Slashdot Mirror


Donald Trump Won Because of Facebook (nymag.com)

Max Read makes his case via New York Magazine for how Facebook was the reason for Donald Trump's surprise victory on November 8th. Though, to be fair, "Facebook" is called out specifically due to its large online presence, but in reality all the "large and influential boards and social-media platforms where Americans now congregate to discuss politics" are to blame. The main reason why has to do with Facebook's "inability (or refusal) to address the problem of hoax or fake news" that is spread rampantly and effortlessly across the platform: Fake news is not a problem unique to Facebook, but Facebook's enormous audience, and the mechanisms of distribution on which the site relies -- i.e., the emotionally charged activity of sharing, and the show-me-more-like-this feedback loop of the news feed algorithm -- makes it the only site to support a genuinely lucrative market in which shady publishers arbitrage traffic by enticing people off of Facebook and onto ad-festooned websites, using stories that are alternately made up, incorrect, exaggerated beyond all relationship to truth, or all three. Many got hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of shares, likes, and comments; enough people clicked through to the posts to generate significant profits for their creators. The valiant efforts of Snopes and other debunking organizations were insufficient; Facebook's labyrinthine sharing and privacy settings mean that fact-checks get lost in the shuffle. Often, no one would even need to click on and read the story for the headline itself to become a widely distributed talking point, repeated elsewhere online, or, sometimes, in real life. When roughly 170 million people in North America use Facebook every day and nearly forty-four percent of all adults in the U.S. say they get news from Facebook, the spread of "fake news" is all the more detrimental. The problem is that Facebook seems "insecure about its power, unsure of its purpose, and unclear about what its responsibilities really are." Earlier this year, Facebook acted on what was right and wrong by censoring the iconic "napalm girl" photograph, later issuing a statement saying "These are difficult decisions and we don't always get it right." Of course, lies and exaggerations have always been central to real political campaigns; Facebook has simply made them easier to spread, and discovered that it suffers no particular market punishment for doing so -- humans seem to have a strong bias toward news that confirms their beliefs, and environments where those beliefs are unlikely to be challenged.

23 of 499 comments (clear)

  1. yeah, Facebook, that's it by turkeydance · · Score: 5, Insightful

    that's why. it couldn't be the candidate or the policies that lost.

    1. Re: yeah, Facebook, that's it by iggymanz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Democrats can't face they lost because they ran Hillary

    2. Re:yeah, Facebook, that's it by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Facebook is part of the problem. It only shows you what you want to see, which means you're only ever getting at most one half of any story. And your friends / community get the same stories because FB networks you together. So it creates this polarized effect where nobody can even imagine someone voting for the other candidate, even though clearly half of the country did.

      When I was a kid, everybody got the same news. People didn't hate the other side, they respectfully disagreed. So yeah, Facebook is cancer.

  2. What He's Saying is... by sycodon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...that Trump won because the media could not control the narrative despite their best efforts.

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    1. Re:What He's Saying is... by lgw · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Same thing: the media abandoned truth for truthiness years ago. If it fits the narrative, it's a "fact" - every paper will tell you so. If it's inconvenient, it's not a fact, and all the papers agree.

      "Fact-checking" is just weasel words for "control the narrative." Politicians lie. Voters understand that fact.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  3. He won because it was Clinton by MikeRT · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Hillary is almost the perfect foil to her husband in politics. If Bill divorced her and ran as a Republican he'd probably have crushed her 70/30 that is how unpopular she is.

    Look at her stats. She is damn near in McCain/Palin territory. She is the Nickelback of Democratic candidates.

  4. Please idiot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Please stop living in a bubble and you will realize why it could have never been anyone else. How many established Republicans ran against him? Dozens, he slaughtered them for the same reason he destroyed Hillary. If you are looking around for a reason why he beat your establishment crook, don't look at Facebook, try the mirror.

  5. They're worried that they didn't control the news? by Xenographic · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So let me get this straight, the problem is that there wasn't enough control over the news by the Democratic party?

    Never mind how Wikileaks shows us that CNN leaked all the debate questions to Donna Brazille to help them cheat. Never mind how the Washington Post held a clandestine fundraiser with the DNC with services in kind that they kept off the books, much to the lawyers' dismay. And we have Correct the Record's "nerd virgins" (their words, not mine) shilling for dough on every social medium possible, etc., etc., etc.

    I wonder when they'll realize that their own propaganda machine is half the problem?

    They don't know why they lost and that's why they lost.

  6. He beat her because by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    she and the Democrats abandoned the Rust Belt. Michael Moore described election night back in July: Donald Trump was going to take Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, plus the Romney states, and win. That's pretty much what happened, except Trump also got Florida. Hillary conceded Ohio, paid only a little attention to Pennsylvania, took Michigan and Wisconsin completely for granted, and lost.

  7. Re:Anyone have a list? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Anyone have a list?

    1. 1. Russians
    2. 2. whatever

    Just go from there. Whatever you do, though, you cannot mention the Pied Piper strategy. Because, well, see #1.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  8. Re:Goes both ways by grcumb · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I at least as many anti-Trump memes as anti-Hilary memes.

    That's kind of the point. Unfiltered access to the modern equivalent of the yellow press means that people were free to follow their prejudice (in the Latin sense of the word) down the rabbit hole of their choosing.

    More people voted for Hillary than voted for Trump, but no matter the outcome, the margin was vanishingly small. Basically, people just chose their narrative and cleaved to it, nourishing and sustaining it with the self-reinforcing feed that Facebook provides.

    Trump is not going to 'drain the swamp', and Hillary was never anything but the enemy of ISIS. But in the final analysis, nobody fucking cares. And why should they? We just watched two straw dolls dance for 15 months, each accompanied by a back story knocked together by the political equivalent of an oxycontin-addicted non-Union Hollywood hack who's just been told the franchise needs a new Avenger.

    --
    Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
  9. Re:Anyone have a list? by Xenographic · · Score: 5, Funny

    > I've lost track of the rationalizations, the reasons why Trump won.

    Some humorous reasons, in no particular order:

    * The Putin bromance helped Trump win the gay vote
    * Russian deplorables prevented Syria from being annexed
    * The details of Harambe's assassination got leaked by Seth Rich
    * Flyover country problems
    * The Secret Service tossed Hillary Clinton into the van like a plate of tendies and accidentally dropped her
    * Pepe turned racist for the dank memes
    * Bill lost his frequent flier gold status with Epstein
    * Tod & Claire had to pack up shop after being found out for copyright infringement
    * Vile Rat's guild took silent revenge for his loss in Benghazi
    * Hillary accidentally deleted the email with the leaked debate questions before Kaine's debate, then forgot about it
    * The 400 lbs hacker 4chan tipped the public off to Podesta & co.'s #spiritcooking in the secret basement of Comet Ping Pong Pizza with Jay-Z
    * Bill & Obama's disowned relatives showed up
    * Correct the Record's self-described "nerd virgins" were distracted by Melliana porn
    * The Artist Formerly Known as Prince died, so he couldn't return Hillary's lost shoe at midnight and thus she turned into a pumpkin

  10. Please keep your pants away from combustibles by Xenographic · · Score: 4, Informative

    > There is no evidence CTR exists or ever did.

    https://correctrecord.org/

  11. DNC Lost Facebookers. by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The DNC had a strong foothold online behind Bernie. Large amounts of youth waited in lines for hours to vote for Bernie, do you think they did the same for Hillary? Trump had the bored, young, white, male demographic if for no reason other than it pissed off someone they knew.

    And that demographic hangs out on Facebook, Reddit and 4Chan. Tada, you now 'control' online.

    Meanwhile when Bernie voters logged into facebook they were told they weren't wanted in the DNC or in November from a few people there to correct the record.

  12. Deplorable critical thinking skills by Xenographic · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The only conspiracies I've read about were those hatched by the DNC, which we learned about in their own DKIM validated emails. I note that everyone who posts things like this never bothers to give examples, citations or links.

    Free thinking is about examining the sources yourself and coming to your own conclusion, including sources you're predisposed to disagree with. If you cannot even interact with ideas you disagree with, you simply blind yourself and you're in for a rude awakening when your filter bubble suddenly bursts.

    1. Re:Deplorable critical thinking skills by Xenographic · · Score: 5, Informative

      Okay, so I think the "kill list" really is pretty bogus, but the problem is you're using that to invalidate some real scandals.

      Hillary really did work to evade the Presidential Records Act, then lied to Congress about it (see also: 18 U.S. Code 1001). Here's what the FBI found. Why didn't they charge her? Because she's was the Democratic presidential candidate and the charges go up to a Democratic-controlled DoJ. Guess what they'd do with the charges? Oh, right.

      If you don't like that summary clip, you can watch this 3 hour hearing.

      Here's her and Colin Powell discussing how to cheat the act. Kinda puts a new spin on why Powell endorsed Hillary, huh? Feel free to prosecute them both, it's only fair.

      Source (click 'view original PDF')

      C06125520 UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2016-11013 Doc No. C06125520 Date: 09/08/2016

      Re: Question
      From: Colin Powell [redacted] [RELEASE IN PART B6]
      To: Hillary Clinton hr15@att.blackberry.net B6
      Subject: Re: Question

      I didn't have a BlackBerry. What I did do was have a personal computer that was hooked up to a private phone line (sounds ancient.) So I could communicate with a wide range of friends directly without it going through the State Department servers. I even used it to do business with some foreign leaders and some of the senior folks in the Department on their personal email accounts. I did the same thing on the road in hotels.

      Now, the real issue had to do with PDAs, as we called them a few years ago before BlackBerry became a noun. And the issue was DS would not allow them into the secure spaces, especially up your way. When I asked why not they gave me all kinds of nonsense about how they gave out signals that could be read by spies, etc. Same reason they tried to keep mobile phones out of the suite. I had numerous meetings with them. We even opened one up for them to try to explain to me why it was more dangerous than say, a remote control for one of the many tvs in the suite. Or something embedded in my shoe heel. They never satisfied me and NSA/CIA wouldn't back off. So, we just went about our business and stopped asking. I had an ancient version of a PDA and used it. In general, the suite was so sealed that it is hard to get signals in or out wirelessly.

      However, there is a real danger. If it is public that you have a BlackBerry and it is governmend and your are using it, government or not, to do business, it may become an official record and subject to the law. Readingi about the President's BB rules this morning, it sounds like it won't be as useful as it used to be. Be very careful. I got around it all by not saaying much and not using systems that captured the data.

      You will find DS driving you crazy if you let them. They had Maddy tied up in knots. I refused to let them live in my house or build a place on my property. They found an empty garage half a block away. On weekends, I drove my beloved cars around town without them following me. I promised I would have a phone and not be gone more than an hour or two at Tysons or the hardware store. They hated it and asked me to sign a letter relieving them of responsibility if I got whacked while doing that. I gladly did. Spontaneity was my security. They wanted to have two to three guys follow me around the building all the time. I said if they were doing their job guarding the place, they didn't need to follow me. I relented and let one guy follow me one

      [REVIEW AUTHORITY: Geoffrey Chapman, Senior Reviewer]

      UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2016-11013 Doc No. C06125520 Date: 09/08/2016

      -----

      C006122520 SIFIE UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2016-11013 Doc No. C06125520 Date: 09

  13. Re: Sad to see the Zuck... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think the election results disprove that only 20% supported him. I think the truth is a lot of people voted for him that did not want to admit they would. Not because he wasn't their choice, but because the left was so quick to label anyone that supported him as a deplorable, racist, sexist, bigoted misogynist. People that are not any of those things don't like being labeled that. What we're seeing is the attempted suppression of opposition by the left failed and likely actually fueled votes that may not have happened otherwise.

  14. Nobody believes that Donna by Xenographic · · Score: 4, Informative

    > That only confirms the headers. The bodies of the emails are Russian fabrications.

    Okay, so click here and then the "view source" link and you can read the DKIM signature yourself. I'll save you some trouble and copy paste it:


    DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
                    d=hillaryclinton.com; s=google;
                    h=from:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:date:message-id:subject:to :cc;
                    bh=EHIyNFKU1g6KhzxpAJQtxaW82g5+cTT3qlzIbUpGoRY=;
                    b=JgW85tkuhlDcythkyCrUMjPIAjHbUVPtgyqu+KpUR/kqQjE8+W23zacIh0DtVTqUGD
                      mzaviTrNmI8Ds2aUlzEFjxhJHtgKT4zbRiqDZS7fgba8ifMKCyDgApGNfenmQz+81+hN
                      2OHb/pLmmop+lIeM8ELXHhhr0m/Sd4c/3BOy8=
    X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
                    d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
                    h=x-gm-message-state:from:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:date :message-id:subject:to:cc;
                    bh=EHIyNFKU1g6KhzxpAJQtxaW82g5+cTT3qlzIbUpGoRY=;
                    b=dEYKdN2vH085sl/02zUgJ1Lr66LV8lRV9Lrqx9SIpfiF1bOLLbIr1Au6AAY5vwg1vS
                      klK/TvacKT0j8aYADGNWP6BtG5XZ+IME6ydojlufQ3jqksqLkycSJ2ahYhxw4LmCii8n
                      kja2EKzRFcKGPnfhYnfwBCmIk/D5FWN6+yvpAYSmmZlxsR4b7mTJ8r/NmB7dKRIHeq8b
                      Ersjyl8edCTfC6nGbUrEEV7C6uQE3N16B5m2XPnRATWSuWj/Nz7ZsM/9snj+rlTjJx5e
                      wI5Epet9ADtlAWqJw/L/5HCNaAFqyR3QK1/AFjsTk+Q2METC3+0Eo+yMaArw2viFZLu4
                      hvoQ==

    What does that mean? Let's check Wikipedia:

    The DKIM-Signature header field consists of a list of tag=value parts. Tags are short, usually only one or two letters. The most relevant ones are b for the actual digital signature of the contents (headers and body) of the mail message, bh for the body hash, d for the signing domain, and s for the selector. The default parameters for the authentication mechanism are to use SHA-256 as the cryptographic hash and RSA as the public key encryption scheme, and encode the encrypted hash using Base64.

    Now, would you like to go back and look at the b and bh parameters in the signature and tell me what those mean? Right, they cover contents (headers and body) as well as the body hash. If you want to make a serious claim that this is fake, give me a link to the blockchain transaction when you win 1 BTC from Erratasec for breaking DKIM.

    I'm waiting.

  15. The Internet as a vector for memetic disease by Pfhorrest · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I had a thought earlier today: The internet is the primary vector for the worst epidemic of mental disease ever to strike humanity, on par with the Old World plagues that wiped out New World peoples upon first contact. Here's what I wrote about it elsewhere:

    Fuck 4chan. They're responsible for this Trump victory. Actually, fuck the internet in general as it is today, but 4chan is where that shit first gained a foothold.

    Trump winning this election happened because of the continuous shitfest of frothing-at-the-mouth rabid drivel that now circulates around 24/7 nonstop. The internet is what lead my dad to turn into a crazy conspiracy theorist who thinks that 9/11 was a coverup for the then-recently-revealed existence of extraterrestrial life awaiting our spiritual awakening ever since the fall of Atlantis at the end of the Pleistocene. It's also what's convinced my original-generation-hippy, lifelong-Democrat, now-disabled mom, who survives entirely off of social programs likely to be cut under Trump, that Obama is a Muslim building a Mosque at Ground Zero, and that Hillary is part of the Illuminati who apparently worship Satan on some hill in Oregon (according to the obviously doctored photos someone posted online), and made her vote Trump for her first Republican president ever.

    Once upon a time I was under this blissful delusion that instant worldwide communication would lead to a new enlightenment for the populace in general, but it's become abundantly clear that the only thing keeping an echochamber of the worst, craziest, lowest-common-denominator "truthy" bullshit from drowning what few braincells most people have to rub together was the physical difficulty in that kind of craziness spreading.

    I think there's an analogue to be made with biological disease here. Back in the days before modern medicine, cities were about the least healthy places you could live, because being in close physical proximity to so many other people (and animals) made it so much easier for disease to spread; you weren't air-gapped from most people like you would be in the country. I think the same is true of what I guess we'd call "memetic" diseases of the mind: nasty, destructive, viral ideas spread and mutate far more quickly now that everyone is plugged into the internet 24/7, than they could back in the day when they would be contained to whoever Joe McNutbar was ranting to at the local pub.

    A further hypothesis: When the Old World first met the New World, the New World people died of Old World plagues but not vice-versa because the Old World had lots of previous exposure to plagues, having had lots of big dense cities for a long time and developing strong immune systems piecemeal over time enough that those plagues could just be everywhere in the Old World and most people were unaffected by them, while New World peoples with their sparser populations had no history of plagues (none that had any survivors to adapt to them at least) and so had both no resistance to the European ones and none to offer in return. I wonder if the earliest netizens, those of us who remember when UseNet was the happening place, are like the Europeans in that analogy. Those of us who grew up with trolls and flamewars and the kinds of crazy that the internet could breed... we got inoculated to it. That crazy was always still around but you know, don't feed the trolls and you'll be fine. We grew up knowing not to believe everything you read because the internet is full of lies.

    But now the whole goddamn world is very suddenly connected to that cesspool of lies and madness, and they have no defense against it, so it's spreading like wildfire, mutating into ever-more virulent strains, and wiping out (the minds of) the population at large.

    I just hope there are survivors enough to adapt a herd immunity to it some day.

    --
    -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
    "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
  16. Re:Nonsense by whoever57 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Turns out, there was/is silent majority

    Actually, no. The majority voted for Clinton, however, the vagaries of the Electoral College put Trump into the Whitehouse.

    --
    The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
  17. Donald Trump won because...... by Proudrooster · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Donald Trump won for the following reasons.

    1. The Mainstream media (MSM) kept telling everyone HRC was going to win, so everyone in rural America and flyover country made 100% sure their vote counted, and wow, did it!

    2. The MSM would repeat anything and everything Donald tweeted or posted to Facebook for ratings and the hopes of discrediting him as a clown. This only gave him free press and brought things that were previously politically correct to the forefront for discussion.

    3. Trump won, not because everyone wanted Trump, but because the people are collectively sick of the Federal Government constantly intruding in everything from small business to healthcare to trans-gendered high school locker-rooms. The people are sick of being called racist, biggoted, hatemongers or worse anytime they exercise their right to free speech and speak out against the never ending Federal Government Mandates. Trump won because he talked about all the unpopular things like illegal immigration, unfair trade deals, and the collapse of the middle class. Trump and Pence visited rural America and flyover country. They spent time there campaigning, yelling, screaming, brawling, and listening. Trump spent the last hours of election eve in Grand Rapids, Michigan a city with little political power and one that barely matters due to it's geographic proximity to rural northern michigan.

    That is why Trump won. It is not because of Facebook.

    Just like the UK, it was a full out revolt. This is how a democracy is supposed to work when they feel they aren't being heard. "The People" of the United States were heard this election.

    It's all going to be ok. Trump will not destroy America. There is no need to move to Canada. The president is not king and only has a limited amount of power. The pendulum will swing back the other way for awhile and it will either work and benefit the USA or it won't.

    In any case, it is time to stop fighting, yelling, screaming and come together to run the country again for the benefit of all. It will all be ok.

  18. Re: Sad to see the Zuck... by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This election will be the defining moment for these online millennials as they learn to deal and grow the fuck up.

    I'm still wondering when slashdot will do that. Literally every summary posted somehow can't deal with the reality that its (obviously) favored side just fucking lost. In this case it blames facebook, of all fucking things.

  19. Re: Sad to see the Zuck... by pslytely+psycho · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why the fuck do that way. It's an issue at every election. Every. Single. One.
    They need to do away with voting machines, period.

    Here in Washington (not DC, the other one, no we are not part of Canada...) we do paper ballots. Most are mailed out and we drop them in any of 100's of boxes. There are permanent ones at libraries and the courthouse and hundreds of temporary ones during a general election.
    We have a very strict accounting system overlooked by a bi-partisan pollsters at every step.
    The mailed ballot has an outer envelope that identifies the voter, and an inner yellow security envelope than can have nothing written on it and the ballot enclosed and sealed.
    After it is received they are electronically separated into districts and initially checked against registration rolls. They are then hand checked against voter rolls as the yellow envelopes are separated.
    The separated vote then is removed and counted and all votes stored for a period (I'm unsure of how long.).
    No problems large enough to make national news. A full paper trail. No internet, no machines to fuck up or be fucked with.
    You can fill a vote out online and print it out. But the vote is only accepted at polling places or in-person drops as they don't have a second security envelope like the mailed ones.
    Since it never touches the internet, you need physical access to do any fraud. That vastly complicates things compared to a few lines of code.

    Sometimes the old fashioned way truly is best.

    I don't know how costs compare, but with all the possibility of lawsuits, bad press, recounts and maintenance, I'm guessing it's not an astronomical difference. And I can be fairly confident that the counts are legitimate, as it would take some high-level fraud to cover up a paper trail with so many checks in place.

    --
    Donald Trump, on a crusade to make Nixon look respectable