Jab Me If You Can: How Political Endorsements…

Will they ever learn? When former US Presidents Barack Obama, George W.…

His name is Fousseny Traoré

This is an open letter to the people of Australia and the…

The distortion of the Australian public sphere: Media…

The following article, by Associate Professor Johan Lidberg, first appeared in Australian…

My view of the year that was (part…

I finished the year 2019 with a piece titled George Christensen and…

Giuliani

By Ad astra  Giuliani. You know him well. He’s been in the public…

ACTU advocating justice calls for on-the-job deaths

Responding to revelations surrounding of an increase of workers killed in workplace-related…

The David McBride Case: Whistleblowing, Afghanistan and Australian…

Much complaint can be had of the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence…

Overcome threats, halve insecure work numbers: McManus

While the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) waits alongside the country’s…

«
»
Facebook

Libra and Calibra: Mark Zuckerberg appears before Congress

It was never going to be pretty. The Facebook CEO knew in appearing before the House Financial Services Committee to answer questions on the company’s proposed cryptocurrency that a few sizeable bumps would appear. As it turned out, much of the questioning had little to do with the Libra currency, along with its digital wallet format known as Calibra.

New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez exemplified the mood, and the method. “In order for us to make decisions about Libra, I think we need to kind of dig into your past behaviour and Facebook’s past behaviour with respect to our democracy.” It was a scene made out of crudely crafted scripts, albeit mildly spiced by convention: the elevated idealist, perhaps a bit sketchy about history, speaking to the sociopathic innovator; AOC versus Robot Zuck.

In any case, the occasion begged a few questions, as does the entire issue of approaching the power of Facebook and Mark Zuckerberg. To call it a threat to democracy is flabby logic, and distinctly lazy, given the use by Congress of that same company and its own elasticity on matters of fact.

What matters, evidently, is how strong those bonds of use are. For Ocasio-Cortez, the issue of packing Zuckerberg in the company of the far right somehow explains everything. “In your ongoing dinner parties with far-right figures, some of whom advance the conspiracy theory that white supremacy is a hoax, did you discuss social media bias against conservatives, and do you believe there is a bias?” The Facebook CEO remained non-committal.

The line being pushed here, and one that will be revisited with dreary repetition, is the notion of truthful advertising in politics. For a member of Congress to insist that Facebook “take down lies” or otherwise is a fabulous clash of oxymoronic variables. Once you leave it to Facebook to determine political advertising content, another beast is created, one bolstered by the fictional exercises of the “fact checker”.

Rep. Madeleine Dean (D-Penn) attempted to tie a neat bow around the presidency and Facebook, asking Zuckerberg whether Facebook conducted “any business with Trump International Hotel here in Washington, D.C.” She had noted “public reports of enterprises and even governments doing business with Trump hotels to curry favour with the Donald Trump administration.” The whiff of conspiracy and foreign intrigue is never far away from the post-2016 Democrat.

This point is supremely feeble, if only demonstrating a certain incredulity towards an obvious fact of US business: If you want things done, or at least done in your favour, its best to be in the good books of the administration. Even better, keep Congress in your pocket, a practice that companies from Boeing to Chase Bank do with zealous dedication. Instead of pointing out that obvious point, Zuckerberg preferred a softly, softly approach. “Congresswoman, I will look into it with my team.”

Rep. Joyce Beatty (D-Ohio) was enthusiastically grim, suggesting that the digital monster world of Facebook had devastated lives like the Grim Reaper. “It’s almost like you think this is a joke when you have ruined the lives of many people, discriminated against them. Do you know what percentage of African-Americans are on Facebook, in comparison to a majority of folks?” Zuckerberg professed ignorance: Facebook did not ask users to specify their race.

Such exchanges ignore the fundamental point that Facebook is voracious, its reach and keenness to identify what it calls “communities” insatiable. The chicken and egg problem presents itself: is the company generating a fictional community to control, or merely furnishing pre-existing communities with the means of engagement?

A clue was supplied back in 2015, when Facebook commissioned IPSOS MediaCT to conduct a study on “how African Americans communicate and consume media.” Of particular interest was the versatile movement between platforms and devices in efforts to “connect to community and sustain culture.” With some sense of contentment, it was found that Facebook was the “go-to source for connecting with” an extended family comprising immediate members, church groups and close friends. “Nearly 9 out of 10 African Americans use Facebook to keep up with friends and family, and 7 out of 10 use it to observe what friends and family are doing.”

Much of that reads like deodorised marketing tinged with a dash of the sinister, and should be treated as such, but such encounters as those between Beatty and Zuckerberg look all too much like strawman shows rather than cerebral jousts over policy.

Other axes were brought forth to grind. Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY) levelled a few blows against Zuckerberg for being an “accelerant in many of the destructive” political confrontations across the globe. (That naughty business of interference, otherwise casual in the policy of the US imperium). Republican Rep. Ann Wagner from Missouri got heavy on the issue of online child exploitation while Democrat Rep. William Lacy Clay from the same state trod over ground on discrimination against various communities.

Facebook is an engine for facile, commodified social relations, the product of an asocial being who had to find his understanding of humanity through something called a “social network”. Its genius lies in mining the confessional, the exposure, the ridiculousness of humans who are garrulous behind the screen and forthcoming on it. It brings out the voyeur in its users and gives substance a profound shallowness. Little wonder that politicians both adore and dread the medium, using it one day to promote messages in the illusion of feeling closer to their constituents, and condemning it as being distinctly unprincipled and undemocratic the next.

For one, the manipulation of politics, the buying of votes, the wooing of legislatures, never began, nor will stop, with Facebook. Facebook is merely the acid manifestation of a long-term problem with managerial democracy, doomed to a slow and cruel death at the hand of amoral apparatchiks. Cambridge Analytica was not a revolutionary in the field, merely a successor to the public relations creatures that had come into gold with data mining and personality profiling.

Ironically enough, Zuckerberg’s under six-hour hearing absorbed much in the way of questions without giving much away. But on Libra, the main reason for his showing, he struggled. How would the company make money from Libra? How would the external Libra Association be fuelled? (To date, the 21 companies in the association have yet to fork out the minimum $10 million entry fee, suggesting the possibility of Facebook going alone). As Alex Heath noted, “Zuckerberg’s testimony didn’t shed any light on what specific laws Facebook thinks should govern Libra.” Much more time might have been expended on that instead of lobbing grenades at Big Bad Zuck, lies, identity politics and all.

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Donate Button


5 comments

Login here Register here
  1. king1394

    Perhaps I should share this on Facebook?
    Truly, the Facebook I use is nothing like this. On one level I use it to keep contacts going with a lot of people all over the place who otherwise I would never hear from. And I use the groups that interest me to share information and advice. For example, do you need to share knowledge about native plants, or follow news about a famous or obscure celebrity? Thanks Facebook, that is easy. I follow certain political angles but I am not in thrall to anyone. Sharing news and views on everything from childcare to handicrafts is great and contacting people about an event is also made easy. Through FB, I have some great friendships even with people I am never likely to meet.
    I think the powers that be are afraid of FB because it frees up information and the flow of ideas, even the not so good stuff . Most of us can smell out the garbage. I am very tired of the idea that FB is more likely to misinform us than, say, Fox News or CNN

  2. Pat P

    I am glad you are so trusting King.Though I am not so sure you could trust every Facebook employee with your information.

  3. Jon Chesterson

    I agree, it’s a case of kill the messenger. The bad behaviour, oppression and lies come from the politicians, their backers and conglomerates that are deliberate in using FB to spread their lies and propaganda. The ultimate deception and then avoid responsibility. Shouldn’t the liar be held to account not FB as in society?

    FB frees up the information world and frankly it is no less reliable in sourcing news than the TV and mainstream corporate media themselves, the capabilities of the user. In fact it is better because you (the user) can select what most interests you and the sources, unlike the mainstream and corporate media who quietly or blatantly select what they think you need to hear, and hide the rest from you, no guesses who is controlling them or vice versa. Politicians, government and mainstream corporate media feel threatened because their monopolistic domains, mean and deceptive worlds are being exposed in plain sight by the people and its users – FB is mostly just the social media platform, the technology! Big business too is conflicted because like them, they use it for their own gain, false and coercive advertising and then hate it because they can’t control it, own it or take their profits or get exposed for their fraudulent or bad behaviour; but they choose to miss the main point – You can’t control all the people all the time and certainly not exclusively in your own favour. So who here is interfering with democracy – No guesses!

    There is more democracy arguably on FB than in our Western governments, their cover ups and national security legislation, their secret corporate, trading and military dealings, their pervasive attacks on citizenship, civil rights, freedom of speech, truth, social justice and democracy, and don’t talk to me about inequality or public, state or corporate bullying. If that isn’t interference in our democracies, again I put the question – Who is the true threat here – No guesses!

    And then there is the usual convenience, speed and efficiency of communication with family friends and groups and it is free – OMG free! Now isn’t that the elephant in the room, the true injustice – If it’s free no fee, no tax, no profit for these dastards who want to take our money. Surely we, the people, or I the individual am allowed to conduct our social interactions however we or I please as long as we or I do no harm, and why should I have to pay a middle man for it so they can get rich. But many of us actually do so with the intention of doing good – We or I the users. A lesson for the politicians, the media and corporate world, who on another global issue deliberately oppose the people and their rights to protect themselves and our own planet from harm, from the excesses and exploitations of government and conglomerates who want to have their cake and eat it, and not satisfied with this, do harm. Congress is a sham just like Trump, just like Murdoch, just like Putin, Morrison and all the other political, corporate dictatorial bricks in our disease ridden democratic town. Those who cry and cry foul the loudest are usually the ones undermining truth, freedom and justice for all. Listen to the childish and supercilious dissonant dribble we hear from them all the time, every day facilitated, promoted by the mainstream media channels in our fake news. Time to put our demons’ lights out and get on with our every day ordinary lives without their interference, and if FB helps me do that – Viva la revolution!

  4. johno

    Go Ocasio-Cortez !

  5. DrakeN

    “…FB is mostly just the social media platform, the technology!”

    Really?

    When it imposes ‘decency’ on women by refusing to publish nipples etc.?
    When it decides for us what words are acceptable and which are not?
    Etc. etc and etc.

    As for supplying personal data to anyone who will pay for it and accepting commercial advertising, then it is not “free”.

    You have been/are being conned.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Return to home page
Scroll Up
%d bloggers like this: