Facebook grows a conscience, admits it corroded democracy Facebook has admitted it was "far too slow" to recognize that its systems were being used to "spread misinformation and corrode democracy." In a blog post today by its manager of civic engagement Samidh Chakrabarti, the social media giant appears to have become self-aware following a year in which countless researchers, …
"In 2016, we at Facebook were far too slow to recognize how bad actors were abusing our platform. We’re working diligently to neutralize these risks now."
That's a good start, and I commend Facebook for acknowledging that. I hope that we see the next logical step of their newfound introspection: recognition that Facebook's own behaviors, not just outsiders abusing the platform, are just as corrosive.
"In this post, I'll share how we are thinking about confronting the most consequential downsides of social media on democracy, and also discuss how we're working to amplify the positive ways it can strengthen democracy, too," he said."
1) "Can we money out of this?"
2) "Can we make a sh*tload of money out of this?"
3) "Well Mr Investigative Committee into Treason Against America Chairman, you know I ever actually made that statement, it was an intern in our marketing department."
Agreed.
While Facebook can be deliberately abused by outsiders intent on pushing a particular narrative, there's a worse problem that is by-design. Association with 'friends' and the way Facebook decides what to show you mean everyone on Facebook is in their own little reality bubble.
If you mostly click on liberal news stories from sites like Occupy Democrats, you'll be shown more liberal news stories that other people who clicked on the same Occupy Democrats stuff also read. Ditto for conservatives who mostly click on conservative news stories from sites like Breitbart. I'm not saying it is Facebook's job to expose us to a variety of viewpoints, but they should take some deserved blame for the political polarization we face not only in the US but also other places around the world. The first step to a solution is for those who can change things to accept blame...
That's because true journalism and marketing are very different activities. Just Facebook can't admit it's just a huge marketing operation based on a huge data slurping operation to feed its marketing activities.
You see Zuckerberg is obsessed in presenting Facebook as a "great service to mankind" (and many in the media drank his kool-aid, and promoted Facebook beyond any reason) - and that's a huge marketing operation on its own to hide the real aims of the company, otherwise some people will go away.
Marketing is all about enforcing feedback loops to stimulate need for more (just look at so-called "influencers", another big risk around). As long as it is explicitly shown and perceived as such - as plain ads, or the like - its effects are more or less under control. When it is masked as something else, like in Facebook, it becomes much more dangerous, even more so when exploiting it for propaganda - the most dangerous form of "marketing" - it very easy.
It is true propaganda and politically-oriented media always existed. but it was far easier to identify them., and the didn't have the huge trove of personal data for targeting Facebook has.
Platforms built explicitly to directly naive users well classified allowing highly targeted "attacks" are far more dangerous.
Facebook itself, the way it is build and operates is the problem. There is no way to fix it, without causing it to fail. So they need a smoke screen.
This post has been deleted by its author
Zuk and his entire industry is based on insidious lies. He's just putting a spin on the symptoms not addressing the actual cause.
Examples:
#1. Is Zuk going to delete the behavioral data that was captured during Fake News season?
#2. Is Zuk going to stop using LIKE buttons on every internet site to slurp visitors regardless of whether they're an FB user?
#3. Is Zuk going to say sorry for lying about not being able to slurp WhatsApp data and consequently kill off using that data?
Facebook has admitted it was "far too slow" to recognize that its systems were being used to "spread misinformation and corrode democracy."
...that it should come with nutritional info.
Facebook is only chagrin that it disseminated misinformation in opposition to its corporate and social goals.
I'll be impressed when Facebook admits that it is, in fact, societal cancer.
"What gives me hope is that the same ingenuity..."
Not this again. Just like the FBI director continuing to insist there's a technically safe back door to crypto, if only you guys would just apply some ingenuity.
Just a thought: Maybe there is no technical solution. Maybe your business model needs to change to solve a difficult problem affecting large parts of society. Heaven forbid we talk about that.
They are trying to avoid a full scale investigation into the inner workings of their business. If the feds sent actual experts in to dissect how many real people are actually signed up, the gig would be up. Too much investment and too much FB stock in pension funds, etc for the truth to come out. Admit you made a mistake and are working hard to change, that keeps them away for a while. If the business actually continues, eventually, the feds will want to get in there and lift the hood, and it won't be pretty. How many profiles were created by bots and who owned the bots are the big questions that need to be answered. What if FB had its own bot army pretending to be real people to inflate marketing numbers for advertisers? We can't have that kind of stuff coming to light, now can we zucky poo?
Facebook's never invented a god damn thing, only rearranged deck chairs. And as such, the abuse of it's platform was "unforeseen" only by people dumb as posts and twice as blind. Which, like Mr. Chakrabarti, apparently is the only type of people Facebook has hired all these years.
Which, like Mr. Chakrabarti, apparently is the only type of people Facebook has hired all these years
Well - Facebook over the years has hired 3 types of people:
1. Techies to get the site working and the icky technical stuff. Not given the big picture.
2. Amoral marketing types who would, if they hadn't already, sell their own parents to assist their own career advancement and think that ethics is just a county in England.
3. Wide-eyed dreamer types with minimal connection to reality.
I suspect that the majority of long-term Facebook management fall firmly into type 2.
I am surprised to see people on here talking like they don't understand the Internet.
Let me get this straight now...
Some people in one country think that they should control what people on the Internet can say?
The Internet is an independent territory. It does not exist in a physical place. Nobody has the right (or ability) to control what happens there. The only way to stop it is to turn it all off.
Life is full of mis- and dis- information. It is your responsibility to be critical of information you receive, regardless of its source. The Internet is no different.
"Facebook and the internet are two different things."
You know that, and I know that. But sadly there are many social media casualties that are clueless to this kind of distinction. And not just Facebook=The Internet. How many times do you see people "go to a website" by typing the address into the google search box and hitting return. Then choosing the top, or some other random result, from what gets served up. The ability to type the address into the browser's URL box and then click "visit website" is an alien notion to their understanding of Google=The Internet.
"The Internet is an independent territory. It does not exist in a physical place. Nobody has the right (or ability) to control what happens there. The only way to stop it is to turn it all off."
This was a popular notion back in the early 2000s, and I'm surprised that anyone has kept it this long. The reality is that the Internet is not an independent territory, it is like the international telephone system. Bits of it lie in different countries, and those bits fall under those countries' jurisdiction. If they want to filter what happens on their bits of the network then they can.
I understand what you’re saying i.e. that people should be capable of critical thought and be able to decide for themselves what constitutes “fake news”.
Unfortunately, (and I realise this will sound elitist) there is a large demographic that can’t do this. This is why we have controls on how much of a slice of news organisations should be allowed to be controlled by a single entity - witness the recent Fox News/Rupert Murdoch tie up falling foul of the UK Competion and Markets Authority decision.
Yes, I know: "News that is fake". But that doesn't really answer my question.
Because from what I can tell someone who shares "these forest fires are HUGE, the smoke is unbelievable" could share something which they believe. The smoke could indeed be massively thick making the whole thing look much more threatening. A helicopter flying overhead though might be able to spot that it's only 1 (relatively) small fire hazard.
So is this "fake news" (because you could draw the wrong conclusions about the forest fire) or just someone sharing an innocent opinion / observation?
Fake news is when something is real but you want it to be fake for your own benefit. The more fake news you put out there enables you to bury bad news that's actually true leaving the general population scratching their heads uttering things like "what the fudge?"
I will start off by admitting I have an FB account. I'm sorry. Actually I have about half-a-dozen that I use for test purposes.
Anyway, 'my' account is mainly used for promoting a local charity. I haven't got many 'friends', ('twas ever thus) as I use a fake name and bio, definitely no ex-lover's bank-managers or whatever.
But the thing is, I have no idea what this fake news pushing story is all about. I never see anything remotely like 'news' on my FB page. It's mainly cat cartoons to be honest. Possibly I've switched things off and don't remember, but defo (note cool hip term) nothing plugging the orange one. Possibly my eyes are just filtering it out automagically.
What am I doing wrong? Am I too unimportant and unworthy to be a target of Putin's troll-factory?
It's mainly cat cartoons to be honest
[Nods approvingly]
(There is more to life than cat cartoon admittedly. Like trying to integrate cat no.7 into the household despite the fact that she's about 7 years younger than the youngest of the previous tranche.. maybe I need to get another 5 month old cat to keep her company..)
Exactly: "I have about half-a-dozen that I use for test purposes.". Facebook is good at selling targeted advertising - the fakes were not spread spam-like to world+dogs, they were targeted with specific contents for maximum effect. It's probable fake accounts with little data and very small circles were not targeted at all.
Be careful using facebook profiles for your charity.
My rugby club used a profile account for their club page. Somebody ( come on, it was the rival club down the road - I can confidently guess the individual who did it ) reported it to facebook. Now my club has had to rebuild its profile, recreate all the events that were lost in the page getting closed, etc.
127.0.0.1 facebook.com
127.0.0.1 www.facebook.com
127.0.0.1 login.facebook.com
127.0.0.1 www.login.facebook.com
127.0.0.1 fbcdn.net
127.0.0.1 www.fbcdn.net
127.0.0.1 fbcdn.com
127.0.0.1 www.fbcdn.com
127.0.0.1 static.ak.fbcdn.net
127.0.0.1 static.ak.connect.facebook.com
127.0.0.1 connect.facebook.net
127.0.0.1 www.connect.facebook.net
127.0.0.1 apps.facebook.com
# Block Facebook IPv6
::1 facebook.com
::1 graph.facebook.com
::1 www.facebook.com
::1 login.facebook.com
::1 www.login.facebook.com
::1 fbcdn.net
::1 www.fbcdn.net
::1 fbcdn.com
::1 www.fbcdn.com
::1 static.ak.fbcdn.net
::1 static.ak.connect.facebook.com
::1 connect.facebook.net
::1 www.connect.facebook.net
::1 apps.facebook.com
::1 edge-star6-shv-02-ams2.facebook.com
Aside from the fact that the article, page 2, starts by saying that Facebooks actions already fall well short of the legal requirements in the US elections, what is the big fuss all about?
If Electoral Law requires X0 to happen and y) not to happen, then simply enforce it. Now.
Even if the Russians did buy ads to "persuade" the US electorate, so what? Such a minimal amount in the scheme of things, in the deep cess pits of FB?
In the end the most obnoxious and dangerous candidiate LOST. Trump won. Get over it.
And if the Yanks really do want to stop outside influence in future elections would you kindly have a word with the UK's BBC and stop them running their (at least) weekly "Elect Oprah for President Campaign?"
What corroded democracy or in other words got Trump elected was that the US voters totally lost faith in the msg coming out of Faux News and similar examples of the old media. If you followed the polls it was going to be a slamdunk for Clinton. Trouble is, the people no longer believe your bullshit. Nothing to do with the Russians, nothing to do with fake posts on Facebook. That the US establishment has leaned on Chakrabarti to cop a plea is evidence enough of the kind of economic damage can be done to the Zuckerberg organization if they don't get in line. The news in America is bought-and-paid for by the likes of Murdoch. Do you think it any coincidence he's also trashing Facebook in his own organ.
" If you followed the polls it was going to be a slamdunk for Clinton."
Not true. The respected national polls never showed that (there were a number of regional polls and polls from disreputable organizations that did, but they don't count.
If you look at the polling numbers, you'll find that the election results were pretty much within their margins of error.
That's not how I remember it. After the Access Hollywood video was released it looked like a slam dunk for Hillary. Then two weeks (one week?) before the election the FBI revisited Hillary's emails courtesy of Andrew Weiner. The polls tightened up at that point. That and the usual margin of error of the polls themselves indicate that polling itself wasn't that far off the mark.
The real problem is not the damage to democracy, which in a rather raw(ish) form went and saddle us with Trump. The US is a republic and as such, theoretically elects (democractically) well informed "specialists" to do work that us proles are too busy being productive, lazy or ignorant to address directly. That is, a republic is an indirectly democratic government rather than a democracy per se. The US Constitution actually enshrines certain nature rights in the Bill of Rights and if one reads them very carefully, and one is equipped with good reading skills and perhaps a slight skill in wading through the wordiness of the late 18th Century, then it quite clear that the authors trusted "democracy" just about as far as they trusted the British monarchy - i.e. not at all. Mobs are, after all, democracy in action. One of the natural rights the Bill of Rights enshrines is the right of dissent - regardless of the kind, but particularly from religion. Among other things they had studied the history of England and its Glorious Revolution carefully. The lessons learned were what structured the US Constitution and one reason that British common law authorities are still cited in US law. No, the real damage is the self-inflicted damage done by the republican (not Republican) government on itself that provided the weakness exploited by all that fake news.
"The real problem is not the damage to democracy, which in a rather raw(ish) form went and saddle us with Trump. "
Interestingly, the primary (and most cogent) argument for the existence of the electoral college is that it protects us from the problems of raw democracy -- namely, that a charismatic populist who is unqualified or overtly bad for the nation could be elected.
The results of the last election, though, was just the opposite. Trump lost the democratic vote, but was seated by the electoral college anyway.
"While FB is a US-headquartered company, only approximately one-eighth of active user accounts are American (India has single largest membership) so FB will cease to be guided primarily by the First Amendment to the US Constitution (which only applies to the US Federal Government in any case) and will seek to cease to promote the dissemination of lies, half-truths and mendacious distortions under colour of a fictitious legal mandate. We will closely examine political campaigning rules, fairness doctrines and journalistic integrity requirements as reflected by the democracies our users elect and seek to implement a synthesis and global standard.
For the avoidance of doubt, this will entail material departures from common US expectations and practices since it will not include a license to lie, defame and misrepresent, nor confer 'freedom of speech' rights to corporations, foundations and other non-human entities."
Admit nothing you don't have to.
Facebook are still perceiving negative publicity from this scandal.
Having ignored it for a period hoping it would blow over, they give a step hoping to placate and diffuse,
That having not worked they give ground again.
Typical comment, wah wah wah, "the people" decided wrong so we have a crisis of democracy. Maybe we need to take Bertold Brechts's advice and elect a better people.
"Fake news" was everywhere and spread by everyone on all sides, and what's more, always has been. The Russians probably are the only ones smiling, because their intent was to stir things up and undermine the legitimacy of Western elections, and because of the self-serving over the top reactions from the losers in the two cases you mention they have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams.
Who in their right mind could believe that the Russian campaigns on FB had any measurable effect on the US elections ? They spent it is said $100K, the Clinton campaign alone spent well over $1B on the campaign, over 1,000 times as much.
The real threat to democracy comes from the insiders who conspire against the people making up their own minds. When one's own security services form secret societies to undermine legitimate inquiries and to overturn legitimate election results - that's when there's a threat to democracy.
Facebook - a company that declared Snopes as its fact checking source
Here's a few facts for you on Snopes:
It was founded by husband-and-wife Barbara and David Mikkelson, who used a letterhead claiming they were a non-existent society to start their research
Now they are divorced - with Barbara claiming in legal documents he embezzled $98,000 of company money and spent it on 'himself and prostitutes'
In a lengthy and bitter legal dispute he is claiming to be underpaid and demanding 'industry standard' or at least $360,000 a year
The two also dispute what are basic facts of their case - despite Snopes.com saying its 'ownership' is committed to 'accuracy and impartiality'
Snopes.com founder David Mikkelson's new wife Elyssa Young is employed by the website as an administrator
She has worked as an escort and porn actress and despite claims website is non-political ran as a Libertarian for Congress on a 'Dump Bush' platform
Its main 'fact checker' is Kimberly LaCapria, whose blog 'ViceVixen' says she is in touch with her 'domme side' and has posted on Snopes.com while smoking pot
Of course this sounds like the bastion of truth and politically neutral content.............zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
