Social Media: The challenge of freedom.

 Back in 2003 when Mark Zuckerberg started a light website using 'facebook' photos of Harvard University alumni, calling it Facemash, he was accused of privacy violations and misleading the Harvard Crimson (the student newspaper) as to the purpose of Facemash. (Student alumni photos were retained by the Harvard Crimson in a book commonly called 'facebook'). A year later 'the facebook' emerged initially for students of Ivy league students only and then in 2006 facebook itself was launched. Zuckerberg settled some of the legal challenges from co students who accused him of 'stealing' their ideas by offering four of them 1.2 million shares of Facebook when it when public. Zuckerberg dropped the prefix 'the' from the name 'the facebook' and  ended up buying the domain of fb.com for over $4 million. Fifteen years later Zuckerberg still faces major investigations and legal challenges which range fro privacy violations, to data misuse and content violations. 

Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and many recent social media apps have created a paradigm shift in social behaviour ushering a new era of 'connectivity' and engagement that as of 2020 boasts of 3.6 billion worldwide users. It is estimated that over the next four years another 1 billion users will be added to these platforms. When social media platforms emerged they moved the one to one chat model of internet connectivity to an open platform of engagement. In so far as the aim was to keep friends and family on a common platform for staying in touch the 'social media' was spot on. A user could post their activities, photos and thoughts for their friends and family and in a crucial sense created a likeable platform.

In the every essence of connectivity for keeping in touch with friends lay the may ills that social media today carries within its platforms. As people could 'friend' other people whom they did not necessarily know, connectivity was said to have expanded our circle of 'friends' and therefor our influence. Initially people added others with similar interests and then posted content that attracted a bigger following. In Feb 2009 Facebook for example introduced the 'like' button, and with it came the implication that one could dislike some content too. Soon across all social media platforms reports of abusive comments and 'trolling' of people one did not like started to occur. 

It was not long before political figures and parties started to cash in on this massive 'captive' audience of social media users and not only did the content get more political the emergence of hate content was seen on a scale that was and is scary. In a sense users felt the social media offered them anonymity, and did so in cases where people could set up fake accounts. In the run up to the 2016 election the extensive use of social media, especially Twitter by Donald Trump, and in many cases with false 'tweets', was a crucial factor in his election victory. Racist and divisive content was seen more on social media and it was not fuelled by conspiracy theories and fake posts. 

It was not surprising that social media companies were called to task and many of them appeared in Congressional hearings on how these companies had failed in stopping the platforms being misused. In the ten years since social media began concern emerged over the way manner in which they collected user data and then used that data. Things came to boil when it was revealed that social media companies were selling user data for use by political parties. At the core of this was the Cambridge Analytica purchase of data of 87 million users of Facebook. 

Social media companies have tried to reign in the misuse of their platforms and most of this has been in reaction to the investigations in USA and UK against them. Yes fake accounts have been removed, (as much as 250,000 per month) and abusive users have been banned, the most high profile being the former US President Donald Trump, yet there is a growing suspicion that social media companies cannot really put the genie back into the bottle without fundamental and structural changes to how they organise their business.

Social media companies do not charge the user for the use of the platform. However, as their user base increases they acquire an 'eyeball' value that is of immense interest to advertisers. User behaviour and navigation and search experiences are all captured and then advanced algorithms are used to 'target' advertising to the users. Herein lies the problem for social media companies, because just as advertising can be funnelled to a specific user so too can content that matches their profile. So assume a persons 'likes' and navigates to racist content on both the social media or the web, this then allows algorithms or place matching content to user. 

So far then defence that social media companies have placed forward is that while they do remove the content that if offensive they do to 'target' such content to the users. They further stated that content only gets directed to a suer in response to their own content posting. In a recent research experiment a dummy account was set up on social media and this account never posted any content but merely navigated to offensive content and nothing more. Within six weeks of the account being set up it was noticed that content that was offensive was appearing as suggestions to the user account. While this was not a broad based experiment the basic finding of the content channeling is troublesome. 

Social media companies do not want to modify the algorithms for fear that it may affect their main and perhaps only source of income which is advertising. In time however it is more likely that companies will have to adopt an open architecture approach towards their algorithms and adjust them to filter content. Needless to say this is an expensive operation and could well set back the social media income stream. 

While these measures will deal with some of the macro problems that we see on social media there is no doubt that the one to one abusive comments and content cannot be policed so easily. In some cases the use of artificial intelligence to filter posted content has been partially successful, but this method cannot be used for dealign with one on one abusive comments and posts. Most likely social media companies will have to deploy hundreds of moderators who can deal with such complaints. This is an expensive proposition and is likely to have significant impact on the profitability of social media companies. 

There is a growing feeling amongst users that social media platforms have become toxic and while it remains an addictive part of many peoples lives it is more than likely that if the way social media works is not changed more users will be disillusioned. Indeed there will always be the toxic user who thrives on a response to an offensive post to troll further with even more offensive posts and perhaps in the end social media will of use to only such users. However realistically the connectivity that social media brought into our lives have been welcomed where used positively. Smart social media companies will have to think of ways to retain such users, till such time we can watch the monster of social media battle those who want to tame it sensible and respectable behaviour. 

Trump and Twitter: The role of social media in US Politics.

President Trump, as candidate for the Presidential election, whether by design or through the sheer twist of his personality used social media, and especially Twitter, to create a phenomenon that actually won him the election. I do not believe this was a thought out strategy but it fell into a space where his personality benefited from the use of this 160 words messaging blitz per message and as it snowballed into a massive following of over 55 million followers, it became his chosen platform of communication. While admittedly not all 55 million are his ardent admirers it did draw into his base of followers. Without disrespect to his base, most of them did not prefer to delve into the 3000 word articles analyzing the position of different candidates on national and even international issues. Like Trump their attention span fitted into the Twitter format perfectly.

But this was only the backdrop in which then candidate Trump and now President, tweeted over 35,000 tweets in the past year alone. Spending months analyzing Trumps Twitter behavior reveals something interesting. Not prone to a serious debate or deep intellectual discourses on the state of the world or the US, Trump realized that he could say anything on Twitter and in a nano second it would not only be read but believed by his followers. If it was a lie, and many of his tweets were fabrications, then people would, much like the world of Twitter just simply move on.

His biggest coup was apparent when Hilary Clinton was speaking at the Democratic Convention and while she was speaking, Donald Trump was tweeting, in real time, his rebuttals, some of which were not accurate, to a much larger audience. Having sent his tirade of tweets out while Hilary was speaking he forced the hand of the press corp to then not only report on what Hilary had said but in real time also refer to what Trump had said on those issues. This was unprecedented as in the past such a speech would have been reported as it happened only the next day or hours later the rebuttals from opposing candidates would be reported. In a sense Trump was diluting Hilary's message.

Because no one in political circles had seen this sort of use of social media the political pundits considered Trump inexperienced, immature politically to have a serious view point. But these intellectual stalwarts forgot one important thing, Trump was outflanking them and appealing to the very people who did not read or want to read the lengthy articles in the main media. Like Trump they liked in the world of the nano second, and it did not matter to them what anyone else said but like it or not Trump had not only the first move advantage on Twitter, he relentlessly hogged that space.

Fact checking Trumps tweets does reveal in general he was lying, bending facts, or simply attacking people. But this did not matter because much like Twitters architecture a message has a limited life out there and yes people can comment and correct the tweet, but still the original message has found its mark. Importantly Trump followed one cardinal rule, he ignored all replies to his tweets, even those that praised him, the few that they were, because to him these views that did not agree with him did not matter, they were just noise. The media outlets that liked his message believed his tweets with messianic fervor, his detractors laughed at him, but beneath the surface he managed to communicate with his base in a simple language they liked, truth or not.

As President, Trump has not given up Twitter and even used it to go after North Korea, China, Nato, Mexico, Canada, you name it and he has done it. Many purists believe, and rightly so, that Twitter during a campaign and Twitter as President are two different roles and it is not becoming of the President of the United States to use Twitter to demean and attack people. However, perhaps its a habit with Donald Trump that he cannot quit Twitter, or that he simply believes the electioneering must continue and twitter is the weapon of choice to him. Even as President the spread of lies through Twitter does not bother him because unlike other President these mid term elections are really a battle for his survival. He knows if his predicted red wave falters, then even his supporters in Congress will jump ship, all the more reason many of them have followed him for the fear that his base may turn against them. However, in time the US public will realize that his core base cannot be larger than the electorate and the test of that is around the corner.

For the moment Trump has only two weapons in his hands; his public rallies and his Twitter account. He has spent less time working as President than he has on the campaign trail trying to get his loyal candidates elected, sometimes sounding as if it was he fighting the election and not them. It seems its a matter of time when, like Kanye West, others realize that Donald Trump has used and abused their support. For the moment one has to give him his due credit for knowing the power of Twitter was powerful enough to tell lies and still be elected.

Thank You Mr Trump.

We have a great deal to thank Mr Donald J Trump for; he has single handedly shown us how important Twitter and social media is, he brought the name of Putin into every home in the Bible belt, showed us how important walls can be in our life. I cannot understand why people are not acknowledging that finally in the White House we have a well read, successful businessman, a man with a sense of history and the man who taught the world how to negotiate. Mr Trump is the wizard of brevity, who else could sum up the most complicated world issue in less that 140 words on Twitter.

Most people do not know that it was this remarkable man's secret hand behind some important historical events in modern history. He was the one who  told President Bush not to invade Iraq, he was the one who brought attention to the importance of keeping your birth certificate in your wallet. Few know that it was Mr Trump who masterminded the end of Osama bin Laden, but since he did not have political ambitions he let President Obama take credit for it.

Just when the United States was losing its identity, its ethnic foundation and its religious compass, Mr Trump appeared on the scene and taught us to see how angry the white man living in a trailer park without a decent job really was. Mr Trump made sure we do not focus on the black-white divide, even though Black Lives Matter tried to distract him, and instead look at something much bigger, THE MEXICANS. He made Americans realize that the US will not remain a piñata for immigration and he, in his infinite wisdom, showed us that MS-13 is really the silent army and it must be that every Latino must be a member.

 Most importantly  by exposing the 'fake media' Mr Trump drove millions and millions (his words) of followers to my blog for that I must personally thank the Donald. He is right, why can't CNN give him credit for his role in the taking down of OBL, or for redefining the essence of diplomacy. Is it his fault that Mrs Merkle (Trumpets that is the Chancellor of Germany) cannot use Twitter. My friend Imran Khan is, as we speak, involved in Twitter exchange with President Trump which is redefining the war on terror and the role of US and Pakistan. In order to recover the $72 million Mr Trump spent on his golf trips as President he can not down size the Embassy in Pakistan and save that money, after Twitter diplomacy is the way to go.

On a personal level I want to thank Mr Trump for helping me sort out my Facebook friends. I always thought the 4,500 friends were there because of our love for horses and photography. Along comes Mr Trump and slight joke by me during the election suddenly divided my Facebook dear and close friends into three distinct groups. The ones who love the Donald, the ones who hate him and then the ones who don't care a damn but like the banter on my Facebook page. I lost four friends on Facebook one of whom I knew in person for 30 years and visited me a few times a year and had lunch with me each trip and copious amounts of beer. Another was a childhood friend of mine who told me that since I criticized 'her President' I was anti American and a terrorist. How else could I filter out the true character of these people were it not for Mr Trump. I have been saved such angst in figuring them out on own.

 I know the 'fake media' will say that it is not becoming of a President to have these Twitter tantrums. Well I see it differently, it makes me realize that the President of the United States is human, not a wax figurine without emotion. His burst of Tweets show he is no different from my friend who will post about what she eats at each meal, or another one who will tell the world about every little illness she has, or indeed the rather nutty one who informed the Facebook world that while in an elevator she was grabbed by her p....y. I got blocked when I asked her 'Was it at the Trump Tower?'


SO Mr Trump thanks for being human, or even sub human, thanks for filtering out my Facebook crowd, its more clear now, and thanks for making this blog so important to world peace. You are my hero....