The Nation — October 30, 2017

6 The Nation. October 30, 2017

computer networks, Zuck’s reach extends far be-

yond our humble borders.

It’s much more likely that Zuckerberg has

gone on the road to contain the fallout from the

ongoing investigations into Facebook’s role in

the 2016 election and the myriad questions they

raise. We now know, from research published by

the company’s own data scientists, that Facebook

has the power to alter its users’ moods merely by

changing how many positive or negative posts it

surfaces in their feeds. We also know that it can

increase voter registration by reminding people

of upcoming deadlines, and it can increase voter

turnout by showing people that their friends are

voting—a tool that Facebook calls its “voter mega-

phone.” We know that it can and has tweaked the

News Feed algorithm many times. For example,

in 2012 it decided to add more “hard news” to

the mix (with a list of supposedly ac-

ceptable news sources ranging from

Mother Jones to RushLimbaugh.com)

after discovering that doing so didn’t

turn users off. Now there are sus-

picions that another change to the

algorithm may be hurting traffic to

left-wing news sites.

We have to trust Facebook when

its spokespeople say they are not abus-

ing these powers to the benefit of any

partisan cause. While the company has tried to

downplay its ability to influence political choices,

internal documents obtained by The Australian

revealed that Facebook routinely tells advertis-

ers that it knows exactly which buttons they

should press to sell their products to impression-

able young people. We should assume the

same is true for other audiences. Don’t

forget, dear reader, especially if—as is

more than likely—you are reading this

article on Facebook right now: You are not

Facebook’s customer; you are its product.

Facebook’s only true constituency is its

millions of advertisers.

Indeed, it is becoming more clear with each

passing day that operatives tied to Russia used

Facebook to insinuate themselves into the 2016

election, by creating fake accounts and group

pages, pumping up false news stories, and target-

ing tens of millions of users with ads designed to

sow division and affect their inclination to vote. Be-

cause Facebook’s algorithms are tuned to optimize

“engagement,” meaning the amount of time its

users spend on the site, such inflammatory content

was catnip. But the Russia-Trump connection is

not the central question to focus on when it comes

to Facebook’s power; it’s just the tipping point that

is causing many people to pay attention at last.

You can’t solve a problem if you can’t even

name it, and we’re just beginning to find words to

adequately describe the issues raised by Facebook

and other dominant tech platforms like Google

and Amazon. In a very important article in The

Yale Law Journal, “Amazon’s Antitrust Paradox,”

Lina Khan of the Open Markets Institute notes

that, while Amazon has lowered prices for con-

sumers across many market categories, it has also

abused its monopoly power in numerous ways. For

example, it has mined internal data on the usage of

its Amazon Web Services platform to figure out

which tech start-ups were taking off and thus gain

an insider’s advantage on investment decisions. It

has also created copycat products under the Ama-

zonBasics label to directly compete with outside

retailers by using internal data about the best-

selling products on the site. Third- party sellers

who use Amazon’s delivery service do better in

search results. Likewise, Google has used its domi-

nant position as the main place that people go to

search for information to sometimes favor its own

content, such as travel- booking servic-

es and restaurant recommendations.

Since Facebook is currently a de

facto social utility, it’s tempting to

propose that it be regulated, per-

haps in a manner similar to the ways

that the government has regulated

telecommunications companies. For

example, as Harold Feld of Public

Knowledge has argued, Facebook

could be required to show that it is

not discriminating against particular classes of

users or individuals when it comes to who it al-

lows on the platform or how they’re permitted

to use it. Thus, when Facebook fires up its voter

megaphone, the company could be required to

show technical auditors that it is indeed being

used in a neutral way. Likewise, when Google

or Amazon exploit their market dominance in

Web searches to privilege their own products, an

antitrust case could be made that they’re unfairly

rigging the marketplace.

It’s hard to see where the political will to ex-

plore these sorts of remedies is going to come

from. Most of my liberal friends, confronted by

the evidence that Facebook was used to meddle in

the election, still can’t find the energy to quit or

stop using the platform. Online organizers, who

arguably have more awareness of the problems

with Facebook, are equally committed to sticking

with it, because “that’s where the people are.” To

imagine fixing the democracy- distorting effects

of Facebook’s power, you have to be able to see

beyond its boundaries, to a world where how we

learn, play, and socialize isn’t structured by the

Lawnmower Man and surveillance capitalism.

And I fear that our ability to imagine that world is

rapidly fading. MICAH L. SIFRY

Micah L. Sifry is co-founder and executive director of

Civic Hall. His most recent book, edited with Tiago

Peixoto, is Civic Tech in the Global South: Assessing

Technology for the Public Good.

TRUMP’S BUDGET

Hard to

Stomach

D

onald Trump’s 2018
budget drew the ire
of health advocates
after he proposed slashing the
funding for the Food and Drug
Administration by nearly a third.
The FDA had already been
struggling. In a September
report, federal auditors revealed
that FDA inspectors had failed
to take action in more than 20
percent of the cases involving
“significant inspection violations”
at food- manufacturing sites. These
included a location where listeria
was detected in 2013 and again in
2015, as well as the FDA’s failure to
send a warning letter after it found
salmonella at a facility that made
ready-to-eat salads and seafood.
Despite the nearly $1 billion
decrease in taxpayer funding,
the White House claims that the
FDA’s budget would actually
increase after a doubling of user
fees—which medical industries
agree to pay in order to regis-
ter and manufacture drugs and
biological products. The Alliance
for a Stronger FDA, an advocacy
organization, has lashed out at
Trump, stating that such an
increase in user fees has “never
been discussed” and has “no
possibility of being enacted.”
Republicans in Congress are
working to finalize a budget
by November—but if it looks
anything like Trump’s proposal,
you might want to put off gro-
cery shopping (or eating) until
the next presidential election.
—Miguel Salazar

USDA / MICHAEL J. ERMARTH

Don’t forget,

dear reader,

you are not

Facebook’s

customer;

you are its

product.

COMMENT