Facebook hid webpages bragging of ability to influence elections • Hacker News Board

Re: Facebook hid webpages bragging of ability to influence elections

#61

Post by oldsklgdfth » Mon, Mar 26, 2018, 12:09 PM UTC

zaroth wrote: post #52

Just a few years ago, the talking heads were fawning over a few politicians you might know, who claimed their social media strategy was the linchpin in winning the election. Political campaigns of a certain bend would brag about how rich their voter targeting data was and how much more effective they were with their advertising dollars online. What I’m trying to understand is if the average reader thinks these method…

I think the notion of political advertising is to some extent unethical, because it relies heavily on marketing candidates rather than presenting their positions. It's on thing to have the relevant information made easily accesable and another to push a rhetoric and narrative that is purpusefully manipulative. I would say that an effective ad is manipulative, thus has no place in the conversation of governance.

My main concern - which I haven't seen mentioned as much - is not how this data is being used to target voters with ads. At the end of the day if i can convince you of something with words that's fair game. I am concern with how this information is used to manipulate the voiting system - GERRYMANDERING.

I can ignore political ads. But if they know enough about me to classify me into a party AND control districting that's a problem. I encourage open political discussion, but it seems like that is being exploited and commotatized with big data to our disadvantage. Finally, the big winners aren't gop/dems. It's the people selling them this data and lining their pockets with money.

Re: Facebook hid webpages bragging of ability to influence elections

#62

Post by jimmytidey » Mon, Mar 26, 2018, 12:14 PM UTC

chimeracoder wrote: post #59

jimmytidey wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) Yes, there is a certain degree of hypocrisy in commentators lauding the sophistication of the Obama campaign machine and then complaining about the Republican strategy. At the same time, some of the most celebrated aspects of the Obama campaign were not about social media. This is not (or should not be) treated as a partisan issue. 2) Political advertising is beneficial to democracy only if it improves voter's abi…

> Yes, there is a certain degree of hypocrisy in commentators lauding the sophistication of the Obama campaign machine and then complaining about the Republican strategy. The complaints are generally with respect to a targeted effort to direct people towards sites publishing outright false information[0] as propaganda, and doing so by coordinating with a foreign government. There is no such claim about the Obama camp…

If you want a non-partisan debate, which I do, I think you have to look past this kind of 'who was worse' debate.

Even if there is an answer to 'who was worse', trying to reach a conclusion will just descend into meaningless point scoring.

So, rather than saying that there is or isn't hypocrisy, I guess it would have been better for me to say that I don't care.

Re: Facebook hid webpages bragging of ability to influence elections

#63

Post by lovelearning » Mon, Mar 26, 2018, 12:23 PM UTC

dvfjsdhgfv wrote: post #36

surferbayarea wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't care, doesn't mean you SHOULD not care. Public apathy from smart people was probably behind what happened in 1930s Germany.

What? There were so many different reasons, and apathy definitely wasn't one of them. You know what was the main driving force though? Anger, anger and resentment. Germans felt treated badly after WWI, the war contributions were extremely high, people were starving, inflation was higher than in Venezuela today. These were the circumstances that shaped NSDAP. Apathy? No, many German smart people were in favor of chang…

I downvoted your comment, because it just summarily dismisses the role of apathy.

No doubt many people supported the nazis for all the reasons you quote.

But why weren't there mass protests or resistance of any note against all the book burnings and all the targeting of jews in the 30s? The absence of any notable resistance to nazi policies before the war is a strong indicator of apathy.

As a resident of a country that is currently going through ultra-nationalist propaganda, brainwashing and violence against sections of our society, I strongly feel apathy of the masses towards persecuted countrymen is, and has always been, a factor in all such events and can't be so summarily dismissed.

Re: Facebook hid webpages bragging of ability to influence elections

#64

Post by chimeracoder » Mon, Mar 26, 2018, 12:25 PM UTC

jimmytidey wrote: post #62

chimeracoder wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yes, there is a certain degree of hypocrisy in commentators lauding the sophistication of the Obama campaign machine and then complaining about the Republican strategy. The complaints are generally with respect to a targeted effort to direct people towards sites publishing outright false information[0] as propaganda, and doing so by coordinating with a foreign government. There is no such claim about the Obama camp…

If you want a non-partisan debate, which I do, I think you have to look past this kind of 'who was worse' debate. Even if there is an answer to 'who was worse', trying to reach a conclusion will just descend into meaningless point scoring. So, rather than saying that there is or isn't hypocrisy, I guess it would have been better for me to say that I don't care.

> If you want a non-partisan debate, which I do, I think you have to look past this kind of 'who was worse' debate.

You can have a "non-partisan" debate while recognizing that there's an important distinction between applying data to disseminate information in good faith to potential voters and applying data to intentionally disseminate misinformation in concert with a foreign government.

Re: Facebook hid webpages bragging of ability to influence elections

#65

Post by HenryBemis » Mon, Mar 26, 2018, 12:48 PM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #10

sho_hn wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nah. People outside our bubble don't care.

> People outside our bubble don't care This time, it feels flipped. My Silicon Valley circles repeat that this will blow over in a week. Outside that bubble, wheels are turning for the first time (to my recollection).

On that note, the Facebook stock is marked as a definite "buy". If you see the stock price movement, it's been a boon since 2013. Depending how you see this FB fiasco, it is both a PR disaster, and a great opportunity to "BUY" Facebook stock.

I believe that Zuckerberg will patch-up this mess (for now) and the investors just managed to buy something for 10% cheaper. There is a rule in forex trading: most events' results last 4 days. Perhaps for FB it will last a bit more. But when it comes to stock that's a different game. FB can make the comeback of this 10% in a couple months (tops) and continue being profitable.

Check stock price since 2013. FB stock definitely to continue performing similarly.

[1]: https://www.tradingview.com/chart/FB/r2H0bemr-FB-Facebook-Li...

Re: Facebook hid webpages bragging of ability to influence elections

#66

Post by tatersolid » Mon, Mar 26, 2018, 1:29 PM UTC

chimeracoder wrote: post #64

jimmytidey wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want a non-partisan debate, which I do, I think you have to look past this kind of 'who was worse' debate. Even if there is an answer to 'who was worse', trying to reach a conclusion will just descend into meaningless point scoring. So, rather than saying that there is or isn't hypocrisy, I guess it would have been better for me to say that I don't care.

> If you want a non-partisan debate, which I do, I think you have to look past this kind of 'who was worse' debate. You can have a "non-partisan" debate while recognizing that there's an important distinction between applying data to disseminate information in good faith to potential voters and applying data to intentionally disseminate misinformation in concert with a foreign government.

Your typical Democrat enthusiast considers the entire Republican platform “disininformation”.

And vice versa.

That’s truly the root of the problem here: none of the “fanatics” who control the various political organizations on left or the right actually want informed debate. They want to censor the other side entirely.

Re: Facebook hid webpages bragging of ability to influence elections

#67

Post by musage » Mon, Mar 26, 2018, 1:54 PM UTC

zaroth wrote: post #52

Just a few years ago, the talking heads were fawning over a few politicians you might know, who claimed their social media strategy was the linchpin in winning the election. Political campaigns of a certain bend would brag about how rich their voter targeting data was and how much more effective they were with their advertising dollars online. What I’m trying to understand is if the average reader thinks these method…

> If the ads were effective, isn’t that the whole fucking point?

The point of "might is right" and totalitarianism? Yes. The point of democracy? No.

> Nowadays, all you do is hear the media's description of what the candidate is saying, and one of the strange things about it is that politics is now presented in terms of politicians and not politics. I don't think the media is interested in politics, they're interested in politicians, which is a wholly different subject... who's doing this, about their private life, about their background, about what they must be thinking, might be thinking when they said something, why did they say it; but what they say is very, very hard to hear. And I think this is, in a sense, indeed quite deliberately, destroying the genuine democratic base on which people are elected.

-- Tony Benn

Re: Facebook hid webpages bragging of ability to influence elections

#68

Post by cctt23 » Mon, Mar 26, 2018, 2:34 PM UTC

HenryBemis wrote: post #65

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People outside our bubble don't care This time, it feels flipped. My Silicon Valley circles repeat that this will blow over in a week. Outside that bubble, wheels are turning for the first time (to my recollection).

On that note, the Facebook stock is marked as a definite "buy". If you see the stock price movement, it's been a boon since 2013. Depending how you see this FB fiasco, it is both a PR disaster, and a great opportunity to "BUY" Facebook stock. I believe that Zuckerberg will patch-up this mess (for now) and the investors just managed to buy something for 10% cheaper. There is a rule in forex trading: most events' resul…

It’s very naive to believe that past performance is a perfect predictor, and a good way to lose your shirt.

Re: Facebook hid webpages bragging of ability to influence elections

#69

Post by busterarm » Mon, Mar 26, 2018, 4:02 PM UTC

surferbayarea wrote: post #7

dingo_bat wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I bet half the people inside the bubble don't care. I don't care, for example.

You don't care, doesn't mean you SHOULD not care. Public apathy from smart people was probably behind what happened in 1930s Germany.

ahh, good ol' Godwin's Law. Politically apathetic people are just like nazis. Just like other non-progressives, right?

Re: Facebook hid webpages bragging of ability to influence elections

#70

Post by smsm42 » Mon, Mar 26, 2018, 7:06 PM UTC

One thing is this article is completely correct:

WHEN MARK ZUCKERBERG was asked if Facebook had influenced the outcome of the 2016 presidential election, the founder and CEO dismissed the notion that the site even had such power as “crazy".

It is indeed "crazy". US voters decided the outcome of the 2016 presidential election. Millions of venues were used to hold the debate about it, Facebook included, but in no way unique. Presenting it as if only Facebook mattered is undoubtedly very flattering to Facebook (do you want to advertise your business in the place where decisions about US elections are made, or on some dead trees painted with dirt?!) but is completely insane if you take your head out of the Red Scare promoted by the media, take a breath and give yourself a minute to think and analyze the data.

Of course Facebook, as any advertising platform, brags about how powerful they are. And Facebook specifically has been caught claiming wider audience than 100% of the target demographics (don't have the link handy but wouldn't be hard to find it). But it's just that - bragging.