Before I make a statement I
want to make, I want to stress that my statement is no reflection on Harvard v.
Boston University, or men v. women, or anything else.
Not at all!
My statement is just a fact: during the
hearing before the House financial Services Committee on October 23d, Mark
Zuckerberg presented more intelligent arguments than White House Representative
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez presented her questions or statement.
And anyone who is familiar
with my blog, knows that I am not a big fan of both – Facebook and Mark. My main page
offers some insights on what I think about them:
But, as the saying goes,
every rule has an exception.
* When both artificial intelligence and human intelligence fail – call it Facebook!
* The Beginning of The End of The Chan-Zuckerberg Initiative
* A word of advice to Mark Zuckerberg: “You are not Steve Jobs, and that’s a good thing.”
* To Dr. Priscilla Chan (and everyone who is hungry): food for thoughts.
In the hearing Mark was smarter than many of the people who asked him questions.
And that is a sad realization.
It brings back to my memory
an old anecdote.
A little boy is looking through
a keyhole at this parents making love. After watching for a while, he turns
away, sighs, and quietly says to himself: “And those are the people who forbid
me to pick up my nose”.
This hearing, on the top of
everything else happening on the Capitol Hill, makes me to sigh and quietly say
to myself: “And those are the people who define my life”.
Just another proof of how
deeply American elite has degraded over the last thirty years (e.g. The Degradation of The White Male American Elite;
BTW: one of the reason Why
Americans are Starting To Lose the World Race for Prosperity?).
Let’s start from defining
(giving a definition to) what Facebook is.
That is what lawmakers should
have done years ago. But they didn’t. So, at least for the hearing, they should
have set a provisional definition. The simplest one would be making Facebook a
media platform. Now, we would need a legal definition of a “media platform”,
but that is also absent (thank you – lawmakers!).
There is a consensus,
however, that a media platform is “a company or technology that enables communication and distribution
of information”, as opposed to a publisher that “qurates and distributes the content” (quotes
are from this link).
Neither a platform nor a publisher
creates content they enable or qurate – they are not the authors of that
content. Are they responsible for the quality of the content?
The general answer is – NO.
The authors are responsible for that.
Of course, as the saying
goes, every rule has an exception. Platforms and publishers should ignore,
reject or eliminate some specific content that is forbidden by law; for
example, a hate speech. But that’s that. They do not have to do anything else.
They could. They just don’t
have to.
A publisher has a right to
select or not to select a content to be published. No one can force a publisher
to publish a book, for example, or a song, or a movie, etc.
A platform is a private
enterprise, and has a right to establish its own rules regarding the quality of
the content. For example – no rules (beyond required by the law).
The right to free speech protects
all – authors, publishers, platforms – from being censored (within the limits
established by the law).
That is exactly what Mark
said.
That is exactly what
Alexandria fails to understand.
Her questions meant to tell
us that Mark is a businessman who defends his business (what a revelation!). And
for that, for the money – she implied – he had thrown the American Democracy
under the bus – figuratively speaking.
“Mr. Zuckerberg! We want to destroy your company! But don't you dare to talk to any Republican! Don't you dare to support anyone but Democrats!”
Alexandria, your (or your advisers') knowledge of ... whatever it is - is deep, indeed.
“Facebook helped Trump to get elected by placing money above democracy and truth!” – that seems to be the common sentiment.
Alexandria, your (or your advisers') knowledge of ... whatever it is - is deep, indeed.
“Facebook helped Trump to get elected by placing money above democracy and truth!” – that seems to be the common sentiment.
First – that’s a BS (beyond
sensemaking), a baloney, uninformed opinion (i.e. an unintentionally wrong
statement), or, maybe even a lie (i.e. a deliberately wrong statement).
Anyone who believes that
without Facebook everything would go differently in 2016, including the outcome
of the election, is delusional (or a liar). The effect Facebook had on voters
was dismal. It was not zero, but it was insignificant (BTW: the same is true
for Brexit). The number of people who were moved by Facebook adds is (a) insignificant,
and (b) should be relatively the same for both sides – on the left and on the
right, so the effects basically neutralized each other. “Cambridge Analytica” didn’t
do something so new and inventive that no one could predict or recognize it.
And there is no law against targeted advertising. It does not matter if anyone
thinks that it was wrong to do. Maybe. But it was not against any laws, besides
privacy issues, which is irrelevant for this discussion. And if it was not against
any laws - whom should lawmakers blame for that?
Yes, Alexandria, Facebook uses an algorithm to estimate who is the most susceptible to what adds to push those adds. But – who doesn't? This is how all advertisement and marketing agencies make money. Of course, if you do not like this – adopt a law that forbids pushing any political adds – make them random. Don't like this idea? You want your adds would not be restricted, because they are truthful. Only untruthful adds have to be blocked – right? Well, with the same result you can dream that all people would be educated, honest and nice.
There is a way, however, to minimize the impact of misleading advertisement, but you would need to wait for a couple of more paragraphs to learn that way.
There is also a middle-ground solution. Since a Facebook's algorithm calculates which add will be the best fit for a given person, it also calculates which add will be the worst, the opposite of the best. Adopt a law that would force Facebook – and ALL advertisers – presenting adds in pairs – the one that is the best fit and the other one that is the opposite. Simple!
Social media is new media, but it is just one of many media. All major countries have been using media to influence politics in other countries. Facebook is not the first in this business. The question is – who does a better job? And – why?
In 2016 Russians outplayed the U.S. intelligence services. And whose fault is that?
Yes, Alexandria, Facebook uses an algorithm to estimate who is the most susceptible to what adds to push those adds. But – who doesn't? This is how all advertisement and marketing agencies make money. Of course, if you do not like this – adopt a law that forbids pushing any political adds – make them random. Don't like this idea? You want your adds would not be restricted, because they are truthful. Only untruthful adds have to be blocked – right? Well, with the same result you can dream that all people would be educated, honest and nice.
There is a way, however, to minimize the impact of misleading advertisement, but you would need to wait for a couple of more paragraphs to learn that way.
There is also a middle-ground solution. Since a Facebook's algorithm calculates which add will be the best fit for a given person, it also calculates which add will be the worst, the opposite of the best. Adopt a law that would force Facebook – and ALL advertisers – presenting adds in pairs – the one that is the best fit and the other one that is the opposite. Simple!
Social media is new media, but it is just one of many media. All major countries have been using media to influence politics in other countries. Facebook is not the first in this business. The question is – who does a better job? And – why?
In 2016 Russians outplayed the U.S. intelligence services. And whose fault is that?
Why Did Russian Cyber Forces Beat their U.S. Adversaries in 2016?
Whose fault is that millions of Americans are susceptible to trivial lies, cannot separate truth from fiction, ignorant about so many scientific facts? Despite billions of dollars spent on “reforming” education (Where did all that money go? Definitely, Education Reform Needs a New Paradigm).
Definitely not Facebook’s.
Defending democracy is NOT Facebook’s
responsivity, and we have to thank Mark for doing what he’s already doing to
keep the content clearer – he does NOT have to do it.
Of course, lawmakers could
adopt a law that would force Facebook to do … - not sure exactly what energetic
Alexandria would like to make Facebook to do, but let’s assume – it happened,
the law is adopted.
Why just Facebook?
How about TV shows (FOX),
podcasts, papers (“yellow press”), streaming media (Infowars), radio – you name
it?
Making Facebook a scapegoat may help gain popularity (following Trump, Alexandria?) but it has nothing to do
with the roots of the problem.
Facebook helped to realize
that there is an issue of media platforms enabling, or allowing, or even
promoting content that is basically deliberately designed lies.
This is the issue – what do
to with such a content?
What to do with deliberately designed lies in the
media?
But this question is evidently
too difficult for Alexandria to think of, or to ask (this is one more of my
shots at her advisers – who are populistic
illiterates in economics and politics).
What Is Wrong With Socialism. Really
The dilemma is obvious, Alexandria, – how to preserve free speech but not to install censorship?
It seems like the most popular
approach is to force medial platforms (let’s start from Facebook! we hate Facebook!
Break Facebook!) – to self-censor themselves.
Will it work?
Of course not.
Self- censorship, or in general
self-policing will never work. That is why government needs a police, and a
law, and jails, and prisons, and courts.
Then – what?
Let’s break Facebook apart.
And instead of worrying about
one company with relatively friendly management, let’s worry about many
companies with who knows what management.
Smart? (Ms. Elizabeth Warren?)
Then – what?
Well, look at the legal
system – it tells us what could be done. For the first draft, just take all
that structure and add to each element one word – media.
“Media police”, “media arbitrage”,
“media court” – independent structures where professional factcheckers make a
conclusion on the content and advise platforms to mark that content as
inappropriate, misleading, 68 % fictional, PG-L (people guidance-lies), etc., or to remove it. Of course, the authors could appeal that marking
or the removal. Etc., etc. – anyone who is familiar with the legal system (say –
a lawmaker) should get my drift.
No? Ask me for details.
Could it be done?
Yes.
How much would it cost?
Who talks about money when democracy is at stake?
Dr. Valentin Voroshilov
Could it be done?
Yes.
How much would it cost?
Who talks about money when democracy is at stake?
Dr. Valentin Voroshilov
P.S. If reading this piece makes you think that I sympathize Republicans:
1. check your logic
2. check these posts
