6 ms·

Where do you draw the line? At the point in which you have 1B+ users, access to mind-boggling quantities of information about them, and unprecedented power ove

Where do you draw the line? At the point in which you have 1B+ users, access to mind-boggling quantities of information about them, and unprecedented power over elections.

TallGuyShort 7y ago
If we think Facebook has "power" over elections, let's just give up on democracy, honestly. That's abdicating any responsibility voters have for their own votes.
- brlewis 7y ago
  I do think big media have a lot of power to influence elections, but I'm not ready to give up on democracy yet. Also, it's only possible for me to abdicate the responsibility of one voter, not all of us.
  - pferde 7y ago
    Big media has always had a lot of power to influence election. This is mostly about FB being the new kid on this block, and traditional big media not liking it, and firing at FB from all barrels. I do not like Facebook at all, but I can recognize a sustained media smear campaign when it's smacking me in the eyeballs every day.
    - cameronbrown 7y ago
      Exactly. It feels like Facebook's other issues like Cambridge Analytica would've been basically ignored by the general public if the media wasn't angry with FB for dominating the attention of its audience.
- ben_w 7y ago
  All voters can only make decisions based on the information they can find. If the information comes overwhelmingly from one source (and in this case “Facebook” counts as such for the average voter), then it is imperative that said source represents reality, not propaganda. It is impossible for even the smartest voter to do better by the power of reason alone. Reason isn’t magic.
  - cameronbrown 7y ago
    Define propaganda. Because everything at some level is propaganda. Even facts can be presented in such a way that they support any argument. The only way to fight misinformation is with more, better information. Filter bubbles preventing this type of content from reaching users is the real problem.
    - ben_w 7y ago
      I define propaganda as deliberately attempting to mislead a significant population for political purposes. I consider the two biggest problems with FB et al is that they are a paperclip optimiser for human attention, and that they are systematically exploitable by hostile actors. Filter bubbles are merely an emergent feature of that optimisation, not the cause.
  - TallGuyShort 7y ago
    It's impossible for the smartest voter to identify what is and isn't a credible source when posted to Facebook, but average voters possess the ability to listen to arguments about foreign policy and decide who should control the big red nuke button? Or listen to arguments about economics and decide who should control the big money printer? lol ok.
    - ben_w 7y ago
      My apologies for being unclear. I’m saying gin=gout. No matter how smart you are, if you see only one side you can’t possibly tell if it’s a good argument as you have nothing to compare it against. Following on from that, thanks to all our human cognitive biases and limitations, the information doesn’t even need to be totally one sided. 20th century democracy worked acceptably well because vested interests controlling newspapers etc. couldn’t dominate every aspect of political discourse everywhere all the time — although there are a few interesting examples of them dominating specific demographics, and as a result a whole bunch of people have been needlessly demonised, which is literally how I know this is a problem that can happen.
- mpweiher 7y ago
  This is not a boolean, but has degrees, and the matter is the sheer scale of it. Let's assume that every voter is 99% responsible for their own vote, and there is a 1% FB component. So every voter, individually, is responsible for their own vote. But facebook has influence over, let's say, 200M voters. Multiply that by 1% and you get 2M votes. And of course the selective targeting means that FB doesn't need to apply their influence with a sledgehammer like that. They can target people that they have a very good sense are at the tipping point for the message. Add to that the electoral college system, so you only have to target a very small set of people in order to tip the election (ignore anyone in CA, for example). So FB having power and voters being responsible are not mutually exclusive.
  - cameronbrown 7y ago
    Having 1% influence over all individuals does not mean you have 1% control over the entire population. It is entirely possible for every single person to ignore your influence.
    - mpweiher 7y ago
      Possible but not probable. Facebook's emotional manipulation study showed that. https://origin.computerworld.com/article/2491420/facebook-emotional-manipulation-test-turns-users-into--lab-rats-.html https://origin.computerworld.com/article/2491420/facebook-em...
- ulisesrmzroche 7y ago
  Propaganda has always had an effect on democracy, especially power over elections. I do agree that we should give up on democracy altogether but that’s a different topic, yeah.

Where do you draw the line? At the point in which you have 1B+ users, access to mind-boggling quantities of information about them, and unprecedented power over elections.

TallGuyShort 7y ago

If we think Facebook has "power" over elections, let's just give up on democracy, honestly. That's abdicating any responsibility voters have for their own votes.

brlewis 7y ago
I do think big media have a lot of power to influence elections, but I'm not ready to give up on democracy yet. Also, it's only possible for me to abdicate the responsibility of one voter, not all of us.
- pferde 7y ago
  Big media has always had a lot of power to influence election. This is mostly about FB being the new kid on this block, and traditional big media not liking it, and firing at FB from all barrels. I do not like Facebook at all, but I can recognize a sustained media smear campaign when it's smacking me in the eyeballs every day.
  - cameronbrown 7y ago
    Exactly. It feels like Facebook's other issues like Cambridge Analytica would've been basically ignored by the general public if the media wasn't angry with FB for dominating the attention of its audience.
ben_w 7y ago
All voters can only make decisions based on the information they can find. If the information comes overwhelmingly from one source (and in this case “Facebook” counts as such for the average voter), then it is imperative that said source represents reality, not propaganda. It is impossible for even the smartest voter to do better by the power of reason alone. Reason isn’t magic.
- cameronbrown 7y ago
  Define propaganda. Because everything at some level is propaganda. Even facts can be presented in such a way that they support any argument. The only way to fight misinformation is with more, better information. Filter bubbles preventing this type of content from reaching users is the real problem.
  - ben_w 7y ago
    I define propaganda as deliberately attempting to mislead a significant population for political purposes. I consider the two biggest problems with FB et al is that they are a paperclip optimiser for human attention, and that they are systematically exploitable by hostile actors. Filter bubbles are merely an emergent feature of that optimisation, not the cause.
- TallGuyShort 7y ago
  It's impossible for the smartest voter to identify what is and isn't a credible source when posted to Facebook, but average voters possess the ability to listen to arguments about foreign policy and decide who should control the big red nuke button? Or listen to arguments about economics and decide who should control the big money printer? lol ok.
  - ben_w 7y ago
    My apologies for being unclear. I’m saying gin=gout. No matter how smart you are, if you see only one side you can’t possibly tell if it’s a good argument as you have nothing to compare it against. Following on from that, thanks to all our human cognitive biases and limitations, the information doesn’t even need to be totally one sided. 20th century democracy worked acceptably well because vested interests controlling newspapers etc. couldn’t dominate every aspect of political discourse everywhere all the time — although there are a few interesting examples of them dominating specific demographics, and as a result a whole bunch of people have been needlessly demonised, which is literally how I know this is a problem that can happen.
mpweiher 7y ago
This is not a boolean, but has degrees, and the matter is the sheer scale of it. Let's assume that every voter is 99% responsible for their own vote, and there is a 1% FB component. So every voter, individually, is responsible for their own vote. But facebook has influence over, let's say, 200M voters. Multiply that by 1% and you get 2M votes. And of course the selective targeting means that FB doesn't need to apply their influence with a sledgehammer like that. They can target people that they have a very good sense are at the tipping point for the message. Add to that the electoral college system, so you only have to target a very small set of people in order to tip the election (ignore anyone in CA, for example). So FB having power and voters being responsible are not mutually exclusive.
- cameronbrown 7y ago
  Having 1% influence over all individuals does not mean you have 1% control over the entire population. It is entirely possible for every single person to ignore your influence.
  - mpweiher 7y ago
    Possible but not probable. Facebook's emotional manipulation study showed that. https://origin.computerworld.com/article/2491420/facebook-emotional-manipulation-test-turns-users-into--lab-rats-.html https://origin.computerworld.com/article/2491420/facebook-em...
ulisesrmzroche 7y ago
Propaganda has always had an effect on democracy, especially power over elections. I do agree that we should give up on democracy altogether but that’s a different topic, yeah.