| Chip Somodevilla/Getty |
|
This week, as President Trump’s polling deficit deepened, the media was momentarily transfixed by a New York Post story that promised us some fresh Hunter Biden scandal. As Matt Ford wrote for TNR, the Post’s story was “less persuasive than its full-court-press treatment indicated.” Indeed, it was fairly readily exposed as substantially less than credible, more akin to the comical failures of Jacob Wohl and Jack Burkman than to a cagey caper worthy of Hercule Poirot. Federal investigators are now working to determine if the whole matter wasn’t part of a foreign intelligence operation. If so, then the dezinformatsiya game isn’t what it used to be. The whole matter might have soon faded from the conversation had Facebook not swung into action, boldly declaring that it was going to stop the spread of this story on its platform. (Facebook’s perpetually knock-kneed social media cousin, Twitter, attempted to join the Stop the Spread party a few hours later.) And so, within a matter of hours, the narrative had shifted from a focus on Hunter Biden’s exploits to conservatives, without apparent irony, accusing Facebook of “election interference.” At the moment, no one can really say who “won,” but I strongly suspect it’s “everyone who chose not to play.” |
|
It’s worth pointing out that Facebook did not, in fact, stop the spread of the Post story on its platform. As Popular Information’s Judd Legum reported, the story had, by midmorning, been shared 321,834 times, with 1.2 million engagements. “The reality is that the article has already gotten more distribution than nearly every link posted to Facebook—that’s the opposite of censorship,” wrote Legum, who added, “The point here is that there is often a significant delta between what Facebook says it is doing and what they actually do.” The cynical read of Facebook’s declared interest in throttling this one story, even as its platform continues to be a river of misinformation (notably of conservative ratfuckery), is that it sees which way the election is trending and wants to build some favor-trading inroads with a potential Biden administration. I think this interpretation also happens to be the soundest. The one constant in Facebook’s political calculations over the years is the goal of protecting its buck-raking empire—which is founded on extracting your personal data and selling it to the highest bidder—from would-be digital trust-busters. Mark Zuckerberg cozied up to Trump for a reason, and it wasn’t grooming tips. Liberals may take some momentary satisfaction to see the Post story subjected to scrutiny in Silicon Valley, but Facebook is not your friend. As Matt Stoller wrote a year ago, Facebook is among the tech giants that have formed an infernal media monopoly, without the safeguards that media companies traditionally install to maintain the public trust. “There are a series of ethical structures designed to inhibit excessive control of advertisers in media industries,” Stoller writes. “But such ethical debates have yet to occur around information utilities. Consequently, the manifestation of the distorting effect of advertising—addiction, manipulation, fraud, tearing of a collective social fabric—has been met with little cultural immunity, policy response or institutional defenses.” I’ve written about how the media industry bears some responsibility for this sorry state, but Stoller is absolutely correct that “technology is shaped by law,” and over the years the law has bent our information industry into its current anti-democratic, monopolized state. Fixing the problem will require energetic lawmaking and the will to blow up Big Tech. Facebook’s pretend foray into curbing misinformation is an attempt to distract us from this path. Zuckerberg wants us to think that he and his fellow titans can police themselves. But we are already living amid the wreckage of this failed promise. —Jason Linkins, deputy editor |
|
Our dispatches from America’s battleground states take us hurtling from Arizona to Florida, two states that Trumpism has devoured to varying degrees. Closer to home, we have gone against the advice of doctors and watched the competing town halls between President Trump and Joe Biden, which seem to have redounded to the president’s detriment. The confirmation hearings of Amy Coney Barrett have mostly been a lackluster affair, but Simon Lazarus is urging Democrats to make use of the remaining time and pierce Barrett’s “textualist” veil for the sake of revealing the cynical way conservatives apply this judicial philosophy. Elsewhere, Libby Watson notes that Democrats’ fundraising prowess will probably limit the desire for larger campaign finance reform; Leslie Savan offers the media a strategy to fight voter suppression; and … just to bring a little delight into your lives, you might want to read the incredibly true story about what happened when libertarians and actual wild bears had to live free or die together. |
|
Support Independent, Issue-Driven Journalism |
|
|
|
|