Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Facebook Social Networks

Former Mentor Says Mark Zuckerberg Intoxicated by Power, Calls Disinformation 'A National Security Issue' (msnbc.com) 165

MSNBC's Ali Velshi interviewed Mark Zuckerberg mentor (and early investor) Roger McNamee for a special report on "the disinformation epidemic."

McNamee — also the author of Zucked: Waking Up to the Facebook Catastrophe — says Zuckerberg is too focused on "imposing his vision" to acknowledge the website's threat to national security, adding "It's about power." Ali Velshi: The fact that rumor, innuendo, conspiracies, outright lies are amplified by social media is no accident. That is a feature built into platforms like Twitter and Facebook. It is part of their business model. Long before the election of 2016, Facebook knew all of this to be true, but it followed a familiar pattern of responses. It denied that was a problem. When it acknowledged the problem, it treated it as a public relations issue, not as a core business issue. It offered up half-baked solutions that changed nothing, and it fought off attempts to regulate it. Because what Facebook has created is immensely profitable...

Roger McNamee says he warned Mark Zuckerberg of the immense problems that Facebook's business model could unleash...

Roger McNamee: The company essentially believes that it is sovereign, the equivalent of another nation. It has nearly twice as many monthly active users as there are people in China. And so Mark Zuckerberg very much has the view that no one can tell him what to do... Facebook's own research says that 64% of the time that a person joins an extremist network on Facebook, it is because Facebook has recommended that they do so...

People sit there and assume it's about money, and I think money is secondary. I really think it's about power. I think Mark Zuckerberg has a vision that connecting all the people in the world on one network — his network — is the best thing any human being can do. And in his notion it has to do with efficiency, it has to do with scale, it has to do with imposing his vision on it.

And that kind of power is intoxicating. Remember, between when the company went public and 2018, the company got very little pushback — in fact what it really got was tons of love from investors and journalists and the like. And they were in their own filter bubble and started to believe their own press and their own point of view about what was going on. And I just think they're at this point now where they are just disconnected, there's really no sensitivity, no understanding that they might have a responsibility to society.

And at this point, with the election coming so closely, this has become a national security issue, because effectively the platform can be used by anybody. These advertising tools can be used by campaigns, they can be used by foreign governments, they can be used by provocateurs, people who would like to make trouble. That happens every single day, and from Facebook's point of view, that's just business as usual.

They want to hide behind the first amendment. They want to say this is about freedom of speech. But amplification is not freedom of speech. Amplification is a business choice for profit.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Former Mentor Says Mark Zuckerberg Intoxicated by Power, Calls Disinformation 'A National Security Issue'

Comments Filter:
  • by Nrrqshrr ( 1879148 ) on Sunday September 06, 2020 @06:42PM (#60480484)
    "The company essentially believes that it is sovereign, the equivalent of another nation." Are they wrong, though? Each of the FAANG companies is already bigger than many third world countries. If Jeffy B were to walk up to one of these country's governments and propose to start a branch there, with the prospect of employing millions both directly or indirectly, in exchange for a couple of law changes, which government would dare refuse?
    • Re:Well.. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by 1s44c ( 552956 ) on Sunday September 06, 2020 @06:59PM (#60480514)

      India gave Amazon a really hard time. Amazon got law changes there, but against them to protect local businesses from competition.

      • But Twitter gets a ducking free pass everywhere. I wonder why?
        • But Twitter gets a ducking free pass everywhere. I wonder why?

          Because it is a small mostly irrelevant company, not competing with existing businesses. Facebook was also mostly ignored until it started affecting politics and causing spontanious lynching of innocent people. Sure Twitter could do the same, but no body outside the US would care, as nobody outside the US uses Twitter.

  • by rmdingler ( 1955220 ) on Sunday September 06, 2020 @06:48PM (#60480496) Journal

    Sigh... as if corporate control of our lives through undue influence in the elections of our governors is a new concept.

    It's simply morphed from the consolidation of newspapers, radio, and tv stations to controlling hearts and minds from the pulpit of a social media gigantour.

    Meet the new boss, same the old boss.

    • by DogDude ( 805747 ) on Sunday September 06, 2020 @10:56PM (#60480960)
      It's not the same. Actual journalists fought tooth and nail to report things accurately. Newspapers used to be respected gatekeepers of information. Now anybody on the planet with a credit card can shit any random message they want all over the world. And, the only "newspaper" we have now is run 100% by the ad department, and doesn't have a single journalist working for it.
      • by tinkerton ( 199273 ) on Monday September 07, 2020 @02:54AM (#60481312)

        That is an important part of the story. The quality of mainstream reporting has been declining . Social media have become a competitor for the mainstream. It becomes harder to tell lies in the newspaper and get away with it.

        There are an awful lot of people there who run things and don't even have any concept of truth. They think in terms of 'does it matter to me, does my organization benefit'.There is a lot of bullshit on facebook but why would anyone care? What is it to them? Facebook is about harvesting data and getting people addicted. Facebook also has to get along with important people who are interested in controlling narratives. These want to suppress narratives which are against their interests and promote those in their interests. They will often want to suppress narratives which are actually right but go against what is in the newspapers. Or which are wrong and go against the official story. Since there is so much bullshit on social media you can always say it is really about that but that is just the cover.

        I doubt if anyone is interested in the official 'Facebook sowing discontent' story. It may be the mainstream which is sowing content most.

      • "Actual journalism" died when the regulations on media ownership went away. What we have now is different sources of biased, paid-for information fighting for supremacy and profits therefrom.
    • it is the difference between pre-wwI weapons and wwI weapons.

      facebook takes everything that is powerful about previous forms of media, but industrializes it on a mass scale.

      facebook collects thousands of points of data on every person using it.

      it sells this information to third parties, if not directly, then it sells influence gained by this data through its advertising sales program.

      this means that they have gone beyond the level of influence by newspapers, radio, and tv stations. none of those former medi

      • Social media, spearheaded by the Facebook, discovered how little people would be willing to take in trade for their privacy.

        Interconnectivity and ephemeral inclusion are the new magic beans.

    • by tiqui ( 1024021 ) on Monday September 07, 2020 @01:28AM (#60481196)

      The same Mark Zuckerberg who has been setting policies at Facebook to supposedly protect our elections has recently pumped a quarter billion dollars into the "battleground" state of Wisconsin on the side of Democrat-aligned orgs dedicated to voter turnout. He's not helping the GOP with voter turnout, just the Dems. We're all supposed to be concerned by tens of thousands of dollars in 2016 Facebook and Google ads (many of which were in Russian and would not have influenced any Americans)...

      Russians have tried to meddle in EVERY American election since shortly after the Russian Revolution a century ago. Democrat hero Senator Ted "the Lion of the Senate" Kennedy even directly appealed to them in a letter in 1984 for help defeating president Reagan. Billionaire globalist tech sociopaths interfering in elections is a NEW phenomenon and on an entirely different level - most Americans were wary of Russia, but most are completely trusting of the tech titans, most of who are rather openly left wing. Indeed, many of them are rather tight with various Chinese interests and staff their companies with large numbers of non-US-citizens even as they affect American politics.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        Democrat hero Senator Ted "the Lion of the Senate" Kennedy even directly appealed to them in a letter in 1984 for help defeating president Reagan.

        Trump asked them to hack the DNC and release it to defeat Hillary. The DNC was hacked and the data released. Chirps from the GOP.

    • You are right of course. The difference is now that foreign powers can use national budgets to push their interests invisably on internet platforms like Facebook. It got far worse.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 07, 2020 @09:19AM (#60481878)

      No, I think you're missing the point here.

      The problem is that Facebook actively tries to recruit the general public into extremist groups; I've seen them touted to me myself despite the fact I have very little on my profile and have never posted anything that could remotely imply an interest in that. When I've experimented to see how seriously they take their own policies and reported said pages they refuse to act no matter how much you push and how far down their complaints rabbit hole you go.

      The fact is that the mainstream media for all their flaws and partisanship certainly never directed people to join the far right or Islamic state like Facebook does because they knew if they did people would stop buying their paper and outlets would stop stocking it. Facebook continues to do this because there's no alternative; stupidly it was allowed to buy Instagram and ISPs would face merry hell if they "refused to stock" Facebook by blocking it.

      This is why you have an army of middle-aged stay at home mom types believing the anti-vaxxer rhetoric, because if Facebook pushes those people towards an anti-vaxxer group before you know it that bored innocent middle aged mom is suddenly falling down a rabbit hole of promises of secret knowledge; they become an extremist, and Facebook gets shit loads of money because mom, who was just looking at the latest baby pics for 5 minutes every week, is now a 4 hour a day anti-vaccine trolling extremist.

      So this isn't simply about newspapers pushing partisan agendas, it's about Facebook radicalising people into extreme views for profit. It's creating far right terrorists, Islamic terrorists, anti-vaxxers, conspiracy theorists and so on for profit and creating fake policies to pretend that's not the case. That's significantly worse than what the mainstream media has ever done.

      Mark Zuckerberg is the Abu Hamza of the 2010s and 2020s, and if he thinks he's sovereign then well, we should treat him like we did sovereign nations that supported extremism in the 00s. Maybe it's time to hold him accountable for the terrorism he's signing people up to for money if that's what he wants?

  • Big media and news is running a highly polished disinformation operation. Pot meet kettle.

    The examples of propaganda on all the big news outlets are abundant and readily available. These are the people and organizations that have perpetrated crimes against humanity in the form of shutdowns, mass sensorship, deplatforming, cancel culture, big brother orthodoxy impersonating medical science. Now they're growing a tantrum because they can't have a complete monopoly on your mind. These are the authoritarians
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by 1s44c ( 552956 )

      If the majority disagrees with your beliefs it could be because of a global conspiracy against you. Or just maybe it's worth considering the possibility that you have been misinformed.

      • by OMBad ( 6965950 )
        MSNBC literally has about 1 million viewers in good day. More people watch cat videos every minute than that. If you want to play the "majority" card then you shouldn't talk about MSNBC.
      • by Ichijo ( 607641 )

        The two wolves and the sheep voted and the majority agrees with you!

      • If the majority disagrees with your beliefs it could be because of a global conspiracy against you. Or just maybe it's worth considering the possibility that you have been misinformed

        So you're saying the global conspiracy has finally misinformed absolutely everyone else?!? See -- I KNEW I was right about that!!

        Me being wrong is just too unbelievable.

      • It is a very common idea that if many people think the same thing it is either right or a conspiracy. It is wrong but many believe it so it must be that there is a conspiracy behind it to make everyone believe it.

  • Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Sunday September 06, 2020 @07:16PM (#60480560)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      You can see the violence escalating with both sides being afraid of the other. We now have two incidents of protesters getting shot, and in both cases the shooters are claiming self defence. Both sides see it as a far for their culture and their very survival.

      Of course anyone who benefits from this will keep stirring it up. Russia, clickbait "news" sites, politicians looking to get re-elected, accelerationists, all kinds of people.

  • Isn't the point of the first amendment to protect expression of ideas that the government doesn't approve of? Facebook itself makes very few statements. It is 'the people' who are using Facebook to express themselves.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by noodler ( 724788 )

      It is 'the people' who are using Facebook to express themselves.

      How is it 'the people' when you can buy targeted propaganda campaigns on social media?

      As far as i know 'the people' mostly consume information on platforms like facebook. Even trump re-tweets misinformation produced by external trolls. There are a lot of other factions besides 'the people' who inject the consumables into these platforms and 'the people' are yumming it up like it was christmas pudding.

      The first amendment is actively being abused against the majority of the US population. What was it again

  • It's so absolutely horrible that once it's installed everyone will stop using the platform in disgust.

    There! Problem solved!

  • misuse of tools (Score:5, Insightful)

    by hdyoung ( 5182939 ) on Sunday September 06, 2020 @08:13PM (#60480656)
    This is all because people are trying to GET NEWS from an AD DELIVERY PLATFORM. Facebook is a honeypot in the form of a social networking site. It's purpose is to deliver ads and collect data for Facebook to sell. Nothing more, nothing less. Zuckerberg is an AD MAN dressed up in Internet 7.0 clothing. Watch Mad Men to get idea of what he actually is at the core. Different platform, slightly more AI, somewhat more woke, but barely anything has changed.

    Anyone using Facebook for news is MISUSING THE PLATFORM. The equivalent of trying to cook your dinner with a hand grenade or trim your eyebrows with a lawnmower. Wrong tool for the job. And demanding that Facebook be more politically responsible is like demanding that a lawnmower be able to give you a much closer shave.

    Facebook is for SOCIALIZING and nothing else. Not for news, not for factual information, not for thoughtful analysis. We have this whole thing called JOURNALISM that specializes in that, and Facebook doesn't give frick about journalistic standards in the slightest. People who get their politics from facebook are too far gone to salvage. They are sheep. Facebook will feed them a constant drip of what they already believe in order to.... repeat after me.... selll..... more..... ads.......

    Facebook simply CANNOT be a part of the solution to our political problems. There is no point in discussing how to make them behave more responsibly. Zuckerberg gives absolutely no craps about this, no matter what he might say. His business is selling ads. Period.
    • This is my problem with all this hysteria about fake news on Facebook, just because people see the posts on Facebook does it really mean that they are listening. I do use Facebook, maybe to contact a person I don't see often or find out a birthday, to me the feed is just irrelevant trash I can't remember the last time i looked at one.

      If people are listening we need to educate people to realize the internet is full of trash, were anybody can post anything, if you don't like it go back to watching TV news and

      • by Don Bright ( 6770394 ) on Sunday September 06, 2020 @11:20PM (#60480998)

        the thing about facebook marketing is that it is scientifically proven to modify behavior.

        when you record thousands of data points on someone over a period of years, then patterns can be identified and messages can be targeted to that person, such that there is a high probability the person will take some action.

        this was the whole point of hiring cambridge analytica. they had cracked the nut of psyops using mass surveillance, analytics, data science, machine learning, microtargeting, and the new tools of the new information landscape.

        CA worked on brexit, they won, then they worked on Trump, Trump won. Both of these things were generally agreed to be impossible, but CA did it.

        c.a. is closed now, but the techniques they used were not a secret. They are the 'new normal'.

        Facebook is the biggest social network, but any social network will do, providing it gathers enough data to create masses of psychographic profiles that allow microtargeting and manipulation.

        There are numerous articles and books about this.

      • If people are listening we need to educate people to realize the internet is full of trash

        Yes making hundreds of millions of people suddenly crititcally think is one option. Also, if you just write bug-free code you don't need QA, if you make people honest you don't need to lock your door or if you make people unselfish communism can work!

      • just because people see the posts on Facebook does it really mean that they are listening

        Polling shows that many are listening. They're also unwilling to accept "the Internet is full of trash" because they're listening to the trash declaring itself the only source of truth and everything else is "Fake News", or "all sides lie exactly the same, you can't know reality".

    • by Tailhook ( 98486 )

      This is all because people are trying to GET NEWS from an AD DELIVERY PLATFORM.

      Ad delivery platforms have been the primary venue for news forever. Before the interwebs you had four primary news sources; "free" OTA TV networks with their nightly news broadcasts sponsored by advertisers every few minutes, "free" radio broadcasts sponsored by advertisers at similar intervals, newspapers festooned with ads and periodicals festooned with ads. The fact that Facebook is funded by advertising isn't particularly novel.

      The problem is that Facebook isn't as aggressive as Twitter at suppressi

      • by DogDude ( 805747 )
        Newspapers and other real journalistic outfits (Some major TV news, some magazines) take pride in keeping their ad and news departments separate. Just because you see ads in newspapers doesn't mean they're being influnced by their ads. They try their best to keep them separate, to prevent something like Facebook happening.

        At Facebook, the ad department runs the whole thing and they have no news department. So it's nothing but all ads, all the time. Very different.
      • by noodler ( 724788 )

        Ad delivery platforms have been the primary venue for news forever.

        Sure thing, but things changed a bit when 'Ads for the purpose of news' became 'News for the purpose of ads'.

    • Re:misuse of tools (Score:4, Interesting)

      by DogDude ( 805747 ) on Sunday September 06, 2020 @10:59PM (#60480966)
      You're 100% correct. People ask me where I advertise all the time. I tell them that unfortunately, Facebook/Instagram has to be part of our marketing budget. Most people respond with, "What do you mean, advertise on Facebook"? Most people have no idea that it's actually an advertising/data mining platform. I guess they don't ever stop to consider how Facebook makes it's billions of dollars...? I'm shocked how many people are this clueless.
    • I get news through Fb regularly, and I don't see ads. Just like here! If the news looks like bullshit, then I check to see if it's bullshit before echoing it in any way. Just like here!

  • Two comments: 1. Duh! 2. How is this new information? ~ Offered by Make Zuckerberg Emperor of The Earth for Life
  • If you don't like it, make your own, and invite your friends.

    People are going to have to stop being herdable like sheep, cause the AI and propaganda and deepfake sheepdogs are getting better all the time.
  • by BardBollocks ( 1231500 ) on Sunday September 06, 2020 @11:31PM (#60481010)

    "We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false" - CIA Director William Casey

    Facebook is just another vector for misninformation - one that pretends to be not under state control because it fits in with the bullshit narratives.

    You only need to look as far as the suppression of evidence being brought forward by Palestinians on Israel's crimes against humanity by Israel's embedded Facebook editors to see Facebook is just another surveillance/disinformation tool.

    • What kind of disinformation? Censorship/suppressing(through myriads of ways) is not directly a way to spread disinformation and as far as I can see the main methods for controlling social media are negative: suppression/ deranking/demonetising. All kinds of harassments, accounts being temporarily restricted for all kinds of reasons, random unfollowing of followers, links which cannot be followed, the list is endless. But it is always suppression.

  • ... really, really afraid of free speech.

    Personally I find Facebook et al annoying for promoting left wing drivel. But I'm an adult, so I either ignore it or add my own speech.

  • I tried to delete Facebook, but I’m having trouble gaining root access on their servers. Ideas?

To stay youthful, stay useful.

Working...