Slashdot Mirror
How Facebook Is Influencing Who Will Win the Next Election
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.
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.
This change is good for the users of Facebook. The idea that this might change who becomes president shows how bad the US political system is. Facebook does not have a responsibility to influence politics in any way.
Thank you, Bradley Manning, Edward Snowden and so many others, for courageously defending humanity, my freedom and more!
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.
Gosh, thanks. That must be why the other ships call me Meatfucker -- GCU Grey Area (Eccentric)
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?
Politicians have won every election. And the american people has been the loosers every time. Seems properly rigged already.
They're shutting down a feature that one campaign used to spread their message - and this is influencing? Surely it's stopping an influence?
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.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Vote Zuckerberg 2016!
Related News: Zuckerberg candidacy announcement receives record 16 billion likes. [Slashdot.org]
He also forced farmers to devote a certain percentage of their land to growing hemp for the navy.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
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 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.
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 their heads cut off. If you think there's any President that would behave any differently you're sadly mistaken. If anything I don't think he's going far enough with those sickos; go watch this, if you can stomach it. Watch how they shoot bound and helpless people as nonchalantly as you would step on a spider. That organization is as close to pure evil as I've seen in my lifetime and if our President had the balls to actually do what needs to be done I would be the first one lining up to go over there and help kill them.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
...I'd love it if routine Facebook use invalidated your vote.
-Styopa
I hope you appreciate the irony of whining about the judicial system while simultaneously advocating in favor of summary executions without trial.... :)
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
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.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
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-driven media. And, back on topic, data-mining-backed advertising with extensive personal information like facebook can do is frightening.
Faces change, policy doesn't.
pulled us out of Iraq and Afghanistan
If by pulling out of Iraq you mean sending thousands more troops or if by stating pulling out of Afghanistan you mean leaving troops until the next Administration, then you're correct.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!