Facebook on PBS Frontline

[Gilbert]

I thought this too until I researched it further. Right now I'm on Facebook having a discussion with a friend who is a successful businessman in Ireland (expatriate). He has been sending me what he thinks are legitimate "News" stories  from Twitter. When I point out that the original links came from Breitbart and Infowars and those are not considered fact-based media and that Twitter is NOT a media company, he didn't seem to understand and  asked, "Who am I to say what is media or not!" He rallies against something called the "MSM" and I can't get a legitimate answer if FoxNews is considered "Mainstream." Fwiw,  I am starting to be persuaded  they are, which may surprise some people. 

Define mainstream, and you'll know, but we will too, so be careful einstein.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[Zen Traveler]

10 hours ago, Gilbert said:

Define mainstream, and you'll know, but we will too, so be careful einstein. 


 

I consider mainstream sources ones that can be fact-checked and have an editorial process. FoxNews has it's pundits that tries to lead the news with their opinions. What I have found is that their opinions on tv and clickbait titles online actually have the facts in their actual journalism if one were to spend the time to read it. Seriously, I have found time and time again that the headlines don't really match the facts in the same article. ..

 

Along with FoxNews I consider all of the links I shared over the years from sources as mainstream and the facts they exposed are still relevant today...Otoh, as Jeff pointed out, other sources such as Breitbart and Infowars have been discredited as news sources. Fwiw, I think too many people pay attention to punditry, subscribe to propaganda "newsfeeds," and don't study the underlying story.

 

{EDIT: Frontline is an EXCELLENT non-biased source for important reporting. Their Facebook investigation that this thread is based upon has excellent, hard hitting interviews with key players.}

[Gilbert]

On 11/3/2018 at 10:47 AM, Zen Traveler said:

 

Jeff and I were having a discussion on another thread and after watching the first episode realized it connected into several other discussions as well. I don't wish the thread to be closed for political reasons and if we keep discussion on how Facebook works and how it influences in connection with the PBS documentary it could be fun.  

 

 

 

I don't believe you have any desire to "Save" past political discussions. Dave went through the trouble of figuring our and setting up a "Safe Place" on Facebook, but you ran away. Claiming you were targeted and pick-ed on. Which I translated as, your not having a moderator's shoulder to cry on.

 

Dave setup the perfect place and it still exist, but without you, it's just not enjoyable. I tried to keep you from running away, by introducing my cousin, another hardcore inbred liberal from Mexico City, but it was too late. You would have liked Roberto, but just as you came in with guns a blazing, you fizzled out faster than a mexican cuete.

[Zen Traveler]

3 hours ago, Gilbert said:

Dave went through the trouble of figuring our and setting up a "Safe Place" on Facebook, but you ran away. Claiming you were targeted and pick-ed on. Which I translated as, your not having a moderator's shoulder to cry on.

 

Dave setup the perfect place and it still exist, but without you, it's just not enjoyable. I tried to keep you from running away, by introducing my cousin, another hardcore inbred liberal from Mexico City, but it was too late. You would have liked Roberto, but just as you came in with guns a blazing, you fizzled out faster than a mexican cuete.

This seems like a personal attack Gilbert.  I left the facebook group because it wasn't about talking politics as much as using language not allowed on any forum. I am sorry I didn't get to meet your cousin, but your characterization of my leaving isn't accurate. The reality is I refused to play by rules whose words can't be viewed/used in public discourse. That said, I feel comfortable with everything I've written to you and others over well over a decade and sorry if your feelings were hurt. {Note: Gilbert please keep this thread on topic so it doesn't get locked. These are the non-partisan discussion we should be having, imo.} 

[Zen Traveler]

3 hours ago, Gilbert said:

don't believe you have any desire to "Save" past political discussions

I absolutely do! There are some VERY valuable things we've discussed through the years and none more so than the two years prior to the last place being shut down. I was able to retrieve some of my favorite threads but there are some from the political campaign that would be text-book material to what is being investigated by our government and the press--Facebook was a big part of how Americans got their news and that was an aspect I didn't even consider when we were having our debates. Now that I know, what we shared back in those days is even more relevant, my friend. 

[MyOwn]

My gosh...Did you give it thought???

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/19/technology/facebook-cambridge-analytica-explained.html

 

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/new-evidence-emerges-of-steve-bannon-and-cambridge-analyticas-role-in-brexit

[Zen Traveler]

49 minutes ago, MyOwn said:

My gosh...Did you give it thought???

I for one did! Cambridge Analytica was a major eye-opener for me and coupled with Facebook paying 3rd party data gatherers to garner even more information they (and others) could/did use was staggering. 😳  Without getting too political it was brought out that others had used the platform successfully but what made the 2016 election different was the spread of actual Fake News and bot generated propaganda being sent to various groups to pit them against each other. Crazy amount of extraneous links and discussions on staged propaganda events including (especially) by WikiLeaks--Again. that is what Stamos of Facebooks said was the biggest concern still going forward.

[MyOwn]

25 minutes ago, Zen Traveler said:

I for one did! Cambridge Analytica was a major eye-opener for me and coupled with Facebook paying 3rd party data gatherers to garner even more information they (and others) could/did use was staggering. 😳  Without getting too political it was brought out that others had used the platform successfully but what made the 2016 election different was the spread of actual Fake News and bot generated propaganda being sent to various groups to pit them against each other. Crazy amount of extraneous links and discussions on staged propaganda events including (especially) by WikiLeaks--Again. that is what Stamos of Facebooks said was the biggest concern still going forward.

 Stay Anonymous, learn....

 

https://www.privacytools.io/#

 

[Gilbert]

On 11/23/2018 at 12:15 PM, Zen Traveler said:

This seems like a personal attack Gilbert.  I left the facebook group because it wasn't about talking politics as much as using language not allowed on any forum. I am sorry I didn't get to meet your cousin, but your characterization of my leaving isn't accurate. The reality is I refused to play by rules whose words can't be viewed/used in public discourse. That said, I feel comfortable with everything I've written to you and others over well over a decade and sorry if your feelings were hurt. {Note: Gilbert please keep this thread on topic so it doesn't get locked. These are the non-partisan discussion we should be having, imo.} 

 

I don't play by the rules either, but based on the later part of that statement, you obviously don't get out much, or stray too far from your cave.

 

I revisited my post, you're right, it was an attack, but I wasn't thinking "attack";   I guess I just don't understand why you always talk about "saving previous posts, for the purpose of future reference", when Dave went out of his way to give you (us) all that, and you still left. For years you endured worse from me and many others in "BS Land ",  but you still left, and missed out on being introduce to my cousin, who I know you would have liked. On most political subjects, you and Roberto sound exactly alike, except that he's a sharp guy 😈,  and successful architect in Dallas area. Just kidding.... you better know that.

[oldtimer]

"The Enemies Of The People Are CRIMINALS and GOVERNMENT, So Let Us Tie The Second Down With The Chains Of The Constitution So They Do Not Become A Legalized Version Of The First." -- Thomas Jefferson

 

Not the press, as the government would try to have people believe.  TJ, always a favorite founder.

[Zen Traveler]

2 hours ago, oldtimer said:

Not the press, as the government would try to have people believe.  TJ, always a favorite founder.

I agree. The irony is we live in THE Information Age and the press is taking full advantage if one takes time to pursue facts and pay attention to the actual players in the new. This Frontline Facebook documentary is only one information source exposing what happened under the radar and more is to come. Too many people have blind faith in their politicians and it really has come to a ridiculous full circle of the stereotypical "lying politician." As I have pointed out for YEARS--Don't believe and argue the propaganda but explore the underlying facts. There have already been Pulitzer Prizes given to people writing on the subject we are talking about on this thread with more to come...

 

That said, I don't want to bog down this discussion with the political ramifications as much as talk about how what happened at Facebook and on the internet that changed the dynamic of public discourse...The "Fake News" stories on Facebook were getting 3 times more hits than actual REAL stories that should've been consequential. On top of that and again to point out what the security guy at Facebook said--WikiLeaks WAS manipulating the news cycle and it's going to be interesting to see how direct the coordination was between them and other key players in this story and the Russian Investigation.

[oldtimer]

Facebook is evil.  I have never wavered from that.  You will never see me there.

[Zen Traveler]

9 minutes ago, oldtimer said:

Facebook is evil.  I have never wavered from that.  You will never see me there.

I understand and don't expect you to join. I also felt that way until I found out how many people used Facebook to get their news. I didn't really know what that meant and now have a better understanding of what went on prior to them changing their sop in regard to Newsfeed and giving information on the sources folks use on their timeline. Btw, did you watch the Frontline documentary? 

[TubeHiFiNut]

1 hour ago, Zen Traveler said:

WikiLeaks WAS manipulating the news cycle 

In my opinion, there are many more groups out there manipulating the news cycle in addition to wikileaks.

 

Both national parties send out detailed talking points daily to trained surrogates. You'd be surprised (or maybe not?) to see how many "Letters to the Editor" are sent in by political party surrogates.

 

Both parties, PACs, and any number of entities (foreign and domestic) seek to control the news cycle to shape opinion and bring about a result beneficial to their group/idiology/etc.

 

The problem, as I see it, is that we have ceased to be skeptical and selective consumers of the "information tsunami" that hits us constantly. Many consumers of information tend to seek out whatever "news" reinforces their political biases and discount that with which they disagree.

 

This works in favor of those seeking to manipulate the electorate - "low information" voters are easy to scare.....and manipulate.

 

The political parties continue to demonize the opposition, sell "fear, uncertainty and doubt" and maximize their contributions.

 

And the divide gets wider and wider.....

 

I must be feeling cynical today. 🤔

 

Just my opinion.

[Zen Traveler]

1 hour ago, TubeHiFiNut said:

3 hours ago, Zen Traveler said:

WikiLeaks WAS manipulating the news cycle 

In my opinion, there are many more groups out there manipulating the news cycle in addition to wikileaks.

I agree but the point the Facebook guy made was the anticipation of what was being delivered--Without mentioning what it was, suffice it to say it never was exposed and THAT was what was also being distributed as you suggest below:  {Note: promise to deliver certain emails}

Quote

 

Both national parties send out detailed talking points daily to trained surrogates.

Sure but the difference was Internet propaganda was leading the way--Only one party benefited on Facebook and that is what the documentary showed.

 

Quote

 

You'd be surprised (or maybe not?) to see how many "Letters to the Editor" are sent in by political party surrogates.

I understand but the folks who read "Letters to the Editor," are miniscule to propaganda being shared in the last election--That is the lesson that seemed to be learned by this one and what the documentary showed is that Facebook IS The Internet to some in this country and possibly most in the rest of the world--That is more powerful than what you describe above, imo.

[Jeff Matthews]

49 minutes ago, Zen Traveler said:

Only one party benefited on Facebook and that is what the documentary showed.

Nope.  Watch it again.  The guy explained it was on the other side as well.  For example, he said there was a lot of fake news stories to appeal to Black Lives Matters proponents.   Anywhere there is anybody who'll fall prey to clickbait, the bait will be there.   

[TubeHiFiNut]

25 minutes ago, Jeff Matthews said:

Nope.  Watch it again.  The guy explained it was on the other side as well.  For example, he said there was a lot of fake news stories to appeal to Black Lives Matters proponents.   Anywhere there is anybody who'll fall prey to clickbait, the bait will be there.   

 

Exactly!

 

And the "news feeds" and "comments" on fb are populated and driven by the same surrogates who submit Letters to the Editor and other submissions to newspapers.

 

The stakes are extremely high - money, power, prestige.

 

All news outlets are being utilized to manipulate what voters think and to instill the greatest amout of fear (remember "never let a crisis go to waste") which subsequently drives huge sums of money into the coffers of the major parties and PACs.

 

Propaganda posing as news is not a new concept.

[garyrc]

On 11/3/2018 at 9:07 AM, richieb said:

“they are not the media” is so true. However, for the under 30 year old generation (whatever the helll they’re called these days) social media IS the media. Our kids and kids-in-laws virtually never watch any traditional news shows

 

The young people I know (in their 20s and early 30s) watch PBS, listen to NPR, and, of course, use social media to the max. 

 

...  "social media IS the media."   Social media ARE the media.    Of course, this no more agreed upon than anything else in the media.  IMO, the media have helped destroy the language.  The original (Norman Mailer) meaning of the word "factoid" perished long ago, thanks to CNN.  I blame the commercial with Orville Redenbacher and his grandson for destroying the term "overachiever."   Poor script writing has wreaked havoc with the meaning of schizophrenia, short term memory, subconscious vs. unconscious, etc.  The word "data" is in danger of becoming singular.  That we have abandoned subject and verb agreement may be because of the public service (or "service") commercial in which we here the voice over intoning, "This is drugs."

 

And, worst of all, Chomsky and Herman didn't have to write the book.  Since factoids are given equal weight, subtlety is no longer necessary to manufacture consent.  They'll believe anything.  As we saw in 2016.

 

 

 

 

[Zen Traveler]

12 hours ago, Jeff Matthews said:

13 hours ago, Zen Traveler said:

Only one party benefited on Facebook and that is what the documentary showed.

Nope.  Watch it again.  The guy explained it was on the other side as well.  For example, he said there was a lot of fake news stories to appeal to Black Lives Matters proponents.   Anywhere there is anybody who'll fall prey to clickbait, the bait will be there.   

I agree with what was presented but I gather we are interpreting the data differently. What they showed was two-fold: 1) Evidently the for-profit instigators they were talking about were trying to disrupt the status quo by sowing discontent and that didn't serve the side that was predicted to win up until the very voting day. 2) Only one of the political campaigns went to the trouble of hiring an "owners manual" because they were going to spend "100 million dollars on Facebook.

 

What the documentary exposed was that several groups learned how to game Facebook and the media into making people think a lot of eventful things were happening that were propaganda generated--One of the things I learned from the documentary (and lends to why oldtimer views it as "evil") was that insiders at Facebook, 3rd party marketers (i.e., Cambridge Analytica), and operatives from one party were in cahoots to fund this discontent. This aspect of their business model was admitted to be a flaw by those interviewed from Facebook. Btw, I am not saying all were doing so knowingly but they were against one candidate which was brought out by Frontline. 

 

[Gilbert]

12 hours ago, Jeff Matthews said:

Nope.  Watch it again.  The guy explained it was on the other side as well.  For example, he said there was a lot of fake news stories to appeal to Black Lives Matters proponents.   Anywhere there is anybody who'll fall prey to clickbait, the bait will be there.   

Did you really expect a different response.