General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsFacebook executive: we got Trump elected, and we shouldn't stop him in 2020
https://www.theverge.com/2020/1/7/21055348/facebook-trump-election-2020-leaked-memo-bosworthIn a memo obtained by The New York Times and publicly posted, a Facebook executive says the companys platform was responsible for electing Donald Trump president in 2016, but he warned employees against using the companys power to stop Trumps reelection in 2020.
What a piece of shit. Fwiw, he "claims" trump won because of a brilliant digital campaign. BS. That campaign came from russia and cambridge analytica and was reinforced by facebook execs like himself.
More than a little self serving revisionism.
But what ever you do, don't stop trump in 2020! POS.
Zoonart
(11,890 posts)kimbutgar
(21,229 posts)smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)Fuck them and fuck Zuckerberg. I have never sworn so much in my life, but I hate all these people with such a passion, I can't help myself. I can't even tell you what I wish upon them.
kimbutgar
(21,229 posts)dalton99a
(81,656 posts)Skittles
(153,240 posts)people will do ANYTHING to avoid having to put effort into "keeping up with family and friends" - they DO.NOT.CARE.
dem4decades
(11,310 posts)OKNancy
(41,832 posts)The NYT recently obtained a copy of a post I made to the wall of my internal profile within Facebook. I thought it worth sharing in its entirety here for those who are interested. It wasnt written for public consumption and I am worried about context collapse so I wanted to share some important context for those who are curious.
We have a culture at Facebook of sharing ideas and inviting discussion internally. This post had dozens of comments challenging some of my statements and exploring the implication of others. I dont think it appropriate to expose my colleagues internal musings to the same scrutiny as I will receive but several of those comment threads changed my views and I thought it was a very healthy back and forth.
Overall I hoped this post would encourage my coworkers to continue to accept criticism with grace as we accept the responsibility we have overseeing our platform. I end with a call to discussion for what other areas we feel we are falling short that should be a focus in 2020.
My day to day work doesnt cover the issues discussed, so for example Im not responsible for the teams working on misinformation or civic integrity.
Today is my birthday and I am out of the country and have only intermittent access to the internet, so I wont be able to follow the coverage of this closely. I do hope it will be received in the spirit it was shared, one of exploring the past to better see what lies ahead.
+++
Thoughts for 2020
The election of Donald Trump immediately put a spotlight on Facebook. While the intensity and focus of that spotlight may be unfair I believe it isnt unjust. Scrutiny is warranted given our position in society as the most prominent of a new medium. I think most of the criticisms that have come to light have been valid and represent real areas for us to serve our community better. I dont enjoy having our flaws exposed, but I consider it far better than the alternative where we remain ignorant of our shortcomings.
One trap I sometimes see people falling into is to dismiss all feedback when they can invalidate one part of it. I see that with personal feedback and I see it happening with media coverage. The press often gets so many details wrong it can be hard to trust the veracity of their conclusions. Dismissing the whole because of flaws in parts is a mistake. The media has limited information to work with (by our own design!) and they sometimes get it entirely wrong but there is almost always some critical issue that motivated them to write which we need to understand.
It is worth looking at the 2016 Election which set this chain of events in motion. I was running our ads organization at the time of the election and had been for the four years prior (and for one year after). It is worth reminding everyone that Russian Interference was real but it was mostly not done through advertising. $100,000 in ads on Facebook can be a powerful tool but it cant buy you an American election, especially when the candidates themselves are putting up several orders of magnitude more money on the same platform (not to mention other platforms).
Instead, the Russians worked to exploit existing divisions in the American public for example by hosting Black Lives Matter and Blue Lives Matter protest events in the same city on the same day. The people who shows up to those events were real even if the event coordinator was not. Likewise the groups of Americans being fed partisan content was real even if those feeding them were not. The organic reach they managed sounds very big in absolute terms and unfortunately humans are bad at contextualizing big numbers. Whatever reach they managed represents an infinitesimal fraction of the overall content people saw in the same period of time and certainly over the course of an election across all media.
So most of the information floating around that is widely believed isnt accurate. But who cares? It is certainly true that we should have been more mindful of the role both paid and organic content played in democracy and been more protective of it. On foreign interference, Facebook has made material progress and while we may never be able to fully eliminate it I dont expect it to be a major issue for 2020.
Misinformation was also real and related but not the same as Russian interference. The Russians may have used misinformation alongside real partisan messaging in their campaigns, but the primary source of misinformation was economically motivated. People with no political interest whatsoever realized they could drive traffic to ad-laden websites by creating fake headlines and did so to make money. These might be more adequately described as hoaxes that play on confirmation bias or conspiracy theory. In my opinion this is another area where the criticism is merited. This is also an area where we have made dramatic progress and dont expect it to be a major issue for 2020.
It is worth noting, as it is relevant at the current moment, that misinformation from the candidates themselves was not considered a major shortcoming of political advertising on FB in 2016 even though our policy then was the same as it is now. These policies are often covered by the press in the context of a profit motive. Thats one area I can confidently assure you the critics are wrong. Having run our ads business for some time it just isnt a factor when we discuss the right thing to do. However, given that those conversations are private I think we can all agree the press can be forgiven for jumping to that conclusion. Perhaps we could do a better job exposing the real cost of these mistakes to make it clear that revenue maximization would have called for a different strategy entirely.
Cambridge Analytica is one of the more acute cases I can think of where the details are almost all wrong but I think the scrutiny is broadly right. Facebook very publicly launched our developer platform in 2012 in an environment primarily scrutinizing us for keeping data to ourselves. Everyone who added an application got a prompt explaining what information it would have access to and at the time it included information from friends. This may sound crazy in a 2020 context but it received widespread praise at the time. However the only mechanism we had for keeping data secure once it was shared was legal threats which ultimately didnt amount to much for companies which had very little to lose. The platform didnt build the value we had hoped for our consumers and we shut this form of it down in 2014.
The company Cambridge Analytica started by running surveys on Facebook to get information about people. It later pivoted to be an advertising company, part of our Facebook Marketing Partner program, who other companies could hire to run their ads. Their claim to fame was psychographic targeting. This was pure snake oil and we knew it; their ads performed no better than any other marketing partner (and in many cases performed worse). I personally regret letting them stay on the FMP program for that reason alone. However at the time we thought they were just another company trying to find an angle to promote themselves and assumed poor performance would eventually lose them their clients. We had no idea they were shopping an old Facebook dataset that they were supposed to have deleted (and certified to us in writing that they had).
When Trump won, Cambridge Analytica tried to take credit so they were back on our radar but just for making bullshit claims about their own importance. I was glad when the Trump campaign manager Brad Parscale called them out for it. Later on, we found out from journalists that they had never deleted the database and had instead made elaborate promises about its power for advertising. Our comms team decided it would be best to get ahead of the journalists and pull them from the platform. This was a huge mistake. It was not only bad form (justifiably angering the journalists) but we were also fighting the wrong battle. We wanted to be clear this had not been a data breach (which, to be fair to us, it absolutely was not) but the real concern was the existence of the dataset no matter how it happened. We also sent the journalists legal letters advising them not to use the term breech which was received normally by the NYT (who agreed) and aggressively by The Guardian (who forged ahead with the wrong terminology, furious about the letter) in spite of it being a relatively common practice I am told.
In practical terms, Cambridge Analytica is a total non-event. They were snake oil salespeople. The tools they used didnt work, and the scale they used them at wasnt meaningful. Every claim they have made about themselves is garbage. Data of the kind they had isnt that valuable to being with and worse it degrades quickly, so much so as to be effectively useless in 12-18 months. In fact the United Kingdom Information Commissioners Office (ICO) seized all the equipment at Cambridge Analytica and found that there was zero data from any UK citizens! So surely, this is one where we can ignore the press, right? Nope. The platform was such a poor move that the risks associated were bound to come to light. That we shut it down in 2014 and never paid the piper on how bad it was makes this scrutiny justified in my opinion, even if it is narrowly misguided.
So was Facebook responsible for Donald Trump getting elected? I think the answer is yes, but not for the reasons anyone thinks. He didnt get elected because of Russia or misinformation or Cambridge Analytica. He got elected because he ran the single best digital ad campaign Ive ever seen from any advertiser. Period.
To be clear, Im no fan of Trump. I donated the max to Hillary. After his election I wrote a post about Trump supporters that Im told caused colleagues who had supported him to feel unsafe around me (I regret that post and deleted shortly after).
But Parscale and Trump just did unbelievable work. They werent running misinformation or hoaxes. They werent microtargeting or saying different things to different people. They just used the tools we had to show the right creative to each person. The use of custom audiences, video, ecommerce, and fresh creative remains the high water mark of digital ad campaigns in my opinion.
That brings me to the present moment, where we have maintained the same ad policies. It occurs to me that it very well may lead to the same result. As a committed liberal I find myself desperately wanting to pull any lever at my disposal to avoid the same result. So what stays my hand?
I find myself thinking of the Lord of the Rings at this moment. Specifically when Frodo offers the ring to Galadrial and she imagines using the power righteously, at first, but knows it will eventually corrupt her. As tempting as it is to use the tools available to us to change the outcome, I am confident we must never do that or we will become that which we fear.
The philosopher John Rawls reasoned that the only moral way to decide something is to remove yourself entirely from the specifics of any one person involved, behind a so called Veil of Ignorance. That is the tool that leads me to believe in liberal government programs like universal healthcare, expanding housing programs, and promoting civil rights. It is also the tool that prevents me from limiting the reach of publications who have earned their audience, as distasteful as their content may be to me and even to the moral philosophy I hold so dear.
That doesnt mean there is no line. Things like incitement of violence, voter suppression, and more are things that same moral philosophy would safely allow me to rule out. But I think my fellow liberals are a bit too, well, liberal when it comes to calling people Nazis.
If we dont want hate mongering politicians then we must not elect them. If they are getting elected then we have to win hearts and minds. If we change the outcomes without winning the minds of the people who will be ruled then we have a democracy in name only. If we limit what information people have access to and what they can say then we have no democracy at all.
This conversation often raises the alarm around filter bubbles, but that is a myth that is easy to dispel. Ask yourself how many newspapers and news programs people read/watched before the internet. If you guessed one and one on average you are right, and if you guessed those were ideologically aligned with them you are right again. The internet exposes them to far more content from other sources (26% more on Facebook, according to our research). This is one that everyone just gets wrong.
The focus on filter bubbles causes people to miss the real disaster which is polarization. What happens when you see 26% more content from people you dont agree with? Does it help you empathize with them as everyone has been suggesting? Nope. It makes you dislike them even more. This is also easy to prove with a thought experiment: whatever your political leaning, think of a publication from the other side that you despise. When you read an article from that outlet, perhaps shared by an uncle or nephew, does it make you rethink your values? Or does it make you retreat further into the conviction of your own correctness? If you answered the former, congratulations you are a better person than I am. Every time I read something from Breitbart I get 10% more liberal.
What does all of this say about the nature of the algorithmic rewards? Everyone points to top 0.1% content as being acutely polarized but how steep are the curves? What does the top 1% or 5% look like? And what is the real reach across those curves when compared to other content? I think the call for algorithmic transparency can sometimes be overblown but being more transparent about this type of data would likely be healthy.
What I expect people will find is that the algorithms are primarily exposing the desires of humanity itself, for better or worse. This is a Sugar, Salt, Fat problem. The book of that name tells a story ostensibly about food but in reality about the limited effectiveness of corporate paternalism. A while ago Kraft foods had a leader who tried to reduce the sugar they sold in the interest of consumer health. But customers wanted sugar. So instead he just ended up reducing Kraft market share. Health outcomes didnt improve. That CEO lost his job. The new CEO introduced quadruple stuffed Oreos and the company returned to grace. Giving people tools to make their own decisions is good but trying to force decisions upon them rarely works (for them or for you).
In these moments people like to suggest that our consumers dont really have free will. People compare social media to nicotine. I find that wildly offensive, not to me but to addicts. I have seen family members struggle with alcoholism and classmates struggle with opioids. I know there is a battle for the terminology of addiction but I side firmly with the neuroscientists. Still, while Facebook may not be nicotine I think it is probably like sugar. Sugar is delicious and for most of us there is a special place for it in our lives. But like all things it benefits from moderation.
At the end of the day we are forced to ask what responsibility individuals have for themselves. Set aside substances that directly alter our neurochemistry unnaturally. Make costs and trade-offs as transparent as possible. But beyond that each of us must take responsibility for ourselves. If I want to eat sugar and die an early death that is a valid position. My grandfather took such a stance towards bacon and I admired him for it. And social media is likely much less fatal than bacon.
To bring this uncharacteristically long and winding essay full circle, I wanted to start a discussion about what lessons people are taking away from the press coverage. My takeaway is that we were late on data security, misinformation, and foreign interference. We need to get ahead of polarization and algorithmic transparency. What are the other big topics people are seeing and where are we on those?
In an internal memo, Andrew Bosworth said he desperately wanted the president to lose. But, he said, the company should avoid hurting Mr. Trumps campaign.
stopdiggin
(11,395 posts)first. -- THEN you can all fire off the preconceived opinions.
Cosmocat
(14,576 posts)I saw whst was going on in real time on Facebook and tried to tell people, it wasn't "brilliance" by the Trump campaign, it was exactly what people are saying, stategic manipulation of weak minded people by nebulous interests, hell it STILL is happening.
dalton99a
(81,656 posts)All you need to know about this scumbag
Skittles
(153,240 posts)yup
dalton99a
(81,656 posts)while he gave $2,700 to Hillary for America in the same reporting period
https://www.fec.gov/data/receipts/individual-contributions/
progressoid
(50,001 posts)Thanks for posting the whole thing.
yardwork
(61,729 posts)This is simply false. The Trump campaign ran numerous FB ads that were blatantly false, such as the claim that Trump had given lots of money to St. Jude's for cancer research.
DeminPennswoods
(15,292 posts)evertonfc
(1,713 posts)citizens got Trump elected. I mean, FB doesn't influence me.
stopdiggin
(11,395 posts)but what this exec was actually SAYING .. was that two wrongs don't make a right. A position that I think most would agree is correct. Right?
getagrip_already
(14,907 posts)Rather than own up to what they did WRONG in 2016 and urging the company to not let it happen again, he said don't stop trump.
Nobody is asking fb to stop trump. FB should be stopping what they did wrong, and he isn't owning up to, or urging a stop to it.
That is why he is a POS. Not some 2 wrong BS. How about just don't repeat your wrong? Doesn't say that.
octoberlib
(14,971 posts)stopdiggin
(11,395 posts)which I totally expect from any invested party -- no matter how respected, or not.
And I still came away with the impression that there was more "truth" (and less distortion) there than in your statement. as follows:
respectfully -- no, it did not.
arthritisR_US
(7,300 posts)DU in the middle of 2018?
stopdiggin
(11,395 posts)comes from reading. (watch little or no TV .. not that I consider that a virtue, just a qualifier)
And I'm not sure how to process your question regarding dates and so forth ...
But the short answer is an interest in a discussion forum with (somewhat) like minded points of view. And you?
I "qualify" (once again) with "somewhat" like minded, because I'm not a particular fan of what I call the shrill, the hysterical and the conspiracy mongers. Everybody is entitled to their opinion -- but that doesn't mean all opinions are held in equal regard.
(And I flat out detest deliberate attempts at fake news and dishonest spin .. I think there ought to be a tab for "liar, liar, pants on .." -- except that it would prove impossible to manage and enforce in this setting.)
uponit7771
(90,367 posts)octoberlib
(14,971 posts)theyd follow Twitter and Googles lead and ban political advertising across their platforms. Hes also full of shit about Cambridge Analyticas influence and Trumps ads not containing any misinformation.
Link to tweet
?s=21
This is why Facebook is a clear & present danger to society. The breathtaking audacity of this senior executive who refuses ever to answer my qs. Facebook was found to have acted illegally - not just in US, but UK, Canada, Brazil As exposed by Cambridge Analytica "non-event"
KT2000
(20,597 posts)on a very few. The tech giants are in charge of more than we acknowledge and this was just a slip of the tongue. trump did not invite them to the White House to assure a fair election.
bucolic_frolic
(43,393 posts)The brand is losing altitude fast
Cosmocat
(14,576 posts)They allowed their platform to be coopted, its broke and isnt coming back.
rockfordfile
(8,708 posts)infullview
(982 posts)They were ventured by one of Putin's buddy's
dalton99a
(81,656 posts)OhZone
(3,212 posts)have reduced their use of FB.
My significant other gave it up before I met her.
bucolic_frolic
(43,393 posts)we don't boycott well, as liberals. Few want to change their consumption or behavior.
OhZone
(3,212 posts)But at least, Julie is good at it.
And we have so much fun and more time to be together without having to look at our phones all the time, that is, when she isn't traveling for her job.
Then it's Skype time or whatever.
Oh well.
Thekaspervote
(32,813 posts)totodeinhere
(13,059 posts)What I think he really means is lets make sure that the Russian bots are able to do the same thing again.
Loge23
(3,922 posts)Dump Facebook.
Other alternatives will come along. Dump it and it's feckless weasel CEO and thief.
NoMoreRepugs
(9,493 posts)Ilsa
(61,709 posts)I'd cheer that on.
It would be a good way for them to get even with the dotard.
malaise
(269,237 posts)So glad I never signed up
Skittles
(153,240 posts)malaise
(269,237 posts)my reprehension. They thought I was a backward fool.
Skittles
(153,240 posts)when FB knows everything about them
LOL - the "privacy settings" -
malaise
(269,237 posts)pecosbob
(7,545 posts)Pressing the No button is not really that hard if you practice.
OneCrazyDiamond
(2,032 posts)Farmer-Rick
(10,219 posts)America is ruled by the filthy rich. They manipulate us, prey on us, and abuse us. They stay rich and powerful because we fight among ourselves and buy into their lies.
Their wealth is stolen from our nation. They aren't smarter or more business savy. They are simply more corrupt and greedy. Don't trust Any of the filthy rich. From the Koch Bros to Bill Gates they are feeding off of us. If they have more than $10 million they are as evil and greedy as King Kim in North Korea or a Saudi. They will chop you up into little pieces without a second thought if it would make them a buck.
Most of what they have should be taken away from them. Their wealth is really our wealth that we let them keep. The wealth they made should be in our Nation's coffers working to make our nation a better place. Not working to buy sex workers, castles, servants and gold toilets.
We are a nation of sales clerks selling a filthy rich man's crap. Putin is a tool our American oligarchs hired to install a dick-tatter. And it will only get worse unless there is mass protest.
bdamomma
(63,940 posts)nt
getagrip_already
(14,907 posts)This post is on their radar, they have made their initial response, but its trendjnv the wrong way.
Now they have to come back after dinner and attempt again to contain this.
So much bother. Have you no sympathy?
Mostly joking, but having worked with pr agencies doing reputation managemrnt, not by a lot. Just mechanical diffs.... nobody misses dinner in real life.
burrowowl
(17,653 posts)Interesting thread
joost5
(421 posts)Under the guise of "research" they stole the FB database of users and weaponized it to swing the vote for Trump in 2016.
Good times.
Farmer-Rick
(10,219 posts)underthematrix
(5,811 posts)uponit7771
(90,367 posts)jcmaine72
(1,773 posts)FB, Twitter, YouTube, etc, they're the new public square.
Ironically enough, many cons have been demanding this too because they stupidly (and incorrectly) perceive these greedy, irresponsible entities as being "librul". Meanwhile, here's an FB exec bragging about they were instrumental in getting Don the Con elected. Can these people get any dumber?
LisaM
(27,847 posts)Twitter gives him a pulpit he does not deserve - IMO, if they cut him off, it would make a lot bigger difference than Facebook's ad platforms.
Meowmee
(5,164 posts)Which needs to be said over an over again, as well as that he is mentally unstable and a longtime criminal and Russian asset etc. fb definitely played a role in what happened by aiding the cyber attack and they should pay dearly for it. As did the media and many more.
sinkingfeeling
(51,483 posts)Squinch
(51,059 posts)I wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole, but I'm told here on DU that I am just being paranoid.
KY_EnviroGuy
(14,498 posts)to social media, so don't feel altogether alone.
It's my contention that social media, among other things, robs humanity of one of our most valuable assets - the mental and emotional power of direct human contact and communications in person. We're made to survive best when making the most of direct interaction. We react the most logically, are much more likely to debate and compromise (rather than be selfish), and we gain internal peace from direct contact. We're also far less likely to express or act out in a mean or violent fashion.
A powerful parallel destruction of human community has occurred due to huge retail corporations destroying our small community retail environment where neighbors used to meet and interface socially. Now, even big box stores are threatened by on-line shopping for everything.
I wish I had quick and easy solutions for these issues.......
Squinch
(51,059 posts)pecosbob
(7,545 posts)The MSM was 24/7 TrumpTV in 2016. Who is responsible for what the MSM spews? The one percent.
getagrip_already
(14,907 posts)They are simply too powerful and too greedy to be left as mega-conglomerates.
Break them up.