Slashdot Mirror
Mark Zuckerberg Says Fake News on Facebook Affecting the Election Is a 'Crazy Idea' (fortune.com)
A lot of questions are emerging about Facebook's role in this year's election cycle, especially given the proliferation of sensationalistic and even outright fake news stories, and CEO Mark Zuckerberg has responded. From a report on Fortune: "I think the idea that fake news on Facebook -- of which it's a very small amount of the content -- influenced the election in any way is a pretty crazy idea," he said on Thursday at the Techonomy conference in Half Moon Bay, Calif., just two days after Donald Trump was elected president, according to media reports. "There have been hoaxes on the Internet, there were hoaxes before," he said. "We do our best to make it so that people can report that, and as I said before, we can show people the most meaningful content we can."
He is in a position to obtain and have analysed the data - not just about whether the fake stories and lies are a "small proportion" of FB's content, but just how much that "small proportion" gets liked, reposted and commented on. Being a small proportion is meaningless if it is influential. And it is the influence that these fake stories have, not the quantity of them, which is important.
One could also say that The Washington Post reaches only a small proportion of the world. But Zuckerberg considered it worth buying.
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
Fake news on facebook did not effect the election. It was the people stupid enough to believe them.
bickerdyke
As did E-mail, Twitter, Reddit, Instagram, Snapchat, IRC and I bet a Usenet server somewhere too.
Welcome to the Internet where people can share any information, real or not.
As it always has been, as it will be going forward.
The DNC had the opportunity to control online discussion but decided to correct the record against Sanders supporters..
Zucks is crazy if he thinks fake news couldn't have impacted the election.
Maybe it didn't change who got elected, but it probably did affect a handful of voters. There are some stupid people out there, and some intelligent people who get fooled, and some average people out there who might be impressionable.
Nonetheless, I guarantee you some people voted differently based on fake news they read. It might not have been a large %, it might not have impacted any state or federal level elections; however, some small local elections on a knife edge where just a handful of votes make a difference... maybe it did.
Even if someone recognizes a fake news story as fake when they read it, if it is pillorying someone, it might make that person subconsciously think slightly less of that candidate, and less likely to show up to vote. (even if it didn't do enough to make them change who they would vote for).
We're all impacted by what we see, read, and hear. Even if one article doesn't change our mind, reading 20 (some of which might be fake) could. I'm sure both presidential candidates lost votes because of untrue stories.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Dear Mr. Zuckerberg,
I was considering purchasing a bunch of ad impressions and various social-media astroturf to promote my product on your 'Facebook'; but I hear that it is 'crazy' to believe that Facebook has any influence on audience beliefs or behaviors.
Please clarify.
Sincerely, Your Customers.
I'll make you a deal: You can be pissy about misleading news coverage on Facebook after you call out the rest of the media for not pointing out that "if you like your insurance/doctor, you can keep your insurance/doctor" were obvious lies.
> "I was for this candidate until I heard he say this......" then sent you to a random page for Viagra
How exactly does Viagra spam effect the outcome of the election?
I know many people say they voted for Hillary based on her genitalia, is it related to that?
He is hiding his income and taxes
Keeping private is not "hiding". Are you "hiding" your phone number? No? Post it then.
He clearly hates non-white
That's not what his black employees say, nor just that mesh with him picking Omarissa years ago to win The Apprentice (which also meant he would have to work with her).
non-straight non-male people
Trump is the most pro-gay GOP candidate there has ever been, far better for the LGBT community than Hillary would have been.
As for women, well if Trump hates women so much why did he keep hiring them to lead his campaign, including the last one that led him to victory?
He incites violence.
Sorry I'm having trouble seeing the Trump violence over Portland burning, and the fake protestors the DNC hired to mess up Trump rallies.
He knows next to nothing about anything.
And yet he still won, so obviously what he does know is how to find and hire the right people who do know how to accomplish things.
That he's a child molester?
Claimed just before the election, and we are supposed to believe that.... meanwhile Hillary was covering for Bill having sex with under-age females for decades. Don't see you very against that you monster.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I live and grew up in a red state. Because of my background a significant number of my friends on Facebook are die hard Republicans. A small number of those spend way too much time worrying about politics and sharing fake news items and various anti-Democratic Party stories. Some of what I've seen is actually offensive. But is anybody actually convinced to change their minds because of this? All I see is other die hard Republicans comment about how true this stuff is. A rather large part of the US voting population is party locked and they are just not ever going to vote for the other party no matter what. Does it really matter if these stories are lies if all they do is preach to the already converted? Studies have shown that people deliberately seek out sources of information to reinforce already decided opinions and that if you confront people who hold a false belief with real proof that their belief is false, they will actually double down on the false belief and get even more adamant that it can't be wrong.
Hold up a second there, professor. In what way were Trump and his supporters NOT called out by CNN and the rest of the media? Jesus christ, the ENTIRE 6 month run-up to the election was nothing but Trump-bashing, and unabashed Hillary worship. Every time I went to CNN, MSNBC, BBC, or any of the literally hundreds of other political/news/current event sites around, I would see headlines heralding Trump as the second coming of Satan himself.
I voted for Hillary. I don't like Trump. But pretending that somehow the "media" didn't do enough to stop Trump is entirely BULLSHIT. You know who didn't do enough to stop Trump? The Democrats. They took their white, working class voters across the Rust Belt for granted, and ignored them. And they got a giant middle finger from those voters because of it. She also connected to minority voters with all the warmth of a digital rectal exam, and engendered about as much enthusiasm from them. Yes, they "predominantly" voted for her. NO, they did not vote for her at the levels and numbers they voted for Obama - despite the constant drumbeat of negativity telling them that they would be deported, locked up, assaulted, shot, or imprisoned for simply being brown, if Trump were elected.
Don't you DARE blame the media for "not doing enough to stop Trump." The amount of negative coverage of Trump, his views, and his supporters was absolutely monumental in this election, and it still wasn't enough to give Hillary the votes she needed. The reason for that is that the Democrats FUCKED UP, and handed Trump the election. From the coronation of Clinton at the expense of Sanders all the way to election day, they FUCKED. UP. They didn't listen to their base, they didn't energize their base, and that base largely stayed home. Trump got fewer votes than Romney in 2012, McCain in 2008, and Bush in 2004. But he still won. In the past 4 elections (04, 08, 12, 16), this is the voter turnout:
2004 - 60.1%
2008 - 61.6%
2012 - 58.0%
2016 - 56.0%
Trump got less votes than the Republican candidates in all of those other elections. Which means, not that there was some sort of massive "groundswell" for Trump; It means there was a massive "meh, think I'll stay home today instead of voting," in the Democratic party.
THIS IS NOT THE MEDIA'S FAULT. The blame for this rests squarely with the Democrats themselves.