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.
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.
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