The Billion-Dollar Disinformation Campaign to Reelect the President

[UCFWayne]

When I say weaponize, I mean a top-down formal structure being driven by data science and psychographic profiling to do generally un-democratic things. Do idiot lefties on FB share stupid memes just like the right? Absolutely. That's not what we're talking about though.

Even if Trump is acting purely in good faith and doing none of the bad things he could do here, there's nothing structurally from preventing a bad actor from doing the bad things using the most powerful propaganda engine in the history of humanity.

the left absolutely does the exact same thing. on top of that, who exactly runs these social media companies? there isnt a single social media company run by anyone remotely conservative. they all block things they dont like which more often than not is conservative in nature.

but please do go on about how the right has weaponized social media platforms. its hilarious.

 

[Boosted87]

the left absolutely does the exact same thing. on top of that, who exactly runs these social media companies? there isnt a single social media company run by anyone remotely conservative. they all block things they dont like which more often than not is conservative in nature.

but please do go on about how the right has weaponized social media platforms. its hilarious.

I'm talking specifically about Facebook's advertising engine and policies here - not social media more broadly.

Zuckerburg is in a prisoner's dillema here. Facebook is ripe for anti-trust action. To your point, should a social media company who's primary objective is to maximize shareholder value, be making advertising policy decisions that can impact elections? Should a private company have that much power? On the left, Warren and Bernie are threatening to break them up. On the right, they're accused of bias and suppressing conservative opinion. Zuckerberg is trying to walk a line. Right now, it's in FB's best interest that Bernie/Warren not be elected President. They need to stay on Trump's good side in case he's re-elected.

If Bernie/Warren wins in November, watch FB suddenly start to care about this and work diligently to prove they can handle the responsibility and don't need to be broken up. So yes, they are conflicted. Which goes to the underlying point that they have too much power to influence election.

 

[UCFWayne]

I'm talking specifically about Facebook's advertising engine and policies here - not social media more broadly.

Zuckerburg is in a prisoner's dillema here. Facebook is ripe for anti-trust action. To your point, should a social media company who's primary objective is to maximize shareholder value, be making advertising policy decisions that can impact elections? Should a private company have that much power? On the left, Warren and Bernie are threatening to break them up. On the right, they're accused of bias and suppressing conservative opinion. Zuckerberg is trying to walk a line. Right now, it's in FB's best interest that Bernie/Warren not be elected President. They need to stay on Trump's good side in case he's re-elected.

If Bernie/Warren wins in November, watch FB suddenly start to care about this and work diligently to prove they can handle the responsibility and don't need to be broken up. So yes, they are conflicted. Which goes to the underlying point that they have too much power to influence election.

facebook regularly tags conservative pages and gives them bans. yea i would like to see that stop. im for this thing called free speech, you might have heard of it. in fact im for the leftist crab being posted too. if the left or right wants to post some ads, let them. however the rules selectively applied on one side and you seem to think its the left that is getting the shaft? lol

 

[sk8knight]

I don't want to stop Trump from employing these tactics, I want to prevent all campaigns from employing them. I want FB to stop running political advertising or at minimum, stop micro-targetting on political ads (run by zip code like TV spots and that's it).

It's logical to me that both sides should see the dangers here. Yet one side is shielding this kind of propaganda behind the First Amendment to oppose efforts to regulate. Why is that? Because only one side (so far) is willing to weaponize this at mass scale.

It is patently false that only one side is engaging in this type of advertising. What you are asking for is the government to stifle legitimate free speech because politicians have learned how to persuade the people better. This is absolutely opposite to the founder's intent.

 

[Crazyhole]

At its essence, what this discussion is really about is whether or not we need a higher class of citizen to tell us what we should believe.

 

[UCFWayne]

At its essence, what this discussion is really about is whether or not we need a higher class of citizen to tell us what we should believe.

dont worry we can trust the left leaning social media sites and fact checkers to be impartial.*

 

[Boosted87]

It is patently false that only one side is engaging in this type of advertising. What you are asking for is the government to stifle legitimate free speech because politicians have learned how to persuade the people better. This is absolutely opposite to the founder's intent.

My contention is that right now, the Trump campaign is on the leading edge of this and I think it's bad for democracy. I'm not saying democrats don't or won't stoop to the same level. My goal isn't to defend democrats, but in following this topic, the current concerns are on the right. That's not a partisan declaration of blame, just an observation. The ones defending FB's policy are republicans, the ones complaining about it are democrats. I'd love to be wrong so feel free to show me this isn't the case.

I'm reminded of one of my favorite Thomas Jefferson quotes. If the 1st Amendment can't both protect free speech while also allowing us protect our citizens from information warfare campaigns, I don't think Thomas Jefferson would necessarily think that was a good thing. But to his point below, we shouldn't have to figure out what he thinks. We should adapt to the circumstances we face today rather than remaining under the regimen of our barbarous ancestors.

I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors​

 

[fried-chicken]

A lot of people dont know this about nazis but they were basically democrats. Same as the democrats that supported slavery and the democrats that did 9/11.

It's sad they don't teach this in schools anymore

 

[sk8knight]

My contention is that right now, the Trump campaign is on the leading edge of this and I think it's bad for democracy. I'm not saying democrats don't or won't stoop to the same level. My goal isn't to defend democrats, but in following this topic, the current concerns are on the right. That's not a partisan declaration of blame, just an observation. The ones defending FB's policy are republicans, the ones complaining about it are democrats. I'd love to be wrong so feel free to show me this isn't the case.

I'm reminded of one of my favorite Thomas Jefferson quotes. If the 1st Amendment can't both protect free speech while also allowing us protect our citizens from information warfare campaigns, I don't think Thomas Jefferson would necessarily think that was a good thing. But to his point below, we shouldn't have to figure out what he thinks. We should adapt to the circumstances we face today rather than remaining under the regimen of our barbarous ancestors.

I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors​

Again, though, people are being presented information in a public forum and are free to make their own decisions on such information. What you propose is the US Government taking away the Constitutional right of an American Citizen to present information to other American citizens because you don't like that information or don't like the decisions that people make after viewing that information. You can use the quote you listed to justify nearly any law you wanted to make by saying that we've progressed so we must change. But though this is a new transmission mechanism, this is not any different than broadsheets delivered door-to-door back in the day. You're trying to stifle the expression of ideas and that is in direct opposition to the most important clause in the Bill of Rights: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..."

How would you even word your laws such that you don't sweep up a large swath of what should be protected speech in order to target the speech delivery mechanism that you don't like?

 

[UCFKnight85]

You can tell this week has been tough on lefties like Shook Chicken given he’s clearly posting shitfaced by 4 pm today

 

[fried-chicken]

You can tell this week has been tough on lefties like Shook Chicken given he’s clearly posting shitfaced by 4 pm today

I'm a high performer so I'm done with my week's work and shitfaced by 4pm every Friday. I forgot youre a lazy boomer who takes a full 40 hours to do 40 hours of work.

 

[ChrisKnight06]

At its essence, what this discussion is really about is whether or not we need a higher class of citizen to tell us what we should believe.

I loved listening to Lex Fridman on JRE. What we all hate are bad actors. In an ideal world peooke are smart enough to sort through the bs or better yet .. everyone operates in good faith. Obviously that's not how it works and we're left with what you just said. When I'm forced with thinking about how you even start to implement something like this it begins to breakdown instantly. Higher class of citizen is exactly right in my mind and I can't get around that. How else do you get there?

 

[Crazyhole]

I loved listening to Lex Fridman on JRE. What we all hate are bad actors. In an ideal world peooke are smart enough to sort through the bs or better yet .. everyone operates in good faith. Obviously that's not how it works and we're left with what you just said. When I'm forced with thinking about how you even start to implement something like this it begins to breakdown instantly. Higher class of citizen is exactly right in my mind and I can't get around that. How else do you get there?

Its basic human nature and it goes back thousands of years. We want a leader. Even the most libertarian or anarchistic of us have the innate desire for structure because it represents security. Nobody really wants to be self sufficient. They want the protections that come from government to be 'more' self sufficient but at the end of the day nobody wants to have to defend themselves against marauders or vandals, its better to have a common structure in government that gives us that protections.