I feel the need to write the following article/opinion about what has been heard in the last few days about how much they have affected or could affect the Social (social 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 usesται ως επί το πλείστον εντός πολιτικού συγκεκριμένου και ιδιαίτερα αναφορικά με συγκεκριμένες κινήσεις που προωθούνται από κυβερνήσεις ή πολιτικές ομάδες. Το modus operandi της προπαγάνδας είναι παρόμοιο με αυτό της διαφήμισης. Για την ακρίβεια, η διαφήμιση μπορεί και να οριστεί ως προπαγάνδα υπέρ κάποιου συγκεκριμένου προϊόντος. (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 simple, except for the cost of the device to access the Internet, which is your choice whether it will cost 100 € or 800 € for personal self-promotion and consumer pleasure, internet access and "voice" it is now free and accessible to everyone! Anyone can create as many accounts as he wants on any social network (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc.) with virtually free access from anywhere on the internet (and the latest cafeteria now provides a free connection) and 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 networks are based on the interaction of their users. Regularly register, 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 get updates from news providers. You can just click on the (Like) button on any provider's page to have any news directly on your chronograph, that is, when it's published. This is not at all negative in my view because it saves you from looking for and entering each site separately or having the applications of all the media.
What is the problem but in the specific way 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 recommendations in 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). Facebook only censors nudity and sexual content posts. If someone 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
Also, if the number of your contacts is part of a specific space, say Windows fans and are members of groups that praise Windows, it makes sense for your timeline to be filled with relevant posts. The same is true if your contacts are members of different political or religious groups. Facebook does not choose what you will see, in fact you indirectly choose it!
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!
