Facebook hid webpages bragging of ability to influence elections

Now, in your favor, they have not cared, despite the majority of this info being old, known.

Context matters.

This last election was very highly controversial. I get downvotes for more commentary, and I know why too.

It's OK, but it does make this discussion a bit harder.

Let's just say people have seen more about the ugly parts of politics than usual. The choices they had and why are troublesome too.

The parties both want to avoid accounting for their abuses, and or just working realities, when known are not popular, too.

Given things like this in play, and strong incentives for many "to put blame anywhere else", or onto "those other people", the conditions needed for this information to matter are ripe!

Should be no real surprise.

Many, in my circles, have only casual understanding of the data issues. They appreciate the good, and as long as they get a lot of value out of the products, they will push cares away.

Most are asking great questions, and they are weighing the info they get, trying to understand.

It's more than I have ever seen, despite my own efforts to inform earlier.

What is most disturbing, to me, isn't the interest. That discussion should have happened years ago. "You are the product" means a lot more than many know, and it's not all bad too.

Many will evaluate all of this and make different choices. FB won't be the same for them. FB won't die either, but like the kids did, people will move on, seek alternatives and more agency as to what happens.

Good.

The disturbing thing is alphas, influencers linking all of this to every bad, deep state, nefarious actor, prediction of doom they can.

Not good.

https://www.google.com/ads/elections/campaign-playbook/mobil... ze/

https://business.twitter.com/en/help/ads-policies/restricted...

(lest the implication be misunderstood, it is that "hiding web pages" is a non-story, unless i have missed the authors point. online ads for candidates are still not regulated in the same way as similar ads on "traditional" broadcast media such as TV, radio, cable, satellite. google, twitter, etc. are still open for business.)

The Ominous Parallels[1] explores this, and the parallels with current American politics:

The Nazis did not gain power against the country’s wishes…The Nazi party was elected to office by the freely cast ballots of millions of German voters, including men on every social, economic, and educational level. In the national election of July 1932, the Nazis obtained 37 percent of the vote and a plurality of seats in the Reichstag. On January 30, 1933, in full accordance with the country’s legal and constitutional principles, Hitler was appointed Chancellor. Five weeks later, in the last (and semi-free) election of the pre-totalitarian period, the Nazis obtained 17 million votes, 44 percent of the total…

In 1933, when Hitler did establish the system he had promised, he did not find it necessary to forbid foreign travel. Until World War II, those Germans who wished to flee the country could do so. The overwhelming majority did not. They were satisfied to remain…

[1] https://www.amazon.com/Ominous-Parallels-End-Freedom-America...

“A Section 2 monopolization violation has two elements:

(1) the possession of monopoly power in the relevant market; and

(2) the willful acquisition or maintenance of that power as distinguished from growth or development as a consequence of a superior product, business acumen, or historic accident” [1].

It would be a difficult, but not impossible, case as is. Facebook’s market power, acquisition history and evidences of abuse and cover-ups would make a legislative extension of antitrust statute to social media perfectly reasonable within the original intent of the law. This is far from a unique opinion [2].

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act

[2] https://stratechery.com/2017/everything-is-changing-so-shoul...