro-targeting-won-the-2012-election-for-obama-antony-young-mindshare-north-america/ https://www.mediavillage.com/article/how-data-and-micro-targ...
  - specialist 8y ago
    Overtly. With opt-in. Big difference.
    - paganel 8y ago
      > A million users downloaded the Obama 2012 app on Facebook. I'm pretty sure that the friends of those 1 million people that had opted-in were not consulted about anything, though, but I may be wrong of that. And I'm pretty sure that those friends were the real target of said campaign.

ben_w 8y ago

I think what you identified is merely a shared instrumental goal, not an objective goal for either of them. I think, from how they talk, that Facebook wants to have everybody watching it all the time. From how they talk, more even than making money. I think Soros wants intellectual freedom. Not so sure about that, but it looks that way from the philanthropy. Both just happen to be using free markets to work towards their goals.

ForHackernews 8y ago
I've never understood why Soros is such a bogeyman to so many people. As far as I can see (from my position as a believer in so-called "western values" like freedom of speech, rule of law and fair elections), his goals seem entirely noble. I get why despots like Viktor Orban hate Soros, but what about all the others? Do they hate him because he's rich and spends his money on politics? Because he comes off like a meddler, butting into other countries' affairs? Because he's (apparently?) Jewish? What is it?
- M2Ys4U 8y ago
  >I've never understood why Soros is such a bogeyman to so many people. Anti-Semitism.
  - vixen99 8y ago
    Simple solutions for ...
- drewmol 8y ago
  While I'm not well informed enough to have a strong opinion on the matter, the bad things I've heard are mostly related to his profits from currency speculation and similar, which many people feel were immoral actions taken by Mr. Soros and untimately harmful to the nations who's currency he profited off by shorting. That's plenty of information regarding his past financial dealings if you are interested.
  - 8y ago

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

rsynnott 8y ago

I mean, it says it right in the article. Soros (like many people) is worried about social media pseudo-monopolies. That's obviously going to be threatening to said pseudo-monopolies.

seanhunter 8y ago

George Soros is very open publicly about what he wants to achieve. If you read "The Open Society and its Enemies" by Karl Popper, that's the intellectual foundation of what Soros is shooting for. THat's why his foundation is called something like the "Open Society Foundation". So: Democracy, scientific reasoning, strong institutions etc. He has been extremely critical of the large tech monopolies (eg his Davos speech covered here and elsewhere https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jan/25/george-soros-facebook-and-google-are-a-menace-to-society https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jan/25/george-soro... ) so it's no surprise that Facebook would do "opposition" research on him. Facebook has a very large pavilion and visible presence at Davos so the criticism must have been particularly embarrassing in that context.

aokiji 8y ago
His society is anything but "Open", given the state of affairs of his subversive endeavors and him admitting on 60 minutes that he cannot and does not care about the moral consequences of his actions.