Home | About | Donate

Can Anyone Stop Facebook from Poisoning Democracy?

Originally published at http://www.commondreams.org/views/2019/10/16/can-anyone-stop-facebook-poisoning-democracy

1 Like

What democracy do we have to poison?


Let them lie. We have been gullible before and we will continue to be hoodwinked. What we need to learn is what information management looks like. You can fool me once or twice but after that shame on me. Do not protect me from the grooming. Teach me gut discernment. Isn’t trusting our gut the life lesson we need to learn? Isn’t learning about cult leadership what we need to learn? How do we fact check? Where do we go to get good information? The problem is the gain of truth in each lie. Do not think you can protect me from disinformation. I need to learn to trust myself. I like getting to know what a lie looks like.


We should be learning this in school-----how to read between the lines------you see something of interest don’t just except it–investigate it. But we do need to re-think how our media functions-------and the starting point is to break up all the media giants.


“The only real solution to Facebook is one that billions of don’t seem ready to commit to: leaving the social platform altogether.”

That’s my solution. And yeah, lets build a public version of bookface.


Yeah, what exactly are we learning in school?

“Programmed decisions** usually relate to structured problems while non-programmed decisions are taken to solve unstructured problems. It is also to be noted that the programmed decisions are taken at the lowest level whereas the non-programmed decisions are taken at the highest level of organization hierarchy.”

Maybe, it is who determines what the truth is?

Critical thinking is a subject that should be taught early and often, but it’s poison to the corporate status quo.


A fair question.


Great article in which I learned a lot about Facebook:

1.Facebook “A.I. is blocking legitimate news”
2.Facebook’s De old free speech argument used to justify hate speech, misinformation etc; as opposed to newer understanding of speech within a larger relational material web
3. Facebook encourages a dumbing-down clickbait culture in line with consumerism

Go to a better platform… this article on Common Dreams is a good example of intelligenet discourse imo


Translation: “Stop printing my enemies propaganda and start only printing mine.”


That is a good question. It would appear that the answer is no.

I keep hearing about the dumbing down of America.

But doesn’t that presuppose that we were once smarter?

A fair number of you know who I am so it should come as no surprise that I have been band from FB twice for preaching democratic views. I suggest everyone do it but I don’t know anyone anymore that uses that platform. Hi echo chamber :-)))

I’ll take a whack at the answer! The democracy that re-draws districts to guarantee outcomes; the one that wages a decades-long, race-based “war on drugs” then disenfranchises ex-cons; the one with a cheer-leading MSN staging reality-show-like popularity contests then telling the voters who “won” without a lick of substance crossing any minds…

Oh, hell. I was gonna carry on for a while, but there’s just too much territory to cover. Maybe others can share their thoughts and observations on the question.


Easy answer, don’t sign up. I never did, and never will.
But is scary to see (everything) referred to FB and Twitter.
“Go to FB to get your tea leaves and palms read etc.”


We are not likely to prevent Facebook from poisoning democracy while we imagine that a major feature of what Facebook does to poison democracy is to not censor political ads or commentary.

To his credit, Timothy Karr does mention that Facebook abets government and corporate surveillance of its users. He does also mention that political and socially related discussion by its users, and that it does suspend at least some dissenting accounts. These are good and important points. He also seems to imagine that Facebook, the agency that commits these heinous acts, should be responsible for a “fact-check” of political ads.

Outside of an NSA stooge, who is Mark Zuckerberg that he should be fact-checking anything before it reaches the public? Moreover, who is Joe Biden that he should be protected from criticism once again, even if that criticism should come not from law enforcement (as it should) but from a political opponent? Is it not enough that the DOJ declines to investigate connections to Epstein and that the CIA interrupts investigations into connections in Ukraine and so forth? Is it not enough that the various criminal actions of both Democratic and Republican semi-elected officials are almost universally not called out by the once sort of free press?

Broadcast media and one-to-many print have more or less completely failed to call to account the powerful as they did in the 20th century, albeit in a sadly limited way. The responsibility to carry the mantle of not a free press, but at least an actual and functioning press, has been carried on a thousand thousand shoulders by amateurs, part-timers, professional outcasts, marginal and ephemeral players, and whistleblowers (of which this latest CIA protected witness is not one).

No, if Facebook is to be allowed to take ads, let it take what ads it wishes. If it is allowed to censor its users, let it not be restrained by a political party from censoring one sort of political ad and not another. We already have this foolish “fake journalism” wielded by an almost wholly co-opted domestic and domesticated press. We already have the pretenses of talking heads accusing the likes of Glenn Greenwald or Julian Assange of “not being journalists.”

Have I been unaware of Karr’s previous writings on Facebooks ongoing malfeasance, or does this interest only surface in relation to protecting Biden from investigation into connections in Ukraine, to Epstein et alia, or to the general US/NATO push into western and central Asia and Africa?

Hi Ditton: being banned by Facebook? Wow, we should all send you some kind of award! : ) I don’t do facebook because the idea of people creating better lives in cyber space is kind of like lying. sigh—if you saw the Facebook movie, and how it seems to many that Zuckerberg ripped off the brothers who started it—doesn’t that describe how Mr Zuckerberg gets ahead in the world?
I saw him testify to Congress, and thought—well, he doesn’t have a brain in his head—so why would anyone chose to put their life on his facebook? Besides that, I don’t believe that the Russians on facebook cost the Hillary the election. It does seem that Mr. Zuckerberg has sold his soul for profit. Maybe they should update the “facebook,”
name to Profit Book–and that would be more clear to the users that who go there that people are for sale—and sold so cheaply too! : (

  • The one that incarcerates more than any nation on earth - and for profit.
  • The one that spends more on incarceration than on education.
  • The one that regularly murders (via it’s police force) ~1,200 citizens per year.
    My 3 cent.

That’s humanity today. Zuckerberg takes personal info from 2.5 billion people and sells it to the powers for his own profit, while Assange takes secret info from the powers and gives it for free to 8 billion people. Where is one, and where is the other. 2.5 billion follow FB like sheep, very very few bother to support Assange.


Well here’s the answer
From Jimmy Carter