I wrote about Facebook’s QAnon purge, the political ad ban & militia pages and how it’s recent actions are a tacit admission that what is good for Facebook is, on the whole, destabilizing for society. nytimes.com/2020/10/08/opi…
I’m conflicted writing about FB like this now. feel like I’ve turned into a predictable crank finding new ways to say the same thing. But felt important to me to note that FB’s choices to stop destabilization in US are essentially just attempts to make the platform less effective
if you look at the Whitmer kidnapping plotters (as @oneunderscore__ & @BrandyZadrozny reported) you’ll see that facebook is just one node in this big system. So they don’t deserve all the blame or focus. But their attempts at reform really showcase the actual problem: FB’s design
I keep butting up against this idea that to really fix the problems these platforms cause, we can’t rely on moderation tweaks but need to change the architecture (banning ads for a time period would suggest insiders feel this way about parts of the product)
anyhow, i’m going to try and focus more going forward on finding some debate around this issue. what does structural reform mean? can it happen? but this felt like an important moment to make these observations
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
It's hard to look at this Whitmer kidnapping indictment and not think of Mark Zuckerberg's June 2017 speech on building a recommendation engine to surface "meaningful communities."
"Every day, I say to myself, I don't have much time here on Earth, how can I make the greatest positive impact?" - Mark Zuckerberg, June 22, 2017
"If 2 billion people use Facebook, then how come we've only helped 100 million of them join meaningful communities? ...We started a project to see if we could get better at suggesting groups that will be meaningful to you."
this photo dredges up a similar feeling to the beginning of the week & the $750 tax figure. you’re staying at home, not seeing loved ones. making big sacrifices for the greater good. but that’s a *you* thing. *they* do what they want always. it makes you feel like a sucker.
i keep flipping through these photos today like an idiot. the celebratory vibe is so galling. just the smug, carefree look of people who feel their rightful place is above the law or that the laws of nature ought not to apply to them. That not caring for others is their right.
But i dont feel like a sucker any more. Now it's anger. For the personal selfishness that keeps the pandemic raging & diminishes the personal sacrifices so many have made to mitigate the virus’ spread. Anger that somebody with such a bone-deep disdain for civic duty is in charge
last week there was a hearing in MT where the Trump campaign tried to block the gov's decision to hold the election via vote by mail (as MT did during primaries) if successful it would've been a template for other states. a judge rejected the attempt today bozemandailychronicle.com/ap_news/montan…
I listened to the hearing last week and was struck just how thin the Trump camp's case was. The judged asked if they could cite an example of voter fraud in any MT election in the last 20 years. Lawyer responded: "no but it's irrelevant."
they dismissed the well-run vote by mail primary, suggesting that it took place "at the beginning of the pandemic before we knew anything." the Montana primary was June 2nd!!
this is quite obviously a scandal for facebook. no question. but the one thing that i feel this never quite addresses is whether that segmenting + ads is effective. it's my main beef with Cambridge Analytica stuff. That connection has never felt like its been well proven to me
now that shouldn't take away from the scandal of the campaign actively TRYING to do it. that's the scandal. FB helped facilitate it. also scandalous. But I just have no idea if it moves the dial.
i spent a lot of time this summer looking into political advertising weeds & when the reporter in this segment is rattling off what the campaign knew about the voters...a lot of that is just like standard voter file info. it doesn't necessarily mean they had those ppl pegged
you can trot nick clegg out all you want to talk about 'break glass in case of emergency' election night plans but you either care about curtailing actively incorrect information around voting coming from the *president of the united states* or you don't.
i almost wouldn't care enough to constantly yell about any of this if the company actually didn't give a shit and was just like...'we court power, baby!' but the constant PR exercise of 'we're trying to secure the election' is just so incredibly galling.