I feel the need to write the following article/opinion about what has been heard in recent days about how much social media and online media in particular have influenced or could influence the outcome of the US elections.
Obviously, where there's smoke, there's fire, but let's look at the issue from another perspective!
Propaganda is the direct presentation of a message in a specific way to serve specific purposes. Etymologically, propaganda means "the dissemination of a philosophy or opinion". Historically, the term has been used mostly within the political sphere and especially in reference to specific movements promoted by governments or political groups. The modus operandi of propaganda is similar to that of advertising. In fact, advertising can also be defined as propaganda in favor of a specific product. (Wikipedia)
Aristotle, a student of Plato, said that rhetoric “is not simply the success of persuasion, but the closest possible approximation to this success, to the extent that the circumstances allow.” Since antiquity, therefore, persuasion has not only been concerned with truth but also with the method, that is, the technique by which it is pursued. Propaganda is thus presented as a mixture of speech and technique, where speech, which could be characterized as the content of persuasion, can range from pure truth to absolute falsehood.
And without further ado, let's start the analysis of what is happening today. Information in the form of data travels at the speed of light. From the moment this article is published, it can be freely read and shared by anyone who owns a smartphone, computer, tablet, etc., anywhere in the world. The estimated number of smartphones is currently 2.6 billion and by 2020 in developed markets you expect it to exceed 6.1 billion. In short, by 2020 almost every person on the planet will own a device with direct access to the internet.
What does this mean?
This means that for a few euros, each of us can own a device that essentially gives you freedom of public voice and speech without any further cost!
What do I mean by that?
I mean the very simple thing, that apart from the cost of the device with which you will have access to the internet, which is up to you whether it will cost €100 or €800 for personal reasons of self-promotion and consumer pleasure, access and “voice” on the internet is now free and possible for everyone! Anyone can create as many accounts as they want on any social network (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram etc.) have almost free access from anywhere on the internet (and the last coffee shop now provides free connection) and express their opinion freely.
Hoax is news that aims to garner clicks and has no relation to reality. It is done for marketing reasons and is spread through Social (social networks) because clearly, it is much easier!
The way to achieve this is very easy! All you need to do is have the description start with the word “SHOCK” or something similar, and have the preview image be of sexual content, something not normal, or something that causes sensitivity.
What I don't want to do is judge the content of the news, I'm not in a position to know nor is there any scientific documentation for the above. So it's useless information that just makes me think, assume and not know. What I'm interested in doing and judging is the way in which this news can reach each of us's timeline without us having chosen to be informed by that particular news provider.
How does it work? In the following simple way.
Social networks or Social have as their operating basis the interaction of their users. You register normally, find all your acquaintances and add them to your contacts and start sharing things. Another function that you can do on a social network is to choose to receive updates from news providers. You can simply click (Like) on the page of any provider, have every news in your timeline immediately, that is, the moment it is published. This is not at all negative in my opinion, because it saves you from having to search and enter each website separately or have the applications of all the media.
But what is the problem with this particular way of providing information?
I may want to receive updates from everyone and be a member of countless opinion groups or discussion topics (technological, social, political, etc.).
The detail is that all these groups and news providers provide their publications “Public”! What does this mean? This means that Facebook specifically decided that, whatever is chosen to be published marked as “Public” is seen by everyone and if not, then there is sponsorship for dissemination (logical, with 2 billion users, everyone pays for advertising)! So far so good! Where is the detail? The detail is in the following patent! When one of my contacts interacts with something that has been published marked as “Public”, it will appear on my timeline and in addition on the timelines of all the contacts of that specific contact!
In short, even if you don't choose to be informed by a particular entity, if a contact interacts with the topics of that particular entity, they will appear in your timeline! Below are 3 examples from my timeline.
I have not chosen to see updates on any of the above pages, yet the medium suggests that I view them or purchase the specific product.
I also don't know the contact in the second image, but the medium suggests that we become friends. The reason it does this is clearly for greater interaction and impact of the ads and not to keep in touch with friends! The slogan "let's stay in touch" is Facebook's socially ethical position, someone could even characterize it as propaganda.
How can the above method of transmitting information affect an election result?
The above method is nothing more than an algorithm that chooses to publish suggested content on the timelines of interacting contacts. The algorithm in no way chooses what to publish, it simply chooses where to publish it and with what frequency (sponsored content). Facebook only censors nudity and sexually explicit content. If someone simply wants to advertise a product, or share “publicly” some news, the algorithm will simply help.
Here we come to a disagreement with the early statement of the CEO of Facebook that 99% of the news on Facebook is true. There is currently no criterion in publications on Facebook whether a publication is true or not. I can write and publish whatever I want, pay sponsorship to anything and by the evening they will be discussing it on the news.
Is there an alibi for this tactic?
For me, there is a small alibi. That the person is responsible for what they share and what they say publicly and online. No one is stopping me from walking naked on the street, but someone who adheres to the typical rules of morality will not do it unless there is a pathological reason. I can also go to any cafe and publicly express my opinion about anything regardless of whether it bothers or not, it is not the fault of the cafe that exists and gives me this opportunity, nor is the bartender obliged to come and throw me out. It is up to everyone (they call it education specifically) to filter the news, cross-check it (googlit) and see if they are interested or not or at least, how likely it is that something like this is true. In short, the medium is not to blame for everything, the user has some responsibility.
Also, if you think that one of your contacts is getting annoying with their posts or interactions, there is a less radical solution than deleting them. It's called "Unfollow" and it's done in the following simple way:
There are three options,
- to show posts from that contact first.
- Default, meaning they appear in the normal flow.
- and not appear at all
Also, if your contacts are part of a specific niche, say Windows enthusiasts and are members of groups that praise Windows, it makes sense that your timeline will be filled with relevant posts. The same goes for if your contacts are members of various political or religious groups. Facebook doesn't choose what you see, in fact, you indirectly choose it!
In conclusion, I find it hard to believe that Facebook directly influenced the election result in the US. If the majority of Trump voters bombarded Facebook with posts and managed to change the minds of Clinton voters, Clinton must wonder which of her voters! Did they exploit Facebook's interaction policy so well? And did they know that the average American changes his mind so easily? Or is there something deeper that his analysis does not concern a technological media outlet?
It's up to you to judge!
