As I write this, Canadians are going to the polls in our national election. When you read this, the outcome will have been decided. I won't predict -- because this one is going to be too close to call.
For a nation that is often satirized for our tendencies to be nice and polite, this has been a very nasty campaign. So nasty, in fact, that in focusing on scandals and personal attacks, it forgot to mention the issues.
Most of us are going to the polls today without an inkling of who stands for what. We're basically voting for the candidate we hate the least. In other words, we're using the same decision strategy we used to pick the last guest at our grade 6 birthday party.
The devolvement of democracy has now hit the Great White North, thanks to Facebook and Mark Zuckerberg.
While the amount of viral vitriol I have seen here is still a pale shadow of what I saw from south of the 49th in 2016, it's still jarring to witness. Canucks have been "Zucked.” We're so busy slinging mud that we've forgotten to care about the things that are essential to our well being as a nation.
It should come as news to no one that Facebook has been wantonly trampling the tenets of democracy. Elizabeth Warren recently ran a fake ad on Facebook just to show she could. Then Mark Zuckerberg defended Facebook last week when he said: "While I certainly worry about an erosion of truth, I worry about living in a world where you can only post things that tech companies decide to be 100 per cent true."
Zuckerberg believes the onus lies with the Facebook user to be able to judge what is false and what is not. This is a suspiciously convenient defense of Facebook's revenue model wrapped up as a defense of freedom of speech. At best it's naïve, not to mention hypocritical. What we see is determined by Facebook's algorithm. At worst it's misleading and malicious.
Hitting hot buttons tied to emotions is nothing new in politics. Campaign runners have been drawing out and sharpening the long knives for decades now. TV ads added a particularly effective weapon into the political arsenal. In the 1964 presidential campaign, it even went nuclear with Lyndon Johnson’s famous “Daisy” Ad.
But this is different. For many reasons.
First of all, there is the question of trust in the channel. We have been raised in a world where media channels historically take some responsibility to delineate between what they say is factual (i.e., the news) and what is paid persuasion (i.e., the ads).
In his statement, Zuckerberg is essentially telling us that giving us some baseline of trust in political advertising is not Facebook’s job and not their problem. We should know better.
But we don't. It’s a remarkably condescending and convenient excuse for Zuckerberg to appear to be telling us “You should be smarter than this” when he knows that this messaging has little to do with our intellectual horsepower.
This is messaging that is painstakingly designed to be mentally processed before the rational part of our brain even kicks in.
In a recent survey, three out of four Canadians said they had trouble telling which social media accounts were fake. And 40% of Canadians say they had found links to stories on current affairs that were obviously false. Those were only the links they knew were fake. I assume that many more snuck through their factual filters. By the way, people of my generation are the worst at sniffing out fake news.
We've all seen it, but only one third of Canadians 55 and over realize it. We can't all be stupid.
Because social media runs on open platforms, with very few checks and balances, it's wide open for abuse. Fake accounts, bots, hacks and other digital detritus litter the online landscape. There has been little effective policing of this. The issue is that cracking down on this directly impacts the bottom line. As Upton Sinclair said: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it."
Even given these two gaping vulnerabilities, the biggest shift when we think of social media as an ad platform is that it is built on the complexity of a network. The things that come with this -- things like virality, filter bubbles, threshold effects -- have no corresponding rule book to play by. It’s like playing poker with a deck full of wild cards.
Now -- let's talk about targeting.
When you take all of the above and then factor in the data-driven targeting that is now possible, you light the fuse on the bomb nestled beneath our democratic platforms. You can now segment out the most vulnerable, gullible, volatile sectors of the electorate. You can feed them misinformation and prod them to action. You can then sit back and watch as the network effects play themselves out. Fan -- meet shit. Shit -- meet fan.
It is this that Facebook has wrought, and then Mark Zuckerberg feeds us some holier-than-thou line about freedom of speech.
Mark, I worry about living in a world where false -- and malicious -- information can be widely disseminated because a tech company makes a profit from it.
Editorial Note: Trudeau’s Liberals won a minority government, but the Conservatives actually won the popular vote: 34.4% vs 33.06% for the Liberals. It was a very close election.