Congress vs. Facebook

[lpetrich]

Facebook releases new Cambridge Analytica documents

• Communication between Facebook employees from 2015 illustrate early actions the company took to investigate third-party use of data.
• Facebook released the emails and other documents as part of an investigation of the Cambridge Analytica scandal by the local attorney general in Washington, D.C.

Jason Kint on Twitter: "Based on Zuckerberg answers to @AOC yesterday, we now know people on his leadership team knew about Cambridge Analytica scraping personal data prior to Dec 2015 Guardian report but we’re also supposed to believe Zuckerberg did NOT know until March 2018. https://t.co/5BzxPX6CrU" / Twitter

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "There are several aspects to Zuckerberg’s answers on Cambridge Analytica, paid disinformation ads, & Facebook’s ties to the far-right that aren’t adding up.
There may be a deeper story here, and we need to get to the bottom of it - the integrity of our elections are at stake." / Twitter

Seems like a conspiracy theory. Or at least the right wing successfully bullying Facebook's management into submission by bellowing about how the "liberal media" is an enemy of "freedom of speech".

 

[Trausti]

Civil rights leaders aren't too happy with FB either!


https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/10/25/civil-rights-leaders-thought-theyd-figured-out-how-deal-with-facebook-now-they-are-livid/

But as they began to arrive in Atlanta for the Sept. 26 event, that hope turned to outrage as civil rights leaders learned that Facebook had announced what many now call the “Trump exemption” — meaning the policy allowing any politician to lie freely in ads or free posts without consequences.
Though Facebook has portrayed this decision as reflecting the nation’s ideals of unfettered political speech, civil rights leaders say they see another value emerging preeminent in Facebook’s calculations: the unfettered quest to profit from political advertising.

“The only principle is business as usual and trying to line their pockets,” said Arisha Hatch, vice president for Color of Change, one of several civil rights groups that had been in regular contact with Sandberg and others at the company. “There is no principled stand that people can take that would allow them to behave on the platform as voter suppressionists have behaved in our country for decades.”
Hatch and others view the company’s tolerance of deception against the backdrop of the nation’s ugly history of voter suppression, much of it conducted by politicians and government officials. The Russian disinformation campaign that backed Donald Trump’s election relied heavily on social media postings discouraging black voters from casting ballots, in what civil rights leaders see as a foreign update of old and largely homegrown political tactics.
Facebook’s announcement was one of several incidents in recent months that have inflamed its fragile relations with civil rights leaders, undoing years of progress on several fronts, including combating housing discrimination in the company’s ad platform.

If Facebook had a rule banning lying in political advertisements, there'd be no political advertisements.

 

[lpetrich]

If Facebook had a rule banning lying in political advertisements, there'd be no political advertisements.

So what?

AOC retweeted
Sleeping Giants on Twitter: "Today, @facebook, who is still ensnared in the Cambridge Analytica scandal, added Breitbart, whose owner and former President were OWNERS of Cambridge Analytica, as a “trusted” news source. This scandal writes itself." / Twitter

Facebook News launches with Breitbart as a source - CNN

On Friday, as Facebook began rolling out the product for testing to users in the United States, the company revealed a baffling decision: Among reputable partners like CNN, The New York Times and The Washington Post, it had decided to include Breitbart in its list of sources for Facebook News. (A Facebook spokesperson said Breitbart will not be paid, and that it's the site's current content on the platform that made the outlet eligible.)

For those in need of a reminder, Breitbart is a far-right website with a history of publishing misleading stories about Democrats and critics of President Donald Trump. The site also has close ties to the Trump administration, and many of its employees have gone on to work in the White House.

A false ad claiming Republicans back the Green New Deal tests Facebook's policy on lies - CNNPolitics

On Thursday, a PAC named "The Really Online Lefty League" posted a false ad that used edited video to make it appear like Graham had endorsed the Green New Deal.

The ad ran successfully on Facebook until Saturday after it was flagged as false by a fact-checking group hired by the social media giant. Facebook then canceled the ad but allowed the false video to stay on the platform. ...

However, Facebook confirmed to CNN on Saturday, if Ocasio-Cortez had run the same ad it would not be removed because fact-checking does not extend to politicians.

 

[lpetrich]

What happened when Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez came face to face with Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg | Carole Cadwalladr | Opinion | The Guardian - "The New York politician has exposed the firm’s shameless disregard for the truth"

It was 1am the night before we published the Cambridge Analytica files in March last year and I got an urgent message from my fellow reporter, Emma Graham-Harrison. Facebook, which that day had sent us a letter threatening legal action if we published, had issued a press release saying it had kicked Cambridge Analytica off its platform.

It was a last-gasp attempt to get ahead of a story that Facebook knew was set to break. But it was too late. We worked through the night, brought forward our publishing time, and then the story was out there.

Carole Cadwalladr on Twitter: "It’s not the crime, it’s the cover-up...always, always, always. This week @aoc brought the . And here’s why I think there’s trouble ahead for Zuck. This isn’t the end of the Cambridge Analytica scandal, it’s the beginning https://t.co/bQDmBOwPXj" / Twitter
then
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "Here’s what we know:
- Zuckerberg ”doesn’t know” when he/FB discovered the Cambridge Analytica scandal. That is hard to believe.
- After Zuck privately met w/ Trump & far-right, he’s now allowing paid disinformation ads.
- He didn’t tell the whole truth abt his “fact checkers”" / Twitter

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "Zuckerberg has been justifying Facebook’s increasingly disturbing decisions by acting like the company is some innocent, neutral bystander.
But as we discover more info, that is getting harder to believe.
They are making active & aggressive decisions that imperil our elections." / Twitter

 

[lpetrich]

Rep. Ocasio-Cortez: Facebook Disinformation Is "Extraordinarily Concerning" | The Last Word | MSNBC - YouTube - more on her and FB

AOC points out that MZ did not seem to know that Republicans oppose the Green New Deal. He didn't even ask about it. Also about Cambridge Analytica - was he really ignorant of it? Her committee will be sending a list of further questions to FB's management. AOC described how a very common question that she got the night before on Twitter was if FB won't do what's necessary to fact-check political ads, then why doesn't it ban those ads?

 

[lpetrich]

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "Courageous workers at Facebook are now standing up to the corporation’s leadership, challenging Zuckerberg’s disturbing policy on allowing paid, targeted disinformation ads in the 2020 election:" / Twitter
noting
The New York Times on Twitter: "In an open letter aimed at Mark Zuckerberg and his top lieutenants, Facebook employees decried the company’s policy of allowing politicians to post any claim, even false ones, in ads, saying it was “a threat to what FB stands for” https://t.co/6wbCbYYk3N" / Twitter
noting
Dissent Erupts at Facebook Over Hands-Off Stance on Political Ads - The New York Times

The letter was aimed at Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook’s chief executive, and his top lieutenants. It decried the social network’s recent decision to let politicians post any claims they wanted — even false ones — in ads on the site. It asked Facebook’s leaders to rethink the stance.

The message was written by Facebook’s own employees.

...
Many employees have been discussing Mr. Zuckerberg’s decision to let politicians post anything they want in Facebook ads because those ads can go viral and spread misinformation widely. The worker dissatisfaction has spilled out across winding, heated threads on Facebook Workplace, the people said.

...
But Mr. Zuckerberg doubled down. In a 5,000-word speech to students at Georgetown University in Washington this month, the chief executive defended his treatment of political ads by citing freedom of expression. He said Facebook’s policies would be seen positively in the long run, especially when compared with policies in countries like China, where the government suppresses online speech.

Read the Letter Facebook Employees Sent to Mark Zuckerberg About Political Ads - The New York Times

Allowing paid civic misinformation to run on the platform in its current state has the potential to:

— Increase distrust in our platform by allowing similar paid and organic content to sit side-by-side ...

— Undo integrity product work. ...

... These suggestions are all focused on ad-related content, not organic.

1. Hold political ads to the same standard as other ads. ...
2. Stronger visual design treatment for political ads. ...
3. Restrict targeting for political ads. ...
4. Broader observance of the election silence periods ...
5. Spend caps for individual politicians, regardless of source ...
6. Clearer policies for political ads ...

... We are proud of the work that the integrity teams have done, and we don’t want to see that undermined by policy. Over the coming months, we’ll continue this conversation, and we look forward to working towards solutions together.

This is still our company.

 

[Lion IRC]

LOL
That will get interesting.

 

[Gospel]

Maybe I'm dumb or something but I don't think it's Facebook's job to fact check political ads posted on their platform. It's their job to make money. Fox, CNN & MSNBC aren't any better than those questionable ads. Wassup with that? Every news network should be in that chair instead & reintroduced to the fairness act.

 

[TSwizzle]

Maybe I'm dumb or something but I don't think it's Facebook's job to fact check political ads posted on their platform. It's their job to make money. Fox, CNN & MSNBC aren't any better than those questionable ads. Wassup with that? Every news network should be in that chair instead & reintroduced to the fairness act.

Hmmm, I don't think you are comparing apples to apples. I think the MSM are quite heavily regulated by the FCC whereas Facebook is not. But Facebook isn't in the news reporting business either so I am still not sure what all the fuss is about.

 

[PyramidHead]

Maybe I'm dumb or something but I don't think it's Facebook's job to fact check political ads posted on their platform. It's their job to make money. Fox, CNN & MSNBC aren't any better than those questionable ads. Wassup with that? Every news network should be in that chair instead & reintroduced to the fairness act.

Hmmm, I don't think you are comparing apples to apples. I think the MSM are quite heavily regulated by the FCC whereas Facebook is not. But Facebook isn't in the news reporting business either so I am still not sure what all the fuss is about.

Lots of people get their news from social media outlets, whether they are "in the news reporting business" or not, and policy should be based on reality rather than stated intentions.

 

[TSwizzle]

Maybe I'm dumb or something but I don't think it's Facebook's job to fact check political ads posted on their platform. It's their job to make money. Fox, CNN & MSNBC aren't any better than those questionable ads. Wassup with that? Every news network should be in that chair instead & reintroduced to the fairness act.

Hmmm, I don't think you are comparing apples to apples. I think the MSM are quite heavily regulated by the FCC whereas Facebook is not. But Facebook isn't in the news reporting business either so I am still not sure what all the fuss is about.

Lots of people get their news from social media outlets, whether they are "in the news reporting business" or not, and policy should be based on reality rather than stated intentions.

Social media is not "news reporting" in the traditional sense. Sure Facebook has "news" on it, but it doesn't create that content.

 

[PyramidHead]

Lots of people get their news from social media outlets, whether they are "in the news reporting business" or not, and policy should be based on reality rather than stated intentions.

Social media is not "news reporting" in the traditional sense. Sure Facebook has "news" on it, but it doesn't create that content.

So? Again, the reality is that people get their news from there, so if they have that function in society then they should have a corresponding social responsibility.

 

[TSwizzle]

Lots of people get their news from social media outlets, whether they are "in the news reporting business" or not, and policy should be based on reality rather than stated intentions.

Social media is not "news reporting" in the traditional sense. Sure Facebook has "news" on it, but it doesn't create that content.

So? Again, the reality is that people get their news from there, so if they have that function in society then they should have a corresponding social responsibility.

I'm not so sure they do get their "news" from Facebook. I think what you really mean is people exchange information on Facebook, whether it be lies, propaganda, conspiracy theories, memes, cat videos etc. Why should anyone make it their business what people are doing on Facebook ? It's a "private" company that offers a platform for all sorts of shit. Just one of many. Granted it is the biggest but why does Facebook owe a "social responsibility" to censor stuff "you" (or the dems) don't like ? Where does that take you ?

 

[PyramidHead]

So? Again, the reality is that people get their news from there, so if they have that function in society then they should have a corresponding social responsibility.

I'm not so sure they do get their "news" from Facebook. I think what you really mean is people exchange information on Facebook, whether it be lies, propaganda, conspiracy theories, memes, cat videos etc. Why should anyone make it their business what people are doing on Facebook ? It's a "private" company that offers a platform for all sorts of shit. Just one of many. Granted it is the biggest but why does Facebook owe a "social responsibility" to censor stuff "you" (or the dems) don't like ? Where does that take you ?

To public ownership of social media as a utility. The fact that it's a private company is the root of the problem here; it's a massive societal influence with no societal accountability.

 

[TSwizzle]

So? Again, the reality is that people get their news from there, so if they have that function in society then they should have a corresponding social responsibility.

I'm not so sure they do get their "news" from Facebook. I think what you really mean is people exchange information on Facebook, whether it be lies, propaganda, conspiracy theories, memes, cat videos etc. Why should anyone make it their business what people are doing on Facebook ? It's a "private" company that offers a platform for all sorts of shit. Just one of many. Granted it is the biggest but why does Facebook owe a "social responsibility" to censor stuff "you" (or the dems) don't like ? Where does that take you ?

To public ownership of social media as a utility.

WTF does public ownership mean comrade ?

The fact that it's a private company is the root of the problem here; it's a massive societal influence with no societal accountability.

I think you overstate the influence Facebook has.

 

[Trausti]

So? Again, the reality is that people get their news from there, so if they have that function in society then they should have a corresponding social responsibility.

I'm not so sure they do get their "news" from Facebook. I think what you really mean is people exchange information on Facebook, whether it be lies, propaganda, conspiracy theories, memes, cat videos etc. Why should anyone make it their business what people are doing on Facebook ? It's a "private" company that offers a platform for all sorts of shit. Just one of many. Granted it is the biggest but why does Facebook owe a "social responsibility" to censor stuff "you" (or the dems) don't like ? Where does that take you ?

To public ownership of social media as a utility. The fact that it's a private company is the root of the problem here; it's a massive societal influence with no societal accountability.

Ugh, these damn nanny-state authoritarians. Don't treat everyone like they're five years old. We adults can figure out on our own what's shit from Shinola.

 

[lpetrich]

Ugh, these damn nanny-state authoritarians. Don't treat everyone like they're five years old. We adults can figure out on our own what's shit from Shinola.

That is why we don't need soldiers and cops, right? Only nanny-state authoritarians think that people can't protect themselves on their own, right?


Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Exposed Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook – Rolling Stone

Mark Zuckerberg is an awkward guy. This is true when he’s giving tours of his house, it’s true when he’s live-streaming himself smoking meats, and it’s especially true whenever Congress is grilling him about how the social media network he created to keep tabs on the relationship status of his crush is facilitating the downfall of Western civilization.

Such was the case Wednesday, when the Facebook CEO was confronted by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who has already proven herself to be one of the sharpest, most effective inquisitors in the House. And the exchange revealed a core truth about Zuckerberg as he struggles to reckon with how Facebook has been used to subvert democracy:

He has no idea what he’s doing.

Has a transcript of some of AOC's questioning of him.

 

[Trausti]

Ugh, these damn nanny-state authoritarians. Don't treat everyone like they're five years old. We adults can figure out on our own what's shit from Shinola.

That is why we don't need soldiers and cops, right? Only nanny-state authoritarians think that people can't protect themselves on their own, right?

Jumping Jesus on a pogo stick, you're equating crime with political speech? So because some loonie like AOC lacks the mental capacity to understand political advertisements such advertisements should be banned? We're putting the bar that low? Your hard-on for "Crazy Eye" Cortez has blinded you.

 

[lpetrich]

Jumping Jesus on a pogo stick, you're equating crime with political speech? So because some loonie like AOC lacks the mental capacity to understand political advertisements such advertisements should be banned? We're putting the bar that low? Your hard-on for "Crazy Eye" Cortez has blinded you.

Trausti, are you willing to accept campaign ads that target Republicans with inflammatory falsehoods? Like AOC's example of Republicans supporting her Green New Deal.

 

[PyramidHead]

To public ownership of social media as a utility. The fact that it's a private company is the root of the problem here; it's a massive societal influence with no societal accountability.

Ugh, these damn nanny-state authoritarians. Don't treat everyone like they're five years old. We adults can figure out on our own what's shit from Shinola.

Have a bumper sticker and have a nice day.