Posted on Mar 18, 2018
Facebook's recurring nightmare: Helping muddy up elections
4.51K
43
30
11
11
0
Ya can’t fix stupid. As long as ‘low information’ voters persist, ways will be found to exploit them.
Put any kinds of regulations you want anywhere you want. Ways will be found.
Ya can’t fix stupid...
Put any kinds of regulations you want anywhere you want. Ways will be found.
Ya can’t fix stupid...
Facebook's recurring nightmare: Helping muddy up elections
Posted from apnews.com
Elections
Voting
Facebook
Media
Regulation
Posted 6 y ago
Responses: 8
5
5
0
The worst part about this is it wasn't just facebook, it was twitter, et.al. The hyperpartisans have been feeding their echo chamber with enough CO2 to destroy the world and they don't even realize they've been used. Dopamine is their drug of choice and the social media echo chamber is their intravenous fix; must have more likes, must have more friends, must virtue signal that person to be liked...
(5)
(0)
3
3
0
It is too bad many voters stay on social media most of the time and get their "news" from there. Not only that, they don't even read articles posted--they just go with the crazy memes--most of which aren't even true. I have reported inappropriate ones, and fake friend requests, but they really don't care about policing it. I have some family and friends in this category, too, and have had to just unfollow them. I don't know how we fix that, but it's a sad state of affairs. We have almost completed the dumbing down of America.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
One can't have freedom of speech on one hand, and then limit speech on the other hand. People have been trying to influence others from the time of the first town cryer, Facebook is no different. There are a lot of stupid people out there... crazy also.
(3)
(0)
SPC Kevin Ford
SFC (Join to see) The problem isn't that people are speaking, it's that they are doing so without accountability. If all those Facebook post had a message at the bottom like "Paid for by the government of Russia" like normal political content, this would never have been a problem. The problem is that the speech is being represented as something other than it is, coming not from individuals as represented, but groups operating with an agenda they don't want to reveal to the audience.
There is a reason why such election content must declare the source from a legal perspective and as I said had the source been honest and attributed who they were it wouldn't be a problem. I used to run a PAC and we sure as heck couldn't legally put out messages for or against a position or candidate without attribution.
There is a reason why such election content must declare the source from a legal perspective and as I said had the source been honest and attributed who they were it wouldn't be a problem. I used to run a PAC and we sure as heck couldn't legally put out messages for or against a position or candidate without attribution.
(2)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
Was Patrick Henry 100% honest in his speaking for independence? :) I think not. My point is from the beginning of time people have been stretching (lying) the truth to persuade others; it's no different now. If people can't tell the difference between truth and fiction on Facebook (LOL, it's all fiction) then we already lost our nation. I understand some get their news from Facebook... this is where lynch mobs are made. People need to realize that. There is no truth police for Facebook, or for that matter our currrent news outlets. I don't believe anyone without them proving it to me 100%.
(1)
(0)
SSgt Christopher Brose
SPC Kevin Ford - Part of this whole interesting saga involving "the Russians" is exactly who the hell the Russians in question are. I don't mind having a label like "Paid for by the government of Russia" if they actually know that it was actually paid for by the government of Russia. If they're ASSUMING it was the government of Russia and not just some Russian pranksters (or Chinese government and/or pranksters pretending to be Russians), then posting such a label is a horrendous disservice.
The existence of an agenda behind certain speech is kinda immaterial. A lot of speech in this country, including a whole lot of what is put out by media, has an agenda behind it. That might be a problem, but the way to counter that problem is with more speech, not less of it. Speech should be judged on its content, not on who said it.
The existence of an agenda behind certain speech is kinda immaterial. A lot of speech in this country, including a whole lot of what is put out by media, has an agenda behind it. That might be a problem, but the way to counter that problem is with more speech, not less of it. Speech should be judged on its content, not on who said it.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google