Facebook Promises It Won't Mess With Voters' Minds (businessinsider.com) 114
An anonymous reader writes: On Friday, Gizmodo reported on an internal discussion among Facebook employees in which they seem to be asking Mark Zuckerberg whether they should do something to "help prevent President Trump in 2017." Facebook is now assuring users that it wouldn't use its algorithms to influence voting in the presidential election this November. "We as a company are neutral -- we have not and will not use our products in a way that attempts to influence how people vote," a Facebook spokesman said in a statement.Media critic Jay Rosen said, "It sounds nutty but Facebook has a rock solid First Amendment right to filter out all Trump news -- if it wanted to."
of course they can (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Liberals are pro-democracy as long as the candidates are liberals. Otherwise anything goes.
What would happen if a moron was to disrupt a Clinton or Sanders event? Front page of New York Times, outraged panels on Bill Maher, full mayhem. But disrupt Trump events or try to get Facebook to "do something" to prevent him from being elected and you are a hero.
Trump is not the nazis. Those people who are willing to do anything to silence him are.
Zuck! Zucki Zuck! Zucki Zuck! (Score:1)
On the other hand, if they did decide to influence people politically, would you be able to tell it was happening. It wouldn't take much code to filter organic Facebook activities to further their own agenda and manipulate peoples thinking.
Re: (Score:2)
Somebody is watching and analyzing the feeds from Facebook as we speak. They do this even when there isn't an election for marketing and in some cases research. But you can bet that a lot of consultants are doing it to figure out how to win someone's campaign and of course the talking heads at the end of the election who like to tell everyone why they did something a certain way.
It may not be readily apparent but it would eventually be caught and outed. Of course it may be ignored as some kook conspiracy cl
Re:Zuck! Zucki Zuck! Zucki Zuck! (Score:5, Insightful)
On the other hand, if they did decide to influence people politically, would you be able to tell it was happening.
Completely correct. And not just Facebook, but Google and others as well.
There was a fascinating (and disturbing) Aeon essay [aeon.co] posted a couple of months ago on this very subject. The short version is that there are many ways to subtly influence people's opinions without them ever knowing they have been targeted, and there is already significant effort and money being spent in this arena (and not just in the obvious case of advertising).
One only need to look at the Facebook "experiment" [nytimes.com] from 2014 to see what's easily possible and already being done (and that's just the one reported on in the news).
Re: (Score:2)
We have nothing to worry about. I've researched this on Google, and have concluded that they are totally trustworthy and would never manipulate us.
Liars (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Too Late (Score:2)
Zuck has to say this (Score:1)
Zuckerberg is trying to get into China, is there any chance he would want China to think that a hostile foreign influence could affect china?
Re: (Score:2)
Zuck should just be honest about it, and acknowledge the only way he is going to 'do big business in China.' He should become a member of the Communist Party establishment.
He probably can't become a ranking member of the Communist Party of China, but he could become a cadre member of the official US fraternal party. Here is their website: Freedom Road Socialist Organization [frso.org].
Note that this is not just yet another fringe leftist group. This is the front group for the American Party that has party-to-party
now if the mass media (Score:2)
Anyone who asks that (Score:2)
Anyone who asks that should be banned from voting for life, or at least until they show genuine regret for getting those tribal tattoos.
First Amendment Right (Score:4, Interesting)
Maybe. But then they are publishing an opinion. And that will attract the scrutiny of all of the voting and campaign rights regulators. Equal time and access rules may kick in. Safe haven publishing exemptions may be lost. Sounds like a mess that even Zuckerberg wouldn't want to get involved with.
Re: (Score:3)
This sort of case has been made in a few courts now, and so far they all agree that just filtering user content does not invalidate the safe harbor protections.
Re: (Score:3)
This sort of case has been made in a few courts now, and so far they all agree that just filtering user content does not invalidate the safe harbor protections.
Not "all" of them agree.
It has been a few years, and I don't have case citations in front of me. But there's pretty strong precedent saying that if you "moderate" your site's content, then you become responsible for that content, for the simple reason that you have altered it.
Filtering is moderation. And it's a completely reasonable premise. For example, if you "filtered" any comments about any Presidential candidate but Bernie Sanders, then you would in effect be promoting Bernie Sanders on your site
Re: (Score:2)
The whole idea behind safe harbor is that your site is not originating content. But there are many ways that "managing" the content supplied by others becomes de facto your own speech... which safe harbor is not intended to protect.
dot dot dot but the First Amendment is.
Re: (Score:2)
Not "all" of them agree.
I'm unaware of any that disagree. But I want to be very clear, I'm talking about courts saying that moderating in and of itself does not invalidate safe harbors. If you know of a court that said otherwise, I'd be very interested in that.
However, there have been a couple of cases where safe harbor has been invalidated and moderating was a part of why -- but it wasn't the moderating itself was the issue. It was the moderation in combination with other activities that did.
Why Not? (Score:1)
It's only an ethical dilemna. Never stopped CBS, NBC, ABC, Fox, the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, LA Times, Boston Globe, and every other major media organization.
Re: (Score:2)
Moral imperative (Score:2)
I think it is a moral imperative (on all of us) to eliminate falsehoods. I would greatly prefer it if Facebook (and other companies with considerable control over the flow of information) would restrict the spread of objectively and provably false ideas. Perhaps not actually blocking them, but how hard would it be to add a "this has been proven false" message (with citations) to people sharing, say, anti-vax propaganda? And how much benefit would the public gain by it? Quite a bit, considering the anti-vaxx
Apropos of nothing (Score:3)
Even Trump is pretty good at this - his claim about how much the wall will cost is hard to disprove without actually building the damn thing (argue against, yes - disprove, no). But he provably lies pretty often - his stories about seeing Muslims celebrating in the streets as the WTC collapsed are demonstrably false. Or his claims to have never settled a case out of court, or never declared bankruptcy.
As long as it would be done fairly (ie. all candidates are subject to the same scrutiny) and to a set standard, I think this would be a good thing.
Apropos of nothing, why do you cite several of Trump's lies and none of Clinton's?
Re: (Score:1)
Even Trump is pretty good at this - his claim about how much the wall will cost is hard to disprove without actually building the damn thing (argue against, yes - disprove, no). But he provably lies pretty often - his stories about seeing Muslims celebrating in the streets as the WTC collapsed are demonstrably false. Or his claims to have never settled a case out of court, or never declared bankruptcy.
As long as it would be done fairly (ie. all candidates are subject to the same scrutiny) and to a set standard, I think this would be a good thing.
Apropos of nothing, why do you cite several of Trump's lies and none of Clinton's?
Clinton is opportunistic and talks like a snake oil salesman, but is unlikely to do any lasting damage. Trump is opportunistic and insane.
https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Because Trump is the subject of the article, and Clinton is not. Clinton would definitely deserve many notes, although mostly on her "I supported this all along" lies.
Truthiness (Score:2)
"...his stories about seeing Muslims celebrating in the streets as the WTC collapsed are demonstrably false"
There were Muslims dancing in the street during and after 9/11. Maybe not in New Jersey, or even on US soil, but they were certainly dancing in the streets of several of the Islamic countries. Funny that the only religion to have entire countries and regions under their theocratic thumb are Islamic. Except maybe Vatican City and Israel, although one is really an oligarchy and the other is a dem
Re: (Score:3)
There were Muslims dancing in the street during and after 9/11. Maybe not in New Jersey, or even on US soil, but they were certainly dancing in the streets of several of the Islamic countries.
Granted, but here's the exact quote from Trump:
"Hey, I watched when the World Trade Center came tumbling down. And I watched in Jersey City, New Jersey, where thousands and thousands of people were cheering as that building was coming down. Thousands of people were cheering. [...] There were people that were cheering on the other side of New Jersey, where you have large Arab populations. They were cheering as the World Trade Center came down."
The problem with Trump is, the above quote isn't even a lie. When he said it, he genuinely believed it to be the truth, because it fit the narrative of his worldview and therefore didn't need to be verified -- and when it was pointed out to him that his 'memory' is of something that never actually happened, he said, essentially: no thanks, I prefer my fabrication over reality.
That's just the sort of emotion-based magical thinking we don't need anywhere near th
The new McCarthyism (Score:5, Insightful)
In the 1950s, Hollywood had a policy of a blacklisting communist party members [wikipedia.org], denying employment to screenwriters, actors, directors, musicians and so on. Those people couldn't find work for years after.
Trump seems to be the new communist party. People think nothing of petitioning stores to discontinue his products, disrupting his rallys, or publishing blatant lies. We accept this, because we feel that corporations have free speech, and so can do whatever they want.
I'm glad Facebook is standing up to this nonsense. Businesses exist by license from the government, and with that should come a measure of public good. That means neutrality in their business dealings. If Mark Zuckerberg wants Facebook to purchase political ads that's OK, that's what the "corporate free speech" is about.
But denying equal services?
Hurting Trump by indirect means is the new McCarthyism(*).
In other news, Scott Adams has an interesting take [dilbert.com] on the delegate cheats:
In Iran you can vote for anyone for President so long as that person has been approved by the Ayatollah Khameini. We Americans call that system a dictatorship.
Voters in America recently discovered that they live under an Iranian type of system and didn’t know it. In the primaries, voters participate in some sort of ritualistic placebo voting while party leaders select the candidates.
Remember, boys and girls, only the outcome matters.
Trump has to be stopped, by any means possible!.
(*) Stopping him personally doesn't seem to work, so I expect that soon we'll have businesses tamping down on his supporters. I couldn't find a news article about an employee fired for posting pro-Trump on their facebook page, but I expect that this will happen soon.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: The new McCarthyism (Score:2)
Not like Iran at all (Score:5, Interesting)
It isn't anything like the Iranian system. Virtually anybody can run for President with only a few restrictions.
During the 2008 election, Ron Paul had 9.1% of the votes (roughly, depending on specific vote and time).
I watched with astonishment how Fox news reported the results for candidates that got less than Ron Paul, but didn't report Ron Paul's results.
During that primary, the GOP had a rule that a candidate needs to win 8 states to be considered a candidate in the convention.
They changed that rule from 5 to 8, specifically to exclude Ron Paul.
Cruz might not win 8 states, so the GOP is changing the rules [breitbart.com] to lower that number to allow Cruz to be on the ballot.
It isn't *anything like the Iranian system. We have about 200 people [nytimes.com] who control the election, while Iran has only one.
A really big difference. Big whoop.
Cruz has already won more than 8 states (Score:2)
Alaska, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah, Wisconsin, Wyoming [telegraph.co.uk].
Re: (Score:2)
They started talking about having to change that rule before Cruz had won Wisconsin and Wyoming.
Also, the rule is a majority of the delegates in eight states. I don't think Cruz has won a majority in all nine of those states.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is, they don't really want Cruz either. The guy they really want is 7 states short.
Re: (Score:2)
That reasoning leads to a logical contradiction.
Imagine I'm categorizing philosophies about tolerance into two groups - those which are tolerant, and those which are not. I get to "tolerance of intolerance". It's tolerating everything, so I categorize it as a tolerant philosophy.
But then someone like you argues that since it doesn't actively oppose intolerance, it's actually an intolerant philosophy. So I categorize it among the intolerant philosophies.
Re: (Score:3)
You make it seem like it only happens to Trump. It does not - people disrupt political rallies all the time. You probably don't hear much about protesters because well, it's not news. The only reason Trump gets it because Trump IS news.
And peopl
Re: (Score:2)
The same thing is happening on the Democratic side. Clinton has a narrow lead among delegates determined by popular vote - 1289 vs 1045, or 55% vs 45%. But because of the
It doesn't sound nutty at all. (Score:3)
> "It sounds nutty but Facebook has a rock solid First Amendment right to filter out all Trump news -- if it wanted to."
It only sounds nutty if you're willfully ignorant (which is understandable given the status of US education).
The vast majority of Americans mis-translate some notion of freedom of expression to mean the right to be heard by anyone or that if a product is big enough, it magically becomes some form of common carrier....oh nevermind.
Re: (Score:2)
As an avid Facebook user, I've been helped to see that the only satisfactory political resolution to the current marriage and anti-discrimination conflicts, is that 50% of straight males be required to marry gay males. This will naturally result in the optimal outcome for all involved, eliminating all personal discrimination within the core institution of marriage--and also discriminatory uneven demographic representation, even more important there than in the workplace.
Er, "cisgendered" belongs in there s
Protected status (Score:1)
There are a LOT of people confused by this.
You are not allowed to discriminate based on 'protected status'. What is 'protected status'? Firstly, it's something you didn't choose. You don't choose to be black, white, gay, straight, male, female, physically or mentally handicapped. Religion is thrown in there too because some people are born Jews or Muslims or what have you.
Discrimination is unfair treatment of a 'protected status'.
What isn't discrimination? Treating someone differentl
Citizens United (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It allows them to run their own ads, as the First Amendment guarantees, and Congress may pass no law stripping them of this right because they are participating in a Congress-created group called a "corporation".
"So are you saying the government could ban a 500 page book from being published 30 days before an election because it contained one sentence at the end saying to vote for a particular candidate?"
Government lawyer: "Yes."
Hmm, then why do I keep getting... (Score:1)
H1Bs ? (Score:4, Insightful)
an internal discussion among Facebook employees in which they seem to be asking Mark Zuckerberg whether they should do something to "help prevent President Trump in 2017
I guess these are Zuckerberg's beloved H1Bs. Understandable.
The Age of Disinformation (Score:2)
Welcome to 1984. If you don't understand that you have been receiving Disinformation your whole life then you are still in The Matrix.
Please read "Disinformation" - by Lt Gen Ion Mihai Pacepa
http://www.amazon.com/Disinfor... [amazon.com]
The greatest source of disinformation comes from those who believe the Collective should have supremacy over the Individual - for your own good, of course. These believe that you are not competent to run your own life and make your own decisions - hence they are progressively regu
Re: (Score:2)
Wondering (Score:2)
So, if FB decided to filter out pro-Trump commentary, would that not be discrimination against customers? Would it not be similar to say a bakery that decided not to make cakes for gay weddings?
FWIW, I'm not a Trump fan, and haven't made up my own mind on this or the bakery issue.
Re: (Score:2)
No.
Discrimination is entirely legal in the US, as long as it isn't based on one of the things in the short list (age, race, religion, gender, etc.). The legal argument in the bakery case is one of whether or not sexual orientation is in the list. Political orientation is certainly not in the list. I'm glossing over lots of edge conditions, of course. Also, I'm not saying that I agree or disagree with how the law works on this, only that this is how the law works.
Trust (Score:2)
Funny, after this declaration I don't feel any more certain about what Facebook will really do than I did before.
A Good Ask Slashdot topic idea (Score:1)
That brings to mind to me a good Ask Slashdot topic.
Wether or not you support Trump or deplore him:
What should we do to prevent Facebook in 2017?
Nope. (Score:2)
All of the years of watching how Facebook operates has taught me that Facebook cannot be trusted or believed about anything. Particularly when they make a promise.
So essentially he's saying he's already better tha (Score:2)
I wish they would allow it (Score:2)
However, I wish there was some "opt in" filtering. I would turn off absolutely every post that in any way relates to the election.
I hate all of the candidates and really don't care to see both extremists going at it on Facebook...
The real question is... (Score:2)
Doesn't hugely matter what Facebook does (Score:2)
The "normal" media are pushing their own agenda, Hilary gets significantly more articles than Bernie, despite how close they are. Bernies speeches are overlooked etc.
Furthermore, Trump, who I won't deny is an idiot is being totally demonised by the media and (as usual) misrepresented. Once you start looking into how the media addresses things, it's ridiculous.
Recently articles went around about how terrible Trump is, because he's talking about dick size at a debate (or some such) everyone printed it, I
Re: (Score:2)
I forgot to address my point!
Facebook can be as transparent and open as they like about it and unbiased, ultimately the USERS will be mostly sharing biased articles all over FB, regardless. If you're friends with a heap of lefties, you're going to see a lot of Bernie and Hilary articles, if you're friends with Republicans you'll see Cruz and Trump articles.
Facebook isn't about content (Score:2)
There's no way to know (Score:1)
Clear nad Obvious rights (Score:2)
Of course they do. It's not nutty at all. They have a clear and obvious right to filter out everything Trump. And we have a clear and obvious right to then delete our Facebook accounts and boycott the company in response if they did that. I personally wouldn't do that as a Trump-free Facebook sounds like a dream but I understand entirely that's what would happen and wouldn't cry about it.
Do p