4 ms·

> After all, they're not in business to influence politics. Dude, I personally know people who work in Facebook's own lobbying department. I would be very surp

> After all, they're not in business to influence politics. Dude, I personally know people who work in Facebook's own lobbying department. I would be very surprised if Twitter didn't have the same thing.

xapata 6y ago
There's a difference between Facebook lobbying and Facebook using its products to disseminate propaganda.
- moron4hire 6y ago
  Where the hell have you been for the last 4 years? That's been the only conversation about Facebook. EDIT: Mark Zuckerberg had to appear before Congress in 2018 specifically to address Facebook disseminating propaganda!
  - xapata 6y ago
    > Mark Zuckerberg had to appear before Congress in 2018 Exactly. Whereas with TikTok the government is pushing the propaganda.
    - bigbob2 6y ago
      That's not really a fair comparison though. If FB was pushing US propaganda in China, there would have been no such hearing in the US. That's more equivalent to what TikTok is doing.
    - netcan 6y ago
      This is the sort of thing I meant in my original comment. "The chinese government use tiktok for propaganda" is an effective call to action. Once you form an opinion on tiktok, the FB equivalents will start to to stand out. The CCP use tiktok for propaganda. Lobbying firms & individual candidates use FB for campaign. In terms of transparency, manipulativeness, political impact, morals and such... not that different. Tiktok made sure to suppress HK protests, because they're directly controlled by the ccp. Many US firms (eg NBA) were also influenced by the CCPs desire to suppress support of the HK protest. Tiktok hired and greased many Democratic & Republican "staffers" to lobby for them. They grease pockets. Don't all large companies do that? Tiktok shares your data with the ccp. Facebook sells your data, sometimes to political actors. Meanwhile, the NSA help themselves. The differences between tiktok and FB may get a ball rolling. ITLT, the similarities will come into play.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - moron4hire 6y ago
        I spent a lot of time writing a reply and eventually deleted it. It's not clear from your original post to which I replied that you're being descriptive, not prescriptive, that by pushing the issue of dragging out TikTok's propaganda machine that it opens the door to dragging out Facebook. It's really hard to tell that you meant, "the public perception of Facebook is..." (that it's not in the business of influencing politics).
- agustif 6y ago
  Yeah right, Cambridge Analytica wasn't a thing...
  - chillacy 6y ago
    That discounts intent: Facebook's intent is for better or for worse to sell a bunch ads and make profits. That Cambridge Analytica was able to exploit Facebook's social graph for political ends is not conducive to the company's mission. Presumably the GP is implying that TikTok would be working even closer with groups like CA, to the point with partnering with them instead of kicking them off the platform as Facebook did.
  - xapata 6y ago
    That's considered a scandal, and was on behalf of political groups, not the government itself.
    - agustif 6y ago
      You say political groups when there's only democrats/republicans dicothomy on the US. Republican interests channelled through russian oligarch friends made TRUMP possible. Let's see what happens on the coming elections...
netcan 6y ago
I think you're missing my point. First, I think "benign commercial interests" are not. At least not at that scale. Lobbying proves the point. Tech/media is not even the big example. Military industry, banking, mining and healthcare are all far more intertwined with government. Their most important activity is lobbying. That said, tech lobbying still pretty big and the combination of lobbying and controlling a media powerhouse is worse than just lobbying. More importantly, Facebook (etc), being a massive media channel has lots of power and influence just by being facebook. Again, commercial interests aren't necessarily benign. FB might tweak the feed to make sure covid-19 rumour mills or deliberate misinformation campaigns don't get out of hand. That might be a good decision (or not), but it isn't a benign decision. It demonstrates that commercial interests, feeds and such are not neutral. They are deliberate, opinionated and that opinion affects reality. There are two questions that the tiktok case brings up: "how much power?" and "who's power." Zuck isn't as scary as Xi, hence the different response to tiktok. OTOH, Facebook have the same sort of power as tiktok, just a lot more of it.

xapata 6y ago

There's a difference between Facebook lobbying and Facebook using its products to disseminate propaganda.

moron4hire 6y ago
Where the hell have you been for the last 4 years? That's been the only conversation about Facebook. EDIT: Mark Zuckerberg had to appear before Congress in 2018 specifically to address Facebook disseminating propaganda!
- xapata 6y ago
  > Mark Zuckerberg had to appear before Congress in 2018 Exactly. Whereas with TikTok the government is pushing the propaganda.
  - bigbob2 6y ago
    That's not really a fair comparison though. If FB was pushing US propaganda in China, there would have been no such hearing in the US. That's more equivalent to what TikTok is doing.
  - netcan 6y ago
    This is the sort of thing I meant in my original comment. "The chinese government use tiktok for propaganda" is an effective call to action. Once you form an opinion on tiktok, the FB equivalents will start to to stand out. The CCP use tiktok for propaganda. Lobbying firms & individual candidates use FB for campaign. In terms of transparency, manipulativeness, political impact, morals and such... not that different. Tiktok made sure to suppress HK protests, because they're directly controlled by the ccp. Many US firms (eg NBA) were also influenced by the CCPs desire to suppress support of the HK protest. Tiktok hired and greased many Democratic & Republican "staffers" to lobby for them. They grease pockets. Don't all large companies do that? Tiktok shares your data with the ccp. Facebook sells your data, sometimes to political actors. Meanwhile, the NSA help themselves. The differences between tiktok and FB may get a ball rolling. ITLT, the similarities will come into play.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - moron4hire 6y ago
      I spent a lot of time writing a reply and eventually deleted it. It's not clear from your original post to which I replied that you're being descriptive, not prescriptive, that by pushing the issue of dragging out TikTok's propaganda machine that it opens the door to dragging out Facebook. It's really hard to tell that you meant, "the public perception of Facebook is..." (that it's not in the business of influencing politics).
agustif 6y ago
Yeah right, Cambridge Analytica wasn't a thing...
- chillacy 6y ago
  That discounts intent: Facebook's intent is for better or for worse to sell a bunch ads and make profits. That Cambridge Analytica was able to exploit Facebook's social graph for political ends is not conducive to the company's mission. Presumably the GP is implying that TikTok would be working even closer with groups like CA, to the point with partnering with them instead of kicking them off the platform as Facebook did.
- xapata 6y ago
  That's considered a scandal, and was on behalf of political groups, not the government itself.
  - agustif 6y ago
    You say political groups when there's only democrats/republicans dicothomy on the US. Republican interests channelled through russian oligarch friends made TRUMP possible. Let's see what happens on the coming elections...

netcan 6y ago

I think you're missing my point. First, I think "benign commercial interests" are not. At least not at that scale. Lobbying proves the point. Tech/media is not even the big example. Military industry, banking, mining and healthcare are all far more intertwined with government. Their most important activity is lobbying. That said, tech lobbying still pretty big and the combination of lobbying and controlling a media powerhouse is worse than just lobbying. More importantly, Facebook (etc), being a massive media channel has lots of power and influence just by being facebook. Again, commercial interests aren't necessarily benign. FB might tweak the feed to make sure covid-19 rumour mills or deliberate misinformation campaigns don't get out of hand. That might be a good decision (or not), but it isn't a benign decision. It demonstrates that commercial interests, feeds and such are not neutral. They are deliberate, opinionated and that opinion affects reality. There are two questions that the tiktok case brings up: "how much power?" and "who's power." Zuck isn't as scary as Xi, hence the different response to tiktok. OTOH, Facebook have the same sort of power as tiktok, just a lot more of it.