
Dear Mark Zuckerberg: Democracy is not a Facebook focus group - ntnsndr
http://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/2017/02/21/dear-mark-zuckerberg-democracy-not-facebook-focus-group
======
caconym_
I admit that I haven't read the "manifesto" but it seems strange to me that
the guy in charge of a platform that is arguably doing significant damage to
our culture and democracy, all in the name of advertising profits, could be
considered as an authority on how to fix the problems in question.

One preliminary solution seems fairly simple, and Zuckerberg is in a somewhat
unique position in that he has the power to implement it on a large scale:
stop feeding people an endless stream of ad-stuffed trash media selected by an
algorithm maximizing for clickbait factor and nothing else. I genuinely
believe that it's poisoning people's minds and doing significant damage to our
society. Of course, it is making them money, so it will not change (in fact it
will probably get worse).

It is not written in stone that a profitable enterprise must be compatible
with the "greater good" (for lack of a better term). Some things are
inherently destructive. Facebook takes a lot and gives nothing back. The idea
of handing over the reins of our society to some outgrowth of its current
model is as terrifying as it is hilarious in its blind arrogance and
ignorance.

~~~
blazespin
Oh come on. If you don't like Facebook, don't log on. Lots of people chose not
to. As someone who uses it a lot there is nothing on there that is required or
necessary to live or work unlike other services I use (LinkedIn, MSFT, google,
etc)

In fact, FB is probably a detriment to my livelihood if anything.

~~~
Shubley
Parent is not complaining about how FB affects him personally and directly,
but about how it is affecting society.

Perhaps you have the mental context and farsightedness to just not log on.
But, you still have to deal with the large scale socio-political consequences
of the fact that billions of others can't resist logging on, can't resist the
clickbait, or don't understand why they should.

~~~
corndoge
The basic point of discussion here is really what is optimific with respect to
what I'll term 'information paternalism'. Where do we draw the line between
people's responsibility to educate themselves, and the responsibility of
corporations (especially "the media") to feed them reliable information?

Ditto "fake news", ditto Twitter disinfo hysteria, ditto any source of
information, especially online. At some point the people have to take
responsibility for, and validate themselves, what they read and believe.

~~~
Shubley
I used to think that way but over time I've moved much more toward the
conclusion that the great mass of people really are not mentally prepared to
make decisions in a modern idea marketplace.

Working through the haze of media manipulation is an extremely complex task.
It requires a ton of interest, time, effort education, IQ and mental
discipline. Most people don't have a chance to resist society-wide campaign of
lies; they're absurdly outmatched.

This is the same reason we have enforced pension plans, etc. You could just
say people should save their own money. That would work fine for me and you.
But most people just don't have the mental context to delay gratification that
long. Their brains are not adapted and not equipped for the modern world.

So it's wrong to feed them socially-destructive lies, for the same reason it's
wrong to feed a dog well-labeled poisonous meat.

~~~
wutbrodo
There are a lot of people who agree with you, but that's the easy part. The
hard part is: how?

Who is it that determines which news is "real" and which is "fake"? The
scientific establishment is a truly wondrous achievement of humanity, but it's
not perfect and the idea that there are facts that are 100% verifiably
completely obviously definitely true is just flat wrong (and a scientist or
historian would be the first to tell you that!). There are plenty of
"conspiracy theories" that turned out to be absolutely true (see: the
intelligence community's activities throughout the Cold War, e.g. MKUltra).
There are plenty of "well-known facts" from the past that we now consider
nonsense (e.g., look at the 50s-70s and take your pick from all the things we
"knew" about race, gender, and sexuality). I truly don't understand how people
think that giving the status quo the power to enforce itself will somehow lead
to a misinformation-free utopia. You can pick examples of these theories that
(probably) don't have any likely value or credibility, but that's not very
helpful without a plan for how exactly this would be separated from the stuff
that has societal value.

(And all of that is ignoring the inevitability of the gatekeeper's selectively
using this power to their advantage)

~~~
dTal
The status quo already has the power to enforce itself. And how.

It should be borne in mind that quite a lot of misinformation - _particularly_
historical controversy, or intelligence community activities - is not an
"honest mistake", but the result of deliberate misdirection and outright
fabrication. It's impossible to measure, and difficult to overstate, the toxic
effect this has had on the public discourse, and it continues to this day[1].

I draw a distinction between open mindedness, in the scientific sense (where
there is a correct answer that we just haven't found yet), and "truthy
relativism" (where everyone's "opinions" and cockamamie stories are afforded
equal weight). To be sure, it's tricky to come up with objective criteria to
differentiate between the two that can be blindly applied without common sense
- but I reject that the difference doesn't exist.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_John_Dasch...](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_John_Dasch&diff=448404969&oldid=446095511)

------
roymurdock
Facebook is a publicly traded corporation, therefore its goal is to maximize
shareholder revenue.

Facebook generates revenue by selling ad space on its website.

Ad space that is surrounded by attention grabbing content will generate the
most revenue, thereby maximizing shareholder value.

At the lowest common denominator, negative emotions such as outrage and fear
draw attention.

Facebook has no incentive to remove or alter this content in any way, other
than to avoid illegal content that could produce lawsuits.

Fake news is not illegal.

If you don't want to consume the same questionable news as the lowest common
denominator, pay for a subscription to a news service. Otherwise don't use
Facebook for anything more than a photo sharing/messaging platform.

Dis-aggregate the pieces of the platform. If you can't do that, then avoid the
whole service. There are plenty of alternatives for each piece.

~~~
mattferderer
Hijacking your post to ask if you have a suggested news service that posts
multiple sides to every story & avoids persuasive opinion pieces. I don't want
late breaking news. I want well researched news that tries to understand
multiple viewpoints. I also don't want to have to filter through articles to
find the good ones. I would pay for this.

~~~
criley2
That requires a subscription, and your subscription to a service which
produces long form journalism will be inherently biased.

I am unaware of a service which really aggregates multiple view points in a
fair way because such a thing is impossible.

I can link you to a few longer form journalism papers/magazines, but any
conservative would decry them as biased.

We could link to some traditionally conservative outlets, but they'd be
decried as neo-conservative, out of date and biased.

As offensive as it might be to you, in society and news, opinion is all there
is.

"But facts MATTER" you might retort, but no, they don't. Only opinions about
facts matter.

Because what power does a fact have if it's not accepted as true? None. What
power does a falsehood have if it's accepted as true? All of it.

There is no fair and rational way to separate opinion and fact.

After a fifteen years of using news aggregators, RSS aggregators, aggreagtors
like memeorandum.com and polurls.com, and social aggregators like digg, then
reddit, and social media services, I have not found what you want.

I have thought about making it, and I have ideas on how liberals and
conservatives can use a single website to organize the news into strands and
voice their opinions on the validity of that organization WITHOUT the normal
animosity and viciousness that is normal, but I've never sat down to really
create it.

~~~
rubicon33
If you're able to categorize news sources as conservative, or liberal, then
couldn't you aggregate news by grouping the conservative and liberal articles
about a specific topic together, and presenting them side by side?

For instance, lets say Trump creates an executive order demanding that a wall
between Mexico and the US be built by 2018. Both the right, and the left, will
write thousands upon thousands of articles about how this will be great for
the country, and terrible for the country. The truth like most things, may lie
somewhere in between the extremes. Your news aggregator would allow you to
read articles about the wall, as written by both conservatives, and liberals.

Then, you'd at LEAST be reading the differing opinions. The problem is, I
doubt many people would want a service like this. Like it or not, human beings
seem to enjoy the comfort of their solidified beliefs. It's far easier to
digest your right wing, or left wing news, rather than digesting BOTH. People
don't really want to change.

~~~
criley2
>If you're able to categorize news sources as conservative, or liberal, then
couldn't you aggregate news by grouping the conservative and liberal articles
about a specific topic together, and presenting them side by side?

See, the thing is, people aggressively self-bubble so if you natively show
them both sides, they will stop using your service.

There may be a minority of less-political and more-rational folks who want
that, but I've discovered trying to get people to use polurls.com that people
don't want side by side.

If you do side by side, you create cognitive dissonance when "their side"
"appears" "wrong", and the easiest way to solve that cognitive dissonance is
to close the tab and not return.

>Then, you'd at LEAST be reading the differing opinions. The problem is, I
doubt many people would want a service like this. Like it or not, human beings
seem to enjoy the comfort of their solidified beliefs. It's far easier to
digest your right wing, or left wing news, rather than digesting BOTH. People
don't really want to change.

Exactly, which is why I envision a system of silos where you can have your
biased lunch and eat it too, but whose tools allow us to measure opinion and
biases, and which can attempt to bring down some of the barriers between
bubbles through a variety of surfacing techniques.

Give people what they want and the tools to classify THEIR bubble, and in the
process, keep other bubbles and ideas just on their edges, visible in the
periphery...

Combatting cognitive dissonance self-preservation is a problem worth solving
though, ugh.

~~~
jryle70
One solution can be to show the news that conform to one's bias, but have some
sort of "score", measuring the sentiment of those of the opposite view, and
the general public. There should also be the option to dig deeper on that if
desired.

Says I'm liberal, I may get articles that criticize Trump's immigration plan,
and the articles would show how well received the plan is to the right.

------
krushing
Why not modify Facebook's News Feed to promote critical thinking, philosophy,
self-reliance, resilience, tempered consumerism and practical ways to learn
new skills?

You have the world's largest television and the tangible ability to promote
powerful, positive ideas over mere distractions. Your goal shouldn't be to
digitize the tabloid aisle and put it on my forever buzzing handheld computer.

All the clickbait, fake stories, trolling, mindless advertisements, contrarian
articles, political hyperbolic narratives and conspiracy theories are
analogous to a lot of other wasteful pursuits of thinking and existing that
are perfectly acceptable by today's culture.

Connect the world in uplifting ways. Cater to our higher ideals not our base
emotions.

~~~
aedocw
Consider the audience. This would be like replacing Real Housewives Of Beverly
Hills with Masterpiece Theatre. The folks who tuned in for the trash would not
stick around to be enlightened, they'd just change the channel.

~~~
stagbeetle
To what channel, exactly?

~~~
wutbrodo
For a product change that massive and anti-user-desires, you're kidding
yourself if you think there wouldn't be a million challengers ready to fill
that role. Hell, it could be as simple as people using other successful social
networks more (Twitter, Snapchat, Instagram), and they'd sure as hell
capitalize on the void left by Facebook by introducing features that bring
them closer to providing the activity Facebook was pushing away.

------
dmix
We've all pretty much given up on the idea that social media will
'democratize' the media. That slippery slope was passed long ago.

I was just reading a book by William F Buckley from 1959 about early American
conservatism. Many of the points sound straight out of modern day partisan
media:

\- _Liberal Bias_ in newspapers and universities: Buckley specifically cites
NYTimes, NYPost, WaPo, and other prominent papers at the time all exhibit a
noticeable liberal leaning. He also included a number of examples in higher
education, especially at elite universities.

\- _Liberal Mania_ : Buckley noted that the hardcore liberals have a habit of
grouping up on anyone who dares to become a prominent public proponent for
Conservatism. They try to get them fired or formally reprimanded by
authorities (such as by congress leaders). He also notes a level of
smug/elitism. A view point that the left believe they have discovered the
correct ideology and anything else is heresies.

\- _Opponents = Hitler_ : This was the left's favouritve label for right
leaning opponents. He shared a story about how Eleanor Roosevelt famously
labeled McCarthy-ism as Hitler-ism. When challenged by a reporter on this
label she was asked if she would make the same comparison for this Soviet
diplomat she had a known positive relationship with. But she refused - despite
the fact he played a leading role in Stalin's purges. It was something
reserved for the right.

This was written 58 years ago.

Whether these generalizations are true or not, it's funny how history repeats
itself.

~~~
dragonwriter
William F. Buckley was pretty much the father of the modern American Right,
and they've largely been following his propaganda script since. So, no, the
fact that his attacks on the left mirror what's seen today isn't an example of
"history repeats itself", it's an example of a movement that's been using the
same propaganda nonstop the whole time between then and now.

~~~
m52go
I'm not familiar with Buckley's work but what aspects of the parent response
are incorrect?

It seems spot-on to me.

~~~
dmix
Propoganda does not necessarily mean they are falsehoods.

------
wccrawford
>As recently as just after the U.S. elections in November, he attempted to
dodge responsibility for Facebook’s role in shaping the outcome. Now, three
months later, he is ready to take charge of the security, accuracy and
diversity of how the world shares information. And he wants our help.

Damned if you do. Damned if you don't.

~~~
rhizome
Third option: not participating in the news flow at all.

~~~
burkaman
Not really possible, unless you mean shutting down Facebook completely. They
could get rid of the trending section, but I think people directly posting and
sharing random bullshit is a more significant and difficult problem.

~~~
rhizome
FB _involving themselves_ in what people post to each other is the greater
problem. FB would absolutely not have to shut down if they refrained from
making business decisions based on what you post.

------
dingo_bat
Facebook should just say "Content owned by poster." and call it a day. Trying
to push or censor/hide any content based on what's in it or who posted it is
wrong, IMO. Taking sides in a political issue has never been helpful to any
company in the long-term.

~~~
yeukhon
Any specific examples FB tries to censor and favor one political side over the
other? I just know "Trending news" are updated by a human so there is
certainly bias in that regard.

 _EDIT_ : Why the heck the downvote?

~~~
dingo_bat
This entire initiative to filter/incentivize certain content in response to
the "fake news" issue itself means picking a side. In my view, "fake news"
isn't a real thing. It's a propaganda term cooked up by left-leaning media
organizations (some of which were directly colluding with the Democratic
party) to discredit any news that does not fit their narrative. Facebook
addressing this in any way means they have picked a side in this political
issue.

Now you can disagree with me on the reality of "fake news" but you cannot
disagree that it is a political issue pushed mainly by left/liberal
organizations and the dem party (later backfired because trump snatched it
away from them), and facebook is legitimizing their argument by saying "yes,
we realize that this is a thing and we will do something about it."

~~~
yeukhon
I think we need to clarify what fake news is.

A fake news means the news is entirely made up and/or modified to address
political propaganda. First real fake news are totally made up. Those are 100%
definition of a fake news: President Trump just met yeukhon is a fake news
because I didn't meet him. I made it up.

Then comes the propaganda type of fake news. Prime example is editing audio
record and remake it so certain words are omitted. That's also fake news.

I don't think we need to drag leftist / rightist belief into this topic. Fake
news are concrete and they exist long before 2016 election. But with people
able to access the Internet, this platform allows fake content to spread like
a disease. It used to be newspaper and TV are the source of truth for many,
but now people rely on social media to get their news because there is no
penalty for reporting on fake ad made up fakes.

~~~
dingo_bat
> I don't think we need to drag leftist / rightist belief into this topic.
> Fake news are concrete and they exist long before 2016 election.

Then why is everyone worrying about it only now?

> It used to be newspaper and TV are the source of truth for many, but now
> people rely on social media to get their news because there is no penalty
> for reporting on fake ad made up fakes.

Is there a sudden increase in such people in 2016? How many US users did fb
add in 2016?

[https://www.statista.com/statistics/247614/number-of-
monthly...](https://www.statista.com/statistics/247614/number-of-monthly-
active-facebook-users-worldwide/)

It seems like facebook added 12 million users in 2016 to their base of 219
million users (in North America). Doesn't seem to be a game-changing increase
in social media usage to me.

So, it looks like this is clearly a response to the left's allegation of "fake
news" to certain tabloid-like websites like breitbart, in the wake of trump's
win.

> First real fake news are totally made up.

I don't agree. Stuff like
[https://twitter.com/NubianAwakening/status/78773062551616716...](https://twitter.com/NubianAwakening/status/787730625516167168)
is also "fake news". It is reporting about certain true events, but it is
mixed with misleading opinions and lies.

~~~
yeukhon
People are worrying that now because of the growth of Internet and because
fake news is a new sensation. We always have fake news which you probably can
agree with me? See [1].

When I said we don't need to drag it in I meant in our discussion here. But
Trump's constant use of the blackslash "[y]ou're a fake news" took the issue
to not only a nationwide level, but also international.

It used to be that we complain about a thing or two for a week, and no one
remembers. Now we see that every day on FB news feed, Twitter newsfeed,
whatever. Everyone in the family is busy checking and chatting the latest
embarrassment the POTUS is making. This is now Internet viral, a new Internet
sensation that won't die until Trump is out of office, because he just won't
stop fueling. Internet was boring back then, with a few interesting videos but
now, this is a whole new level.

I urge you to be be really open-minded that every day every year life is
different from previous. Regarding the NubianAwakening tweet - that's exactly
what I meant by the second type of fake news. It's fake because it modified or
take things out of context, mix and match and tweak the truth.

[1]:
[https://www.democracynow.org/2006/4/6/fake_tv_news_widesprea...](https://www.democracynow.org/2006/4/6/fake_tv_news_widespread_and_undisclosed)

------
endswapper
The author, disappointingly, seems to present Zuckerberg's "Building Global
Community," covered in vaseline to advance his own political agenda.

Zuckerberg is clearly talking about community and not governance.

Additionally, throwing around terms like "authoritarianism", "feudal" and
"dictator" does nothing to engage Zuckerberg's points, or advance his own
agenda. Rather, it simply clouds the conversation with personal assumptions,
judgments, attacks, etc.

I'm old enough to remember when Bill Gates was depicted as a villain on a
daily basis. This appears to have a similar tone.

Today, I'm not sure we could have a better fiduciary than Bill Gates through
the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Had he distributed ownership of
Microsoft in a way similar to what the author suggests of Facebook the Global
Community would have lost out, big league[0].

[0] NB: Trumpism intentional for the sake of humor.

~~~
wutbrodo
> covered in vaseline

I am fascinated by this expression. What on Earth does this mean?

~~~
endswapper
He's not representing MZ's post clearly, i.e. vaseline on a lens.

------
kartan
Virtual reality is a dystopian world. Digital natives where born in cages
where everything you say is recorded, every free space is an advertisement,
and what you see is an illusion. You scream into the night not knowing if
anyone is listening. You may think that you are in a big city, communications
where never so good nor so cheap. But digital gods decide how far the message
goes. No one knows how they take their decisions, nobody asks, nobody expects
them to answer. Virtual streets and bazaars are proprietary. Billions have an
open window into the virtual world in their pockets, but there are just two
shops where to buy from. Digital products are scarce by design. But even when
you buy them you can not own them, you are just allowed to rent until the deal
changes. Common sense doesn't apply.

Virtual worlds have very real problems.

------
eatbitseveryday
How more unavoidable is Facebook becoming over time?

Democracy should exist with the government, not with corporations.

~~~
acchow
You want government-owned media?

Democracy cannot exist without a free press.

~~~
eatbitseveryday
> You want government-owned media?

No. Why is this a result of not using Facebook? I cannot vote for changes to
take place in Facebook. I do not benefit from its billions of dollars of
market share. I have no say about the privacy policies. There is no democracy
in FB.

I _could_ have the above if I a) were already wealthy and owned a large
portion of shares, b) were Mark himself, c) a member in Congress enacting
legislation on social media websites.

Creating groups, organizing leadership roles, etc. on FB is not without
restrictions. The company is known for suppressing certain messages [1],
closing accounts, etc. It _cannot_ claim to promote democracy and at the same
time, censor what its leaders want.

Democracy must remain with the government, where people have power. My rights
granted to me without concern for wealth, status, etc.

Facebook is not media, neither is it democracy.

[1] [https://www.wsj.com/articles/norway-accuses-facebook-of-
cens...](https://www.wsj.com/articles/norway-accuses-facebook-of-censorship-
over-deleted-photo-of-napalm-girl-1473428032)

~~~
acchow
Apologies for the ambiguity. I wasn't responding to "How more unavoidable is
Facebook becoming over time?"

I was responding to "Democracy should exist with the government, not with
corporations.".

Democracy needs corporations - particularly, a media free from government
control (unless somehow you think we can manage a not-for-profit media that's
not a corporation...I'm not sure how that would be funded)

------
fullshark
> This is a noble ambition, but perhaps more noble, and certainly more
> democratic, would be to distribute that stock among the people who made it
> valuable in the first place: Facebook’s users.

This piece is all over the place, but this is the thesis I'd say. The actual
implementation of this seems doomed to fail, writer likely doesn't believe
this anyway and wants to argue that Zuckerberg doesn't really care about
democracy I'd guess.

------
golemotron
In time we'll see that our biggest problem is mediated communication. Facebook
is not a common carrier. They curate, and as they swallow up larger areas of
communication they have the ability to impact world opinion and events.

Even if they don't use that power, it is a power that should be checked
because it can be abused without our knowledge.

Google and Twitter are in similar positions.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
Facebook may curate, but also _everyone on Facebook is a curator_. They post
or like what they approve of. So Facebook is a giant curation engine, but
_everyone_ gets to be a curator. That's... rather democratic.

It breaks down when everyone only listens to those who agree with them, of
course...

~~~
imw
The degree to which your likes and dislikes influence what you are fed is
hidden in Facebook's proprietary codebase.

For the most part, feed algorithms are tailored to show you whatever will keep
your eyeballs on the screen. The idea that your conscious desires prevail in
the realm of allocating your attention has been pretty well debunked by
psychology and cognitive science.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
Disclaimer: I don't actually use Facebook. Like, at all. I don't even have an
account.

But if I understand correctly, I see what my friends post (and repost). And I
also see what Facebook sends me that isn't from my friends, based on my likes
and dislikes. But _talking specifically about what my friends do that I see_ ,
each one of them becomes a curator - at least to me. And I become a curator to
my friends.

------
supernumerary
With these FB/MZ take-downs can you try and square it's instrumentality in
mass movements (good and bad) first before skewering it as a voracious Bobbit
Worm in the aquarium we like to call democracy ... Also we all have massive
agency to do whatever we want on it. This should be squared away before
scapegoating it like this.

~~~
imw
You have the appearance of agency. That agency is mediated and curtailed by a
profit-motivated intermediary that ultimately has almost total control.

------
funkyy
The interesting thing that happened to me the other day regarding corporates
messing with democracy.

First time I have got a suggestion on my mobile for Google+ article to read (I
am not using Google+ at all) was I think right after the presidency was won by
Trump - the article was highly critical of him. Then within a week, I have got
another two suggestions for similar articles that were critical of him. And
then nothing again. No suggestion since then.

Now, as being a person that does not follow any mainstream media, no TV news,
etc. this smelled like outright propaganda. Forcing their corporate views on
to me. I might not be supporter of Trump, but I can think on my own, and I
want to judge a President based on their actions rather than media storm
started by media companies that lost credibility during the elections.

~~~
phailhaus
Google guessed that you would be interested in those articles based on your
search behavior, that's their entire business model. There is no conspiracy to
push Google's politics on you because it would undermine their perceived
impartiality. They're everyone's search engine, not just Democrats.

~~~
makomk
This isn't the only example. The one I saw was Google pushing a special
section on immigration to my main Youtube front page and, as far as I can
tell, to everyone else's too a few weeks ago right after Trump's ban. It had
completely different formatting from anything I've seen in the feed before or
since, and seemed to contain identical videos for everyone. Youtube does not
normally recommend political videos of any kind to me.

------
ajmarsh
This is kinda our fault you know. Moglen sums things up pretty well.

[http://observer.com/2011/12/in-which-eben-moglen-like-
legit-...](http://observer.com/2011/12/in-which-eben-moglen-like-legit-yells-
at-me-for-being-on-facebook/)

------
yeukhon
> In a country with functioning democracy, citizens vote responsibly because
> they know they will own the consequences if they don’t.

I never heard gerrymandering until after the 2016 election. It is scary how
minority can still win the district election. So first fix that hole, and even
getting rid of Electoral College, then we can talk about vote's value.

Cooperative platform seems to be a thing for this journalist. My reading is
some socialism in this writing.

> would be to distribute that stock among the people who made it valuable in
> the first place: Facebook’s users. Like the British retailer John Lewis
> Partnership did for its employees, the stock could be held in a trust that
> users directly control and have the opportunity to benefit from.

I am going to say this is tough to do. Employee != users. Granted, there are
fake accounts, how do you deal with that? You can't have a fake employee
because that's a fraud.

> On the other hand, users might then have at least a seat in the boardroom
> when decisions are being made about what to do with their valuable, personal
> data now locked up in the platform.

Same argument above. Users can actually participate if they purchase stocks,
but sure the entry cost is high.

I completely agree users should have influence in how a company runs and
creates product, i.e. this is how a successful business should be, listen to
users and take in the good advice. Let us supposed FB allows users to vote on
features and how Facebook should run, then some malicious organization could
create a lot of fake accounts to influence the outcome. Are we going to now
required everyone to give out passport / proper government ID and verify our
online status? Otherwise, how can you take these voting seriously? This is
exactly what driving people away from Facebook the fact so many people are
paranoid about their online privacy and identity. This is different from
taking a user survey and asking WOULD YOU LIKE. Internet is fighting against
fake news.

Until there is a solid solution, sorry, it's just idealism. The ideas are
exciting but please give me a concrete implementation.

~~~
ColanR
> It is scary how minority can still win the district election. So first fix
> that hole, and even getting rid of Electoral College, then we can talk about
> vote's value.

The electoral college is intended to give a fair say to minorities. It's a way
to prevent a majority from completely overruling a minority.

~~~
tanderson92
No, that is not true. It in fact was originally intended to protect slavery
from the very electoral disadvantages (persons not eligible to vote, very many
of whom were in the South) which slavery created[1].

[http://www.rawstory.com/2016/12/the-electoral-college-was-
ex...](http://www.rawstory.com/2016/12/the-electoral-college-was-explicitly-
designed-to-protect-slavery/)

~~~
ColanR
I read your article. The author has nice primary citations, but ends up
shoehorning his slavery agenda into quotations that don't support it.

Here's Wikipedia. I think we can agree it's a better source. Federalist Paper
68 describes explicitly why the electoral college was designed.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._68#Hamilton.27s...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._68#Hamilton.27s_understanding_of_the_Electoral_College)

Edit: also, wikipedia addresses the slavery agenda just above where I cited
it. Note the three fifths compromise, which benefited the slaveholding states
under the EC, and the actual reasons for the EC given in the section I
referenced.

~~~
tanderson92
Sorry, no, your link actually supports my point.

> The interests of slaveholding states may have influenced the choice of the
> Electoral College as the mode of electing the president. James Wilson
> proposed a direct election by the people, but gained no support and it was
> decided the president was to be elected by congress. When the entire draft
> of the constitution was considered, Gouverneur Morris brought the debate
> back up and decided he too wanted the people to choose the president. James
> Madison agreed that election of the people at large was the best way to go
> about electing the president, but he knew that the less populous slave
> states would not be influential under such a system, and he backed the
> Electoral College. Another factor here was the so-called Three-Fifths
> Compromise, which gave added power to the slaveholding states under the
> Electoral College which they would not have had under any likely form of
> popular vote.[1]

This is clear recognition that the electoral college was seen as amenable to
the interests of the less populous slave-holding states. The 3/5 compromise
increased the number of representatives for slaveholding states relative, and
number of representatives is a factor in the number of electors to the
college.

Moreover, simply because Hamilton claims something in a Federalist paper does
not mean it was the only consideration in the support of an electoral college.
Wikipedia (incidentally, no, I do not agree it is a better source at all) even
supports this point by noting that Madison supported direct election, as did
James Wilson and Governeur Morris. Madison noticed that the slaveholding
states would not consent to such a method of election.

Your claim could not be more wrong and you are twisting the evidence to
unequivocally deny an argument there is very real evidence for.

------
unityByFreedom
Isn't co-ownership the same thing as stock? What is the author arguing for?
Does he want Facebook to become a governmental entity? No thanks...

I fail to see how whatever chaos is happening is Zuckerberg's fault.

I'm unhappy with the populist media, and how difficult it has become to tell
truth from fiction.

That said, Facebook is just a tool. Blaming Facebook is just like blaming the
media.

------
dsschnau
heh. Zuck doesn't give a fuck

------
rafiki6
America always seems to rely on industrialists to move it's country forward.
What qualifies Mark Zuckerburg to be a trust source on anything but building
an ad platform? Get your shit together America, it's time to change up the way
you govern yourselves and give less power to the wealthy

------
thomasahle
The relevant part of "Building Global Community"
[https://www.facebook.com/notes/10154544292806634/](https://www.facebook.com/notes/10154544292806634/)

> Our society will reflect our collective values only if we engage in the
> civic process and participate in self-governance. There are two distinct
> types of social infrastructure that must be built:

> The first encourages engagement in existing political processes: voting,
> engaging with issues and representatives, speaking out, and sometimes
> organizing. Only through dramatically greater engagement can we ensure these
> political processes reflect our values.

> The second is establishing a new process for citizens worldwide to
> participate in collective decision-making. Our world is more connected than
> ever, and we face global problems that span national boundaries. As the
> largest global community, Facebook can explore examples of how community
> governance might work at scale.

> The starting point for civic engagement in the existing political process is
> to support voting across the world. It is striking that only about half of
> Americans eligible to vote participate in elections. This is low compared to
> other countries, but democracy is receding in many countries and there is a
> large opportunity across the world to encourage civic participation.

> In the United States election last year, we helped more than 2 million
> people register to vote and then go vote. This was among the largest voter
> turnout efforts in history, and larger than those of both major parties
> combined. In every election around the world, we keep improving our tools to
> help more people register and vote, and we hope to eventually enable
> hundreds of millions of more people to vote in elections than do today, in
> every democratic country around the world.

> Local civic engagement is a big opportunity as well as national. Today, most
> of us do not even know who our local representatives are, but many policies
> impacting our lives are local, and this is where our participation has the
> greatest influence. Research suggests reading local news is directly
> correlated with local civic engagement. This shows how building an informed
> community, supportive local communities, and a civically-engaged community
> are all related.

> Beyond voting, the greatest opportunity is helping people stay engaged with
> the issues that matter to them every day, not just every few years at the
> ballot box. We can help establish direct dialogue and accountability between
> people and our elected leaders. In India, Prime Minister Modi has asked his
> ministers to share their meetings and information on Facebook so they can
> hear direct feedback from citizens. In Kenya, whole villages are in WhatsApp
> groups together, including their representatives. In recent campaigns around
> the world -- from India and Indonesia across Europe to the United States --
> we've seen the candidate with the largest and most engaged following on
> Facebook usually wins. Just as TV became the primary medium for civic
> communication in the 1960s, social media is becoming this in the 21st
> century.

> This creates an opportunity for us to connect with our representatives at
> all levels. In the last few months, we have already helped our community
> double the number of connections between people and our representatives by
> making it easier to connect with all our representatives in one click. When
> we connect, we can engage directly in comments and messages. For example, in
> Iceland, it's common to tag politicians in group discussions so they can
> take community issues to parliament.

> Sometimes people must speak out and demonstrate for what they believe is
> right. From Tahrir Square to the Tea Party -- our community organizes these
> demonstrations using our infrastructure for events and groups. On a daily
> basis, people use their voices to share their views in ways that can spread
> around the world and grow into movements. The Women's March is an example of
> this, where a grandmother with an internet connection wrote a post that led
> her friends to start a Facebook event that eventually turned into millions
> of people marching in cities around the world.

> Giving people a voice is a principle our community has been committed to
> since we began. As we look ahead to building the social infrastructure for a
> global community, we will work on building new tools that encourage
> thoughtful civic engagement. Empowering us to use our voices will only
> become more important.

------
fleitz
Get over it, FB is a platform that was used more successfully by one candidate
over the other. It's like changing the mail system because one candidate
bothered to hire copywriters

~~~
ljk
except other issues on the FB platform like censorship

~~~
fleitz
You feel that FB was censoring in a way that tilted the election for Trump?

~~~
ljk
no, i was referring to the "mail system" analogy

------
demonshalo
> Democracy means ownership and accountability, along with shared governance.

yeaaaaa no! that's not what democracy means.

> Ownership is also about economics. It is about who benefits. Right now,
> Facebook is in the process of absorbing huge swaths of the global
> advertising market, lots of our life-giving communities and now much of
> politics and media—funnelling the profits mainly to the founders, early
> investors and other large shareholders.

-.-

> This billionaire’s refusal to recognize the rise of authoritarianism as a
> symptom of economic inequality and insecurity is startling

Authoritarianism? Sick usage of $5 words... anything to back that claim up
with? Inequality is not to be confused with inequity... They are not synonyms.

To the author:

Mark makes a whole lot of sense if you consider the fact that he is talking
about a generation that considers sharing a Facebook post to be political
engagement. You have to view things from that perspective. You can bash his
skull off if you so wish for saying what he believes, but he would not have
had that opinion had it not been supported by our shitty behavior as a
generation.

Hurling insults and labels is the primary way of having a political discourse
these days - prime example being the two general election candidates (basket
of deplorables anyone?). This phenomenon can even be seen in this very article
you wrote. Now, where do you think the best place to have such eloquent
political discourse is? The answer to that is rather simple: Facebook of-
course with Twatter being a close second combined with all other social
networking sites such as HN.

He understands his audience and he understands this upcoming generation. You
can all raise your pitch forks and talk about the awesomeness of democracy and
the evil of large corporations. But in reality, every single one of us is
contributing to this mess. Mark is merely someone who is capitalizing on our
collective moronic behavior. And I personally cannot fault him for that.

~~~
metaphorm
> Hurling insults and labels is the primary way of having a political
> discourse these days

case in point: your post.

