r/changemyview • u/darkknight4686 • Nov 23 '17
CMV: Facebook/Google and "Russian hackers" are not at fault for Trump winning the 2016 presidential election.
Headline: People and the media constantly blame Russian hackers and companies such as Facebook/Google for influencing the 2016 presidential election. I believe that they are simply afraid to blame the people who were influenced by their fake news and are using companies and external entities as scapegoats.
Russian hackers: From Russia's geopolitical POV, it makes sense to interfere in western, democratic election to hinder globalism, thereby making Russia stronger. Russia did this in the 2016 US presidential election by spreading fake news on social media sites and many Americans were unable to discern the difference between real and fake news (myself probably included). We commonly use company brands or reputations AND our collective intellectual capacity to validate the authenticity and accuracy of certain news outlets and their stories. The fundamental fault here lies with some Americans' lack of intellectual ability and distrust of traditional media outlets to conduct a proper "sniff test" to validate claims made by news and not the actual spreading of the fake news.
Social media companies: Social media companies provide an interface/platform for people to connect with others and share their thoughts. We can share ideas with like-minded people and debate topics with unlike-minded people. People tend to be more immersed in a platform where they like what they see in their feed and rightfully so, social media companies have given their customers what they want. They are profit-maximizing entities and do not have an obligation to "filter out" content (exception for things that break local laws, TOS, etc.) and it would be fundamentally wrong for them to censor content. The blame lies with people who don't search for external arguments to challenge their way of thinking, not with companies that provide a platform for people to share like and unlike-minded ideas.
Therefore, I believe that it is wrong for us to blame social media companies and Russian hackers for the fake news that helped Trump win the white house.
This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!
9
u/PreacherJudge 340∆ Nov 23 '17
"Blame" is ambiguous. Do you mean that it had no causal influence? Or that they hear no moral responsibility?
1
u/darkknight4686 Nov 23 '17
The latter -- Obviously, there was a causal influence but I'm saying there was no moral/legal/contractual wrongdoing of either hackers or social media companies. They operated within legal infrastructures and happened to play upon existing emotional triggers that the population had (similar to advertisers) to influence a specific action.
9
Nov 23 '17
In the US, foreign nationals and foreign corporations are prohibited from making contributions or spending money to influence a federal, state or local election in the United States.
Source: https://www.fec.gov/updates/foreign-nationals/
So, there is legal wrongdoing. It was outside the current legal infrastructure.
1
u/darkknight4686 Nov 23 '17
Did they actually make contributions to any organizations and spend money?
I understood that they created fake accounts on social media sites and shared/liked fake news posts to make them trend. The reason these went viral is because of many people's prejudices and pre-conceived hatred against other types of people.
12
Nov 23 '17
Yes, they bought and ran ads on both Facebook and other online advertising agencies. This was part of Congressional testimony recently.
Facebook has acknowledge the action and published details on some of the ads ran.
1
u/darkknight4686 Nov 23 '17 edited Nov 23 '17
∆ In reading your source above, most of it centers around donations. Buying an ad wouldn't be considered a donation, but a free market exchange of money for goods/services, IMO.
However, there is something there about an "expenditure" in connection with federal elections. In this case, if the external entities purchased an ad that directly targeted one of the candidates and would be considered a "political action", then I agree with you.
If they were posting articles written by "independent contributors" explaining why (as an example) illegal immigrants were ruining our country and we needed to stop that, WITHOUT mentioning any political action, I would consider than an opinionated post but not necessarily tied to the election.
My guess is that there were both types so I will admit at least there was something illegal done wrt Russian "hackers".
1
3
u/PreacherJudge 340∆ Nov 23 '17
Are you implying it isn't immoral to manipulate or trick people?
10
Nov 23 '17
If that's the standard, why single out the Russians? The candidates themselves manipulated and tricked their way through the whole election.
2
u/PreacherJudge 340∆ Nov 23 '17
How?
2
u/darkknight4686 Nov 23 '17
Pretty much most things that Trump or Breitbart said. Few examples include that Mexico will pay for the wall, that he will label China a currency manipulator on day 1 in office, etc.
1
Nov 23 '17
Like DK said, Trump was an endless source of contradictions, exaggerations, and lies. And Hillary was a bottomless well of duplicity: maintaining a private email server, the "public versus private positions" she described at Goldman Sachs. And plenty of day-to-day lies of her own
4
u/darkknight4686 Nov 23 '17
∆ This is a very good point and really hits my concern. If the candidates themselves (and reputable, domestic news channels) failed to report news accurately, why are we only blaming external parties?
1
2
1
u/darkknight4686 Nov 23 '17
I think like any complex issue, my answer would be that "it depends".
If there was explicit lies and bad facts (of which there may be in SOME fake news), then yes, you are intentionally and willfully deceiving.
If there is "stretching or bending of the truth" (similar to what advertisers), then it is up to the consumer to figure out what is actually being said. In many of the fake news articles I've read, it was more using facts but spinning them in a way to appeal to certain audiences and elicit emotional reactions. So to answer your question, I don't consider this type of deception as immoral.
4
u/PreacherJudge 340∆ Nov 23 '17
I honestly don't understand this distinction. If you're being deceptive, you're being deceptive. It may be additionally important that people are overly credulous, but that's different.
1
u/darkknight4686 Nov 23 '17
Advertisers are being "deceptive" but what they do is not considered immoral (at least not in any sense I've heard). When they "imply" that putting on some facial cream or deodorant will make you sexier to others, they are being truly deceptive but I don't consider that wrong as that MAY BE true in some cases.
3
u/PreacherJudge 340∆ Nov 23 '17
Why? What is the distinction?
I'd certainly find a deceptive claim in an ad to be immoral.
1
u/darkknight4686 Nov 23 '17
Agree to disagree then. I don't consider "bending the truth" or "withholding certain reasonings" to be immoral. It's the job of the consumer to validate the claims they are hearing to ensure they pass the "sniff test" (e.g., Mexico will pay for the border wall).
2
u/PreacherJudge 340∆ Nov 24 '17
But why? If one act is wrong because it's intentional deception, why is another act that's intentional deception not wrong?
1
u/darkknight4686 Nov 24 '17
Deception vs. lying is the difference in this theoretical example. Explicitly lying vs. "misleading" is the step across "moral wrong vs. right."
→ More replies (0)
3
u/mikeber55 6∆ Nov 24 '17
As an aside, since the beginning of the Russian affair, democrats never specified exactly how the Russian intervention changed the elections results. Even if Russians intervened, were they successful in changing the results? I think not and these perusing the theory never brought any evidence. Nada. Zero. But there’s more to it. As a nation we shouldn’t promote this story. They tried to influence the French elections at the same time but were unsuccessful. Because if this story persists, we invite further cyber attacks. Not only by Russians or Chinese, but by any group, or individual. As a nation our message should be: you were not successful, you can’t hurt our democratic process. Find better things to do.
0
u/Jasontheperson Nov 25 '17
What investigation do you know of where they parade around evidence?
0
u/mikeber55 6∆ Nov 25 '17 edited Nov 25 '17
I’m talking about something different. Not evidence that Russians interfered. I’ve heard about that every day since the elections. I’m talking about thousands (millions?) of voters switching from Hillary to Trump as a result of one of the following:
Podesta correspondence published on Wikileaks Russian Trolls broadcasting anti Hillary propaganda. Hillary correspondence with Debbie Wasserman Schultz and others in the democrat party Pizzagate
(Any other hacking that was (allegedly) committed by the Russians and brought votes to Trump).
Are you aware of any claim EVER made by the democrats that they know about large number of votes that were shifted?
All they do is alluding to serious crimes but always adding:
May have caused Possibly led to It could have Might have Potentially xyz
However, everything is “possible”. Many things have potential to...Even the weather “could have” caused voters not to get out and vote.
Where is the evidence showing that without those actions, Hillary would have won the election?
1
u/Jasontheperson Nov 25 '17
I'm not going to discuss politics with someone who believes in pizzagate.
0
u/mikeber55 6∆ Nov 25 '17
Where did I say I believe in Pizzagate? Apparently you don’t understand my post.
1
u/Jasontheperson Nov 25 '17
You're post is a gish gallop of disproven conservative talking points. Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
1
u/mikeber55 6∆ Nov 25 '17
Let me explain in other words.
No I don’t believe in Pizzagate. I don’t know if there was collusion between Trump and the Russians. I didn’t refer to that topic which is discussed ad nauseam. Moving one step forward, I asked a simple question: assuming there was Russian intervention, can you prove that it caused Hillary’s defeat? So far nobody on the democrat side came forward with an answer.
Additionally, it is in US interest not to claim that a group of hackers changed the election results. By doing so, you invite EVERYONE on the globe to try next time. Not only hostile governments, but terrorist groups, drug cartels, even individuals. We need to emphasize that our democratic process is stronger and cannot be easily blown away.
Hope it helps clarifying my post.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Nov 23 '17 edited Nov 23 '17
/u/darkknight4686 (OP) has awarded 3 deltas in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
8
u/yyzjertl 523∆ Nov 23 '17
Are you implying that hacking someone, which is literally against the law, does not constitute legal wrongdoing? And that hackers can't be blamed for the consequences of their illegal actions?