
Facebook hid webpages bragging of ability to influence elections - peterkelly
https://theintercept.com/2018/03/14/facebook-election-meddling/
======
zaroth
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 methods
are bad in general, or just bad when the “wrong” person uses them well?

Political advertising is actually important - we _want_ issue focused ads
helping communicate candidates stated positions on hot button issues. And yes,
we even want the hit jobs when behavior warrants it and should be highlighted.

Is “influence elections” supposed to be a scary way of saying getting your
word out? If the ads were lies, report them to the FTC or FEC. If the ads were
effective, isn’t that the whole fucking point?

~~~
oldsklgdfth
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.

~~~
smsm42
> it relies heavily on marketing candidates rather than presenting their
> positions

That's the same thing, only one is said in nefarious tone and then the same is
said in neutral tone. If you are trying to convince somebody to change their
mind (and that's the purpose of having political ads - if everybody already
agrees with you, why waste any time?) you need to say something that would
change their position. Which, described in nefarious tone, is "manipulation".
Of course, if my team does it, it's "education" instead.

> GERRYMANDERING

Facebook or any social media has zero influence on districting. It's wholly in
the hands of local politicians. If you want it to change, some "manipulative"
ads (or other ways of explaining, like pamphlets, in person conversations,
articles, books, marches, whatever works) are needed to elect different
politicians or cause the current ones to change their actions out of fear of
not being elected again if they don't. I don't see any other way of doing it,
do you?

Of course, if everybody follows your example and ignores political ads (and
other political persuasion content, as being "manipulative"), then any change
would be impossible - everybody would be convinced in the same things today as
they were yesterday, and everything would remain the same. Maybe some hugely
significant and catastrophic events would cause some people to change their
minds, but without them being able to persuade their peers, it would be mostly
insignificant.

~~~
oldsklgdfth
>That's the same thing Yea, I'll conceed that.

>Facebook or any social media has zero influence on districting I don't think
facebook or big data are responsible for districting.

I think that access to their data makes district gerrymandering a certainty,
rather than some guessing game. In the past I'm guessing they had to go door-
to-door to take the temprature on issues and try to figure out where people
stand politically. Today some guy with access to this data - that we willingly
make available - and a python script can do the same thing in a weekend with a
much higher degree of success.

I think this is a more significant consequence of the social media age, than
say targeted ads. I can ignore the ads when I'm watching hulu. But I have no
power over how it's being used against me. Maybe this an overly reductionist
view on something that is far more complex and nuanced, but I'm open to
changing my mind.

~~~
smsm42
I don't recall politicians ever having problem with setting up gerrymandering,
way before Facebook was a thing. It doesn't have to be exact on the individual
level, for its purposes plain old voting patterns data is more than enough.

~~~
oldsklgdfth
That sounds interesting and scary at the same time. Can you elaborate some
more on that?

------
dawhizkid
And while FB is destroying democracy I just got an email from Pinterest with
subject "St patricks day (sic) Pins picked just for you" _8_ days after St.
Patrick's Day.

I guess at least I don't have to worry about Pinterest interfering with
elections.

~~~
analognoise
I laughed way too hard at this.

------
spondyl
It's totally anecdotal but I asked a few people about this and everyone had
never heard, or seemed particular interested in hearing about Cambridge
Analytica.

I mentioned the whole thing about phone contacts and the response was
basically "Wow, sucks to be them I guess".

I wonder if it clicked that it probably affects them too.

------
thisisit
I am no fan of Facebook. Even though I have an account I barely use it.

But, Facebook sells ads. So, it is not surprising that they want to show off
their "influence". I am sure similar language can be found even on cosmetic,
electronic etc product "wins".

The only issue here is Facebook trying to hide the page. And, that is the
worst thing they can do in the given climate.

------
kosei
Okay, let’s all settle down here with the pitchforks. It is totally reasonable
for Facebook to a) sell politics are and b) want to tout their effectiveness.
It is even reasonable for them to c) pull the pages down in the midst of this
PR nightmare.

Facebook deserves most of what they're getting right now, but this is
sensationalist media.

------
JumpCrisscross
I have a difficult time coming up with a better solution than one: Facebook
must be broken up under anti-trust law. Social network share is as dangerous
as, if not more dangerous than, market share.

~~~
ekianjo
Oh since when Facebook is a monopoly? There are dozens of social networks out
there. Even Google Plus exists. You dont have any ground to pull an anti trust
on FB.

~~~
realusername
Google Plus is kind of irrelevant nowadays in the social media space.

~~~
ekianjo
It does not matter, it still exists.

------
smsm42
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.

------
coruscate
[https://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/23/magazine/the-obama-
campai...](https://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/23/magazine/the-obama-campaigns-
digital-masterminds-cash-in.html)

------
ggg9990
Anyone selling political ads is selling the ability to influence elections.
Why else would a campaign buy any?

------
gandutraveler
I don't understand how using Facebook for political brainwashing is scarier
than using it for brand awareness, product marketing etc. It's the same. If
Trump used it for his gain then I must say he was just better at marketing.
Hilary should have done a better job at selling herself. If Pepsi markets it's
product better than Coke to me then I'll choose Pepsi :)

Yes, the data was mined and illegaly sold to Cambridge Analytica, but there
are so many other entities who did the same. It's safe to assume that vast
majoritybif not all of member data is out there being used/sold unless nobody
in your friend list gave permissions to these apps or you have no friends.

~~~
grzm
> _" I don't understand how using Facebook for political brainwashing is
> scarier than using it for brand awareness, product marketing etc. It's the
> same."_

Setting aside the partisanship for a moment (because I think it's something
people should be concerned about regardless of their politics), I think
influencing the electorate or the government (or sowing distrust amongst
different segments of society) is more likely going to have an effect on my
life than influencing which brand of cola sells more unit sales (to use your
example). So, yeah, I think it's potentially scarier to use it for "political
brainwashing" (again, your words).

------
cctt23
_Asked about the delisting, a Facebook spokesperson said that “a number of the
studies have been archived, but they’re still available at the individual
links.” Asked why the “Government and Politics” section had been removed
entirely, the spokesperson did not reply._

I’ll just bet they didn’t. “We’re covering our ass like it’s on fire” is
probably a bad PR, move, but it’s painfully obvious that’s what’s happening.
The funny thing is they’re hurting themselves even more with half-baked
apologies. They’re going back to the playbook they’ve used for the last dozen
scandals, but this is different.

Facebook the company might survive this, but Facebook the social network is
going to die.

~~~
sho_hn
Nah. People outside our bubble don't care.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _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).

~~~
HenryBemis
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...](https://www.tradingview.com/chart/FB/r2H0bemr-FB-Facebook-Life-and-
Times/)

~~~
cctt23
It’s very naive to believe that past performance is a perfect predictor, and a
good way to lose your shirt.

------
feelin_googley
[https://www.google.com/ads/elections/](https://www.google.com/ads/elections/)

[https://www.google.com/ads/elections/campaign-
playbook/mobil...](https://www.google.com/ads/elections/campaign-
playbook/mobili) ze/

[https://business.twitter.com/en/help/ads-
policies/restricted...](https://business.twitter.com/en/help/ads-
policies/restricted-content-policies/political-campaigning.html)

(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.)

~~~
jonas21
Um, yeah. Political campaigns can buy ads from Google. I'm not sure why that
would be surprising or objectionable unless you believe all political
advertising is bad.

~~~
hadrien01
As a European I'm surprised. In my country, every form of political
advertising, TV or online, is strictly regulated.

~~~
wdr1
That doesn't say much. It's regulated in the US too, including digital.

What matters (and what is different) is what the specific regulations are.

~~~
m0th87
In practice, Citizens United obviated any US regulations on political
advertising. A rich patron can pour as much money as s/he desires into
advertising on behalf of a campaign, and we don't have a right to know who
that person is.

~~~
chimeracoder
> In practice, Citizens United obviated any US regulations on political
> advertising. A rich patron can pour as much money as s/he desires into
> advertising on behalf of a campaign, and we don't have a right to know who
> that person is.

No, Citizens United didn't do that. That right always existed. If you're a
billionaire, you always could purchase TV ads that feature (for example) you
talking about how great Candidate Foo is, and why Candidate Foo will be the
best thing since sliced bread. That is a fundamental right of free speech in
our democracy - the government cannot restrict you from praising or
criticizing a candidate. They can restrict you from coordinating with the
candidate to make those statements, but they can't restrict you from your own
independent speech.

The Citizens United decision ruled that people preserve this right when acting
as a group. So instead of one single billionaire purchasing ad spots, a group
of people could pool their money and purchase the ad time instead. Or they
could launch a crowdfunding campaign. All of that is still perfectly legal as
long as the person (or people) running the ads aren't coordinating their
efforts with the candidate and the candidate's campaign.

------
vectorEQ
please, keep taking your political advice from social media sites and ad
networks, and if it turns out to be bad advice, try to sue them. :s

------
nkkollaw
The press is really kicking Facebook's ass lately.

I guess it's because it's newsworty now and gets clicks?

Because, I don't think Facebook was any better 1-2 years ago, but you hardly
ever heard about it in this light.

~~~
idrios
More than that, the traditional press hates Facebook because Facebook is
stealing its business. I thought Wired ran a good story about it [1].

[1] [https://www.wired.com/story/inside-facebook-mark-
zuckerberg-...](https://www.wired.com/story/inside-facebook-mark-
zuckerberg-2-years-of-hell/)

~~~
notacoward
Not just traditional press. Facebook also competes with forums and blogs.
Somebody who has worked hard to achieve prominence in those formats and venues
will naturally feel threatened as they become less relevant. Some of the
criticism might be justified, some of it might be sincerely meant, but the
(lack of) emphasis and perspective is often driven by that fear. Bloggers' and
forum heavyweights' comments about $target should be taken with the same grain
of salt as NYT or Wired commentators'.

