General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHillary Clinton: Mark Zuckerberg Has 'Authoritarian' Views on Misinformation
In the first great meme war, when the foot soldiers of 4chan took to anonymous message boards in a burn-it-down effort to send Donald Trump to the White House, Hillary Clinton had no idea what was crawling out of the depths of the web and replicating across the internet.
The ordinary nastiness shed come to expect from a lifetime in politics had warped into something much darker and more nihilistic, all fueled by misogyny, conspiracy theories, and other lies distributed to appear true. I didnt really know this was happening to me, she told Jeffrey Goldberg, The Atlantics editor in chief, at an event hosted by Emerson Collective at the Sundance Film Festival today. (Emerson owns a majority stake in The Atlantic.) We did not understand what was going on below the radar screen.
Now that Clinton gets it, shes horrifiedand shes specifically alarmed by what she views as Mark Zuckerbergs unwillingness to battle the spread of disinformation and propaganda on his own platform. There was the time, last spring, when a slowed-down video of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi caught fire online. The distorted speed, which made Pelosi appear as though she was slurring her words, seemed designed to make her appear cognitively impaired. Google took it off YouTube
so I contacted Facebook, Clinton said. I said, Why are you guys keeping this up? This is blatantly false. Your competitors have taken it down. And their response was, We think our users can make up their own minds.
Listening to Clinton, I was struck by how remarkably similar her account was to something Zuckerberg had once told me. Facts, Zuckerberg had suggested, are best derived from foraging many opinions, ideally from the billions of humans who use his publishing platform, so that each individual might cherry-pick what to believe. (Cherry-pick is my word, not his.) If journalisms mantra is Seek truth and report it, Facebooks might be Seek opinions and react to them. Its not about saying, Heres one view; heres the other side, Zuckerberg had said when Id asked him to reconcile the apparent contradiction between fact and opinion. You should decide where you want to be.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/01/hillary-clinton-mark-zuckerberg-is-trumpian-and-authoritarian/605485/
BigmanPigman
(51,611 posts)Sooooooo glad I never used his product.
Six117
(205 posts)NT
AZ8theist
(5,477 posts)I refuse to use Fascist Book and i urge everyone else to drop it as well. Our nation hangs in the balance right now.
Me.
(35,454 posts)Grokenstein
(5,725 posts)...right about Zuckerberg.
triron
(22,007 posts)Wounded Bear
(58,670 posts)Libertarians believe that no government restraints should be placed on any business or individual ever, with the possible exception of murder, though I'm pretty sure they don't care much about that either. Zuck is the ultimate "It's mine, don't fuck with me" kind of guy.
FreeState
(10,572 posts)Blue_true
(31,261 posts)The insinuation that you make due to some of his life choices is out of bounds.
SCVDem
(5,103 posts)Never have, never will.
Ask all the unemployed assholes who posted some shit!
Blue_true
(31,261 posts)Grokenstein
(5,725 posts)...but have never signed up for it or Facebook. Hell, I spend too much time on DU and TPM and the Internet in general as it is. (I've even refused to get a phone, because of all the people I've witnessed--coworkers in particular--who can't go a half-hour without plugging back into the Matrix.) ...And yeah, I don't think anybody wants to get Gillenbranded for life over a message posted in haste or anger or a selfie driven way beyond the borders of context and dumped to the wolves. I'll probably not be around for it, but politics twenty years hence are gonna be a hoot when people's lives are ruined over some post from early grade school.
SCVDem
(5,103 posts)Thinking of you, Al.
tavernier
(12,392 posts)as well. Maybe its because all of my friends on Facebook are Democrats and we make fun of him all the time.
I dont really understand the difference.
And yes, I do know that there are trolls paid by Russian money to influence voters. Im just saying that trashing politicians is not limited to one side. We do it too.
yaesu
(8,020 posts)PatrickforO
(14,577 posts)'parasite' when I refer to them?
Zuckerberg is a prime example. Why should we allow this man, little more than a maggot eating at the nearly-dead flesh of our republic, to have a giant tax cut when we don't have health care?
Zuckerberg, Koch, Adelsen, Mercer, the Waltons.
We don't need billionaires. And when we have the top 0.1% of the population having more wealth than the bottom 90%, we've got a problem that needs to be solved with a) confiscatory taxation designed to make billionaires into millionaires, and b) a regulatory structure that prevents them from further hurting the republic.
Billionaires are PARASITES.
SergeStorms
(19,204 posts)are directly responsible for the dumbing down of America, and the spread of lies and innuendo from foreign governments wanting to weaken or destroy our democracy. Fuck Facebook, Zuckerberg, and the high-horse he rode in on. All he cares about is money, and I do believe he's a closeted fascist.
UCmeNdc
(9,600 posts)DallasNE
(7,403 posts)It started when giant corporations like GE bought up the media companies. They immediately turned their news divisions into profit centers and that meant creating the news rather than following the news. One of the chief ways was to start chasing poll numbers and then fixation on creating a horse race because when you have a horse race you have more political advertising.
That also gave rise to the second wave and a new media company using sports to finance a news division that was in reality the propaganda arm of one political party. One that wasn't subject to the fairness doctrine or FCC regulation by being an unregulated cable company and Fox is born.
The third phase also was built on another advance in the technology field and that was the wild, wild west of the internet where Twitter, You Tube and Facebook could disseminate misinformation in a nanosecond. Having no regulation means the public is at the mercy of people like Mark Zuckerberg that green lights pure propaganda, not just from the political parties, but also from foreign sources like Russia backing one candidate over another while posing as a legitimate American source.
But, as we see here, the market will not self regulate. We need tools and that means content regulation and bringing back tools like the fairness doctrine that Reagan ended. A Democracy sorely needs accurate information rather than propaganda. That won't mean that people will vote their self interests because politicians will still pander to peoples prejudices in subtle ways but we really started to see the problems of disinformation in the 2000 exit polls where Fox viewers were the most uninformed voting group by far.