You Can’t Block Mark Zuckerberg or Priscilla Chan on Facebook
qz.com
qz.com
If a news article critical of something Google is lobbying for doesn't come up in a Google search, then most of the population will never know it ever existed.
If Zuckerberg really is eyeing a political run in 2018 or 2020, will he block his opponent's posts or those critical of him from reaching people's timelines? Will he ban anyone critical of him from the platform? [0]
[0] - http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/street-artist-sabos-fa...
He could however use facebook to promote his own content more aggressively, it would be less conspicuous and could be very effective.
How to even prove it was done? The effect could be small enough to turn an election but not large enough to be reliably measured from the outside.
Facebook is still a company with many employees, and I'm quite sure even Mark Zuckerberg can't simply go rummaging in the code to favour himself.
In other words, there will have to be (quite some) people in the know about this, which makes it likely to leak.
("Requiring many people to be in the know" is basically what convinces me of the impossibility of pretty much every conspiracy theory.)
And yet it was a decade before we knew Volkswagen was cheating on emissions tests.
It's amazing what a few unscrupulous engineers and some careful information sharing can do...
The timeline optimization one is likely to be handled by way more people.
Just a wild guess.
> that social media has become mass
> scale social engineering
I find comments like this exceedingly glib and conspiratorial, and they're usually presented simply as fact, as if proof was not needed.> Writing in the New Republic in 2014, Jonathan Zittrain, professor of international law at Harvard University, pointed out that, given the massive amount of information it has collected about its users, Facebook could easily send such messages only to people who support one particular party or candidate, and that doing so could easily flip a close election – with no one knowing that this has occurred. And because advertisements, like search rankings, are ephemeral, manipulating an election in this way would leave no paper trail.
> ...another Facebook experiment, published in 2014 in PNAS, prompted protests around the world. In this study, for a period of a week, 689,000 Facebook users were sent news feeds that contained either an excess of positive terms, an excess of negative terms, or neither. Those in the first group subsequently used slightly more positive terms in their communications, while those in the second group used slightly more negative terms in their communications. This was said to show that people’s ‘emotional states’ could be deliberately manipulated on a massive scale by a social media company, an idea that many people found disturbing. People were also upset that a large-scale experiment on emotion had been conducted without the explicit consent of any of the participants.
> could
being the operative word.Also from your article:
> The formation of The
> Groundwork prompted Julian
> Assange, founder of
> Wikileaks, to dub Google
> Clinton’s ‘secret weapon’ in
> her quest for the US
> presidency.
No conspiracy no conspiracy you're the conspiracy!Also, you show cognitive bias by instantly scrapping a multi-thousand word essay because of one paragraph mentioning someone you already have a preconceived opinion on.
The multi-thousand word essay that not only speaks of verifiable evidence from the author's own research proving the order or omission of search engine results heavily shape opinion, without detection, and:
1. Gives evidence from multiple other sources that Google's results are biased to support their business interests.
2. Calls upon a 50+ year precedent of corporations using all forms of media to manipulate opinion.
3. Recites the fact that two C-level Googlers straight up worked for Hillary Clinton.
4. Recites the fact that Google's search algorithm is a black box.
All this on the heels of a revelation that Eric Schmidt (one of those two that worked for Clinton) is willing to flex his muscle in nefarious ways when people are critical of Google, and you'd have to be unbelievably naive to think that he's above using his technology along with his money.
I would be interesting if someone setup some kind of monitoring that might detect if that happens. They'd probably need the cooperation of many legitimate and diverse Facebook users, though.
Never. Most people has no interest in directing their life. They want pre-made solutions to their day to day problems. They don't analyze the news or any kind of information given to them.
If they did, lying again and again and using the same campaign schemes again and again would not work for politicians.
But it does. It always has.
When you see an uproar, it's never because somebody does something bad. It's because either:
- somebody has been badly hurt;
- some kind of important symbol has been badly hurt.
It's an emotional response. No thoughts into that.
The collective lack of discernment and the collective lack of outrage (with appropriate action) make it seem like humanity would, probably by the turn of this century, live in one of those dystopian societies that we know of only from science fiction.
I'm trying to hold on to hope that there will be a revolution - decentralized communications, strong encryption as defaults, privacy conscious people understanding how they're manipulated and using solutions that help them stay out of "bubbles" and in control of their privacy, etc.
All he needs to do is to bury it to a significant enough degree to change outcomes but retain plausible deniability. He's not an idiot.
I'm not quite a pariah in this group of family and friends, but not having a Facebook account is definitely looked down upon because they have to email, call or text me.
Is this a problem other people have faced? I ask because I've never once had any content from any of the aforementioned appear on my timeline. In fact aside adverts (which I don't like but I get why they are there), I've never had any content appear on my feed that I hadn't specifically opted in to.
Actually, I've written a script to unfollow anyone and currently I use fb just as a messenger, using the "Friendly" app on Android, because it requires less privileges than facebook messenger.
Honestly this is so unimportant i don't exactly see a better answer.
I mean seriously: the higest comment in this thread right now is discussing "social media has become mass scale social engineering"... are you for real?
It's just two guys and maybe it's not even intentional.. and maybe if it was then so what? it's still just two guys.
People feel threatened by anything these days..