I wonder how he was convinced.
> Mark Zuckerberg has rejected the notion that fake news on Facebook influenced the outcome of the US election, describing it as a “pretty crazy idea”.
> “Voters make decisions based on their lived experience,” he said at the Techonomy conference near San Francisco on Thursday.
> “There is a profound lack of empathy in asserting that the only reason someone could have voted the way they did is because they saw fake news,” he said, and anyone who believes that has “failed to internalize” the message supporters of Donald Trump sent during the election.
He didn't say fake news doesn't exist; he said it did not determine the American president.
It's even more specific: Fake news might have had an actual effect on the election, but blaming the election result on fake news fundamentally amounts to not accepting responsibility for your own side's failures.
If (as an extreme hypothetical) one side used lies and laundered foreign money to win the election, and the other side didn't do that and lost, then the losing side doesn't need to "accept responsibility for their own failures", they need justice.
We don't yet know the full story of what actually happened in the last American presidential campaign, though, so this is moot for now.
Unfortunately I don't know what "justice" would look like in such a situation, but perhaps re-running the process without the unethical and criminal elements would be a good first order approximation.
They both did. But one side is accused of taking money from scary Russia, while the other took money from fluffy bunnies Ireland, England, France, and other allies.
The "us versus them" narrative is easier to work with than the "us versus other people who are allied with us but also not supposed to do these things."
Plus, America has loved underdogs since the days when baseball was interesting. Since H lost, it's usual to attack T. If H won instead of T, then it would be the other way around. It's just how America works.
Isn't this a matter of opinion rather than of fact?
Education helps, to a certain extent. But treating fake news as some sort of a new threat seems strange.
People are very susceptible to believing false information stated eloquently, and this as you say has always been true, but in days past the spread of such information was limited to very disreputable channels and were quite easily countered with that fact alone. "Where did you get that from? Oh, <publication> is full of shit, everyone knows that Joey".
Now it takes ten minutes for a Facebook post to be heard 'round the world and people believe it implicitly. Spreading fake news has never been easier, and countering it has never been harder.
but nobody doubted that the yellow press existed, and that's the important difference. People knew that they were reading tabloid bs when they opened a paper like this, the authoritative function of trusted news outlets wasn't undermined.
Social media disguises itself as authentic. People who influence on social media can do so by pretending to be your neighbour who shares real-life experiences rather than the 'distanced elites'. Regardless of whether they are saying the truth or not.
That's the difference and it has had a much bigger impact on undermining a shared consensus about what is fiction and what is real than the historical yellow press.
I do hope it's a self-correcting process.
It also goes without saying that, had Clinton won, this conversation wouldn't even exist, despite the wild amounts of false information about both sides, and the results, that is said about the election to this day.
As an exercise, write down everything you believe about the demographics that voted for both Trump and Clinton, then compare that to the polling done by CNN.
... Or am I missing something entirely?
This is how the EU works. There are WAY more serious discussions in Brussels behind closed doors than this one, it's not by accident, it's by design.
A closed hearing won't be picked apart and (mis)interpreted ever which way, so the speaker can try to get their true point across. The speaker can also acknowledge faults and mention some sensitive issues without making their company's stock ride a rollercoaster.
This is exactly the problem. If he's not able to talk candidly in public, it suggests that Facebook is doing things to which the public would object.
In the same post, this is a very good counter-point, I think. Anything this high-profile will be cherry-picked and de-contextualized a million times. Including in Facebook posts, ironically. Speaking candidly is bad PR for anyone that visible, no matter how virtuous.
To give a specifically British example, the Privy Council holds its meetings behind closed doors, and its (often unelected) members have to take a literal oath of secrecy, yet somehow this aspect of the British constitution does not receive the same criticism as the EU does.
That is not at all odd in the EU. In fact most are, and this lack of transparency is by design: If EU was left to the caprices of the heterogeneous electorates of its countries, they would break it up.
An example of this: it is how the constitution of the United States was formed.
None of this getting a canned answer that half dodges the question and moving on, instead getting an answer that picks apart more of the nuance.
If you know how EU politic works, you might be aware of the defeated device of VW and other Europrean car manufacturers. EU’s own poulltion level is getting worse each other because of governments covering their own domestic manufacturer’s ass. See Netflix’ documentary.
However, nobody has done it. Why? Because it doesn't make any profit.
Everyone needs it, it would save a lot of resources otherwise wasted on useless products and bad political choices, and it would make public discourse much better, but nobody will pay for it.
This is the classic example of when the government should step in. We need to either create a Facebook tax (let people choose who to fund with it, but make sure they pay for it) or make FBs business model illegal. Both would work.
People know their long-term interests but they can't act on them unless corner-cutting is made illegal.
And the governments would have fixed the problem by now, only if Facebook wasn't offering politicians a cheap way to get reelected.
I'm open to new approaches but I can't figure out a solution for this to get funded.
As a demonstration, after 10 years of FB I started using it only to announce events which I already announce on Eventbrite, Meetup, LinkedIn, but no personal news, no reading of the news feed. Guess what, after months of that I still have all the friends I had before.
The GDPR contains a section on Data Portability:
mandating that "the data subject shall have the right to have the personal data transmitted directly from one controller to another, where technically feasible." This means that someone with a Facebook account should be able to request that Facebook automatically send their posts to the accounts of their friends on other competing social networks.
Obviously the question of what is "technically feasible" will be argued, but I think that a large, potentially monopolistic company like Facebook would have a hard time arguing that it couldn't implement something like ActivityPub:
especially if its smaller (and European) competitors are able to implement it and interoperate with each other. Once you no longer have to be on Facebook to receive updates from your Facebook-using friends, I imagine that their empire will crumble relatively quickly.
While the EU parliament doesn't jail people, there are lots of countries that do.
If he admits to breaking the law during the meeting any one of the EU countries could issue an EU arrest warrant for him. Then he would be held within that country to be extradited.
If I was in charge of the British Parliament committee that wants to question him, I would issue an EU arrest warrant for one of the many crimes that are being levelled at Cambridge Analytic with him being part of it. Then question him about it. But I am petty and would want to show that just because he's American he isn't always out of reach.
The entire assumption is Facebook isn't breaking any criminal laws and Mark Zuckerberg isn't directly linked to those laws.
Chances of going to jail, slim. But it is still in the world of possibilities.
I'm not saying that, you're saying it and it's not going to happen any more than him stabbing someone or all of Belgium getting eaten by bears.
Blatant political corruption
Selling/distributing of user data to shady third parties
Poor protection of user data
Privacy invasion beyond what's reasonable to sell people adds
Tracking of individuals who do not have accounts
Do I have that right? If so I find it hard to agree with your conclusion.
Edit: OP edited the anti-semitism bit out of their comment.
Of course they do, and they have for a while now. It's how they make money. In fact, they not only sell data they collect on your use of their service, they sell data based on information scraped by their persistent cookies as you browse other sites:
The rest (your distortions aside) was already addressed by him and the company on many occasions still the animus directed at him is extraordinary.
'Damian Collins, the chair of the DCMS committee, said: “We asked them to look for evidence of Russian influence and they came back and told us something we now know appears misleading. And we’re still waiting for answers to 40 questions that Mike Schroepfer was unable to answer, including if they have any record of any dark ads.
“It could be that these adverts are just the tip of the iceberg. It’s just so hard getting any sort of information out of them, and then not knowing if that information is complete.” '
Or do they not fit your narrative?
Care to share?
The scary fact is that they do this to an extent with their ads.
Mozilla was good enough to publish an extension called "Facebook Container" that creates default settings for Containers to isolate Facebook from other websites, impeding Facebook's ability to track user activity across the wider internet.
Great stuff! Where is the "Google Container" version? (There exists one, but it's not from Mozilla.) Could it be that Mozilla receives most of it's funding from search engines (including but not limited to Google), and even during years when Google isn't the default search engine it's still not in Mozilla's financial interest to burn that bridge? Maybe that's too cynical. Maybe it's too cynical to suggest that huge amounts of money could bias people. Or maybe it's unfair to suggest that being biased by google in this way makes them a "proxy" of google.
Maybe. But the fact remains that Mozilla still isn't promoting a "Google Container" extension to protect users from Google.
^ Many users are wary of third party firefox extensions because firefox extension permissions are so coarse: https://i.imgur.com/G1HuXgy.png