Case Analysis #7

In this case analysis, we will be analyzing the actions of Facebook in the 2016 election. We will also analyze whether the actions of Facebook qualify as informational warfare. This analysis will be based on the article “What Facebook Did to American Democracy.” The author begins by explaining to the reader that in the 2012 election Facebook was one of the largest influences for the democratic party. This is because a large number of democratic individuals were influenced to vote through the Facebook get out to vote campaign. The Republican party with presidential candidate Trump responded by focusing their efforts on social media in the 2016 elections. The author explains to the reader the increased popularity of Facebook news feeds which gained more views than traditional news companies. The author then explains to the reader that Facebook’s news feeds were run by an algorithm that personalized their news to each individual. This algorithm prioritizes news which the reader found the most engaging because this resulted in the most amount of monetization for Facebook. The author finally explains to the reader that the popularity of the news feed leads to tons of fake news being released and pushed to users. Some of this fake news was due to Russian trolls which plagued the internet with fake news with the help of Facebook’s algorithm to benefit the Republican party. In this Case Analysis, I will argue that Ubuntu shows us that Facebook did engage in information warfare because they deceived the public, and further that they were partly responsible for the election outcome because of the popularity of their news feed and the lack of control over the algorithm.

In this section of the analysis, I will use concepts derived from Jaden Prier to analyze the case. A key concept that I chose to help in the analysis is the influence and actions of the Russian government in the 2016 election. Russia has an established and well-trained network of bots and internet trolls who are experts at hijacking trends and disrupting the news flow. These trolls establish Facebook accounts that gain trust by posting real stories. Once these accounts become established they slowly begin to inject the news feed with false stories with the help of bots and real followers. The combination of bots, true believers, and Russian trolls is enough to hijack trends like #2014WorldCup and many other trends which they have successfully overtaken. Once these accounts gain enough followers they can begin to create trends and overtake current trends which push their message both locally and worldwide.

This is all possible due to Facebook’s trend and news feed algorithms which both rely on views and user engagement. This creates a weak point in the algorithm which can be manipulated for one’s benefit just as the Russians used it to influence the 2016 election. In this case, we can see that prior to the release of news feeds Facebook already had a large influence on elections for the democratic party. This can be seen by looking at the statistics from the case which stated that areas that were influenced by the go out and vote campaign had a 20 percent increase in points in the election. This is why the Trump administration spent millions on social media ads to counter the democratic influence on the app. This, along with the Russian troll fake news story, highly influenced Facebook users into participating in the election. Some of the stories included a pedophile ring in which president Hillary Clinton’s administration was said to be involved. Although this story was found to be false it was still pushed by the Facebook algorithm and became so popular that major news outlets began to report on the issue. This story was initially implanted by the Russian trolls and their team of bots and true believers who were mostly Republicans.  Using this concept and analyzing the case, I believe that Facebook was responsible for influencing the 2016 election. Although Facebook didn’t intentionally influence the election their algorithm and social media app was the framework for the Russian influence in the election. I also believe that Facebook had the responsibility of responding to the fake news and adjusting the algorithm to fight against the Russian trolls and their false stories.  

Viewing this case from the eyes of an Ubuntu believer they would say that Facebook’s algorithm was immoral and that the whole personalized news feed is immorally wrong. This is because Ubuntu is based on the saying that a person is a person through persons. Meaning that a community is the strongest when everyone is participating and reacting. This algorithm creates individuality which an Ubuntu believer would find morally wrong. As said in the case these news feeds were personalized to each user which made it almost impossible for users to know what others were viewing and reacting to. Essentially these news feeds are creating cracks between a society which weakens society as a whole.

In this section of the analysis, I will use concepts derived from Keith Scott’s paper on the topic of cyber information. One of the key concepts used in this paper is the idea that the top-down model of information has made information lose its authority and correctness. This is because cell phones and technology have allowed anyone to respond and place information in the infosphere even if the information is valid or not. People are now able to respond to news stories within seconds essentially creating their narrative of the story which they can post worldwide. This allows for the potential for information to be possibly spread or misinterpreted. 

When using this concept to analyze and answer the question of whether Facebook engaged in informational warfare, we need to thoroughly analyze the actions of Facebook. Facebook in this case I believe to only is the platform where the information warfare took place. I don’t personally believe that the corporation itself engaged in information warfare. This is because Russia had a complex network of bots and Russian trolls that took advantage of the platform and its algorithm to do their bidding. If we look to Twitter they had a similar situation happen to their platform in which Russian Trolls hijack trends in order to push fake news into the public. Another action that needs to be analyzed is Facebook’s sales of ads. Although these ads may have misinformed the public they were simply a part of the business and Facebook themselves didn’t purposely place these ads on their sites to confuse the public instead it was part of the business. This situation could have been avoided if Facebook did a more thorough job at looking through the ads which they placed on their platform. Even better, Facebook could have put some restrictions on what types of ads they would allow be placed on their platform to not misinform their users.  In the case of Cambridge, Analytica Facebook could have done a better job at protecting its users’ information and privacy. This could have been done by requiring terms to be accepted by the users who engaged with the quiz explicitly telling the user that this quiz could not only take their information but also the information of their friends and family. Although Facebook can be seen as a company that does not prioritize their user informational privacy and is more engaged in their profits rather than their users, I don’t believe that Facebook purposely manipulated information in order to misinform the public.

Seeing this case through the eyes of an Ubuntu believer they would believe that Facebook did not engage in informational warfare. This is because Facebook is something that a Ubuntu believer would love. After all, it brings together communities of people from all around the world. This platform has allowed many people to feel freer because they can speak on a topic with individuals that may be going through the same situation. This technology has allowed us to come together as a community and has been a platform that has been used to organize protests and other projects. Although some individuals like Russia have corrupted the use of these platforms by creating fake news which separates the community apart, Facebook themselves have not participated in these types of actions. 

In conclusion, I believe that Facebook did not engage in informational warfare but was responsible for influencing the 2016 election. This is because their algorithms reach so much of the community that organizations such as Trump’s administration and Russia can manipulate the algorithm for their benefit. A rebuttal to my case about Facebook not engaging in informational warfare could be that Facebook engaged with Cambridge Analytica by selling and allowing them to use Facebook’s users’ information.  Although this can be seen as engaging, I believe that it was about the money for Facebook. This is because in the video “Cambridge Analytica whistleblower” we can see that the company spent a million dollars in collecting Facebook profiles. They were simply the platform that was used to manipulate information. This could have been done on any platform including Twitter, Instagram, and Tik Tok. Another flaw to my argument could be that Facebook actively engages in informational warfare by using its algorithms to manipulate what users see. But these types of algorithms are used everywhere including Twitter, Youtube,  and Netflix. These algorithms are attempts to boost engagement and provide relevant information to individual users to increase views.