This was a discussion about social media and elections.

  In the article presented and written by Madrigal, it is discussed the influence of social media and elections.  The main social media company discussed is Facebook.  Its article points out the many ways that the social network giant may have influenced the elections. The article points out that for a mass majority of people, the internet and especially social networks are how people consume media now.  This is leading to many problems with the information and what is true or not.  This problem is prominent because of the way Facebook makes money from advertising.  The network giant is and will have problems balancing the need to make more money to appease the share holders and the fact that they need to understand the importance of the information that is coming through or linked to their network.  In this case analysis I will argue that Confucianism shows us that Facebook did not knowingly engage in information warfare because the followed their path and further that they were partly responsible for the election outcome because of the same reason.  The path they followed was making money but walking your path does call for you to examine and questions things sometime.

  In the article by Prier, he talks about the disinformation that is being put out into the infosphere.  The way this disinformation is being “broadcast” through social networks.  The disinformation is being used by our “enemies” as a form of propaganda.  The Islamic State is using it to try and turn the narrative toward recruiting new members.  The Islamic State is using it also to show how the free countries of the world are weak and they and their movement is strong.  The IS is using social networks to connect weak stories to links to their websites or info sites.  There they show edited or produced videos or false stories to make their movement more attractive to people who could be swayed to join or help them in their missions.  This theme also extends to Russia and how they are supposedly using the social networks to pour out disinformation.  The Russian have been accused of trying to sway the outcome of American elections.  The Russians used this disinformation to try and sway voters away from one candidate to the other.  The Russians used the narrative already out there against candidate Clinton.  This is where the social networks need to have more control over their infosphere and try to eliminate as much disinformation links and stories as possible.  The networks have a hard balancing act in the info sphere and the path of making money for themselves and their shareholders.  The companies need to do a better job or set up some team at the company that can help control or at least limit the disinformation.  The line is going to get some kind of blurred, because the companies will not be able to control or stop all disinformation.  They can work to control some or as much as they can. will both be helpful to the customer and themselves.  Confucianism will help clear some of the blame on the companies and their mission to make money for shareholders and themselves.  The path is clear that they have been successful in their need to make a product and sell it to the customers.  The customers eat it up and use the network.  The customers use allows social networks to sell to advertisers and make money.  The issue here is that the path in this case can not be blindly followed with out questioning some things.  The more the company can control disinformation the more the customers will believe and feel that the information they are getting from the site is closer to the truth.  The more the customer will come to the site and spend time and clicks on their product.  The social networks have to make an effort to control the disinformation, no one company or as a whole will stop it all.  The need to them to help the customer find the correct information they are trying to find, without being control or lead by the efforts of the parties who are trying to provide disinformation.  The networks have to walk a path for profit but also now more than ever to help the customer to make the experience one that will bring them back for more and more time on the network.

  In the article by Keith Scott, he proposes some limited beginning minimum idea of how a government could “license” or regulate the use of the internet of the people.  He talks about the internet should be that right of driving.  As, we know even though everyone thinks that driving is a right it is not.  It is a privilege given to us by the government.  This privilege is almost as necessary as food, air, and shelter in today’s urban and suburban sprawl.  The government has a person need to obtain a license with school and practice to pass a test to gain a license.  The license in some states requires you have insurance when you get an automobile to protect others and yourself from others.  They require an eye exam, a bad one but still an exam, to see if you will need glasses or corrective lenses to operate a vehicle.  The only thing is driving and the internet are different beasts.  The case to license the users is a hard and is the wrong way to help provide people with guidance on the net.  First, driving in at least the states is age 16, children have access and use of the internet so much earlier in life.  My kids played on iPad and leap frogs and kindles before they were out of car seats (also a regulation).  The article talks about how the internet changed communication and the fabric of society.  The idea of licensing of the internet is like shooting bb’s at a battleship.  The article even talks about different countries and different stances on the use of the internet.  The hardest thing will be to get people to accept this licensing or guidance at all.  The guidance needs to come from the parents and from normal avenues as most things.  We as parents generally help our kids with practice.  We take them out for practice driving when they come of age and get drivers permits.  The parents need to come forth and help guide the kids.  This will be hard since most kids can run circles around their parents when it comes to tech.  The parents or guardians need to continue the teaching of right and wrong earlier now and help guide the behavior of the kids to hopefully be good internet users.  Regulations for most things from the government come from long drawn-out battles between parties, lobbyist, legal ramifications.  The government will not be able to keep up with the internet if license is the angle they try.  The government is walking the path they should according to Confucianism. The path is to protect the citizenship of their country.  The path to protect is a great one for them to.  The internet is an area where they need to question the license process to protect the citizenship and examine other wise to help teach or guide them to better use of the internet.  The government may need to license the providers of the internet instead of the people.  The governments license tv providers and have sets of rules they need to follow or are fined for failure to follow.

  In conclusion,  Facebook may not have known or unwillingly in engage in information warfare because of the business of making money off of advertising,  but their lack of internal control and lack of government licensing or control led to their site playing a role in the election or elections.  The lack of control lead to tons of money being given.  This leading to a critical eye being turn the other way.  Had the company kept a critical eye to the site and all that was coming through it may have caught some or a majority of the disinformation.  The elections and the use of social networks to recruit possible evil combatants the government needs to license the providers of the social network instead of the people who use it.  The path to protect the citizenship of the country will be easier in the long run to provide the providers rules and regulations of how they need to act.  This doesn’t mean they have to control them just guide them to protect and secure the internet for the majority.  This is not a total sum game they can not protect everything from everyone.