Introduction

            Alexis C. Madrigal’s article, “What Facebook Did to American Democracy,” shows readers how Facebook’s algorithmic design, personalization features, and advertising mechanisms created an environment vulnerable to manipulation during the 2016 U.S. presidential election. They highlight how Facebook’s News Feed prioritized engagement above truth, reinforcing partisan divisions and creating information silos, or “filter bubbles.” Madrigal also notes that political operatives and foreign actors, including Russian trolls, exploited the platform’s targeting tools to disseminate divisive content to selected demographics most notably in battleground states that decided the election. Even with prior evidence from academic studies that Facebook influenced voter turnout and behavior, the platform downplayed their political impact and did not address the broader ethical implications of its design.

            In this Case Analysis, I will argue that the Ethics of Care shows us that Facebook did engage in information warfare because it failed to recognize and act on its responsibilities toward the interdependent relationships it held with users and society. Also, Facebook was somewhat partly responsible for the outcome of the 2016 election because it enabled foreign and domestic actors to exploit its platform in ways that harmed democratic cohesion and undermined public trust.

Prier: Concepts, Application, and Ethical Assessment

            Jarred Prier, in “Commanding the Trend,” shows readers how social media has a new battlespace where influence operations replace traditional warfare. He documents how Russian cyber warriors and bot networks seized control of trending topics on Twitter to flood public discourse with propaganda. A key concept is an idea of “weaponized social media,” where coordinated networks manipulate algorithmic systems to amplify divisive narratives. Prier argues that control of digital trends equates to control of the narrative and ultimately, public perception and will.

            This framework aligns closely with what occurred on Facebook, as described by Madrigal. While Prier focuses on Twitter, the underlying strategy of exploiting algorithmic design to overwhelm discourse is the same. Foreign, specifically Russian agents, created content specifically tailored to trigger emotional responses, exploiting Facebook’s engagement-based ranking system. As Prier eludes, this method wasn’t about truth, but instead it was about creating chaos, doubt, and discord, a hallmark of information warfare.

            Through the lens of the Ethics of Care, Facebook’s failure becomes clearer. Ethics of Care emphasizes relational interdependence, emotional connection, and mutual responsibility. Facebook’s business model, centered on engagement metrics, did not adhere to the moral obligations it had to its users as citizens not just consumers. In prioritizing addictive features and predictive personalization, Facebook had taken advantage of the trust relationship that forms between a platform and its users.

            By not taking steps to curb weaponized disinformation campaigns once they were identified or by delaying such interventions Facebook failed to care for its users. It exposed them to manipulation by foreign actors without sufficient transparency or protection. A caring, ethical organization would have recognized the vulnerability of its users and taken measures to prevent such harm, even at the expense of profit or scale. Under the Ethics of Care, Facebook had a moral duty to prioritize the psychological and civic well-being of users over maximizing click-through rates.

Scott: Concepts, Application, and Ethical Assessment

            Scott’s analysis centers on the disintegration of shared realities in the digital age. They stress the importance in how Facebook’s personalization mechanisms replace a unified public sphere with fragmented “information silos.” In this world, people are shown different facts, political messages, and narratives depending entirely on what the algorithm predicts they will engage with. Scott displays critique in how this as a breakdown of democratic discourse, where no one can understand what others are seeing or thinking, and consensus becomes impossible.

Scott’s insight is essential when evaluating Facebook’s role in the 2016 election. He shows how Facebook’s algorithm didn’t just permit the erosion of shared facts it actively facilitated it. Targeted misinformation campaigns (e.g., false narratives about voter fraud or racial division) were not only possible but invisible to the broader public and media due to the individualized nature of News Feeds. This lack of transparency is ethically troubling because it denies citizens the ability to respond collectively to disinformation.

            From the perspective of the Ethics of Care, Facebook’s behavior violated the very conditions required for democratic care and mutual understanding. Scott shows that people could no longer engage each other in shared truth, undermining the relational trust necessary for civic participation. The Ethics of Care would urge institutions like Facebook to foster environments where understanding and empathy can flourish. Instead, Facebook allowed relationships to be strained and even weaponized through algorithmic isolation.

            Had Facebook adopted a care-oriented framework, it might have implemented early-warning systems to detect and demote harmful content, encouraged exposure to cross-cutting viewpoints, or transparently disclosed who was being targeted with political content. These are not acts of censorship; they are acts of care—meant to protect users from exploitation and to support healthy social bonds. Facebook’s neglect of this responsibility shows a moral failure under the Ethics of Care.

Conclusion

            In summary, both Prier and Scott illuminate how Facebook’s infrastructure enabled manipulative information operations that damaged democratic norms during the 2016 election. Using the Ethics of Care as our evaluative lens, it becomes clear that Facebook did engage in information warfare—not necessarily with intent, but through willful negligence of its relational responsibilities. The company failed to protect the interdependent web of trust that binds citizens in a democratic society. Its inaction and pursuit of engagement above all else allowed foreign and domestic actors to exploit users for political gain.

            Some might object that Facebook is merely a neutral platform and not responsible for how users or external actors employ its tools. However, the Ethics of Care rejects neutrality when harm to relationships and communities is foreseeable and preventable. In a world of interdependence, moral responsibility includes shaping environments that foster care, truth, and mutual respect.

            Ultimately, Facebook’s moral failure was not just in what it did, but in what it failed to do. The lesson for the future is that large technology platforms must adopt frameworks that go beyond profit and justice they must embrace care as a foundational principle in the design and governance of digital spaces.