Slashdot Mirror
How Facebook's Political Unit Enables the Dark Art of Digital Propaganda (bloomberg.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Bloomberg: Under fire for Facebook Inc.'s role as a platform for political propaganda, co-founder Mark Zuckerberg has punched back, saying his mission is above partisanship. "We hope to give all people a voice and create a platform for all ideas," Zuckerberg wrote in September after President Donald Trump accused Facebook of bias. Zuckerberg's social network is a politically agnostic tool for its more than 2 billion users, he has said. But Facebook, it turns out, is no bystander in global politics. What he hasn't said is that his company actively works with political parties and leaders including those who use the platform to stifle opposition -- sometimes with the aid of "troll armies" that spread misinformation and extremist ideologies.
The initiative is run by a little-known Facebook global government and politics team that's neutral in that it works with nearly anyone seeking or securing power. The unit is led from Washington by Katie Harbath, a former Republican digital strategist who worked on former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani's 2008 presidential campaign. Since Facebook hired Harbath three years later, her team has traveled the globe helping political clients use the company's powerful digital tools. In some of the world's biggest democracies -- from India and Brazil to Germany and the U.K. -- the unit's employees have become de facto campaign workers. And once a candidate is elected, the company in some instances goes on to train government employees or provide technical assistance for live streams at official state events.
The initiative is run by a little-known Facebook global government and politics team that's neutral in that it works with nearly anyone seeking or securing power. The unit is led from Washington by Katie Harbath, a former Republican digital strategist who worked on former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani's 2008 presidential campaign. Since Facebook hired Harbath three years later, her team has traveled the globe helping political clients use the company's powerful digital tools. In some of the world's biggest democracies -- from India and Brazil to Germany and the U.K. -- the unit's employees have become de facto campaign workers. And once a candidate is elected, the company in some instances goes on to train government employees or provide technical assistance for live streams at official state events.
His mission is "above partisanship" because, simply put, his "mission" is to make heaps and gobs of money by any and every means possible.
How many reasons and examples do we need to see that FB is an out of control behemoth of global control and influence?
Do we need anymore reasons to see that FB is wrong on so many levels.
So....Facebook basically offers a service to organizations that will guide and train them to use features of Facebook. Don't a lot of large companies offer training services to users of their product(s)?
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
the unit's employees have become de facto campaign workers. And once a candidate is elected, the company in some instances goes on to train government employees or provide technical assistance for live streams at official state events.
Any communications company, be it Facebook or TimeWarner or even printing companies that have to act as service agents for the campaign (here's how you get the message on our system) are going to become de-facto campaign workers. Broadcast companies in the US do this to a certain extent as well as part of advertising campaigns but that's a little fuzzier when they're both reporting the news of the candidate on one hand and taking the money from the political candidate with the other. Which is why there are laws about how those relationships work. Is Facebook considered a :"news generator" though that they'd breach that line? Sure they curate the news to a certain extent but is that the same thing?
The latter statement doesn't seem to be a major issue at all. Unless facebook refuses to train government employees if the opposition won... That seems to me just part of doing business.
Net neutrality has been a big issue lately. But the problem is that the 2015 approach to "net neutrality" that is being promoted is limited to only the bottom 3 of the 7 layers of the OSI model. That's only about 43% of the layers!
So while neutrality is being forced on the providers of the physical telecom infrastructure, those organizations offering communication services on top of this physical infrastructure resist the idea of themselves having to act in a neutral manner regarding the comments, submissions and users communicating via their communication platforms.
What we need is 100% net neutrality that extends from layer 1 of the OSI model up to layer 7.
That means there would be neutrality at the Network layer, when it comes to packets. It would also mean that there'd be neutrality at the Application layer, as well, where we classify social media platforms.
This in turn means that social media platforms would not be allowed to delete, hide or censor any comments/articles/submissions that are legal. Likewise, they would not be allowed to ban, shadow-ban, or censor users who aren't violating any laws.
A social media discussion platform shouldn't be treated any differently than a physical Internet connection. The expectations are the same for both: content is put into the network, and it's expected to reach any and all destinations without any special consideration or treatment from the service provider(s) involved.
Just as ISPs should be neutral conduits for moving data from one computer to another, social media platforms should be neutral conduits for moving ideas from one user to another.
We do need net neutrality. But we need real net neutrality that covers 100% of the OSI model, not this flawed 2015 approach that only covers the bottom 43%, while leaving the top layers vulnerable to partiality and censorship.
"The initiative is run by a little-known Facebook global government and politics team that's neutral in that it works with nearly anyone seeking or securing power."
Translation: We're as biased as a drug dealer. We'll take money from anyone and everyone, because revenue is all that matters.
Needless to say the government that runs on that capitalism wouldn't dare interfere. They recognize the hand that feeds them.
What we need is 100% net neutrality that extends from layer 1 of the OSI model up to layer 7.
That means there would be neutrality at the Network layer, when it comes to packets. It would also mean that there'd be neutrality at the Application layer, as well, where we classify social media platforms.
I classify all social media platforms equally just fine now. They're nothing more than portals that feed the look-at-me generation of social media junkies addicted to narcissism. I wouldn't dare consider them a "news" outlet by any means. Intelligent people understand this, and do not need more regulation.
Besides, only 0.001% of society would even be able to grasp what the fuck you're talking about as you petition for "Application-layer Net Neutrality". Championing that would fall on deaf and dumb ears.
If everyone were to download adblock plus and use it, companies like Facebook wouldn't have the power that they think they have.
Same goes for every other company whose lifeblood is advertising. Stop giving them attention and block their crap.
Zionists aren't anti-Semitic; they just hate Arabs.
Yes, and its best selling product, besides its moonshots and occasional forays into hardware and social work, is its users. Just like that other big ad company that we use to find those Face-less other things on the Net.
brings out the worst in everyone.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
AC Re "How do we change that?"
Good people are creating new products and services away from the party political SJW of the existing social media brands.
Services that support the freedom of speech and allow for freedom after speech.
No account bans for party political reasons.
No reporting users to their governments for talking about politics.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
"We hope to give all people a voice and create a platform for all ideas."
This is a blatant lie. Facebook is making concentrated effort to silence ideas that they consider aboninations. The usual suspects are to be expected. That is to say, you only need to see what ideas liberals are opposing for virtue signaling purposes. Like idea that there are two sexes or the idea that transsexuality, or gender dysphoria in medical terms, is a form of mental illness.
Are social networks as much as a necessity as ISPs? Would this also be a requirement for social networks designed for specific political groups? For small,forums of 30 people?
Avantgarde Hebrew science fiction
Facebook is a cancer on the world and the internet.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
Zuckerberg is a cartoonish villain. He's one of the few people in America who's more widely hated than Hillary Clinton. The only way he can win an election is through outright fraud.
How much does Facebook's public relations firm pay you to disrupt discussion of Facebook's perfidy by posting this annoying, racist wallotext?
"We hope to give all people a voice and create a platform for all ideas"... and process them (including censor them) through our Facebook algorithm for selfish reasons.
No thank you, Zucker.
Sines of Impending Sines
So hard that I wonder where it's coming from.
Citations needed.
"Trump!!", the new Godwin.
As necessary, no. But are you saying that opting out doesn't impose costs, both social and professional?
I think the NN rules required 50k or 100k users to be effected.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
I believe that government should guarantee our health and communication needs, not our online social needs. Regarding professional, I admit that i live in a country where you can get a good job without fb. I heard it is different in the US.
Avantgarde Hebrew science fiction
Yeah, FB seems to have (in the US) moved more into the communication than social bucket. As in, some people only communicate via FB (not even by the fucking phone they have in their hand they use to check FB).
At any rate, the US government clearly disagrees, so I'm looking forward to the health care system imploding now that Obamacare is set to go away in 2019.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
I am curious, why do you think FB has become so dominant in the US? In Israel FB is considered something for communication between friends, the only people who use it professionally are artists and professional content writers. When I spent some time in Berlin I saw that they use it even less, using facebook mostly for publishing events and photos of themselves, communicating via whatsapp or phones. Can you explain what makes the US special in this regard?
Avantgarde Hebrew science fiction
Well, as a corollary to your Berlin experience: thanks to unlimited texting, WhatsApp has almost 0 penetration in the US.
As to why people in the US use FB... I actually have no idea. I suppose partly its that it started here? And also that news media pushes FB/Twitter involvement (now Instagram as well) as a way to seem cool and hip. Which in turn makes it cool and hip. (I mean, the "Twitter Revolution" is what they called the democracy rallies in Iran, and I think post analysis showed only like 10-20 people in Iran were on Twitter, the rest were Americans pretending to be Iranian.)
But it could also be an accident. Orkut was popular in... Brazil I think. Because it was popular in Brazil, it became more popular in Brazil. It's a feedback loop. Maybe it just was popular because it is popular?
But it falls into the strange world of things I never understood why people would get involved in. It seems strange to give a for-profit corporation complete control of your life, the right to read all your messages, and track your phone.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
...work for the one paying the most money. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
'He who has to break a thing to find out what it is, has left the path of wisdom.' -- Gandalf to Saruman