How Facebook Is Influencing Who Will Win the Next Election 72
An anonymous reader sends this excerpt from Forbes:
[Facebook] announced yesterday that it was shutting down a feature that the Obama campaign used in 2012 to register over a million voters. During the election supporters shared access to their list of Facebook friends list with the campaign through an app. Researchers have found that while people view often political messages with skepticism, they are more receptive and trusting when the information is coming from somebody they know. The feature was credited with boosting Obama’s get-out-the-vote efforts which were crucial to his victory, but Facebook has decided to disable this ability in order to (rightfully) protect users from third-party apps collecting too much of their information.
The company insists that it favors no particular ideology and that its efforts are “neutral.” The first part is likely true, but the second is not possible. The company’s algorithms take into account a proprietary mix of our own biases, connections, and interests combined with Facebook’s business priorities; that is the farthest thing from neutral. Facebook says it just want to encourage “civic participation,” but politically mobilizing the subsection of people that are on their network is not without its own impacts.
The company insists that it favors no particular ideology and that its efforts are “neutral.” The first part is likely true, but the second is not possible. The company’s algorithms take into account a proprietary mix of our own biases, connections, and interests combined with Facebook’s business priorities; that is the farthest thing from neutral. Facebook says it just want to encourage “civic participation,” but politically mobilizing the subsection of people that are on their network is not without its own impacts.
Re:Elections are Popularity Contests (Score:4)
Not sure I'd agree that nobody cares about policy. But "rightfully so"? Because different faces, or parties for that matter, tend to pursue similar policies? It seems to me that that is a good reason that people /should/ care... And try to improve on that sorry state of affairs.
Problem is that there is whole show about (relatively) minor differences of opinion and these are greatly exaggerated, creating the illusion of real choice. Whereas the various "faces" somehow wind up agreeing with one another on exactly those policies that the people they supposedly represent do not favour.
A two-party system is in practice much more like a single-party system (ie not democratic) than it is like multi-party systems where coalition and compromises are required to achieve majorities.
Re: (Score:1)
George Washington wanted a zero-party system, but then those blasted Anti-Federalists ruined his country.
Re:Elections are Popularity Contests (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Right! If we'd elected McCain instead of Obama in 2008, the Affordable Care Act as we know it today would still be more or less intact, we'd still have withdrawn American forces from Iraq on the same schedule, and we'd still be shaking hands with China over a miniature climate agreement. In smaller matters, the Keystone pipeline would still be in limbo (just because that's easier than killing it explicitly). Et cetera et c
Re: (Score:3)
Yes the advantage of a multi-party system is that not every policy decision is a nuclear war for control. Parties will ally in different ways on different issues and therefore it is less likely that partisan bickering will hold up general function of government.
But it is perhaps a bigger problem currently the the loudest and most abrasive elements have almost complete control of the public dialog. This is not really a symptom of the two-party system, but of the prevalence and power of advertising-drive
Re:Elections are Popularity Contests (Score:4, Insightful)
Faces change, policy doesn't.
The current administration pushed for and got a massive change of 1/6 of the economy, pulled us out of Iraq and Afghanistan, has appointed dozens (hundreds?) of like minded Federal Judges that will be around for decades, and is pushing through environmental regulations that wouldn't have seen the light of day under the previous administration. But sure, other than those minor issues the policy hasn't changed one damned bit.
Really, really, really tired of hearing this claim. Love or hate our political system and the two dominant players it's laughable on the surface to claim that the policy doesn't change between the two. If you really believe that just stay home and take your ill informed opinion out of the electorate. No sense in making a well informed voter wait any long in line just so you can bellyache about there being no changes in policy.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
So your complaint is that the current guy hasn't catered to your pet issues? Welcome to the fucking club dude.
Don't vote for him or his party if that's how you feel. Just don't try and claim with a straight face that there's no difference between the two major parties. There are significant differences on issues large and small. If neither one of them caters to your pet issue(s) you're welcome to vote for someone who does.
He's still bombing other countries and wants to send some troupes in.
That might have something to do with the American citizens that keep getting the
Re: (Score:1)
So your complaint is that the current guy hasn't catered to your pet issues?
The constitution is not a pet issue. Fundamental liberties are not a pet issue. You'd think in a country that claims to be "the land of the free and the home of the brave," you wouldn't have people belittling those who are concerned that the government is ignoring the constitution and the principles this country is supposed to stand for.
But no. Apparently, freedom is just a "pet issue" in "the land of the free and the home of the brave." Who would've known?
Just don't try and claim with a straight face that there's no difference between the two major parties. There are significant differences on issues large and small.
Bullshit. The differences are minuscule and they be
Re: (Score:1)
So show people some emotional imagery to manipulate them into supporting world police nonsense
You're really quite hilarious, do you know that? You ceaselessly whine about civil liberties, without actually understanding how they work in the United States and then you compound that by whining about the emotional imagery that has been shown to the American people by the free press. You do realize that ISIS filmed their executions of American citizens and released it to the world, right? It was picked up by every news agency in existence. What's your best suggestion for counteracting this horrible m
Re: (Score:1)
You're really quite hilarious, do you know that? You ceaselessly whine about civil liberties, without actually understanding how they work in the United States
I understand full well that the US government and the courts often ignore the constitution. I am saying it is wrong.
You are the one who has problems separating statements of morality and statements about how things are; that's not my issue.
and then you compound that by whining about the emotional imagery that has been shown to the American people by the free press
To have a right to do something is not the same as being right in doing it. I hope you at least understand that much.
What's your best suggestion for counteracting this horrible manipulation of our body politic?
Unfortunately, there is no way to stop warmongering media pundits and their friends in government. You have to tackle this problem with education and teach
Re: (Score:1)
To have a right to do something is not the same as being right in doing it. I hope you at least understand that much.
So now you're going to condemn the news media for having the audacity to report what's going on in Syria? This from the person who professes to care about civil liberties? This just gets richer and richer....
Unfortunately, there is no way to stop warmongering media pundits
You realize I linked to a Frontline PBS piece, right? I've heard a lot of criticism of PBS but warmongering is a new one.....
Re: (Score:1)
So now you're going to condemn the news media for having the audacity to report what's going on in Syria?
I condemn them for supporting an authoritarian, warmongering agenda. If they merely stopped at reporting the facts, there would be little problem. Instead, they endeavor to make people panic and support another war.
This from the person who professes to care about civil liberties?
Strange. I don't recall saying that the government should silence anyone. It's very strange indeed that you keep bringing up this point.
Re: (Score:1)
All I can say is, if you honestly think that all the media in general did was unemotionally report the facts, you're an incurable fool.
Re: (Score:1)
I condemn them for supporting an authoritarian, warmongering agenda. If they merely stopped at reporting the facts, there would be little problem.
It's PBS dude. You're reaching even by your standards. I think we're done here. Have fun tilting at windmills.
Re: (Score:1)
It's PBS dude.
You're the one trying to limit the discussion to PBS. I am not.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Problem is that the Supreme court can be stacked which is bullshit. Plus they can vote AGAINST the constitution without recourse. WE need a change in the system. If they ever go against the constitution for any reason, that judge is hanged immediately right there. I want a fracking Gallows in the courtroom to remind these scumbag justices that they are the FOR THE PEOPLE and FOR THE CONSTITUTION.
If these Corrupt judges were actually doing their job, the PATRIOT ACT and the other anti-america laws passe
Re: (Score:2)
I hope you appreciate the irony of whining about the judicial system while simultaneously advocating in favor of summary executions without trial.... :)
Re: (Score:2)
I am the LAW!
Re: (Score:2)
If they ever go against the constitution for any reason, that judge is hanged immediately right there. I want a fracking Gallows in the courtroom to remind these scumbag justices that they are the FOR THE PEOPLE and FOR THE CONSTITUTION.
Yes, because threat of hanging will ensure an independent judiciary. *sigh*
Re: (Score:2)
The supreme court decides what is and is not against the constitution (that's in the damned constitution).
We live in a common law, it's not just what's written that matters, but all of the rulings since.
Re: (Score:1)
Ignorant nonsense. If the courts said that the first amendment gave the government the power to assassinate any citizen for any reason, they'd be completely incorrect. In fact, the Supreme Court has overruled its past decisions before. The notion that they're always right is nothing more than illogical nonsense.
And here: "You seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarc
Re: (Score:1)
The US left Iraq on Bush's timetable not Obama's, and Obama actually wanted to push back the withdrawal but was Iraq didn't renew immunity for US troops.
Re: (Score:3)
Faces change, policy doesn't.
pulled us out of Iraq and Afghanistan
If by pulling out of Iraq you mean sending thousands more troops [yahoo.com] or if by stating pulling out of Afghanistan you mean leaving troops until the next Administration [nytimes.com], then you're correct.
Re: (Score:2)
Faces change, policy doesn't.
Faces change, but the policies continue to get worse. They'll get worse than they are now when the next Democrat or Republican takes over the White House. It might be worse in slightly different ways, but it will still be worse.
According to who? (Score:3)
The company insists that it favors no particular ideology and that its efforts are âoeneutral.â The first part is likely true, but the second is not possible.
That second part may still be possible if our learned friends *cough* lawyers *cough* are involved.
Good idea (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Basically what was removed is this:
1. You add <bogus political app>
2. <bogus political app> sends me an invite automagically, with your name on it
3. I get annoyed and delete it
Now what happens:
1. You add <bogus political app>
2. I don't give a fuck because it doesn't pester me with your bullshit
3. Fin
Bravo Facebook. If you're one of those annoying fuckers who installed that spammy ass Obama 2012 app, eat my s
If Facebook gave people $10 for their vote... (Score:3)
Not even $10, imagine if Facebook gave people a new wanted feature (I have no examples because I don't use FB) for their votes.
How many users would accept? What portion of the population would sell their vote for an iphone?
Re: (Score:3)
Not even $10, imagine if Facebook gave people a new wanted feature (I have no examples because I don't use FB) for their votes.
How many users would accept? What portion of the population would sell their vote for an iphone?
I would. I currently get nothing out of it anyways, and have no real choice in the election. So why not get free stuff at least?
Re: (Score:3)
What portion of the population would sell their vote for an iphone?
I certainly would sell my vote for an iPhone during a typical election in my district. None of the races are close, and my vote for the token libertarian is typically grouped with "other/write in" in the results.
For $10, however, I would prefer to keep my vote and the personal satisfaction of my pointless gesture.
Vote People (Score:4, Funny)
Politicians have won every election. And the american people has been the loosers every time. Seems properly rigged already.
Facebook's influence (Score:1)
For the last year or so, the main thing Facebook has been influencing me to do is to stay away from Facebook.
Surely, how they are no longer influencing? (Score:5, Insightful)
They're shutting down a feature that one campaign used to spread their message - and this is influencing? Surely it's stopping an influence?
Re: Surely, how they are no longer influencing? (Score:2)
Competition (Score:2)
their information.
Right, because Facebook hates competition from third-party apps that collect too much user information.
Re: (Score:3)
Vote Zuckerberg 2016!
Related News: Zuckerberg candidacy announcement receives record 16 billion likes. [Slashdot.org]
Not surprising (Score:2, Insightful)
After the results if this midterm election, it's not surprising Facebook is ending their get out the vote program?
Why? Because Millenials are increasingly voting Republican and Libertarian [usnews.com] after decades of lip service from the Democrats. Jobs, college debt, and personal liberty are extremely important issues to this generation.
Facebook, with its left leaning executives, would see no reason to mobilize their opposition's base.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
“It comes from a very ancient democracy, you see..."
"You mean, it comes from a world of lizards?"
"No," said Ford, who by this time was a little more rational and coherent than he had been, having finally had the coffee forced down him, "nothing so simple. Nothing anything like so straightforward. On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people."
"Odd," said Arthur, "I thought you said it was a democracy."
"I did," said Ford. "It i
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Because Millenials are increasingly voting Republican and Libertarian
Nothing is "increasing" about Millennial voting habits. Their turnout was down 38% from the 2010 midterm and down 65% from the 2012 presidential. Both Republicans and Democrats failed to get their young supporters to submit a ballot, but that impacts Democrats far more.
A more accurate story would be "Millenials increasingly want more mail-in voting, online voting, weekend voting, multi-day voting, and extended voting hours." Basically, they want more democracy with fewer hindrances. They're also still
Re: (Score:2)
Then why in the name of all that is noodly would they vote Republican? If young voters did swing from Democrat to Republican, I bet they did so for one of two reasons:
1) blindly believing candidate rhetoric (which both Republicans and Democrats are guilty of spewing), or
2) they were upset with "their guy" and mistakenly thought the "other guy" would do better.
Considering that the voter turnout was only 36.4% for the 2 [washingtonpost.com]
Personally... (Score:4, Funny)
...I'd love it if routine Facebook use invalidated your vote.
Re: (Score:1)
What someone needs to do is create a facebook app. Tell everyone that it allows you to vote and avoid long lines at the polls. Everyone who believes it votes using facebook and this problem is solved. No need to thank me.
POST THROUGH fb (Score:1)
Why not? It's as meaningful as any other method.
Dead wrong (Score:2, Interesting)
The /. post's author says "The company insists that it favors no particular ideology and that its efforts are “neutral.” The first part is likely true..."
Completely false. Zuckerberg is as far left as they come. I'm not aiming to make this discussion political, but it's abundantly obvious in the policies he, and by extension his company, endorse. Obama tells Zuckerberg "Jump" and Mark immediately asks "How high?"
What?! (Score:2)
Dude, if this means no more streams of gold invites when I don't want them I'll just be crushed. What will I di with myself if half my facebook experience doesn't involve disabling requests from apps my friends use?
On a side note: people still use Facebook?
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, go figure.
Re: (Score:1)
Or, alternatively, FB realized, what horrible damage they've done to the country by inadvertently helping an incompetent nincompoop become President and, as a mea culpa, are shutting down the profitable feature.
Republicans wouldn't have benefited from it as much (if at all), because they aren't as trusting of shiny "social media" to begin with...