When your astroturfing is targeted at an election, and you get caught, the election can be annulled to ensure its integrity. What's the problem here, exactly?
The problem is simple, either that astroturfing is so effective because it's rooted in truth and resonates with the issues the electors are concerned with, or electors are so easily influenceable that we can't have democracy without giving up free speech. Pick one.
There are electoral laws that state how political advertising can be done, and how it can be funded for an election campaign.
Social media companies have to adhere to these laws - for example to say when something is an "Ad" paid by someone for the benefit of the candidate.
In this case, apparently although TikTok was notified that a bot network controlled and paid for by nobody-knows-who was spamming election ads (untagged as such), and they ignored everything.
> we can't have democracy without giving up free speech
Social media does NOT equal free speech.
It’s clear by now that giving everyone “equal standing” in the ability to reach millions is a recipe for disaster, manipulation, hysteria, amplification of extremism, mental health decline, and so on… traditional media had social constraints and we need those back.
But the people that now supposedly defend free speech all ARE billionaires.
Musk is a free speech absolutist (his words), yet biases his own companies algo to shove more of his stuff down my digital throat.
I guess everyone is free to say stuff, but not everyone is free to see what people that are non-Musk writing?
"Social media" is dominated by billionaires far more than "traditional" media ever was.
Zuckerberg is worth 10 times what Rupert Murdoch is. Musk 30 x. And Murdoch is a huge outlier. Most traditional media is barely holding on by a shoestring.
And that is a good thing. That’s the whole point. You should go through a few layers of validation (journalist who has professional ethics, a publishing company with legal responsibility, etc).
Especially if yours is a reasonable and polite voice. The guy who screams murder daily, spreads blood-boiling fake news and constantly causes controversy is gonna beat you by miles.
More like journalist who has to follow the editorial guidelines imposed by a billionaire owner more interested in protecting his interests than letting the public know the truth
> Especially if yours is a reasonable and polite voice. The guy who screams murder daily, spreads blood-boiling fake news and constantly causes controversy is gonna beat you by miles.
That is just a result of the economic incentives of social media. Monetization is based on the amount of views/followers, which are driven by rage bait content. The solution to this issue is rooted in economics.
There are impartiality rules to stop owners from directly influencing the content in media companies. While they can still exert influence via editorial direction, investments, and personal power, it's unquestionably against the rules and you have an entire structure of editors, writers and reporters who have sworn an oath and have clear incentives to keep their credibility intact.
Another important aspect is that you, the reader, actually have a choice of which vehicles will earn your money and eyeballs.
Even when those interventions happened, they are a lot more subtle than turning an election completely around in a couple months. It's still game-able but a far cry from such billionaires directly controlling algorithms which dictate exactly the kind of content you're seeing, where and when.
> The solution to this issue is rooted in economics.
How so? In what plausible scenario does intellectually-stimulating, rational content would win over engagement-driven content?
your comments don't "reach" anyone, they just become part of a vast cacophony which is on the whole algorithmically manipulated to suit the ends of other people who are far more powerful than yourself.
The free speech is a US thing. Most EU countries do have freedom of expression, but not 'free', speech. It comes from "European Convention on Human Rights" which has some limitations.
Nothing this dude said is rooted in truth. It's just we're so stupid we'd turn out country into a dictatorship for nothing.
There are real grievances, no doubt, but this guy was so full of hot air there is no reasonable explanation for buying into him except us being irreparably dumb.
