
Some in Silicon Valley wonder if Facebook has grown too influential - walterbell
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-election-media-20161109-story.html
======
Inconel
The article starts off stating that Hillary Clinton was the choice of nearly
every newspaper editorial review board, and that despite those endorsements it
didn't matter. Does anyone else find this incredibly tone deaf, particularly
after last night's results?

To be clear, I did not vote for Trump, but my rejection of his candidacy was
certainly not based on the stance of the LA Times editorial board. To be
honest, with the amount of biased and sloppy journalism I read from even the
venerated newspapers like the LA and NY Times, I'm not sure why the author
assumes anyone should listen to the suggestions of their respective editorial
boards.

~~~
ben010783
I don't think it is tone deaf. It is a very valid point. People that working
politics and research it as their job heavily recommended one candidate over
the other. It is getting easier to ignore the opinion of an expert and instead
find a source that agrees with how you feel. People are looking for reasons to
discredit sources that they don't agree with. Sloppiness and bias will always
happen, but at some point you have to realize that a source like The Wall
Street Journal is better than Brietbart and that blog posts and opinion pieces
should not be given the same weight as investigative journalism.

~~~
1_2__3
As an aside, while the WSJ may have some credibility it's not that far away
ideologically from Bretibart. In particular I was reading an article there
recently about the Wells Fargo scandal and despite it not being an editorial
the entire article was essentially a defense piece for the executives. By no
measure was it even an attempt at even-handed journalism, it was straight-up
advocacy masquerading as news.

~~~
hga
Like, oh, this? " _Wells Fargo Receives Laughable ‘Punishment’ for Massive
Criminal Fraud_ ": [http://www.breitbart.com/national-
security/2016/09/29/29-sep...](http://www.breitbart.com/national-
security/2016/09/29/29-sep-16-world-view-wells-fargo-receives-laughable-
punishment-massive-criminal-fraud/)

Breitbart is most certainly _not_ part of the Establishment that _The Wall
Street Journal_ is.

------
onewaystreet
This fear is rooted in a continued misunderstanding of the election result by
people in tech. Voters didn't vote for Trump because they read some fake news
story on Facebook, they voted for him out of economic desperation. They
weren't tricked or mislead into it.

~~~
andrewmutz
The data does not support the idea that Trump voters are worse off
economically than Clinton voters:

[http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-mythology-of-
trumps-...](http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-mythology-of-trumps-
working-class-support/)

~~~
mdorazio
There are several problems with this analysis.

First, it's based on the same older self-reported exit polling that led 538 to
completely mispredict the election, so you should immediately be skeptical of
the data.

Second, it only takes into account self-reported _current_ income blocks, not
change in income over the last decade or so, which is what many Trump voters
are angry about. For example, making $70k today might seem ok if you look at
the table and see median state income is only $65k, but that means nothing to
someone who made $90k in 2007 and has never been able to get income back to
that level.

Third, it also ignores future predictions based on current state of affairs
for voters. It's not very comforting if you make higher than the median income
in your area, but your job is on the chopping block. Trump picked up far more
non-college educated voters, for whom future job prospects look worse and
worse every year, even if they have gainful employment today.

~~~
hackuser
Do you have some useful research you could share?

~~~
mdorazio
Unfortunately I do not. It's very hard to find cohort-type labor stats at a
large level among the typical wage and unemployment indexes. BLS does have the
NLS study [1], but it doesn't quite cover the right things. Mostly what you
get is individual stories like [2], which add up to a picture that at least
many people believe, even if it isn't 100% true.

[1] [http://www.bls.gov/nls/](http://www.bls.gov/nls/) [2]
[http://www.businessinsider.com/us-factory-workers-used-to-
li...](http://www.businessinsider.com/us-factory-workers-used-to-live-pretty-
good-lives-but-not-anymore-2012-10)

------
matwood
It's funny how if HRC had won they would be praising FB for spreading the
word. Obama was probably the first candidate to really use technology and
social media effectively and was also praised for its use. Now that Trump has
won FB is bad.

I saw a person on my FB feed the other night say that she knew Trump was going
to take away her right to vote now that he won, and her post was like by many.
Trump is flawed in many ways, but that is absurd.

Most(all?) of us here know to go and fact things we read, but this is not a
new thing. The media has always been this way. The nightly news shaped the
public by what stories they told and _left_ out. It's not a FB problem, but a
people problem who surround themselves only with groups that confirm their
already existing opinions, and stop questioning.

~~~
yolesaber
>I saw a person on my FB feed the other night say that she knew Trump was
going to take away her right to vote now that he won, and her post was like by
many. Trump is flawed in many ways, but that is absurd.

Is it? The Voting Rights Act is being gutted as we speak.
[https://www.aclu.org/feature/voting-rights-2016-whats-
stake](https://www.aclu.org/feature/voting-rights-2016-whats-stake)

~~~
matwood
Once again, the hyperbole does nothing but make people think you are making
things up. No one is taking away a womans right to vote. Period. Whether you
or I agree with the issues listed there, some do have a valid other side.

On its face, nothing is wrong with wanting to make sure a voter is who they
say they are. Requiring an ID could also be too much of a hurdle though. There
are reasonable and valid to sides of that argument.

Early voting is sort of a hit and miss. People voting too early may mean they
miss important facts leading up to the election. But then, it can be hard to
vote on the day of.

The problem is that even getting to vote has become too political because in
general higher turnout is good for the Democrats and lower turnout good for
the GOP. I wonder if some stat came out saying people who early voted for
Trump really wanted to change after they learned more but could not, would the
ACLU change their tune on early voting?

------
newdayrising
Apparently they don't believe that social media worked in HRCs favor? I've
seen many posts comparing Trump to Hitler . I don't think this article would
have been printed if Hillary won, because she was the choice of most media
outlets. When would Facebook stop with the moderating/fact checking? Would
they allow personal false stories, but not official ones?

~~~
yolesaber
> I've seen many posts comparing Trump to Hitler

Trump wants to register and record all Muslims in a database. You can't tell
me that doesn't smack of Nazism / fascist policies.

------
mi100hael
This smacks of a journalist frantically attempting to remain relevant, similar
to CNN saying:

    
    
        Remember, it’s illegal to possess these stolen documents. It’s 
        different for the media. So everything you learn about this, 
        you’re learning from us.
    

Maybe if they didn't suck, people would still go to them for news. But as it
stands, journalists with that "proclivity for fact checking" that the author
mentions universally failed to see Trump winning. Their echo chamber is no
better than most peoples' Facebook feeds these days.

~~~
hackuser
Those are baseless assertions about made-up facts (including a fabricated
quote). That's the difference between random information on the Internet and
serious journalism.

The former is sensational and provokes an emotional reaction, but those don't
indicate truth. IME when professional communicators, like political leaders
and news sources, increase the former, it's a very good sign that they lack
the latter.

~~~
pessimizer
What fabricated quote are you referring to? I hope not the quote in the
comment you're replying to:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_Wtu8Pzvd4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_Wtu8Pzvd4)

Was there a fabricated quote some other time during that segment that you're
referring to? I'm finding your comment difficult to parse.

------
TheGirondin
There seems to be a flurry of these anti-Zuckerberg articles today.

The Verge: [Mark Zuckerberg sidesteps blame for Trump presidency, says we
should all 'work harder']([http://www.theverge.com/2016/11/10/13582008/mark-
zuckerberg-...](http://www.theverge.com/2016/11/10/13582008/mark-zuckerberg-
facebook-trump-president-statement))

Insinuating that he is in fact to blame. The article doesn't make an argument
that he is (other then repeatedly mentioning that he didn't say who he voted
for), but intent of the headline is obvious.

~~~
paganel
I wonder why Zuckerberg (and the people behind Twitter) weren't as equally
_blamed_ when the Arab Spring started. As far as I remember both FB and
Twitter were heralded as pinnacles of democracy back then by some of the same
journalists who now decry how "social media is helping spread bullshit facts".

~~~
nikcub
It's the double-edged sword with a lot of tech and you see it also with Tor
and Wikileaks.

It's great when it's being used against your opponents but you hate it when
it's being used against your own side.

------
zerognowl
"Program or be programmed" \- Rushkoff said it best.

In a world where your Rushkoffs[1] go unread, we are spiraling into some sort
of local maxima where social media is realized for what it is, and the
problems associated with social media are epidemic.

The crux of the issue lies in the fact that nobody knows what social media is,
or indeed cyber. "Cyber" as it stands now is some far off place, in a William
Gibson fantasy, but infact operates in the world seemingly un-noticed by the
smartphone equipped masses.

As I said; it's not long until people realize they've been played and their
eyeball hours and data exhausts are being sold to the highest bidder for hard
cash. It makes me wonder why smartphones even cost so much. Surely they should
be 'free' given how much data can be gleaned from a smartphone owner?

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Rushkoff](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Rushkoff)

------
gressquel
I have had this feeling for a year but I think FBs decline has started.
Facebook Inc always presents growth during their quarterly report, but the
truth is that its growing in "3rd world" countries but dying in the western
world.

I admit I do have a facebook account, but its only used for events and
messenger. I havent posted for like 4 years now. The few times I check FB its
filled with memes, autoplaying videos and few individuals who seems to be very
noisy.

The gut feelings is that facebook.com will become less valuable, but I still
think facebook inc will keep growing. They have acquired Whatsapp and
Instagram so in a way they have maintained a significant section of the people
who "left" facebook.com.

I would love to hear the opinion of other people on this matter.

~~~
codyb
I went through and unfollowed every single person and group on my facebook,
life is far more pleasant. Boy the unimaginable amount of people basing their
lives off sharing memes and untrue articles was just plain unbelievable.

~~~
gressquel
If I may ask, how does FB.com fare with your closest friends?

~~~
codyb
I have a few close friends and a plethora of acquaintances. A lot of my
closest friends aren't particularly politically motivated so we don't talk
about it much, but plenty of my acquaintances are. Now I don't argue with them
anymore and read books instead. Much preferred.

------
skywhopper
That's a squishy headline. That Facebook is too influential (both directly in
terms of the impact of their policies, and indirectly in terms of its power as
a misinformation amplification device) is abundantly clear.

Not to say that I have a solution for it. Anything I can think of has its own
problems. But, we should accept as a truism that any centralized service with
that much sway over multiple hours of hundreds of millions of people's days is
"too influential".

~~~
Lordarminius
> Not to say that I have a solution for it

I do.

Regulators should shutdown or deny fb many of the privileges it currently has;
consumers should minimize or avoid Fb altogether. Its doable, I stopped using
Fb regularly two years ago and now I only check my page twice or thrice a
year. Fb is not in any way essential for daily living.

~~~
cdubzzz
> I stopped using Fb regularly two years ago and now I only check my page
> twice or thrice a year.

This is not "stopped using". This is "using less frequently".

> Regulators should shutdown or deny fb many of the privileges it currently
> has

What privileges do they have?

~~~
tscs37
>This is not "stopped using". This is "using less frequently".

Not OC, but I deleted my Facebook account about 6 or 7 years ago and I'm still
quite happy with it.

My university course communicates 99% over WhatsApp or Signal or Email/Git.

It's certainly doable.

------
hackuser
_“Technological change is mostly inevitable ... I don 't think we could have
avoided what's happened. Often when technology causes a problem, it also hands
you a solution. I'm hoping that will be the case here. But I'm damned if I
know what it is.”_

I think these are common cop-outs, easy irresponsibility by people in our
industry (in fact, I'm omitting the speaker becasue my comment is about the
industry and not to pick apart the words of someone who spoke off-the-cuff in
a moment). They only work because outsiders exalt us and don't question us
(yet), and insiders don't question these ideas because they serves our
interest and we hear them so much that the ideas have become normalized. But
let's look at them with fresh eyes:

* "Technological change is mostly inevitable" is just really a way to rationalize doing whatever you want without the burdens of accountability and responsibility - 'there's nothing I can do, it's inevitable!'. It's similar to 'God made me do it' or 'I was following orders'.

* "Often when technology causes a problem, it also hands you a solution." As I understand the implication, the premise is that the problem is unanticipated and the solution a reaction. But that again avoids responsibility: Many problems of tech, especially the consequences of spreading misinformation widely, can be anticipated and dealt with proactively. Also, it assumes that some god, Technology, is giving and withholding things - again it's out of our hands.

* "I'm damned if I know what it is." That's another rationalization to avoid responsibility, a common one: a claim of helplessness. People in SV pride themselves on solving the impossible; probably these words wouldn't be heard if solving the problem was a priority.

------
BenoitEssiambre
I'd like to see Facebook add an 'Unverified' reaction button. I know people
can post rebuttals in comments but making it easier and more visible may help
people report factually unsupported stuff.

It could have an question mark icon to emphasize that there are questions
remaining around a post.

Facebook might eventually use this to lower visibility of articles that are
widely marked as 'Unverified'

~~~
riebschlager
I'd almost rather Snopes have an open API social networks could use to
automatically mark these posts "debunked".

------
chiefalchemist
"Some in SV wonder if the people have too much choice"? Is that what you said?

------
mbostleman
So, in other words, the people of America are not capable of interpreting
information when it is not tightly controlled by a small number of outlets.
Therefore we, the elite that know better, need to manage this medium so that
they get the information that we deem correct.

Clearly nothing has changed since Tuesday.

------
nikcub
Trump had Facebook and HRC had Twitter.

Hyperbole aside, we're probably better off using this as a tipping point for
teaching people to think critically.

For every online platform that controls political messaging there will be an
alternate platform that allows it to flow. It's the nature of the web, you
can't put it back in the bottle now.

edit: not that bubbles don't exist - suggest you expand your own bubble.
Relevant preview from Adam Curtis' new doc:

[https://streamable.com/qcg2](https://streamable.com/qcg2)

~~~
intoverflow2
> and HRC had Twitter

Did she though?

You're trying to pin Trump as using Mom and Pop level tech to convince the
uneducated while Hilary was using good and honest woke tech for intellectuals.

If that were the case why did Trump have a following on Reddit ten times the
size of HRC?

HRC may have had Twitter in the liberal tech echo chamber you follow but
America is bigger than just that. The Trump campaign used social media highly
effectively (often in awful ways) and it wasn't just taking advantage of
senile old Facebook users like you seem to be trying to sell it as.

~~~
nikcub
> Hyperbole aside

------
ThomPete
No it's not. People just in general have a herd mentality. If social signals
are important to you, if your need to fit in is more important than having
your own opinion then no amount of "fixing" the algorithm is going to change
that.

Furthermore those 40% comes from all sorts of papers but all but one was
against Trump. Yet he won.

Fake news is only useful to fuel your anger if you have already decided. The
reason why people are swing voters is exactly because they weight in many
factors not because they let themselves be fooled by fake news IMO.

Furthermore the beauty of networks like Facebook and Twitter is that they are
self-correcting. The lie doesn't travel faster than the rebuttal of that lie.

Lastly I am not sure the article has a very clear idea of what actually
constitutes a lie since a lot of those lies are really just different
interpretation of the same things. And FB is actually quite good at having
related articles of something which often will have different views in them.

Facebook is one of the places where you actually meet most people of
dissenting views to yours.

~~~
maskedinvader
'Facebook is one of the places where you actually meet most people of
dissenting views to yours.'

I think Facebook has a strong motivation to tailor the newsfeed algorithm to
keep you longer on Facebook, see more ads, generate more clicks and revenue
etc, so there might be a case to be made in order to engage you more, the
algorithm should show you more content you like or tend to agree with than
ones you would not want to engage with (remember Facebook doesn't have a
dislike button), so I think its not really a great place to meet most people
of dissenting views to yours, I would actually speculate that its probably the
other way around, Facebook is one fo the places where you meet most people
sharing the same views as yours.

/0.2$

edit: typo

~~~
noobiemcfoob
> I think Facebook has a strong motivation to tailor the newsfeed algorithm to
> keep you longer on Facebook

I agree, though you take that to mean they must want to show the user things
she likes. Me personally, the best way to keep me on anything is to show me
someone making an almost good argument but with a few crippling flaws. I'll
spend hours on the rebuttal.

That said, I believe you're right that Facebook skews towards your likes over
intelligently tailoring the stream for us argumentative folks.

------
ausjke
so it basically says you need some censorship into the social media? who is
going to censor the content then? maybe consult with some countries that are
good at censorship.

or just develop some new AI algorithm that does fact-check with a colored
button, the darker it is the more fake it is, or something like that?

------
mtgx
Yes, but not for the reasons the author thinks.

------
debacle
Some wonder if click-baity FUD has grown too influential.

------
ef4
On the contrary, Facebook is the one place where people get pushed out of
their filter bubbles regularly.

You know your racist family member you see sharing conspiracy theories on
Facebook? That's reality, that's something punching through the filter bubble.

It's precisely because Facebook is full of hometown and family connections
that it lets these ideas leak across. It makes Facebook feel pretty bad
sometimes, because filter bubbles are very pleasant.

~~~
JBReefer
I respectfully disagree - after the election, my liberal friends filled my
timeline with screeds about the death of America and minorities, while my
conservative friends messaged me privately in celebration. I didn't see a
single pro-Trump post all day.

As a centrist, the level of vitriol was very shocking, and it did not come
from the party you'd expect.

~~~
harveywi
> my liberal friends filled my timeline with screeds about the death of
> America and minorities, while my conservative friends messaged me privately
> in celebration. I didn't see a single pro-Trump post all day.

This is an example of "preference falsification". The energy (in "the ability
of a system to do work" sense) of aptly-named social media is social pressure.

------
Alex3917
The FB propaganda effect is easy to measure. Just look at how 'surprised' Dem
Facebook were that Trump won, vs the same with Repub users.

The level of surprise should be identical among both groups, but that's very
obviously not the case. Facebook feeding its users biased news isn't the only
reason Trump won, but given how many hours per day folks spend on the site
(compared with traditional media) it was clear a huge contributing factor.

~~~
newdayrising
Oh c'mon. Do you really believe Facebook is stacked with Republicans? Don't
you remember the controversy over Facebook censoring conservative views? If
anything, the company was pro-Clinton

~~~
Alex3917
Facebook's pro-Clinton bias is why Trump won. Clinton's supporters were
completely insulated from reality, and many were celebrating their victory
before the election even happened.

