https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_electoral_intervention
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_electoral_intervention
Even in the absence of intentional manipulation, Facebook is hyper-efficient at spreading bad information.
Now America's adversaries have weaponized this, and are actively pushing sophisticated and targeted disinformation through Facebook.
Zuckerberg's malign naïveté allowed this to get bigger, faster than he could manage. It's a monster that he doesn't know how to control.
Until Americans understand how thoroughly they've been fucked, and until Facebook reckons with their outsized role in this, it's really important to keep beating this drum.
Zuckerberg himself is only gradually coming to terms with it.
Here's his "preposterous defence" eviscerated -> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/29/opinion/mark-zuckerberg-f...
- The Trump campaign mobilized sufficient support to be elected.
- The Trump campaign demobilized Clinton's support.
- This was the first "social media at critical mass" election.
- Voter turnout was low, as usual in the US.
- Conservative organizations appear to have harnessed targeted ads on social media more effectively than liberals.
- Political and apolitical "news" businesses realized there was money to be made in sensationalist, false stories.
- Foreign governments realized there were no prohibitions on using these levers to affect US (and other) elections.
- Facebook appears to have been completely ignorant at the time of this impact. (Likely because, as the Atlantic article points out, their KPIs were truth-agnostic)
Is "X won Trump the election?" unproductive? Yes, in the sense that it precludes further examination and the fact that there were many factors.
But that doesn't mean that X isn't important in its own right and shouldn't be examined.
A move from a limited oligarchy of old guard news sources to an explosion of anonymous, high-sharing-velocity, profit-driven sources is absolutely going to have an effect on democracy. And is important for that reason alone.
But much of the media is attacking Facebook for the same reason you say they shouldn't: as a way of "acknowledging & working towards a more united society." The fact that a foreign power intervened in our election, likely decisively, should be a cause for all Americans to unite in common defense.
Individual members of the media are also attacking Facebook because these attacks are likely to be quite productive and to lead to real changes. The government has done nothing about the election intervention, and without changes Russia will probably intervene more significantly in the next election. Facebook can make real changes and is susceptible to popular pressure.
* (The US shouldn't complain about foreign electoral interventions because it has intervened itself? I mean, the US has launched coups... Do you seriously think "there is nothing scandalous" about a country being destroyed? It shouldn't defend itself? This is not a soccer game.)
For some Americans (about 15%-20%) and for all of the liberal media, a minimum of three more years. Trump's election was the first time social media worked dramatically against their interests. In 2008 and 2012, the Democrats had an advantage in that their voting base were early adopters of social media and various online strategies for organizing both money and voters. That use and understanding gap has almost entirely been closed.
The subject of the article is accurately summarized by the headline, and this isn't it.
The information systems that people use to process news have been rerouted through Facebook, and in the process, mostly broken and hidden from view ... The truth is that while many reporters knew some things that were going on on Facebook, no one knew everything that was going on on Facebook, not even Facebook.