I feel the need to write the following article/opinion about what has been heard in recent days about how Social has or could affect networks) and online media specifically the outcome of the US election.
Obviously, where there is smoke there is a fire, but let's look at the subject from another perspective!
Propaganda is the direct presentation of a message in a specific way to serve specific purposes. Etymologically, propaganda means "propagation of a philosophy or point of view". Historically, the term usesit is mostly within a political specific and especially regarding 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 just the success of persuasion, but the closest approach to this success, to the extent that the circumstances permit it." Since antiquity, persuasion did not concern her only the truth but also the way, ie the technique with which it is intended. Propaganda in this way is presented as a mixture of reason and technique, where the reason, which could be characterized as the content of persuasion, can be moved from the pure truth to the ultimate lie.
And to cut a long story short, let's start with the analysis of what is happening today. Information in data form 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 at the moment is 2.6 billion and by 2020 in developed markets you expect to exceed 6.1 billion. In short, by 2020 almost every person on the planet will own a device with direct internet access.
What does this mean;
This means that with a few euros each of us can own a device that essentially gives you freedom of public voice and step without any further cost!
What do I mean by that?
I mean very simply, that apart from the cost of the device with which you will have access to the internet, which is your choice whether it will cost €100 or €800 for personal reasons of self-promotion and consumer pleasure, the access and "voice" on the internet it's now free and accessible to everyone! Anyone can create as many accounts as they want on any social network (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc.) and have almost free access from anywhere on the internet (and the latest coffee shop now provides free connection) and to express his opinion freely.
Hoax is news aimed at collecting clicks and has nothing to do with reality. It is made for marketing purposes and spreads through Social (social networks) because clearly it is much easier!
The way to achieve this is very easy! It is sufficient that the description begins with the word "SOK" or the like, that the overview image is sexually explicit, something non-normal, or that it provokes sensitivity.
What I do not want to do is to judge the content of the news, I am not in a position to know and there is no scientific documentation for the above. So it's useless information that just makes me to think, to assume and not to know. What I am interested in doing and judging is the way in which this news can reach our chronology without having chosen to be informed by this particular news provider.
How does it work; In the simplest way below.
Social networks or Social have as a basis modes the interaction of their users. You sign up normally, find all your acquaintances and add them to your contacts, and start sharing things. Another function you can do in a social network is to choose to receive updates from news providers. With just one click (Like) on the page of any provider, you can have every news in your calendar immediately, i.e. the moment it is published. This is not a negative at all in my opinion, because it saves you from searching and entering each website separately or having the applications of all the media.
But what is the problem with this kind of information?
I may want to get updates from everyone and be a member of countless groups of views or topics of discussion (technological, social, political, etc.).
The detail is that all these groups and news providers are providing their public posts! What does this mean; This means that Facebook has specifically decided that, whatever is chosen to be classified as "Public" is viewed by everyone, and if not, then there is sponsorship for spreading (logically, with 2 billion users, everyone is paying for advertising)! So far all good! Where's the detail? The detail is now patent! When one of my contacts interacts with something that has been labeled Public, it will appear in my timeline and in addition to the timings of all the contacts in that particular contact!
In a nutshell, even if you do not choose to be notified by a publisher, if a contact interacts with the issues of that particular player, they appear in the chronology! Below 3 examples from my own chronology.
I have not chosen to see updates on any of the above pages, but this medium suggests that I see or buy that product.
I also don't know the touch of the second image, but my medium suggests that we become friends. The reason it does this is clearly for greater interaction and resonance with ads, not to keep in touch with friends! The slogan "be in touch" is the socially ethical position of Facebook, one could also describe it as propaganda.
How does the above way of transmitting information affect an election result?
The above method is nothing more than an algorithm that chooses to publish suggested in the dates of the interactive contacts. The algorithm in no way chooses what to publish, it simply chooses to publish it, and with what frequency (granted). Censorship Facebook only practices nudity and sexual content posts. If one just wants to advertise a product, or share some news "publicly," the algorithm will simply help.
Here we come in disagreement with Facebook's early CEO statement that 99% of Facebook news is true. There is currently no criterion in Facebook publications if a post is true or not. I can write and publish that I want to pay sponsorship for anything and until the evening to discuss it in the news.
Is there an alibi in this tactic?
For me there is a small alibi. How the individual is responsible for what he shares and for what he says publicly and online. Nobody prevents me from walking naked on the street, but someone who follows the standard rules of ethics will not do so unless there is a pathological cause. I can also go to any cafe and say publicly my opinion on anything regardless of whether it bothers or not, it is not the fault of the coffee that exists and I am given this opportunity, nor is the bartender obliged to come and throw me out. It is up to everyone (they call it education in particular) to filter the news, to googlit it and see if he is interested or not or at least, how likely it is that this is true. In short, the medium is not to blame for everything, the user has some responsibility.
Also, if any of your contacts think you are tired of its publications or interactions, there is a less radical solution than to delete it. It's called "Don't Follow" and is done in the following simple way
There are three options,
- to show the posts of that contact first.
- Default, ie they appear in the normal stream.
- and not show at all
Επίσης, αν το πλήθος των επαφών σας είναι μέρος ενός συγκεκριμένου χώρου, λάτρεις των Windows ας πούμε και είναι μέλη σε γκρουπ που εξυμνούν τα Windows, λογικό το χρονολόγιό σας να γεμίζει από αντίστοιχα δημοσιεύματα. Το ίδιο συμβαίνει αν οι επαφές σας είναι μέλη διαφόρων πολιτικών ή θρησκευτικών γκρουπ. Το Facebook δεν επιλέγει τι θα δείτε, στην ουσία έμμεσα το επιλέγετε εσείς!
In conclusion, I find it hard to believe that Facebook directly affected the US election result. If the majority of Trabble voters bombarded Facebook stories and managed to change their minds on Clinton's voters, Clinton must ask himself about her voters! Did Facebook exploit Facebook's interaction policy so well? And did they know that the average American changed his mind so easily? Or is it more profound that its analysis is not a means of technological information?
In your hand to judge!
