
Facebook Moves to Limit Election Chaos in November - mitchbob
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/03/technology/facebook-election-chaos-november.html
======
apacheCamel
>Facebook also plans to remove posts that both explicitly and implicitly aim
to disenfranchise or prohibit people from voting; previously, the company
removed only posts that actively discouraged people from voting. Now, a post
that causes confusion around who is eligible to vote or some part of the
voting process — such as a misstatement about what documentation is needed to
receive a ballot — would also be removed.

In a country where about 61% [0] of voting-age people actually take the time
to vote, I can't believe there are people trying to bring that number down
more. It saddens me that anybody would want to silence a voice/vote through
disinformation online. It also really confuses me on who this would even
affect? I haven't seen any posts about this (I haven't been on Facebook in
years) so I am unsure who the "target" audience is. Would the perpetrators
just want a really low turnout, hoping one side is just smart enough to not
listen? Or is it to just instill more confusion?

[0]: [https://www.census.gov/newsroom/blogs/random-
samplings/2017/...](https://www.census.gov/newsroom/blogs/random-
samplings/2017/05/voting_in_america.html)

~~~
gameswithgo
People try to target demographic groups that are not on their side, and
discourage or inhibit their voting. For instance, if poor demographics don't
tend to vote for your side, you can push for more stringent documentation
being required to vote, like driver's licenses, which poor people don't have.
Or you can move to limit poll locations and hours, as poor people can't get
off work as easily as wealthier people.

Gerrymandering is another way to game the voting system, which can be used
against people rich or poor. For instance, the city of austin might very well
elect a democratic member of the House, if district lines were drawn sensibly,
but it is cut up into little slices of pie, then each piece slice wraps around
a huge rural area that tends to vote GOP.

~~~
mc32
Not everyone may have a drivers license. Some upper middle class members also
don’t have driver’s licenses.

What just about everyone over 18 has is a form of government ID. Without a gov
ID you cannot get access gov resources: education, SNAP, medicare, Medicaid,
purchase controlled groceries like alcohol, cigarettes, marijuana , power,
phone plans, credit cards, etc.

It’s a myth that poor people cannot get IDs. You’ll be hard pressed to find
someone who doesn’t and cannot get one. I was dirt poor as a youth. I got a
non drivers ID card. It was necessary in life.

~~~
mFixman
Since there are no standardised IDs in the US unlike most other countries,
can't poll workers just be unnecessarily stringent on identification to deny
people the vote?

~~~
mc32
I believe one of the ideas bandied about is a nationalID. People are against
these as well. Non DL IDs are issued by the same state org that issues drivers
licenses and they look the same, except it says Identification Card instead of
Driver License. They also have no-fee options if you are homeless and reduced
fee cards if you are on gov assistance.

~~~
fakedang
National IDs are always a bad idea. To give an example, when India ("world's
largest democracy") decided to roll out a national ID, they touted it as a
harmless and useful tool. Recently, when New Delhi erupted in violent riots,
guess what was used to target and arrest the protesters, predominantly of the
minority community?

~~~
mc32
At this point in technology, IDs and their information are a much smaller
threat than the vast information trove collected on line and from cellular
devices.

It’s like complaining about plastic straws but ignore the issue of nets from
fishing operations. One has a better attack surface for activists but in
reality the problem lay elsewhere.

~~~
fakedang
The difference is in the number of obstacles involved. The local police force
would have to go through some hoops to track your devices and online activity.
On the other hand, a national database would give them every information about
you at the clock of a mouse - no expertise required.

Of course, the former will be an issue regardless, especially when it involves
state level or national level police forces pursuing some overarching motive.
But the latter can be used by the local yokels masquerading in uniform.
Imagine if a policeman had some beef with you on a personal level and was able
to access all your information, including your name, Date of Birth, Addresses
present and past, and your family information. Because that latter bit of
information was what was used to pursue most of the activists and protesters
in the Indian example.

------
moksly
I dislike Facebook as much as the next person. I think most self-regulation is
somewhat of a joke, especially in the private sector, but I also think the
blame belongs with the money people who buy the manipulation. Sure Facebook
has rotten ethics, but the real danger to our democracy is the fact that you
can buy a medium platform and just manipulate all day long.

Our only real option to fight it, if we refuse to go after the people who pay
for the manipulation, is to make sure we educate our children better.

But really, I think we should ask ourselves if we really want that sort of
power sitting with a few billionaires. Because it’s not going to stop with
Facebook. It’ll be on any social media ever.

~~~
alexmingoia
Can you provide an example of what you consider “manipulation?”

~~~
cheschire
This seems like a question with obvious answers, which leads me to believe
you're attempting to build a trap because you've already got some outcome in
mind and you're ready to pounce.

But just in case you're serious, check out what a shill is.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shill](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shill)

~~~
alexmingoia
I know what a shill is... Are you implying that the manipulation is shilling?
Can you provide an example?

I use Facebook. I don’t think I’ve ever seen anything I would qualify as
manipulation in sponsored posts, as my sponsored posts are almost always
product advertisements. So it’s not obvious to me what is meant by
“manipulation” in the post I was responding to. I think asking for an example
is quite reasonable.

~~~
smt88
Not everyone on FB sees manipulated media. I almost never did before I deleted
my account.

It depends on your social network, groups, likes, and shares. Manipulators are
always going to try to target people who want to believe their lies.

~~~
alexmingoia
Which is why I asked for an example... I frequently read claims of voter
manipulation and armies of paid shills and such, but I’ve never seen a single
example of what exactly they’re talking about.

------
glofish
In this world every problem has the same solution: Facebook decides what is
right and what is wrong.

~~~
bennyelv
...because governments aren't doing their job and legislating.

Why is something of such importance being left up to private companies to
regulate?

~~~
krapp
We don't trust government to govern as much as we trust the free market.

~~~
bennyelv
Doesn't sound like that's facebook's problem to fix, and nor should they be
blamed for the consequences of it.

There are significant challenges being presented by the new tools that
humanity has built for communication over the last 20 years. I'm not sure that
it's the fault of the people who are building those tools that our
institutions are failing to get a grip on it.

There is a very simple answer to the problem of "why is facebook getting to
choose what's right and wrong" and that's "we're not doing it, so they have
to".

Why don't we just step up and start making some rules?

------
x87678r
I'm thinking misinformation on social media is just something we're going to
have to learn and live with. Its like advertising, my grandparents believed
when some infomercial says this product will make your life better where
younger generations know its junk. Pretty soon people will be equally
skeptical of random things on social media soon.

~~~
bennyelv
I see little evidence of that from my own anecdotal experience. Are there any
sources that support this progression?

~~~
wolco
The African Prince scam where they email you that they need help and will pay
you vast sums of money if you do.

It has been around awhile and the number of people falling for this has
dropped.

People catch-on.. not everyone but enough to make an election hack not
workable.

People struggle with new ideas but adapt . COVID scams have gone up and then
down.

------
raxxorrax
Would you say something like that if you didn't think someone will cheat?

------
50ckpuppet
So that's what they're calling it?

------
Proven
"Election chaos" must be how dictators, globalists and statists feel about it.

Poor NYT, it wasn't going to be chaotic when Trump's odds were 34%...

------
pjc50
Well this is going to be a mess. Ads will be replaced by astroturf.
Misinformation will spread by other networks (Q, talk radio, etc) and produce
"news articles" which will be circulated with all kinds of extraordinary
claims about Joe Biden and pizza parlours, or whatever.

There is likely to be election chaos in the streets as well, as a gradual
accumulation of previous unresolved crises all take effect at once.

------
perardi
I believe the folksy saying here would be “lipstick on a pig.”

From the article:

 _“Facebook said it would begin barring politicians from placing new ads on
Facebook and Instagram, the photo-sharing service it owns, starting on Oct.
27. Existing political ads will not be affected.”_

Well then, amend that folksy saying to “lipstick on a pig, but we didn’t even
finish painting his lips.” What possible difference could a week of different
ad content make?

 _“Misinformation across private communication channels is a much more
difficult problem to tackle than on public social networks because it is
hidden. Limiting message forwarding could slow that spread.”_

Again, little bit of lipstick on a gargantuan pig. I think the bulk of the
really whacky stuff on Facebook is in semi-private groups; even my local
neighborhood group is full of nonsense. (People are just obsessed with 5G
causing cancer.)

Now, do I have a solution for this? Nope. I have no earthly idea how you
police disinformation at scale. Heck, even if Facebook developed some sort of
near-god-level AI that could track all this down, the craziness would just
move to other platforms. (See: QAnon on TikTok.) I just find it a bit
offensive they’re even pretending they can do something.

------
diego_moita
Zuckerberg promises? Again? Are these still newsworthy?

------
aww_dang
Imagine trusting individuals to make their own decisions about the information
they consume. Imagine being comfortable with others coming to different
conclusions, without crying foul play.

When did society become so insecure that 'alternative facts' and differing
perceptions justify hysteria? Was it when legacy media acknowledged that they
had been disrupted by Internet publishers? What role do walled gardens play in
this paradigm?

