but wait, folks, if you’re looking at me, I was not there within. the Mark Zuckerberg thought, perhaps, that the thesis according to which the 45th president of the Usa was elected thanks to the social network would be gone in a few hours, but in the end he had to tell her. Perhaps because thousands of young people in the streets protesting against the election of Donald Trump-are also its customers. But he’s right: Facebook it’s not a nice anything with this election.
Zuck talked about this during his intervention at a conference for TechCrunch, where he denied the technical reasons of the laissez-faire on the social network compared to the rising tide of false propaganda, explained the effect of the partial of the so-called "bill of reinforcement" and cutting off discussion about the responsibility of the social network:
Personally, I think the idea that the false information on Facebook, and it is a small amount of content, has affected the election is an idea that is pretty crazy.
Mark Zuckerberg appears to have a pretty clear idea of the political theme (in contrast to the early years of its public dimension) that is connected to the Network, he cited the case of the fake created in Macedonia, but considers that, in substance, the persons to take decisions on the basis of their experience, and that “it is not wrong when we trust in the ability of the people to decide about things they import”. On the outcome of the elections, the opinion of Zuck is practically taken for granted, given that all they know how to not hate your Trump. However, he chose, according to an optimistic vision, to tell it from the point of view of the daughter, in a post that was very impressed.
Zuckerberg has not spent many words on the subject of elections and Trump, however, many of the media have done, and some are left to go to a interpretation that is a big mistake: the social have pulled the sprint the worst president in the history of the United States of America. On what basis they say this? Observing the flame of contents, power crazy, during the voting, even before. Confusing however the weight of the trolls and clickbaiting with that of political decisions is risky and misleading. First of all, these elections were lost by the democrats and not won by the republicans. If Hillary Clinton had convinced those six million voters to the democrats back to the polls as they did with Obama, Trump would have had no hope.
Also, this election will go down in history for the resounding failure of the media and the polls. No one has understood nothing, not even the prodigious machine of analysis of the big data set up in 2012 by the staff of Obama. The desertion by the voting of some young people has made the casting vote in the Midwest and in general of the province, continental american, composed of adults, often male, white, over 50, of medium to low education. Anything but the typical user of Twitter or Facebook, but a consumer of television junk, and, of course, struggling with a perception of crisis, of breakdown of values that has led to the search of comparisons, easy to your own beliefs, conservative and traditionally isolationist (cultural trend strong and ancient in the republican american, no news).
If the young people who have voted have done, however, for Hillary, the big date, didn’t understand anything and the voter republican who this time made the difference of low education and probably illiterate computer, it is highly unlikely, indeed almost impossible, for Facebook to have responsibilities. It is a question of society, of the economy. This does not mean that the media is not there to enter, in fact: the traditional media have shown their lack of interest in those territories, which are left on the sidelines of the economic recovery and beyond narrative obamiana. Many sociologists have pointed out as it is entirely normal and to be expected that the worker of America is deep and you feel lost in the world where the factory is not there, the party is not there, the media will lose interest of him, left only with his smartphone, and his research online, in the frantic eagerness to find explanations that may comfort in the opinion that on the basi s, that is, that it is the victim of a plot.
in Short, this story is not about the social, influenced the vote, but as the disorientation produces the irrational and the commentators give always meal the Network to the justification of what is otherwise not understand. But if the city that has few cultural tools is subject to misinformation, that’s all too informed is subject to the drift of the interpretations. the A disconnect now historical, irreversible, between the media and public opinion where you are tucked entire universes of social parallel, and the inability of all of them. Facebook has a role, true, and probably has to work to purify the environment from the exploitation of its business model, based on the clicks. However, if a certain propaganda takes root it is about the politics and sociology to explain why. Not to Zuckerberg.
No comments:
Post a Comment