For the uninitiated, please let me begin with Marshal McLuhan, who introduced the phrase “the medium is the message” in his seminal work Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man, published in 1964. McLuhan puts forward an idea that the medium is equally, if not more, important than the message. It shapes society not only by the content that it delivers, but also by the innate characteristics of the medium itself.
This concept should help us address some of the misconceptions that have emerged from media reporting on Chris Wylie’s testimonies about the unethical conduct of his former employer Cambridge Analytica (CA) and its CEO Alexander Nix.
Let us review some of the misconceptions. First, news report said Wylie leaked information about how CA had gone into the world’s most powerful personal data engine, namely Facebook, and used it to influence voting outcomes in the US and UK. Second, CA’s psychographic models are so powerful that they were responsible for Donald Trump’s presidential election win and the outcome of the Brexit referendum. Third, Facebook is complicit and thus must be held accountable.
The truth is that long before Wylie came forward with his grievances, Nix had given speeches to large gatherings of marketing executives about his company’s prowess in using advanced personal data mining technology for ad targeting to influence elections. It is also well recorded that his company took part in Trump’s campaign as well as pro-Brexit campaign. On the use of psychographic modeling in ad targeting, experts have confirmed that the science behind it is shaky at best. US senator Ted Cruz used the same technology during the Republican primary and failed miserably. Secondly, by way of head count, Trump lost to Hillary Clinton by 4.3 million votes.
Finally, about Facebook’s role, the social media is built upon a premise that people want to connect and share their thoughts and feelings with each other, as part of their nature as social creatures. Facebook is an open system that allows these connections to thrive and expand like grapevine. It is designed in such a way that all pertinent data can be harvested for at least three main purposes: high-quality user interaction; data monetizing and scientific research. It was for the latter that Facebook granted access to a personality app created by Cambridge University researcher Aleksandr Kogan. Against Facebook’s policy, Kogan sold the app and the data that it harvested from Facebook users to CA, which assured him that the trade was perfectly legal.
Regardless the debate about the legality of such conduct, it is perfectly clear that Facebook’s data can be harvested and exploited. The tools of exploitation vary greatly. It can be apps, clever advertising slogans, captivating graphics, fake news and more. But to say that Facebook is undermining democracy and thus must be put on a leash, as proposed by some politicians, is an overreach. Lest we forget, social media allows for free speech to flourish, which is critical for the functioning of democracy.
Instead of controlling the medium, politicians should try to understand why some messages on social media, regardless true or false, sell when others do not. Failing to do this could well cost them their political career. There are good examples on this to be found here, in our region.
Prime Minister Najib Razak’s government wants to criminalize fake news, a move many believe as an attempt to stamp out news and opinions on the 1MDB scandal that could damage his party, United Malays National Organisation (UMNO), in the coming election. The ruling party made a strategic error last year after forgoing an investigation against Najib’s alleged involvement in the multi-billion-dollar scandal. Instead, the party confirmed that his position as party leader and president would not be contested in the election. Emboldened by this, the prime minister has opted for the nuclear option that will almost certainly impinge on media freedom and inspire an authoritarian form of government. UMNO politicians have refused to listen to the public’s outcry for truth, a decision that could backfire on them in the future. Any attempt to rein in opposition will fail and possibly give birth to political martyrs.
In Indonesia, many pundits also blame the rise of religious intolerance and racism on the spread of fake news on social media. Unfortunately, there is nothing fake about the existence both, even before the social media was invented. Since the fall of Suharto, Indonesia has turned a blind eye on human rights abuses carried out in the name of faith. The examples are abundant, from the murderous persecution of the Ahmadis, to a series of inactions against violent acts carried out by members of hardline Islamic groups, or the more mundane rights abuses by people who disturb public peace by reciting verses on loudspeakers. Indonesia is perhaps the only secular country where the official Twitter account of its army greets its followers with Islamic messages.
It is clear that Indonesian politicians, many of whom are notoriously corrupt, have put the supremacy of law and basic human decency at the back burner. Without these, all is fair game, including murder. With that, one cannot pin the blame on social media or fake news.
Facebook have rolled out measures to counter fake news in the past and likely to step up its efforts following the latest revelations from Chris Wylie. But attempts to control information will backfire as they go against Facebook’s characteristic as an open system and its dependency on advertising. Having said that, regardless of the fake news, the benefits of social media still outweigh the evils. Policy makers should avoid complacency and start aiming their guns elsewhere, to the problems that they should be addressing in the first place.
***
