tom169

Nowadays the barrier to entry for broadcasting a political opinion (or any opinion of that matter - like a product review) is lowered dramatically.

I've done it a few times myself - tweeting in public my complaint to a company in order to gain a quicker response time than a private email would have.

It seems you want to stifle such free expression of thoughts and opinion. This line of thought has only fueled some people further to be more vocal of their opinion.

Pulaski

That is a fair summary
I disagree. Freedom of speech is not, and should not be confined to certain segments of the population.

zzrmark

'Freedom of speech' should not be confused with psychological warfare, specifically targeted adverts driven by a handful of the wealthiest individuals pedalling misinformation are not free speech.
The funny thing is that the traditional 'tin foil hat' brigade who would normally shout loudest about this kind of thing are the ones content to be led down the misinformation highway, their oft shouted about Illuminati are right under their noses and they're trooting along with it like a well trained poodle...

Wintersong

Well, it has me down as a single, Libertarian, 29yr old, so I wouldn't worry too much about its ability to sway elections.

md95065

Agreed - I wrote that quickly and didn't make it clear precisely what the "This is not good" was intended to refer to.

Firstly I agree that freedom of speech should not be confined to certain segments of the population, and I absolutely agree that there should be no prior restraint on freedom of speech. That does not, however, mean that there should be no consequences after the fact for someone who uses that freedom in a way that society considers to be harmful (whether by shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre, or by impersonating someone or committing fraud etc).

The thing that is "not good" is the end result which reckless, unthinking and sometimes deliberately malicious "speech" can cause when large numbers of people end up being manipulated by it. You might very well say - "That's just what the newspapers and media and government propaganda have been doing for years - why only complain about it now that everyone else is able to do it as well?" - but that is too simplistic - "It's OK because everyone else does it" isn't really a good basis on which to build a society.

So, the problem isn't free speech per-se - it's the fact that, on the whole, we simply aren't equipped to handle the vast torrent of "free speech" that the internet floods us with or to make informed decisions about which sources we should and should not trust.

I don't have a good answer for this - perhaps all that is happening is that we are starting to see that the thin veneer of civilization which seemed to have been developing over the last few hundred years is really all an illusion, and that mankind as a whole is just not ready for it and we should drop the pretense and admit that we really are all at war with each other all the time. I don't known.

It's a bit like gun control - ultimately it isn't guns that kill people, it is people who use guns that kill other people.

Freedom of speech isn't "bad", but people can use freedom of speech to do bad things.

So, it's us who are "not good".

Leslie

That's exactly right. My position on this whole thing is not that individuals, or even groups, should be silenced. Not at all. But, as you said, powerful groups should be held to count --- not silenced but forced to operate in the sunlight.

When Melania Trump filed a lawsuit against the Daily Mail for printing that she had worked as an escort, my first reaction was that the Trumps are too thin skinned and they should accept it as part of public life. I've since reconsidered this. The judiciary is the only answer to abuse from the fourth estate and it should be the same with the (new and currently uncontrollable) fifth estate.

I don't even care that Facebook is complicit in the micro-targeting. People who put personal information into the public square will be preyed upon and that information will be used against them --- but it should still stay within the realm of legality. If you publish your social security number, don't be surprised if somebody steals your identity. However, that doesn't make identity theft legal. A woman walking home alone at night doesn't give a rapist a defensible position. But we're not talking about legitimate journalism or even marketing techniques. We are talking about slander, libel and, as you said, psychological warfare.

The fact that Facebook was constantly having to pull down these "ads" tells us all we really need to know.

Leslie

Erm, yeah. I'm not on Facebook. My post wasn't a personal anecdote.

petitefrancaise

This has been my point all along. Whilst FB declares very loudly that it is a "technology" platform, it doesn't have to conform to the standards imposed upon regular media. The Zuckerberg antics trying to avoid this are comical, reminiscent of the emperor's new clothes.

Propaganda works and it should not be up to the general public to figure out what is propaganda or psychological warfare. Joe Public is given consumer protection laws to protect them against abuses when buying stuff that they don't understand the inner workings of and the same should apply to the political stuff that is online.

Leslie

This is a fascinating article. Thanks for posting the link. Part of the problem, at least as I see it, is that so many (both in the US and UK) simply will not take the time to read, follow, or even understand something this complex. This is what their entire model is based on and this is why, at least for the moment, they're winning.

Pulaski

IMO that is poor journalism as she has apparently started with a conclusion, which has become the headline, then produced "evidence" and an article to support the desired conclusion.

Shard

+1

Scary stuff. Impressive journalism IMO.

BEVS

Quality piece of investigative journalism.
I've long thought that our democratic processes have been somewhat voided by the never ending bombardment of media and social media networks & their individual propaganda mechanisms & manipulations. It has robbed many , many people of the will or ability to look beyond the noise pouring into their eyes and ears to look beyond. A form of brain wash or aversion therapy.

Thank you for sharing.

petitefrancaise

Well, finally, the BBC is getting going on investigating FB. There was a Panorama about it on Monday night. My mediahint is playing up so I haven't managed to watch it yet but from reading a couple of articles about it, the Panorama team have done their usual scrape the surface investigation.
Facebook - the secret election weapon - BBC News

petitefrancaise

A few gems in this article...
https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...rome-extension

and finally ....... tech bites back. A chrome extension that will "shine a light" into the shadows of FB and political manipulation.

https://whotargets.me/

Leslie

In light of recent revelations, I think this thread deserves another look.

Facebook has finally admitted that Russia was buying ad space in order to dump doctored news stories (that looked like they came from genuine news sources) to influence the election.

Duh.