1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

Facebook leaves no doubt: It's the right wing's social network now - Part Two

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by Deckard, Oct 31, 2019.

  1. Deckard

    Deckard Blade Runner
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2002
    Messages:
    50,520
    Likes Received:
    23,603
    Part Two:

    So, why is this all happening now? Ever since a bad faith reading of a 2016 Gizmodo report convinced the right that Facebook was biased against them, the social media giant has gone out of its way to fix that perception. The company shut down the product that was accused of being biased: a human-curated Trending Topics feature. This time around with the very similar News tab, the company has partnered with explicitly right-wing outlets.

    Conservative news content, by the way, already owns Facebook. Fox News, Breitbart, and The Daily Caller regularly top the list of the most shared news content on the site.



    Recent stories recount Mark Zuckerberg’s private meetings and dinners with conservative figures, including Tucker Carlson and Sen. Lindsay Graham. Attempts have been made to find an individual on the other end of the aisle having a meal with the Facebook CEO. They have come up empty.

    The push for many of these decisions, according to another report by Popular Information, comes from top executives — Vice President for Global Public Policy Joel Kaplan, Vice President for U.S. Public Policy Kevin Martin, and Public Policy Director for Global Elections Katie Harbath — with a history of working in right-wing politics.

    Kaplan was a former deputy chief of staff in the George W. Bush administration who joined Facebook in 2011. He's probably most known for appearing behind then-Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh at his hearing last year as a show of support amidst sexual harassment allegations. Kaplan threw Kavanaugh a party once he was confirmed.

    Martin was appointed to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) by George W. Bush in 2001 and then promoted to FCC chairman in 2005. During his time as commission chair, he pushed to deregulate the telecommunications industry.

    Harbath worked for Rudy Giuliani's 2008 presidential campaign and then as chief digital strategist for the Republican National Committee. She continued her political career while working at Facebook, acting as a Virginia Republican Convention delegate.

    A generous explanation is that Facebook has dangerously overcorrected for the perceived conservative bias. Or maybe the company is just trying to please its growing and increasingly engaged user base of older conservatives.

    But, Facebook’s former chief security officer, Alex Stamos, doesn’t see it that way.



    In a series of tweets, Stamos makes the case that Facebook saw Democrats calling to break up Facebook while Republicans simply demanded special treatment, so the company made a calculated decision to curry favor with conservatives.

    Perhaps no better visual of this was at that same hearing where Rep. Ocasio-Cortez and other House Democrats pilloried Zuckerberg. Republicans previously took advantage of these congressional hearings to criticize Facebook, Google, Twitter, and other tech executives for perceived bias against conservatives. This time around, however, Republican lawmakers did something completely different. They used the 6-hour hearing to commend Mark Zuckerberg for being a good capitalist and defender of free speech.

    "There's another gentleman in this town that I think you and he share a lot together and that's President Trump," said Rep. Barry Loudermilk. "You're both very successful businessmen, you're both capitalist, you're both billionaires."

    "You're both challenging the status quo," he continued.

    Rep. Andy Barr of Kentucky thanked Zuckerberg and told him not to be "bullied by politicians that want to censor politically incorrect speech.”

    People can attempt to defend Facebook’s prior bad decisions. Cambridge Analytica breaking Facebook’s policies to steal user data to benefit the Trump campaign? Tech companies have issues with third-party firms all the time. Data breaches will happen! Who could have prepared for foreign influence campaigns to sow discord in elections? Facebook is addressing these issues now!

    However, it’s impossible to give Facebook the benefit of the doubt over its recent choices. Zuckerbeg appears to have made calculated decisions and, with that, the transformation of Facebook is complete. The right wing has its own social network now.

    https://mashable.com/article/facebook-right-wing-social-network/


    Thoughts?
     
  2. jiggyfly

    jiggyfly Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2015
    Messages:
    10,990
    Likes Received:
    9,535
    Is the reason those are the top 10 sites are because facebook is tipping the scale or do a preponderance of facebook users read those type of sites?
     
  3. KingCheetah

    KingCheetah Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2002
    Messages:
    46,422
    Likes Received:
    30,908
    Garbage in... Garbage out.
     
    B-Bob likes this.
  4. Deckard

    Deckard Blade Runner
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2002
    Messages:
    50,520
    Likes Received:
    23,603
    Check my reply to you in Part One. It irritates me that articles a little bit longer that what @Clutch allows in this forum have to be broken up. Such is life, I guess, in D&D.
     
  5. jiggyfly

    jiggyfly Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2015
    Messages:
    10,990
    Likes Received:
    9,535
    I did and it does not really answer my question.

    You just gave your opinion.
     
  6. pgabriel

    pgabriel Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    40,209
    Likes Received:
    2,091
    I dont have a reason for bumping this thread other than people who say they are dropping Facebook are missing out. I understand the data issues and this issue but at the end of the day Facebook works exactly as it was intended. I communicate with people i went to school with that i would never hear from.

    One of my issues with the reporting on the collusion story is that the vast majority of Americans vote the same way every election. On the emails for instance the issue behind them remains the same negatives that have haunted Mrs Clinton since the nineties

    Im not bothered by Facebook selling my data because its free. Nobody is gonna sell me something i dont want and i wont be influenced to change my vote from a false story on some off brand web site
     
    snowconeman22 likes this.
  7. FranchiseBlade

    FranchiseBlade Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Messages:
    42,962
    Likes Received:
    10,630
    It isn't about changing votes as has been pointed out to you before. It is about people either not voting at all or leaving the presidential ballot blank (voting a protest vote). If people who left the presidential ballot blank in Michigan had voted for the Democrat, Trump would have lost.

    So if false stories get people convinced all politicians are equally as corrupt or that neither candidate is worth voting for, it can change the result. Nobody has to vote for a different candidate for it to change the result of the election.
     
  8. Buck Turgidson

    Buck Turgidson Mineshaft Enthusiast

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2002
    Messages:
    56,569
    Likes Received:
    43,310
    So you're saying that, despite all historical evidence to the contrary, advertising/propaganda doesn't work because it doesn't work on you?
     
  9. Astrodome

    Astrodome Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2015
    Messages:
    6,751
    Likes Received:
    6,983
    Clutchfans.net makes up for it.
     
    B-Bob and Nook like this.
  10. Buck Turgidson

    Buck Turgidson Mineshaft Enthusiast

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2002
    Messages:
    56,569
    Likes Received:
    43,310
    Is it more attuned to education level and/or age or sports team fandom?
     
  11. pgabriel

    pgabriel Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    40,209
    Likes Received:
    2,091

    As far as advertising is concerned i dont have a problem with Facebook selling my data is more of the point. Never said anything is wrong with advertising. Facebook is free to.me and its valuable to me, it has to make money to continue.
     
  12. pgabriel

    pgabriel Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    40,209
    Likes Received:
    2,091

    Can you provide a source of this evidence? I would like a clearer explanation of what you're saying
     
  13. FranchiseBlade

    FranchiseBlade Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Messages:
    42,962
    Likes Received:
    10,630
  14. pgabriel

    pgabriel Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    40,209
    Likes Received:
    2,091
  15. FranchiseBlade

    FranchiseBlade Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Messages:
    42,962
    Likes Received:
    10,630
    Wait... Are you doubting that negative ads 'news' stories about a candidate depress turnout or make voters less likely to vote for that candidate?
     
  16. pgabriel

    pgabriel Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    40,209
    Likes Received:
    2,091
    You said you had proof.

    Why cant they just not like the candidate? What is your proof it had to do with interference? Thats your claim that you say there is proof of

    This article isnt about inteference. Its not about people not showing up to vote. Its about people not liking either candidate

    All you have said is your proof is people didn't vote for her.
     
    #16 pgabriel, Nov 5, 2019
    Last edited: Nov 5, 2019
  17. FranchiseBlade

    FranchiseBlade Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Messages:
    42,962
    Likes Received:
    10,630
    First of all, I didn't say I had proof of jackshit. You asked for a link and I gave it to you. I thought you were talking about the increased numbers of people not voting for President which is what I mentioned.

    My claim was that ads and stories don't have to make voters change their votes. They only had to leave the ballot blank or stay at home to change the outcome. I pointed out the increase in people leaving the ballot blanks and the difference it would have made in those states.

    I showed proof of that claim. Then you started asking if negative ads and stories were responsible for that. So that is a separate issue that you brought up.

    But here is a snippet of a report from Brookings that shows exactly that.

    https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-alienated-american-voter-are-the-news-media-to-blame/
     
  18. pgabriel

    pgabriel Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    40,209
    Likes Received:
    2,091
    You responded to a post about collusion. You're arguing semantics. Whether they didn't vote or voted for Trump the article doesn't talk about negative ads.

    I dont know what you are trying to prove, that no one can run negative campaign ads
     
  19. FranchiseBlade

    FranchiseBlade Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Messages:
    42,962
    Likes Received:
    10,630
    I'm trying to prove that your statement that voters don't change who they for isn't really necessary to change the outcome of an election. Your basic premise doesn't prove anything because nobody has to change their mind and vote for the opposite candidate to change the outcome of an election.

    I posted an article citing how many people voted for the under ballot but didn't vote for President and how that was an increase over other elections. The article mentions that the number of ballots without presidential votes could have swung the election in crucial states.

    I posted a link and excerpt from the report that shows the effect of negative stories and ads on voter turnout.

    You are constructing strawmen when you say things like that I'm trying to say nobody can run negative campaign ads.

    I will make this very simple for you.

    I have posted evidence that shows

    1. No voter has to switch their votes from one candidate to another in order to change the outcome of an election.
    2. Negative news stories and ads affect the turnout in elections.
    3. The same election when we were flooded with fake negative stories and ads saw an increase in voters only voting for the under-ballot.

    You are free to go back and read the articles. The bottom line is that your premise that people don't change or switch their votes to a different candidate is pointless and irrelevant when discussing the issue of dishonest and falsely negative stories and ads.

    I don't know how to make it any clearer to you. Either you get it or you don't.
     
  20. pgabriel

    pgabriel Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    40,209
    Likes Received:
    2,091
    Where have you proven people not voting was a result of negative ads?

    Were negative ads new to the 2016 election?

    Russians didn't make people change votes or not vote.

    On not voting they didn't like their options
     
    #20 pgabriel, Nov 5, 2019
    Last edited: Nov 5, 2019

Share This Page

  • About ClutchFans

    Since 1996, ClutchFans has been loud and proud covering the Houston Rockets, helping set an industry standard for team fan sites. The forums have been a home for Houston sports fans as well as basketball fanatics around the globe.

  • Support ClutchFans!

    If you find that ClutchFans is a valuable resource for you, please consider becoming a Supporting Member. Supporting Members can upload photos and attachments directly to their posts, customize their user title and more. Gold Supporters see zero ads!


    Upgrade Now