By Thomas Mayfield

The article titled “What Facebook Did to American Democracy and why it’s so hard to see it coming” by Alexis C. Madrigal compares Facebook to itself both before and after the 2016 U.S. Election where Donald Trump ended up winning and became our 45th president. In my opinion, I believe that Facebook did not engage in information warfare, but they did enable it to take place on its platform. It’s evident that the Republican, or right, members of Facebook were attempting to discredit the democratic presidential nominee, Hillary Clinton, by spreading information stating that she was in possession of emails that would link her to being the leader of the terrorist group known as ISIS. Democrats, or the left, also engaged in their own information warfare campaigns, with one of the common rhetoric’s being that Donald Trump didn’t care about becoming the president, and that he’s a racist based on things that he and his followers have done and said. In this Case Analysis I will argue that the ethical theory of ubuntu shows us that Facebook did not engage in information warfare because Facebook is merely a social media platform that enables different individuals, groups, and communities to participate in shared discussions and ideas. However, Facebook was partly responsible for the election outcome because they didn’t act as good stewards of their platform, and as a result they facilitated the spread of false information created by individuals and groups in order to further their own agenda.

The first article that I will analyze is titled “Commanding the Trend: Social Media as Information Warfare” by Jarred Prier, a Lieutenant Colonel in the United States Air Force. The first concept the article that I will be discussing is about information that is trending on a social media platform. When social media applications first started to become popular with the general public, such as Myspace, Facebook, and Twitter, they ended up creating a unique business model that involved getting an idea or topic to the forefront of the public’s interest within an extremely short period of time in order to further or contribute to a specific agenda, this practice is now commonly referred to as a trend, or trending. The individuals or groups that are responsible for taking over a trend on a social media platform tend to follow four distinct factors that dictate how it can benefit them, their brand, or enable the spread of a message or idea. The first trend involves using a pre-existing narrative and tying it into a statement or message, examples of these pre-existing narratives could be Black Lives Matter or LGBTQ+ rights. The second trend involves a group of individuals that have a bias or predisposition to the statement or message. The third trend can employ a small, organized group or cyber attackers to spread the message. And lastly, the fourth trend can involve an automated network of fake accounts, also known as “bots”.

The second concept that I will discuss from the article focuses on the three methods that can be implemented in order to control a trend that is actively developing or occurring on a social media platform. The first method involves the use of trend distribution, this is where a message is applied to every available topic. Of the various methods that can be employed, this is the easiest one to use due to the fact that it takes extremely little effort. The second method is where an active trend is hijacked. This typically involves the use of bots and other automated systems that can spread a message quickly and repeatedly, the use of these automated systems also makes this method more difficult to control and oversee. The last method that can be used for trend creation involves creating and promoting a new idea or topic through the use of advertisement. This usually requires a significant amount of capital to do, and also involves creating and controlling fake bot accounts in order to quickly disperse the message across the social media platform. Out of all the methods, this one is the most difficult one to use due to the time, knowledge, effort, and resources it takes to either create or control a trend.

The ethical theory of Ubuntu utilizes the elements of love, compassion, respect, sharing, solidarity, and tolerance. These different elements can be found everywhere on social media, and in my opinion, Facebook was designed to foster and encourage the use of these kinds of social behaviors in order to further grow their platform. When it comes to the various methodologies being employed to create or hijack a trend in order to spread a message, I think Facebook wasn’t sure how to react in a quick and decisive way in order to curtail the growing use of information warfare being employed on their platform. Facebook also claims that they are a neutral third party, while it’s true that they allow people to express their own political opinions and create revenue through the use of political ads, they themselves are not intentionally attempting to influence how citizens vote nor are they picking sides to further any specific political agenda. 

Using the article titled “A Second Amendment for Cyber? Possession, Prohibition, and Personal Liberty for the Information Age: Proceedings of the 17th European Conference on Cyber Warfare and Security” written by Keith Scott on the concerns of cyber security addressing four key areas: 1)”  Internet access is now seen as a right, not a privilege, for all, and this will not change”, 2) ”the vast majority of those who exist even partially online are ignorant for the greater part of even the basic principles of how the technology they use functions, and they ways in which their devices (phones, PCs/laptops, tablets…) can be compromised”, 3) “the vast majority of users are unaware of the ways in which the information they absorb can itself be compromised, leaving them open to influence operations by individuals and groups whose intentions are less than licit, ranging from phishing to political persuasion”, and 4) “Every user has at their disposal a level of computing power and a freely available range of tools capable of causing harm (accidentally or by design) of significant degree at a potentially global level”. 

How these four precepts of cyber security are complementary to the ethics of Ubuntu relies on how individuals, communities, corporations, and nations use these calls to action to solve complex problems of cyber security. Ubuntu claims that in order to obtain our identity and individuality we must first be a member of a group, and that by doing so, we are then able to obtain our rights and freedoms through participating in a shared community that functions via mutual interdependence and recognition. These four concepts also help address one the key issues important to the Ubuntu ethics regarding community when he quotes Marshall McLuhan ‘[t]he global village absolutely ensures maximal disagreement on all points’ ‘ (McLuhan & Stearn 1969, 272). Persons on the internet often become insulated from opposing viewpoints and ideologies, voluntarily or involuntarily (by way of ad algorithms) and become ensconced in an echo chamber where alternative information cannot penetrate the filter. This type of influence was used by Facebook in order to drive advertising revenue which is a legitimate corporate endeavor. However, it also had the unexpected result of influencing the election by becoming the unwitting pawn of groups seeking to either influence the election or make money from election related news, both real and fake, that drove election results. It was not until after the election that Facebook was able to identify and take corrective action. Facebook was not engaging in information warfare specifically regarding the election. It offered a platform for many voices and communities to be heard. What we have learned is that although it did not weaponize the information itself, its tools used for revenue generation became a weapon and means for political affiliations to push messaging and amplify the voices of those who did seek to influence the outcome of the election. I do think Facebook holds some partial responsibility for the results of the election because they failed to stop the spread of misinformation on their platform. Facebook is not and has never claimed to be a journalistic site with accurate information. They often argued that the public good was to provide a platform where its users could express their thoughts without overly burdensome censorship. It was up to the individual user to determine the authenticity of claims regarding political discourse and not the social media platform. 

In summary, it’s clear that the ideological belief of Ubuntu and the various elements that it’s composed of are commonly used within not only Facebook, but within a multitude of different social media platforms. Concepts such as human dignity, tolerance, mutual respect, and peaceful relations are encouraged by these platforms and form the backbone of any healthy social media platforms user base. This is because fostering a healthy online user base is in these companies’ best interest if they hope to remain profitable and continue growth. It’s obvious that Facebook did not intentionally engage in acts of information warfare because if Facebook was to show any bias towards any one specific message, they would lose the trust and membership of the individuals that didn’t adhere to that ideological viewpoint. Unfortunately, Facebook did enable certain individuals and groups to manipulate certain trends on their platform leading to the spread of misinformation during the 2016 presidential race. These trends allowed these individuals and groups to spread their narrative and the methods they employed took advantage of people’s ideological beliefs and significantly contributed to the outcome of the election.