6 ms·

Facebook Moves to Limit Election Chaos in November

36 points by mitchbob 6y ago

pjc50 6y ago
Well this is going to be a mess. Ads will be replaced by astroturf. Misinformation will spread by other networks (Q, talk radio, etc) and produce "news articles" which will be circulated with all kinds of extraordinary claims about Joe Biden and pizza parlours, or whatever. There is likely to be election chaos in the streets as well, as a gradual accumulation of previous unresolved crises all take effect at once.
aokiji 6y ago
Sounds like predictive programming to prepare the populace for invalid election results. The globalists are seething...
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
raxxorrax 6y ago
Would you say something like that if you didn't think someone will cheat?
glofish 6y ago
In this world every problem has the same solution: Facebook decides what is right and what is wrong.
- bennyelv 6y ago
  ...because governments aren't doing their job and legislating. Why is something of such importance being left up to private companies to regulate?
  - krapp 6y ago
    We don't trust government to govern as much as we trust the free market.
    - bennyelv 6y ago
      Doesn't sound like that's facebook's problem to fix, and nor should they be blamed for the consequences of it. There are significant challenges being presented by the new tools that humanity has built for communication over the last 20 years. I'm not sure that it's the fault of the people who are building those tools that our institutions are failing to get a grip on it. There is a very simple answer to the problem of "why is facebook getting to choose what's right and wrong" and that's "we're not doing it, so they have to". Why don't we just step up and start making some rules?
  - cheschire 6y ago
    Legislation that is responsive can inadvertently create or reinforce monopolies because of the regulatory moat that is created, making it economically infeasible to create competition without already being of equal stature.
  - commandlinefan 6y ago
    Facebook posts are people talking to one another. You really want the government to legislate what people are allowed to say to each other?
50ckpuppet 6y ago
So that's what they're calling it?
moksly 6y ago
I dislike Facebook as much as the next person. I think most self-regulation is somewhat of a joke, especially in the private sector, but I also think the blame belongs with the money people who buy the manipulation. Sure Facebook has rotten ethics, but the real danger to our democracy is the fact that you can buy a medium platform and just manipulate all day long. Our only real option to fight it, if we refuse to go after the people who pay for the manipulation, is to make sure we educate our children better. But really, I think we should ask ourselves if we really want that sort of power sitting with a few billionaires. Because it’s not going to stop with Facebook. It’ll be on any social media ever.
- smt88 6y ago
  1) A lot of manipulation happens outside of ads. For example, fake news sites being shared widely or private groups spreading anti-vaxx propaganda. 2) Most of the people being manipulated haven't been children for decades. Educating children better is already happening, especially as children grow up knowing that you can't believe what you read on the Web.
- alexmingoia 6y ago
  Can you provide an example of what you consider “manipulation?”
  - cheschire 6y ago
    This seems like a question with obvious answers, which leads me to believe you're attempting to build a trap because you've already got some outcome in mind and you're ready to pounce. But just in case you're serious, check out what a shill is. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shill https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shill
    - alexmingoia 6y ago
      I know what a shill is... Are you implying that the manipulation is shilling? Can you provide an example? I use Facebook. I don’t think I’ve ever seen anything I would qualify as manipulation in sponsored posts, as my sponsored posts are almost always product advertisements. So it’s not obvious to me what is meant by “manipulation” in the post I was responding to. I think asking for an example is quite reasonable.
x87678r 6y ago
I'm thinking misinformation on social media is just something we're going to have to learn and live with. Its like advertising, my grandparents believed when some infomercial says this product will make your life better where younger generations know its junk. Pretty soon people will be equally skeptical of random things on social media soon.
- bennyelv 6y ago
  I see little evidence of that from my own anecdotal experience. Are there any sources that support this progression?
  - wolco 6y ago
    The African Prince scam where they email you that they need help and will pay you vast sums of money if you do. It has been around awhile and the number of people falling for this has dropped. People catch-on.. not everyone but enough to make an election hack not workable. People struggle with new ideas but adapt . COVID scams have gone up and then down.
- 52-6F-62 6y ago
  I think that would be more true if they viewed it [as/with the same distance as] a publication. FB (and maybe Twitter, too) seems to hold this weird place where it's not quite a conversation and its not quite broadcasting, but its a bit of both and treated with an overlap of the traits applied to each. So while people grew to view advertising, broadcast and print productions with skepticism, they seem to give more benefit-of-the-doubt to posts on FB as if it were a family member or friend reaching out, but with the same deference they might give to a respected authority writing or speaking on a subject of expertise in a publication or broadcast. It's really strange to see people who I've known my entire life to be intelligent people take shared items on Facebook, YouTube (et al) at face value.
apacheCamel 6y ago
>Facebook also plans to remove posts that both explicitly and implicitly aim to disenfranchise or prohibit people from voting; previously, the company removed only posts that actively discouraged people from voting. Now, a post that causes confusion around who is eligible to vote or some part of the voting process — such as a misstatement about what documentation is needed to receive a ballot — would also be removed. In a country where about 61% [0] of voting-age people actually take the time to vote, I can't believe there are people trying to bring that number down more. It saddens me that anybody would want to silence a voice/vote through disinformation online. It also really confuses me on who this would even affect? I haven't seen any posts about this (I haven't been on Facebook in years) so I am unsure who the "target" audience is. Would the perpetrators just want a really low turnout, hoping one side is just smart enough to not listen? Or is it to just instill more confusion? [0]: https://www.census.gov/newsroom/blogs/random-samplings/2017/05/voting_in_america.html https://www.census.gov/newsroom/blogs/random-samplings/2017/...
- gameswithgo 6y ago
  People try to target demographic groups that are not on their side, and discourage or inhibit their voting. For instance, if poor demographics don't tend to vote for your side, you can push for more stringent documentation being required to vote, like driver's licenses, which poor people don't have. Or you can move to limit poll locations and hours, as poor people can't get off work as easily as wealthier people. Gerrymandering is another way to game the voting system, which can be used against people rich or poor. For instance, the city of austin might very well elect a democratic member of the House, if district lines were drawn sensibly, but it is cut up into little slices of pie, then each piece slice wraps around a huge rural area that tends to vote GOP.
  - chrisweekly 6y ago
    Thanks for writing that. I sometimes forget that these basic facts are not (sufficiently) common knowledge.
  - mc32 6y ago
    Not everyone may have a drivers license. Some upper middle class members also don’t have driver’s licenses. What just about everyone over 18 has is a form of government ID. Without a gov ID you cannot get access gov resources: education, SNAP, medicare, Medicaid, purchase controlled groceries like alcohol, cigarettes, marijuana , power, phone plans, credit cards, etc. It’s a myth that poor people cannot get IDs. You’ll be hard pressed to find someone who doesn’t and cannot get one. I was dirt poor as a youth. I got a non drivers ID card. It was necessary in life.
Proven 6y ago
"Election chaos" must be how dictators, globalists and statists feel about it. Poor NYT, it wasn't going to be chaotic when Trump's odds were 34%...
diego_moita 6y ago
Zuckerberg promises? Again? Are these still newsworthy?
perardi 6y ago
I believe the folksy saying here would be “lipstick on a pig.” From the article: “Facebook said it would begin barring politicians from placing new ads on Facebook and Instagram, the photo-sharing service it owns, starting on Oct. 27. Existing political ads will not be affected.” Well then, amend that folksy saying to “lipstick on a pig, but we didn’t even finish painting his lips.” What possible difference could a week of different ad content make? “Misinformation across private communication channels is a much more difficult problem to tackle than on public social networks because it is hidden. Limiting message forwarding could slow that spread.” Again, little bit of lipstick on a gargantuan pig. I think the bulk of the really whacky stuff on Facebook is in semi-private groups; even my local neighborhood group is full of nonsense. (People are just obsessed with 5G causing cancer.) Now, do I have a solution for this? Nope. I have no earthly idea how you police disinformation at scale. Heck, even if Facebook developed some sort of near-god-level AI that could track all this down, the craziness would just move to other platforms. (See: QAnon on TikTok.) I just find it a bit offensive they’re even pretending they can do something.
aww_dang 6y ago
Imagine trusting individuals to make their own decisions about the information they consume. Imagine being comfortable with others coming to different conclusions, without crying foul play. When did society become so insecure that 'alternative facts' and differing perceptions justify hysteria? Was it when legacy media acknowledged that they had been disrupted by Internet publishers? What role do walled gardens play in this paradigm?

36 points by mitchbob 6y ago

Well this is going to be a mess. Ads will be replaced by astroturf. Misinformation will spread by other networks (Q, talk radio, etc) and produce "news articles" which will be circulated with all kinds of extraordinary claims about Joe Biden and pizza parlours, or whatever. There is likely to be election chaos in the streets as well, as a gradual accumulation of previous unresolved crises all take effect at once.

aokiji 6y ago

Sounds like predictive programming to prepare the populace for invalid election results. The globalists are seething...

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

raxxorrax 6y ago

Would you say something like that if you didn't think someone will cheat?

glofish 6y ago

In this world every problem has the same solution: Facebook decides what is right and what is wrong.

bennyelv 6y ago
...because governments aren't doing their job and legislating. Why is something of such importance being left up to private companies to regulate?
- krapp 6y ago
  We don't trust government to govern as much as we trust the free market.
  - bennyelv 6y ago
    Doesn't sound like that's facebook's problem to fix, and nor should they be blamed for the consequences of it. There are significant challenges being presented by the new tools that humanity has built for communication over the last 20 years. I'm not sure that it's the fault of the people who are building those tools that our institutions are failing to get a grip on it. There is a very simple answer to the problem of "why is facebook getting to choose what's right and wrong" and that's "we're not doing it, so they have to". Why don't we just step up and start making some rules?
- cheschire 6y ago
  Legislation that is responsive can inadvertently create or reinforce monopolies because of the regulatory moat that is created, making it economically infeasible to create competition without already being of equal stature.
- commandlinefan 6y ago
  Facebook posts are people talking to one another. You really want the government to legislate what people are allowed to say to each other?

50ckpuppet 6y ago

So that's what they're calling it?

moksly 6y ago

I dislike Facebook as much as the next person. I think most self-regulation is somewhat of a joke, especially in the private sector, but I also think the blame belongs with the money people who buy the manipulation. Sure Facebook has rotten ethics, but the real danger to our democracy is the fact that you can buy a medium platform and just manipulate all day long. Our only real option to fight it, if we refuse to go after the people who pay for the manipulation, is to make sure we educate our children better. But really, I think we should ask ourselves if we really want that sort of power sitting with a few billionaires. Because it’s not going to stop with Facebook. It’ll be on any social media ever.

smt88 6y ago
1) A lot of manipulation happens outside of ads. For example, fake news sites being shared widely or private groups spreading anti-vaxx propaganda. 2) Most of the people being manipulated haven't been children for decades. Educating children better is already happening, especially as children grow up knowing that you can't believe what you read on the Web.
alexmingoia 6y ago
Can you provide an example of what you consider “manipulation?”
- cheschire 6y ago
  This seems like a question with obvious answers, which leads me to believe you're attempting to build a trap because you've already got some outcome in mind and you're ready to pounce. But just in case you're serious, check out what a shill is. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shill https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shill
  - alexmingoia 6y ago
    I know what a shill is... Are you implying that the manipulation is shilling? Can you provide an example? I use Facebook. I don’t think I’ve ever seen anything I would qualify as manipulation in sponsored posts, as my sponsored posts are almost always product advertisements. So it’s not obvious to me what is meant by “manipulation” in the post I was responding to. I think asking for an example is quite reasonable.

x87678r 6y ago

I'm thinking misinformation on social media is just something we're going to have to learn and live with. Its like advertising, my grandparents believed when some infomercial says this product will make your life better where younger generations know its junk. Pretty soon people will be equally skeptical of random things on social media soon.

bennyelv 6y ago
I see little evidence of that from my own anecdotal experience. Are there any sources that support this progression?
- wolco 6y ago
  The African Prince scam where they email you that they need help and will pay you vast sums of money if you do. It has been around awhile and the number of people falling for this has dropped. People catch-on.. not everyone but enough to make an election hack not workable. People struggle with new ideas but adapt . COVID scams have gone up and then down.
52-6F-62 6y ago
I think that would be more true if they viewed it [as/with the same distance as] a publication. FB (and maybe Twitter, too) seems to hold this weird place where it's not quite a conversation and its not quite broadcasting, but its a bit of both and treated with an overlap of the traits applied to each. So while people grew to view advertising, broadcast and print productions with skepticism, they seem to give more benefit-of-the-doubt to posts on FB as if it were a family member or friend reaching out, but with the same deference they might give to a respected authority writing or speaking on a subject of expertise in a publication or broadcast. It's really strange to see people who I've known my entire life to be intelligent people take shared items on Facebook, YouTube (et al) at face value.

apacheCamel 6y ago

>Facebook also plans to remove posts that both explicitly and implicitly aim to disenfranchise or prohibit people from voting; previously, the company removed only posts that actively discouraged people from voting. Now, a post that causes confusion around who is eligible to vote or some part of the voting process — such as a misstatement about what documentation is needed to receive a ballot — would also be removed. In a country where about 61% [0] of voting-age people actually take the time to vote, I can't believe there are people trying to bring that number down more. It saddens me that anybody would want to silence a voice/vote through disinformation online. It also really confuses me on who this would even affect? I haven't seen any posts about this (I haven't been on Facebook in years) so I am unsure who the "target" audience is. Would the perpetrators just want a really low turnout, hoping one side is just smart enough to not listen? Or is it to just instill more confusion? [0]: https://www.census.gov/newsroom/blogs/random-samplings/2017/05/voting_in_america.html https://www.census.gov/newsroom/blogs/random-samplings/2017/...

gameswithgo 6y ago
People try to target demographic groups that are not on their side, and discourage or inhibit their voting. For instance, if poor demographics don't tend to vote for your side, you can push for more stringent documentation being required to vote, like driver's licenses, which poor people don't have. Or you can move to limit poll locations and hours, as poor people can't get off work as easily as wealthier people. Gerrymandering is another way to game the voting system, which can be used against people rich or poor. For instance, the city of austin might very well elect a democratic member of the House, if district lines were drawn sensibly, but it is cut up into little slices of pie, then each piece slice wraps around a huge rural area that tends to vote GOP.
- chrisweekly 6y ago
  Thanks for writing that. I sometimes forget that these basic facts are not (sufficiently) common knowledge.
- mc32 6y ago
  Not everyone may have a drivers license. Some upper middle class members also don’t have driver’s licenses. What just about everyone over 18 has is a form of government ID. Without a gov ID you cannot get access gov resources: education, SNAP, medicare, Medicaid, purchase controlled groceries like alcohol, cigarettes, marijuana , power, phone plans, credit cards, etc. It’s a myth that poor people cannot get IDs. You’ll be hard pressed to find someone who doesn’t and cannot get one. I was dirt poor as a youth. I got a non drivers ID card. It was necessary in life.

Proven 6y ago

"Election chaos" must be how dictators, globalists and statists feel about it. Poor NYT, it wasn't going to be chaotic when Trump's odds were 34%...

diego_moita 6y ago

Zuckerberg promises? Again? Are these still newsworthy?

perardi 6y ago

I believe the folksy saying here would be “lipstick on a pig.” From the article: “Facebook said it would begin barring politicians from placing new ads on Facebook and Instagram, the photo-sharing service it owns, starting on Oct. 27. Existing political ads will not be affected.” Well then, amend that folksy saying to “lipstick on a pig, but we didn’t even finish painting his lips.” What possible difference could a week of different ad content make? “Misinformation across private communication channels is a much more difficult problem to tackle than on public social networks because it is hidden. Limiting message forwarding could slow that spread.” Again, little bit of lipstick on a gargantuan pig. I think the bulk of the really whacky stuff on Facebook is in semi-private groups; even my local neighborhood group is full of nonsense. (People are just obsessed with 5G causing cancer.) Now, do I have a solution for this? Nope. I have no earthly idea how you police disinformation at scale. Heck, even if Facebook developed some sort of near-god-level AI that could track all this down, the craziness would just move to other platforms. (See: QAnon on TikTok.) I just find it a bit offensive they’re even pretending they can do something.

aww_dang 6y ago

Imagine trusting individuals to make their own decisions about the information they consume. Imagine being comfortable with others coming to different conclusions, without crying foul play. When did society become so insecure that 'alternative facts' and differing perceptions justify hysteria? Was it when legacy media acknowledged that they had been disrupted by Internet publishers? What role do walled gardens play in this paradigm?