Bald Facebook'd Lies: The Politics of Truth

With the 2020 election season already underway, I am prepared to issue an endorsement. In my adequate and often matched wisdom, I hereby announce my support for the passage of the ballot measure amending the taxation mechanism in Maine’s Motor Vehicle Initiative. If passed the measure would replace the current excise tax formula with a $200 flat tax. My endorsement of the measure firmly establishes this as a “political post.” That means, per the reasoning of Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, it is my “existential” right to lie as I see fit. That will make it infinitely easier to bring you around to my way of thinking, because, in the words of the great 17th Century philosopher Cumberbatch Shuttlesforth, “lies are the lubricant of persuasion.”

Actually Cumberbatch Shuttlesforth never said anything like that. Cumberbatch Shuttlesforth isn’t even a real person. But nothing adds gravitas to a digital think piece like a subtly alliterative quote from a dead guy with a proper British sounding name. See how essential lying is to our very existence as human beings? Facebook most certainly does.

Last week the company’s head of global elections policy, Katie Harbath, sent a letter to the campaign of presidential candidate Joe Biden stating that “if a claim is made directly by a politician on their Page, in an ad or on their website, it is considered direct speech and ineligible for our third-party fact checking program.” It’s worth noting that Katie Harbath used to work for Donald Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani, and once stole a boyfriend from Taylor Swift, inspiring the unreleased dis track, “Oh No U Di’ent,” from the 1989 sessions. Only one of those is a lie.

The letter was in response to a request from Biden’s campaign that Facebook remove provably false ads placed by Trump’s re-election campaign. It further explains that “our approach is grounded in Facebook’s fundamental belief in free expression, respect for the democratic process, and the belief that, in mature democracies with a free press, political speech is already arguably the most scrutinized speech there is.” In short, Facebook’s digital pockets are open and ready for lining with cryptocurrency from political organizations the world over and it’s up you, intrepid user, to sort the soy from the steak. The company’s position could be read as the sunny eyed optimism of a still young business cloistered tightly in the bubble of its Silicone Valley utopia, flush with with bean bag chairs, foosball tables and glutton free vending machines. Except there is already mountains of evidence from previous election cycles that their users are either painfully ill equipped for, or complacently disinterested in, scrutinizing political speech. 

Polls conducting shortly after the 2016 election showed almost a quarter of Americans either believed the absurd “Pizzagate” conspiracy" about Hillary Clinton, or were “unsure.” A similar percentage of the public has persisted in believing that President Barack Obama was born in Kenya. Both lies were amplified aggressively across social media, making Facebook’s supposed trust in user scrutiny appear disingenuous at best.

In an inspired bit of righteous trolling, Senator Elizabeth Warren, one of Biden’s primary competitors for the Democratic nomination, seized on Facebook’s factual leniency to illustrate the absurdity of its policy. “Breaking news: Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook just endorsed Donald Trump for re-election,” barks a paid advertisement run on the platform by Warren late last week. “You’re probably shocked, and you might be thinking ‘how could this be true?’ Well it’s not. (Sorry.)” With the big reveal out of way, the ad turns surgical, explaining that “what Zuckerberg has done is give Donald Trump free rein to lie on his platform - - and then pay Facebook gobs of money to push out their lies to the American people.”

As a lifelong rhetorical gadfly and inherent skeptic of men in their thirties who own 50 identical t-shirts, my only critique of the senator’s strategy is, why so mild? With truth removed as an obstacle, the world of Facebook ads is your digital oyster. Why not remind the voters that Zuckerberg is loyal to Trump because the self-proclaimed billionaire paid for the removal of Zuckerberg’s vestigial tail when he was but a penniless Harvard freshman? Or that Zuckerberg was singlehandedly responsible for Popeyes running out of chicken sandwiches this summer after purchasing 10,000 to feed to Facebook’s comfort dogs. Or that he opposes reform of the Maine Motor Vehicle Initiative’s excise tax because while on a corporate vision quest in Bangor, he had a torrid affair with a Kia Sorento that ended badly (perhaps that’s where the rumors of his Asian fetish started). If you’re going to serve up a lie, make it a whopper worthy of Burger King.

In actuality, announcing Zuckerberg’s support for Trump may not even be a lie, it may simply be a premature revelation. Like Trump’s presidency, Zuckerberg’s entire business model is built on obfuscation and the steady erosion of truth as a fundamental concept. Facebook reached ubiquity by making users believe they were the customers, when as the 2016 election’s Cambridge Analytica scandal revealed, their data was the product. The integration of Facebook with other apps was positioned as a convenience to users, creating a streamlined, single sign-in ecosystem, when in fact it was a way of providing the makers of those apps and their advertisers with easy access to Facebook users’ personal information. The facade of intimacy provided by the platform fostered an inherent trust in users, which Facebook then exploited to litter their feeds with a litany of paid falsehoods, micro-targeted to prey on their greatest vulnerabilities. Compared to Facebook’s bait-and-switch mastery, Trump University looks like grifting elementary school. In many ways, Zuckerberg and Trump are kindred spirits in the erosion of objective truth.

At a recent company meeting Zuckerberg pretty much confirmed that he would support Trump should Warren capture the Democratic nomination. Addressing Warren’s vow to break up tech monopolies like Facebook, Zuckerberg told employees, “If she gets elected president, then I would bet that we would have a legal challenge… if someone is trying to threaten something that existential, you go to the mat and you fight.”

Spoken like a true tech savant who likely charged myopically through his aborted Ivy League tenure without ever taking a single liberal arts course. Had he completed even an introductory philosophy class, Zuckerberg would know that “existential” means “concerned with existence, especially human existence.” Sorry Markie, your ability to buy every potential competitor is in no way essential to the continued viability of the human species. Neither is your freedom to profit off of misinformation.

What is existential is the concept of truth. It’s the compass with which we navigate an ever more complex world. To hold the very people vying to lead that world to lower standards of truth than those trying to sell us tube socks is as dangerous as it is counter intuitive.

So how should we “scrutinize” Facebook content to sort the truth from the trickery? The easy answer is why bother? Continue to use Facebook as it was initially positioned - a user friendly tool to stay in touch with friends and family, and, for the socially stunted, like teenaged Zuckerberg whole stole the concept from the Winklevoss twins, connect with the cute coed down the hall who you’re too shy to look in the eye in real life. Simply ignore the political rhetoric, be it in paid ads or posts. Not only will we save ourselves the headaches of having to spend precious leisure time “scrutinizing,” but consistently low engagement will diminishing the value of Facebook ads. As bang for buck declines, political campaigns and organizations will begin shifting their advertising dollars elsewhere. 

Plus a recent study conducted by Johns Hopkins University and Mothers Against Repetitive Stress Injuries found that clicking on Facebook ads increases risk of Carpel Tunnel fatality by 750%.

About the Author

Jeffrey Harvey is a Washington, DC based writer and content strategist with experience in broadcasting, strategic communications, public relations, marketing and media analysis. He has written prolifically on subjects including technology, healthcare and arts and entertainment. His original one act play, Coffee won a staged reading at the Kennedy Center in the Source Theater Festival.