Why using Facebook in 2020 means supporting Trump
By: Nithin Coca
Tags: Facebook, Trump, Social Media, 2020 Presidential Race, Election 2020

Mark Zuckerberg has chosen his side, and if you don’t quit the platform, knowing everything we do now, you’re complicit.

It’s been four years since Facebook, the world’s most popular social network and owner of Instagram and Whatsapp, completely failed to regulate the intentional use of its platforms to spread disinformation, a key factor in the election of Donald Trump. This was followed by a rash of promises to make Facebook a more open, ethical, and safer social network.

Today, though, as we approach another Presidential election, Facebook has not only failed to reform, but has openly embraced its role as enabler of Trump and those like him around the world. The reason that Facebook hasn’t changed is because users haven’t held it responsible. There’s been no large-scale shift from any of their platforms. By now, it’s clear that the post-election promises were Mark Zuckerberg paying lip service to ethics while accepting unregulated political spending ad from the far-right, while also letting engagement-driving disinformation continue to spread.

The lack of meaningful action since 2016 makes one thing clear. Using Facebook now means openly supporting the re-election of Trump, because it’s what the platform, and Trump, both want. But it’s not Zuckerberg we should blame. It’s us, the nearly 230 million Facebook users in the United States. Here’s why.

The case against Facebook

It’s remarkable how little Facebook has changed since 2016. It’s made token efforts to ramp up fact checking with media outlets, only to have several partners leave because the company ignored their concerns and failed to use their expertise to combat misinformation. They’ve run massive ad campaigns claiming that “from now on, Facebook will do more to keep you safe” while, in fact, disinformation, hate, and harassment continued. Zuckerberg even went to Congress, where he apologized and promised change. We’re still waiting.

The past four years have been a series of false promises. The latest faux-plan is to create an Oversight Board that would supposedly act like a Facebook Supreme Court, but has no clear guidelines for jurisdiction. Many believe it’s another fig leaf to critics, meant to show action but in reality do it little. Conveniently, this board won’t even get started until after election day.

The key problem is leadership — of which, at Facebook, there is just one. Zuckerberg is the CEO, Chairman of the Board, and he controls the majority voting block of all shareholders. He is the dictator of Facebook. Is it any surprise that a platform run dictatorially is enabling dictatorial-minded leaders not only in the US, but also in the Philippines, India, and Brazil?

Few corporations are truly democratic, but most have at least some checks and balances on CEO power. Shareholder resolutions have forced other tech giants, like Amazon and Google, to take action on user privacy. Other companies have independent boards that can, if necessary, remove a rogue CEO, as happened last year with WeWork. But because of Zuckerberg’s dual-role and total control of voting power, there’s no check whatsoever at Facebook. Only Zuckerberg can stop Zuckerberg.

By now, it’s clear that his only motivation is growth and profits. Facebook has little incentive to police disinformation on its platform because viral disinformation is the addictive material that keeps so many people glued to its platform. Evidence shows that disinformation performs better on Facebook than factual news stories, and also generates considerable revenue. As state actors in China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and elsewhere join the disinformation game, it’s increasingly backed by money, too. As the 2016 election showed, Facebook provides a captive audience, ripe for manipulation, all around the world.

It’s time to blame users too

Facebook hasn’t changed because we haven’t changed. Despite the seemingly non-stop scandals and constant betrayal of user trust and privacy — RussiaGate, Cambridge Analytica, inciting anti-Rohingya violence — Facebook’s user numbers haven’t dropped, and its ad revenue and stock price have continued to grow.

Credit: Author

Other social networks, at least, try. Twitter has its issues, but they’re done a lot more to tackle disinformation than Facebook. Researchers have access to data and can monitor and track bot networks — something that’s impossible to do on Facebook. They’ve curtailed the ability of state media actors to buy ads, and have even hidden some of Trump’s tweets — content that Facebook still won’t restrict. They’ve also been pro-actively taking down bot networks, while Facebook usually is reactive. YouTube, too has taken similar measures.

The irony is that Facebook is going to be rewarded by its inaction — with millions in ad spending that YouTube and Twitter won’t accept, especially around this fall’s election, targeting you, your family members, and others with disinformation meant to skew and, perhaps, destroy democracy.

There’s a political issue at play too. Calls are growing for government regulation of Facebook. Elizabeth Warren, during her Presidential campaign, called for breaking up Facebook and regulating it so “that Russia — or any other foreign power — can’t use Facebook or any other form of social media to influence our elections.”

In Asia, countries like Indonesia, The Philippines and Thailand are passing digital taxes that would force companies like Facebook to finally pay their fair share to state coffers — something it has cleverly avoided thus far.

Who is standing behind Facebook? The man who the platform helped elect. Trump has made no moves to regulate tech companies, investigate their monopolistic power, and he’s threatening to launch another trade war against countries that try to tax US digital giants. Zuckerberg’s platform won’t police Trump because Trump’s policies are beneficial to Facebook. A Trump presidency likely means four more years of inaction on regulation — exactly what Zuckerberg wants.

Yes, there is an ad boycott now, but is it mostly toothless. For now, it seems that whatever Facebook would lose from Unilever, Patagonia, Coca-Cola and others does not make up for that it might lose if it really cut disinformation and hate content (and lost users), or had to accept state regulation.

It’s a bigger problem than just political ads and hate speech content. Senators are concerned about the spread of climate change disinformation (backed by big money) on Facebook, which isn’t being fact-checked or monitored at all. When Anne Borden King was diagnosed with cancer, her Facebook feed became full of alternative care ads promoting dangerous pseudoscience. Anti-vax disinformation has been spreading for years, including as, you guessed it, ads. Disinformation = profits for Facebook.

The only power over Zuckerberg is us. Quitting Facebook, Instagram, and Whatsapp is the only way to impact Facebook’s share price. There’s no oversight, no accountability. Are we willingly going to let one man control 25–30% of all internet traffic in the US? Determine what content we get to see? And, perhaps, destroy democracy.

Alternatives

I’m tired of hearing about how you won’t be able to keep in touch with your aunt anymore without Facebook. Your laziness is not an excuse anymore. We live in an interconnected age, with an unprecedented array of digital communication tools. There are other ways to keep in touch with distant family members, high school friends, former co-workers, or other quasi-friends besides Facebook.

I closed my personal Facebook profile back in 2011 because I didn’t like how the social network was affecting my mental health while in graduate school. I was able to keep in touch with nearly all my friends, in many cases, through more meaningful ways like phone calls.

It wasn’t a clean break. When I became a freelance journalist, I set up a Facebook author page, to share articles I wrote and shortly thereafter, a page for my Chili Pepper Project, along with an Instagram profile. I was also an active use of Whatsapp, having joined before the platform was acquired (and ruined) by Facebook.

No more. Earlier this year, I closed my fan pages, deleted my Facebook account, deactivated my Instagram, and, after migrating most of my contacts to more secure chat apps, deleted Whatsapp from my phone. I am now completely free of the Facebook empire, for the first time since I joined the platform as a junior in College, in 2004.

Two years ago, I wrote a guide on how to #QuitFacebook, and alternatives to more safety, securely, and ethically keep in touch with friends and family. It’s really not that hard — yes, it requires effort, but isn’t that what relationships are all about? Here are a few.

Slack for communication in workplaces or within teams — instead of Facebook groups.

Chat apps like Telegram and Signal for small groups instead of Messenger.

Dropbox, Photobucket, Unsee or Cluster for photo sharing.

Pocket, SmartNews and Pulse for news instead of Facebook’s NewsFeed.

Please feel free to share other alternatives in the comments.

The Time to Quit is Now

In 2016, us Facebook users could use ignorance as a defense. We were unaware of how Facebook was being used by Trump and his backers, both within and outside the country, to win the election. We also could take the promises by Zuckerberg to fix the platform at his word.

That is not possible anymore. Facebook hasn’t changed, and Zuckerberg has chosen a side, quietly, alongside Trump. Now it’s our time to pick a side too. 2020 is the year of taking stands. All around the country, people are standing up against police violence, against fascism, and against the racist man in the White House. Meanwhile, the top shared posts on Facebook are critical of Black Lives Matter, and oh, and by the way, the company won’t even try to regulate election disinformation, perhaps because Trump is spending millions every week on ads.

For Zuckerberg and investors to take notice, our shift must be massive. Despite dozens of brands pledging to temporarily halt advertising, there’s been no response from Facebook. Zuckerberg knows that if he were to accede to demands from ethical brands, he would lose out on far more potential revenue from Trump, dark-money PACS, Chinese and Russian state media outlets, and other nefarious actors.

Now we can say it clear — Facebook is enabling racist, fascist ideology to spread. If you can’t quit the platform, you need to accept that you’re supporting Donald Trump. There’s no line anymore. Zuckerberg wants Trump to win to preserve his social media monopoly. The company he controls, Facebook, has enabled this dangerous Presidency and is destroying democracy for profit and control of our digital lives.

Either you’re part of the movement to save America. Or you’re willing to accept your responsibility in allowing disinformation, violence, and more to spread on a platform that is clearly harming society.

Your choice.