Slashdot Mirror
Facebook Promises It Won't Mess With Voters' Minds (businessinsider.com)
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."
newspapers/pamphlets set the standard for the 1st.
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.
Make with the transparency. How do the stream sorting algorithms work? If Facebook can't divulge that, I see no reason to trust them.
for that.
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?
and the bankers would quit messing with people's minds that would be great
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
Anyone who asks that should be banned from voting for life, or at least until they show genuine regret for getting those tribal tattoos.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
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.
Have gnu, will travel.
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.
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-vaxxers have caused actual deaths. That's an extreme case for an extreme gain, but less-extreme cases will still have gains.
Most politicians are pretty well-practiced at avoiding statements that could be factually wrong, and would not be too badly affected. 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.
In the 1950s, Hollywood had a policy of a blacklisting communist party members, 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 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.
> "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.
Often wrong but never in doubt.
I am Jack9.
Everyone knows me.
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?
Most people who get most of their information about the world from social media seem to think that Facebook could influence the election via controlling the content on their network ("Likes", smiley faces, etc). What those dumbasses don't understand is that because of Citizens United, Facebook or any other company can spend unlimited cash, anonymously, to buy any politicians they'd like. Smileys and "Likes" are nothing compared to cash bribes.
I don't respond to AC's.
...Britain Stronger in Europe suggestions in my wall feed, despite the fact that I've liked both of the Leave campaigns pages? Surely their algorithms must realise that I have no interest in the Remain campaign? I wonder if this is the the experience of many other Facebook users in the UK, especially among the younger, mostly undecided, generation....
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.
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...
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 regulating more and more of your life. In the EU they even regulate the amount of power you can have in your toaster and in your lawn mower (of course, their Agenda 21 is to move you to "sustainable" housing where you have no lawn, and further down the track, no private property - only that which the Collective gives you, which the Collective can also take away).
Most folks think that the Free World won the "Cold War". They never think about where the Collectivists went. The reality is they went nowhere and have been promoted in their careers and bureaucracies. And now we are seeing the "Fabian" style gradual increase in control through regulation. The python is squeezing if you are paying attention. When was the last time you heard citizens say "It's a Free Country" and people accept and act on that premise. No, the citizens are cowed into begging Government for scraps and for permission to do things. They are not Free because their minds are enslaved that they are subjugated to the Collective will (which actually means, the 'elites' who rule the transnational-bodies that determine the will of the global Collective).
It is amazing how angry people get when they hear the truth. They would rather cling to the lie that the prevailing disinformation has fed them. Look at all the riots of people who want to deny the Free Speech rights of others, and who think that "free stuff" (actually, resources the Collective extorts using State force from the innovative and industrious) is a sustainable economic model - or somehow a route to a better life for everyone. Madness! Not only Zuckerberg and his minions are subject to this delusion, but even some otherwise-intelligent Slashdotters are captured by it too.
Live Free or Die !
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 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 who control the election, while Iran has only one.
A really big difference. Big whoop.
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.
Just another day in Paradise
"...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 democracy.
Funny, after this declaration I don't feel any more certain about what Facebook will really do than I did before.
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?
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.
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 differently because they're: ignorant, abusive, racist, intolerant. Rude or unlawful customers being told to leave business establishments isn't a rarity.
Bottom line: you can't choose to be born white or black but you can choose whether or not to be an asshole.
So essentially he's saying he's already better than CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC who DO filter stories that don't fit their political agendas..
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...
Isn't it then just a matter of time? Some future Rupert Murdock buys Facebook, eventually Zuckerberg leaves, dies, or changes his mind, and we have a FoxBook serving everyone the best propaganda money can buy?
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 nearly groaned myself, then reminded myself just how often the media misrepresents things at the moment. I look into it, sure enough, someone ELSE brought up dick size, implying he had a problem and he simply said "no problem there thanks". So was Trump bringing up his penis size at a debate because he's childish or was he addressing some other idiot?
Once you start to learn about the media representation (I almost wish I never discovered it) it's a hard thing to not notice. At least I question a lot more of the stuff I read now and look for multiple sources.
(Note: This doesn't make me a Trump supporter, or a Republican in the slightest, I'm not even from the states)
They're about signing in and talking to your parents and stuff. Messing with user content is contrary to the stated goal. Of course they do it constantly, but this discussion is about what they say.
Let's face reality here. Even if Facebook were already doing it we would have no way of knowing about it and a total of no one would notice. I almost want them to do it because honestly somebody needs to do something about this Trump situation before we reach the no-turning-point. It would set a dangerous precedent and one I don't even want to entertain, but I'm wondering if this situation doesn't warrant such a precedent.
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 people really have this much trouble understanding the first amendment? This is like when Milo GamerGater was complaining about his first amendment rights being violated when Twitter took off his verified checkmark. It wasn't violating first amendment then and the hypothetical wouldn't violate first amendment now. It'd just be bad business.
Just another second banana
Alaska, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah, Wisconsin, Wyoming.
Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)
http://www.lawrenceperson.com/