Facebook Inc

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Brad Parscale Fell From Trump’s Favor. Now He’s Plotting a Comeback.

      by

      AdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyBrad Parscale Fell From Trump’s Favor. Now He’s Plotting a Comeback.Mr. Parscale, President Trump’s former campaign manager, was angry after he was demoted last summer, and wanted out of politics. That didn’t last long. He is starting a new political data company.Brad Parscale, President Trump’s former campaign manager, was expert in making campaign messages go wildly viral.Credit…Anna Moneymaker/The New York TimesNellie Bowles and Dec. 24, 2020, 5:00 a.m. ETBrad Parscale was sounding upbeat. He has a new company and, he believes, a brighter future.Mr. Parscale, President Trump’s former campaign manager, said he was trying to move on from that bleak Sunday in late September when he made the national newscasts, after police were called to his home in Fort Lauderdale, Fla. His wife told officers he was inside the house, ranting, acting erratically, with a loaded and cocked gun.Now he is turning to real estate and plans to buy houses and flip them, he said in an interview this month, something he said he was good at. He is also restarting his political consulting firm, Parscale Strategy, and trying to kick off a start-up called Nucleus, to process and analyze data for conservative politicians.“I spent five years developing the only automated web-based ecosystem that connected all our departments and made our campaign the most efficient in history,” Mr. Parscale said. “And now I want to bring this technology to campaigns all around the world who are right of center.”Once a midlevel marketing executive in San Antonio, Mr. Parscale rose to the president’s inner circle and was hailed, somewhat hyperbolically, as the tech genius whose social media savvy won Mr. Trump the 2016 election. Mr. Parscale became expert in making the Trump campaign messages — sometimes gut-churning and cruel, other times patriotic and nostalgic — go wildly viral, and his dark humor seemed in tune with Mr. Trump and his meme-making fan base.But people who know and worked with Mr. Parscale say he grew too enamored with his proximity to power, and naïvely comfortable with his insider status, which rested on the whims of a mercurial president. When he was replaced as campaign manager in July amid questions about his stewardship, particularly his spending decisions, it was an embarrassing blow.In recent phone interviews, Mr. Parscale, 44, said he felt demonized by the left, which accused him of digital dark arts he did not employ, and scapegoated by the right for Mr. Trump’s failed campaign.“They can’t choose: Am I rich or am I poor? Am I dumb or am I smart?” Mr. Parscale said of his political adversaries.He has toggled between frustration that he remains a source of public interest and an inability to stay away from the spotlight. After his personal issues burst into public, he retreated, telling people that he was happy to leave the rat race behind, and that at least he has options because he has money.He said he had not gone into rehab, as had been rumored, and was not getting divorced. But he was angry about how things went down, and wanted to live “off the grid,” away from the glare of high-stakes politics.“I’m done with that industry,” he said last month. “It’s a nasty industry. I’ve always been into homes. That’s where I’ve invested. And I have good taste.”But his initial impulse to jettison politics altogether soon gave way to the gravitational pull of the game: In a conversation a few weeks later, he had changed his mind. He was starting Nucleus. Mr. Parscale was proud of his close relationship with the Trump family.Credit…Jim Watson/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesA Serendipitous PairingMr. Parscale’s exit from the Trump campaign could hardly have been more horrifying. A police video from the afternoon of Sept. 27 showed Mr. Parscale — shirtless, barefoot, wearing a baseball hat and holding a beer — as he talked to the police after emerging from his home. A split second later, a police officer tackled him, smashing his shoulder and chest into Mr. Parscale’s hips, driving him to the ground with a thud.A few minutes earlier his wife, Candice Parscale, in a swimsuit and a towel, had shown officers bruises on her arms, the body camera footage shows. She said her husband had caused the bruises, according to the police report. The video made the evening news shows and soon went viral. Mr. Parscale was taken to the hospital and released. His wife later recanted her statements from that day.Had the tables been turned that day and it was not Mr. Parscale who was the subject of the story, perhaps if it were a Democratic operative who had been tackled instead, the video is just the sort of content that Mr. Parscale might have quickly pumped into the news ecosystem, the way he did on countless occasions for Donald J. Trump.The story of how Mr. Parscale came to work for Mr. Trump is serendipity, plus a little of Mr. Parscale’s opportunistic savvy. He was already a successful marketing executive, well known in the business circles of San Antonio, when about ten years ago one of his clients was on a flight next to someone who was about to take a job working for the Trump family. The client jotted contact info on an airplane napkin, and soon Mr. Parscale was looped in to bid on some digital work for the family. He cut his rate to make sure he would get the job.Mr. Parscale and the Trump family clicked, and when the presidential campaign started, he was the obvious choice to handle the website and digital advertising.Another bit of good fortune for Mr. Parscale: He would inherit a data operation from the Republican Party that had been totally overhauled, and he had the perfect candidate to try out the new system. Mr. Trump had limited resources and few data ideas of his own. He did not have a big existing digital team. He just had Mr. Parscale, who had no experience in politics. Mr. Parscale was the Trump campaign’s digital director in 2016, referred to by some as a “secret weapon.”Credit…J. Scott Applewhite/Associated PressWhat Mr. Parscale had was the trust of the president’s family, and a keen sense of the president’s voice and fondness for discord, which he wasn’t afraid to exploit.His lack of expertise made him especially open to a powerful tool for reaching voters: Facebook. While others spent on television ads and hiring huge teams, Mr. Parscale saw that Facebook ads were cheaper and radically effective at reaching Trump voters. He decided to lean on Facebook for analytics rather than hiring a large team of his own.“What Brad did was say, ‘We’re not going to ever be able to build it, so we’re just going to outsource all this stuff to Facebook itself, and they’ll run our ad campaign,’” said Daniel Kreiss, an associate professor at the University of North Carolina and the author of “Prototype Politics: Technology-Intensive Campaigning and the Data of Democracy.” “That was Brad’s true innovation.”His genius was in making provocative content, editing it into fast-moving clips and testing it quickly to figure out the right tempo and tone. He knew how to select the right music for the video, the right text for the meme (maybe different text in Florida than in Ohio), and then sending it full force into the nation’s bloodstream through Facebook.James Barnes, whom Facebook sent to San Antonio to work with Mr. Parscale, said the campaign tapped into what worked very well on Facebook: messages that stir outrage, fear, panic and a sense of victimhood. That was the message of Mr. Trump’s campaign as well.“A lot of Americans just found Trump appealing and the campaign had relatively good tools to figure out who responded to what,” said Mr. Barnes, who by 2020 had left Facebook and was working for a progressive nonprofit to defeat Mr. Trump. “That was it.”Mr. Parscale pushes back on the idea that Facebook essentially ran the campaign, phrasing it more as a special partnership. “We asked Facebook for a manual, and they provided us a human one, which was extremely helpful,” Mr. Parscale said.He said his particular skill was in harnessing the emotional charge of the Trump campaign, translating the rage and nostalgia into content that would spread.“Americana worked,” he said. “Just Americana. ‘Bring back that America pride’ worked. Pictures of a space shuttle. Half my ads just look like a Fourth of July party with a Vietnam vet. I wasn’t some mad genius.”A surrogate who enjoyed the limelight, Mr. Parscale would take the stage at Trump rallies and throw red MAGA caps into the crowd.Credit…Anna Moneymaker/The New York TimesA ‘Fetishization’ of Data In the shock of Mr. Trump’s 2016 win, liberals and pundits wanted to know how it had happened and looked toward Silicon Valley. Somehow, they said, Americans must have been tricked into that vote. A mystique grew around Mr. Parscale.“Secret Weapon,” announced CBS News. “Brad Parscale, digital director for Trump’s campaign, was a critical factor in the president’s election. Now questions surround how he did it.”“There’s a fetishization of data that allows normally smart people to stop thinking and accept the words of a digital shaman,” said Ben Coffey Clark, a founding partner at Bully Pulpit Interactive, which advises Democratic campaigns. “Why was Brad so confident? Because he didn’t know any better.”Regardless of how much digital genius was really there, Mr. Parscale’s power grew after 2016.He knew how to navigate the turbulent currents of the Trump family. As Mr. Trump looked ahead to the 2020 election, he chose Mr. Parscale as the 2020 campaign manager. By this time, former colleagues say, Mr. Parscale had developed an inflated sense of his importance. He would tell people that he and Hope Hicks, the president’s close adviser, were part of a small group of nonfamily members on a text chain with the Trump children. Mr. Parscale prided himself on being one of the few people who could tell the president bad news, and that he couldn’t be cut out because of his loyalty.He saw himself as a campaign manager but also something more: a partner to Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law, who was overseeing the campaign from the White House, and he enjoyed the limelight enough that he would take the stage at Trump rallies and throw red MAGA caps into the crowd.Mr. Parscale considered himself as much a part of the president’s inner circle as one could get without being a blood relative, or married to one.Credit…Doug Mills/The New York TimesHis Instagram feed was filled with pictures not of the candidate whose campaign he was running, but of himself, posing for selfies with fans or signing caps with a black Sharpie like the boss.But in the summer, as the campaign stumbled, Mr. Parscale fell out of favor. In a particularly embarrassing moment, teenagers organizing on TikTok reserved more than a million tickets for a Trump rally in Tulsa, Okla., that Mr. Parscale had organized, inflating the numbers as a prank. Only about 6,200 people showed up, infuriating the president.At the same time, Mr. Parscale’s spending decisions were increasingly being questioned; the campaign had blown through more than $1 billion since the beginning of 2019, and Mr. Trump still trailed in the polls. At the White House, Mr. Trump was livid about his standing in the polls. Mr. Kushner agreed that a change was needed and supported the decision to elevate Bill Stepien and demote Mr. Parscale.When the end came, it was Mr. Kushner, not the president, who told him that he was being replaced, another blow to Mr. Parscale’s ego.‘I Gave Every Inch’While friends advised Mr. Parscale to make a clean break from the campaign, he chose instead to accept a smaller role. For the Republican National Convention, Mr. Parscale was in charge of video supplements to the program. Working mostly from his Florida home, he became frustrated.In a recent interview on Fox News, Mr. Parscale blamed his enemies in Mr. Trump’s orbit (without naming them) for his downfall.He told the Fox News anchor Martha MacCallum that he was no longer in touch with Mr. Trump. “It’s pretty hurtful,” he said. “But it’s probably just as much my fault as his. I love that family. And I gave every inch of my life to him, every inch.”If the purpose of the interview was to ingratiate himself with the president or his family, it backfired. Mr. Kushner has told White house aides and other allies he thought it was a bad idea. And Mr. Trump, those people said, remains irritated that Mr. Parscale became rich and famous trading off his name.When Mr. Stepien took over as campaign manager, there were discussions about reviewing spending decisions made under Mr. Parscale, but with only about three months left until the election, the decision was made to focus on reining in the budget going forward and not revisiting the past.Mr. Parscale has denied using funds inappropriately and said the Trump family approved all his spending decisions. Current and former Trump officials said they interpreted Mr. Parscale’s re-emergence on Fox News after two months of silence as an attempt to increase the value of the memoir he has talked about writing, and to ingratiate himself with a president who may end up retaining a good deal of influence over the Republican Party in the years ahead. He is also trying to rehabilitate his reputation to better promote his new company.Of the police episode in September, Mr. Parscale said he had been breaking down from stress, anxious about attacks from his own side and still grieving the loss of twin children who died as newborns in 2016.The promotional material for Nucleus is bare-bones, with a few bullet points of description. “A web-based digital infrastructure creates centralized hub for campaign,” one reads. He changed the Parscale Strategies site from a stark photo of his face and beard in profile to a more corporate-looking landing page advertising, “innovative marketing solutions.”For now Mr. Parscale’s political legacy is that he was right about Facebook and that he helped Donald Trump score a stunning victory. Today his campaign tactics — rapidly testing ads to see what gets clicks, pumping funding into Facebook rather than just television — seem obvious.“It’s easier to think the bad ads brainwashed people and that Brad Parscale tricked them,” said Jessica Baldwin-Philippi, an associate professor at Fordham University who is writing a book called “Mythologizing the Data Campaign.” “If you have a dark ad about a migrant caravan but the candidate is also saying that, well, it’s not that secret and dark.”AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

    • 150 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Pennsylvania man is accused of casting Trump vote for his dead mother.

      by

      AdvertisementContinue reading the main storyTracking Viral MisinformationPennsylvania man is accused of casting Trump vote for his dead mother.Dec. 23, 2020, 2:36 p.m. ETDec. 23, 2020, 2:36 p.m. ETShortly after the November election, the Trump campaign circulated on its Facebook and Twitter accounts, as well as its website, the names of seven dead Americans in the battleground states of Georgia and Pennsylvania. The dead people were used to cast votes in last month’s election, the campaign claimed, pointing to the incidents as evidence of widespread voter fraud that enabled President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s victory.Local officials have debunked several of the dead-voter claims, and there remains no evidence of widespread voter fraud. But now, Pennsylvania officials say one of the names held up by the Trump campaign was used to cast a vote in the election.Here’s the catch: Authorities say the fraudulent vote was cast for Mr. Trump.This week, Jack Stollsteimer, the district attorney of Delaware County, accused Bruce Bartman of Marple Township, Pa., of illegally voting in place of his deceased mother in the general election. In addition to his mother, Mr. Bartman registered his mother-in-law, Elizabeth Weihman, who died in 2019, as a voter, according to the district attorney’s office, but is not accused of voting for her. He also cast a ballot under his own name.The Trump campaign circulated claims of voter fraud on its social media accounts. Local officials have debunked several of the claims.“This is the only known case of a ‘dead person’ voting in our county, conspiracy theories notwithstanding,” Mr. Stollsteimer said in a statement. “The prompt prosecution of this case shows that law enforcement will continue to uphold our election laws whenever presented with actual evidence of fraud and that we will continue to investigate every allegation that comes our way.”Samuel Stretton, a lawyer for Mr. Bartman, said: “He’s admitted everything. He’s cooperated.” Mr. Stretton added that he was negotiating a guilty plea, and that Mr. Bartman had no criminal record.“He’s a good man,” Mr. Stretton said. “He did something very stupid under some misguided theory that this was his form of protest.”In an interview with The New York Times in November after the Trump campaign first made its claims, Mr. Bartman said he did not recall seeing a mail-in ballot for his mother. “Oh, no, no, I haven’t gotten anything,” he said. “Occasionally I would get some junk mail for her. But not in several years.”He added that he did not hear of the Trump campaign’s allegation because he did not use social media much and only infrequently logged on to Facebook to see pictures of his grandchildren.Asked whether he knew why a vote for his mother would have been recorded despite her having passed away, he said the state’s governor, Tom Wolf, “doesn’t know anything or what’s going on in the city of Philadelphia, or the surrounding counties in the middle part of the state.”“Some of the stuff that has gone on in Philadelphia is just atrocious,” Mr. Bartman added.Mr. Stretton, his lawyer, said, “He was wrong in saying that, he admits he was wrong, and since he was approached by the detectives, he has cooperated and told the truth.”The claim that a vote was fraudulently cast using Elizabeth Bartman’s name and that it was emblematic of systemic voter fraud helping Mr. Biden spread widely online. On Facebook, articles with the claim from the conservative websites ZeroHedge and The Epoch Times were shared 1,800 times and reached up to 61 million followers, according to data from CrowdTangle, a Facebook-owned social media analytics tool.AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

    • 125 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      From Voter Fraud to Vaccine Lies: Misinformation Peddlers Shift Gears

      by

      AdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyFrom Voter Fraud to Vaccine Lies: Misinformation Peddlers Shift GearsElection-related falsehoods have subsided, but misleading claims about the coronavirus vaccines are surging — often spread by the same people.Sidney Powell, who was a member of President Trump’s legal team, on Capitol Hill last month. She has started posting inaccurate claims about the coronavirus vaccines online.Credit…Jonathan Ernst/ReutersDavey Alba and Dec. 16, 2020, 5:00 a.m. ETSidney Powell, a lawyer who was part of President Trump’s legal team, spread a conspiracy theory last month about election fraud. For days, she claimed that she would “release the Kraken” by showing voluminous evidence that Mr. Trump had won the election by a landslide.But after her assertions were widely derided and failed to gain legal traction, Ms. Powell started talking about a new topic. On Dec. 4, she posted a link on Twitter with misinformation that said that the population would be split into the vaccinated and the unvaccinated and that “big government” could surveil those who were unvaccinated.“NO WAY #America,” Ms. Powell wrote in the tweet, which collected 22,600 shares and 51,000 likes. “This is more authoritarian communist control imported straight from #China.” She then tagged Mr. Trump and the former national security adviser Michael T. Flynn — both of whom she had represented — and other prominent right-wing figures to highlight the post.Ms. Powell’s changing tune was part of a broader shift in online misinformation. As Mr. Trump’s challenges to the election’s results have been knocked down and the Electoral College has affirmed President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s win, voter fraud misinformation has subsided. Instead, peddlers of online falsehoods are ramping up lies about the Covid-19 vaccines, which were administered to Americans for the first time this week.Apart from Ms. Powell, others who have spread political misinformation such as Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, a Republican of Georgia, as well as far-right websites like ZeroHedge, have begun pushing false vaccine narratives, researchers said. Their efforts have been amplified by a robust network of anti-vaccination activists like Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on platforms including Facebook, YouTube and Twitter.Among their misleading notions is the idea that the vaccines are delivered with a microchip or bar code to keep track of people, as well as a lie that the vaccines will hurt everyone’s health (the vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna have been proved to be more than 94 percent effective in trials, with minimal side effects). Falsehoods about Bill Gates, the Microsoft co-founder and philanthropist who supports vaccines, have also increased, with rumors that he is responsible for the coronavirus and that he stands to profit from a vaccine, according to data from media insights company Zignal Labs.The shift shows how political misinformation purveyors are hopping from topic to topic to maintain attention and influence, said Melissa Ryan, chief executive of Card Strategies, a consulting firm that researches disinformation.It is “an easy pivot,” she said. “Disinformation about vaccines and the pandemic have long been staples of the pro-Trump disinformation playbook.”The change has been particularly evident over the last six weeks. Election misinformation peaked on Nov. 4 at 375,000 mentions across cable television, social media, print and online news outlets, according to an analysis by Zignal. By Dec. 3, that had fallen to 60,000 mentions. But coronavirus misinformation steadily increased over that period, rising to 46,100 mentions on Dec. 3, from 17,900 mentions on Nov. 8.NewsGuard, a start-up that fights false stories, said that of the 145 websites in its Election Misinformation Tracking Center, a database of sites that publish false election information, 60 percent of them have also published misinformation about the coronavirus pandemic. That includes right-wing outlets such as Breitbart, Newsmax and One America News Network, which distributed inaccurate articles about the election and are now also running misleading articles about the vaccines.John Gregory, the deputy health editor for NewsGuard, said the shift was not to be taken lightly because false information about vaccines leads to real-world harm. In Britain in the early 2000s, he said, a baseless link between the measles vaccine and autism spooked people into not taking that vaccine. That led to deaths and serious permanent injuries, he said.“Misinformation creates fear and uncertainty around the vaccine and can reduce the number of people willing to take it,” said Carl Bergstrom, a University of Washington evolutionary biologist who has been tracking the pandemic.Dr. Shira Doron, an epidemiologist at Tufts Medical Center, said the consequences of people not taking the Covid-19 vaccines because of misinformation would be catastrophic. The vaccines are “the key piece to ending the pandemic,” she said. “We are not getting there any other way.”Ms. Powell did not respond to a request for comment.To deal with vaccine misinformation, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and other social media sites have expanded their policies to fact-check and demote such posts. Facebook and YouTube said they would remove false claims about the vaccines, while Twitter said it pointed people to credible public health sources.Business & EconomyLatest UpdatesUpdated Dec. 16, 2020, 9:57 a.m. ETThe latest: Domino’s will pay its hourly workers a bonus.LVMH takes a stake in WhistlePig, an American rye whiskey brand.U.S. retail sales decline more than expected in November.The flow of vaccine falsehoods began rising in recent weeks as it became clear that the coronavirus vaccines would soon be approved and available. Misinformation spreaders glommed onto interviews by health experts and began twisting them.On Dec. 3, for example, Dr. Kelly Moore, the associate director for immunization education at the nonprofit Immunization Action Coalition, said in an interview with CNN that when people receive the vaccine, “everyone will be issued a written card” that would “tell them what vaccine they had and when their next dose is due.”Dr. Moore was referring to a standard appointment reminder card that could also be used as a backup vaccine record. But skeptics quickly started saying online that the card was evidence that the U.S. government intended to surveil the population and limit the activities of people who were unvaccinated.That unfounded idea was further fueled by people like Ms. Powell and her Dec. 4 tweet. Her post pushed the narrative to 47,025 misinformation mentions that week, according to Zignal, making it the No. 1 vaccine misinformation story at the time.To give more credence to the idea, Ms. Powell also appended a link to an article from ZeroHedge, which claimed that immunity cards would “enable CDC to track Covid-19 vaxx status in database.” On Facebook, that article was liked and commented on 24,600 times, according to data from CrowdTangle, a Facebook-owned social media analytics tool. It also reached up to one million people.ZeroHedge did not respond to a request for comment.In an interview, Dr. Moore said she could not believe how her words had been distorted to seem as if she was supporting surveillance and restrictions on unvaccinated members of the public. “In fact, I was simply describing an ordinary appointment reminder card,” she said. “This is an old-school practice that goes on around the world.”Angela Stanton-King, a Republican candidate for Congress in Georgia, in Atlanta last month.Credit…Megan Varner/Getty ImagesOther supporters of Mr. Trump who said the election had been stolen from him also began posting vaccine falsehoods. One was Angela Stanton-King, a former Republican candidate for Congress from Georgia and a former reality TV star. On Dec. 5, she tweeted that her father would be forced to take the coronavirus vaccine, even though in reality the government has not made it mandatory.“My 78 yr old father tested positive for COVID before Thanksgiving he was told to go home and quarantine with no prescribed medication,” Ms. Stanton-King wrote in her tweet, which was liked and shared 13,200 times. “He had zero symptoms and is perfectly fine. Help me understand why we need a mandatory vaccine for a virus that heals itself…”Ms. Stanton-King declined to comment.Anti-vaccination activists have also jumped in. When two people in Britain had an adverse reaction to Pfizer’s Covid-19 vaccine this month, Mr. Kennedy, a son of former Senator Robert F. Kennedy who campaigns against vaccines as chairman of the anti-vaccination group Children’s Health Defense, pushed the unproven notion on Facebook that ingredients in the vaccine led to the reactions. He stripped out context that such reactions are usually very rare and it is not yet known whether the vaccines caused them.His Facebook post was shared 556 times and reached nearly a million people, according to CrowdTangle data. In an email, Mr. Kennedy said the Food and Drug Administration should “require pre-screening” of vaccine recipients and “monitor allergic and autoimmune reactions,” without acknowledging that regulators have already said they would do so.Ms. Ryan, the disinformation researcher, said that as long as there were loopholes for misinformation to stay up on social media platforms, purveyors would continue pushing falsehoods about the news topic of the day. It could be QAnon today, the election tomorrow, Covid-19 vaccines after that, she said.“They need to stay relevant,” she said. “Without Trump, they’re going to need new hobbies.”AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

    • 113 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      How Joe Biden’s Digital Team Tamed the MAGA Internet

      by

      AdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyThe ShiftHow Joe Biden’s Digital Team Tamed the MAGA InternetThe campaign’s empathetic digital strategy held up surprisingly well against President Trump’s passionate digital following.Joseph R. Biden Jr. with Brayden Harrington in February in Gilford, N.H. A video showing them meeting each other was viewed millions of times.Credit…Elizabeth Frantz for The New York TimesBy More

    • 150 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Facebook se debate entre combatir la desinformación y no afectar su crecimiento

      by

      SAN FRANCISCO — En los tensos días posteriores a la elección presidencial, un equipo de empleados de Facebook presentó al director ejecutivo, Mark Zuckerberg, un hallazgo alarmante: la desinformación relacionada con las elecciones se estaba volviendo viral en la plataforma.El presidente Donald Trump decía que la elección había sido amañada, y las historias de los medios de comunicación de derecha con afirmaciones falsas y engañosas sobre los votos desechados, los votos mal contados y los conteos sesgados estaban entre las noticias más populares de la plataforma.En respuesta, los empleados propusieron un cambio de emergencia en el algoritmo de noticias del sitio, que ayuda a determinar lo que más de 2000 millones de personas ven todos los días. Se trataba de hacer énfasis en la importancia de lo que Facebook denomina puntuaciones de “calidad del ecosistema de noticias”, o NEQ (por su sigla en inglés), una clasificación interna secreta que asigna a los medios noticiosos en función de las señales sobre la calidad de su periodismo.Por lo general, los puntajes NEQ desempeñan un papel menor en la determinación de lo que aparece en los muros de los usuarios. Sin embargo, varios días después de la elección, Zuckerberg acordó aumentar el peso que el algoritmo de Facebook le dio a los puntajes NEQ para asegurarse de que las noticias autorizadas aparecieran de manera más prominente, según dijeron tres personas que tienen información sobre la decisión y que no están autorizadas a divulgar las discusiones internas.El cambio forma parte de los planes de “remodelación” que Facebook desarrolló durante meses para lidiar con las secuelas de una elección disputada. Dio como resultado un aumento de visibilidad para grandes medios como CNN, The New York Times y NPR, mientras que los mensajes de páginas hiperpartidistas muy comprometidas, como Breitbart y Occupy Democrats, se volvieron menos visibles, señalaron los empleados.Era una visión de lo que podría ser un Facebook más tranquilo y menos polarizador. Algunos empleados argumentaron que el cambio debía ser permanente, aunque no estaba claro cómo podría afectar la cantidad de tiempo que la gente pasaba en Facebook. En una reunión de empleados celebrada la semana posterior a la elección, los trabajadores preguntaron si el “canal de noticias mejorado” podía mantenerse, dijeron dos personas que asistieron a la junta.Guy Rosen, un ejecutivo de Facebook que supervisa la división de integridad encargada de la limpieza de la plataforma, dijo durante una llamada con reporteros la semana pasada que los cambios siempre fueron temporales. “Nunca ha habido un plan para volverlos permanentes”, afirmó. John Hegeman, quien supervisa el canal de noticias, dijo en una entrevista que, aunque Facebook podría dar marcha atrás a estos experimentos, los analizaría y aprendería de ellos.El debate sobre las noticias ilustra una tensión central que algunos miembros de Facebook están sintiendo en la actualidad: que las aspiraciones de la compañía de mejorar el mundo a menudo están en conflicto con su deseo de dominio.En los últimos meses, a medida que Facebook ha sido objeto de un mayor escrutinio en cuanto a su papel en la amplificación de información falsa y divisiva, sus empleados se han enfrentado por el futuro de la empresa. Por un lado están los idealistas, incluyendo a muchos trabajadores de base y algunos ejecutivos, que quieren hacer más para limitar la desinformación y la polarización del contenido. Por otro lado están los pragmáticos, quienes temen que esas medidas puedan perjudicar el crecimiento de Facebook o provocar una reacción política que ocasione una regulación dolorosa.“Hay tensiones en casi todas las decisiones de productos que tomamos, y en toda la compañía hemos desarrollado una política llamada ‘Mejores decisiones’ para asegurarnos de que las tomamos con precisión, y que nuestros objetivos están directamente conectados con el hecho de ofrecer las mejores experiencias posibles para las personas”, dijo Joe Osborne, portavoz de Facebook.Estas batallas han afectado la moral. En una encuesta a los empleados aplicada este mes, los trabajadores de Facebook reportaron sentirse menos orgullosos de la compañía en comparación con años anteriores. Solo cerca de la mitad sentía que Facebook tenía un impacto positivo en el mundo, por debajo de las tres cuartas partes que opinaron eso a principios de este año, según una copia de la encuesta, conocida como Pulse, que fue analizada por The New York Times. La “intención de quedarse” de los empleados también disminuyó, así como la confianza en el liderazgo.BuzzFeed News informó previamente sobre los resultados del sondeo.Aunque el día de las elecciones y sus secuelas han pasado con pocos incidentes, algunos empleados desilusionados renunciaron; alegaron que ya no podían trabajar para una compañía cuyos productos creen que son perjudiciales. Otros se han quedado, bajo el razonamiento de que pueden cambiar las cosas desde el interior. Otros han hecho el cálculo moral de que, a final de cuentas, incluso con sus defectos, Facebook hace más bien que mal.“Los salarios de Facebook están entre los más altos del sector tecnológico en este momento, y cuando te vas a casa con un cheque gigante cada dos semanas, tienes que convencerte de que es por una buena causa”, comentó Gregor Hochmuth, exingeniero de Instagram, propiedad de Facebook, quien dejó la compañía en 2014. “De lo contrario, tu trabajo no es muy diferente del de otras industrias que destrozan el planeta y pagan a sus empleados de manera exorbitante para ayudarles a que se olviden de eso”.Con la mayoría de los empleados trabajando a distancia durante la pandemia, gran parte del examen de conciencia ha tenido lugar en Workplace, la red interna de Facebook.En mayo, al calor de las protestas de Black Lives Matter, Zuckerberg enfureció a muchos empleados cuando se negó a remover una publicación del presidente Trump que decía “cuando empieza el saqueo, empieza el tiroteo”. Los legisladores y los grupos de derechos civiles dijeron que la publicación impulsaba la violencia contra los manifestantes y pidieron que fuera retirada. Pero Zuckerberg dijo que la publicación no violaba las reglas de Facebook.Para señalar su insatisfacción, varios empleados formaron un nuevo grupo en Workplace, llamado “Take Action”. La gente en el grupo, que se incrementó hasta alcanzar más de 1500 miembros, cambiaron sus fotos de perfil a una imagen de un puño levantado de Black Lives Matter.El grupo se convirtió en un hogar para la disidencia interna y el humor negro sobre las debilidades de Facebook. En varias ocasiones, los empleados reaccionaron a las noticias negativas sobre la compañía publicando un meme de una escena de una comedia británica en la que dos nazis tienen una epifanía moral y se preguntan: “¿Somos los malos?”.En junio, los trabajadores organizaron un paro virtual para protestar por las decisiones de Zuckerberg sobre las publicaciones de Trump.En septiembre, Facebook actualizó sus políticas para los empleados con el fin de desalentar a los trabajadores de mantener debates políticos contenciosos en foros abiertos de Workplace, al decir que deberían limitar las conversaciones a espacios específicamente designados. También exigió a los empleados que usaran sus rostros reales o la primera inicial de sus nombres como la foto de su perfil, un cambio interpretado por algunos trabajadores como una medida represiva.Varios empleados dijeron que se sentían frustrados porque, para abordar temas delicados como la desinformación, a menudo tenían que demostrar que las soluciones propuestas no enojarían a los poderosos partidarios ni se harían a expensas del crecimiento de Facebook.Las ventajas y desventajas se evidenciaron este mes, cuando los ingenieros y científicos de datos de Facebook publicaron los resultados de una serie de experimentos llamados “P (Malo para el Mundo)”.La compañía había encuestado a los usuarios acerca de si ciertas publicaciones que habían visto eran “buenas para el mundo” o “malas para el mundo”. Encontraron que las publicaciones de alto alcance —vistas por muchos usuarios— tenían más probabilidades de ser consideradas “malas para el mundo”, un hallazgo que algunos empleados dijeron que les alarmaba.Así que el equipo entrenó un algoritmo de aprendizaje automático para predecir los mensajes que los usuarios considerarían como “malos para el mundo” y rebajarlos en los canales de noticias. En las primeras pruebas, el nuevo algoritmo redujo con éxito la visibilidad de los contenidos censurables. Pero también redujo el número de veces que los usuarios abrieron Facebook, una métrica interna conocida como “sesiones” que los ejecutivos monitorean de cerca.“Los resultados fueron buenos, excepto que llevó a una disminución de las sesiones, lo que nos motivó a probar un enfoque diferente”, según un resumen de los resultados, que fue publicado en la red interna de Facebook y revisado por el Times.Luego, el equipo realizó un segundo experimento en el que ajustaron el algoritmo para que un conjunto más grande de contenido “malo para el mundo” fuera rebajado con menos fuerza. Aunque eso dejaba publicaciones controversiales en los canales de noticias de los usuarios, no reducía sus sesiones o el tiempo empleado.Ese cambio fue aprobado en última instancia. Pero otras características que los empleados desarrollaron antes de la elección nunca lo fueron.Una, llamada “corregir el registro”, habría notificado retroactivamente a los usuarios que habían interactuado con noticias falsas y los habría dirigido a una verificación independiente de los hechos. Los empleados de Facebook propusieron ampliar el producto, que actualmente se utiliza para notificar a las personas que han compartido información falsa sobre la COVID-19, para que se aplique a otros tipos de información falsa.Pero eso fue vetado por los ejecutivos de políticas que temían que mostrara desproporcionadamente las notificaciones a las personas que compartían noticias falsas de sitios web de derecha, según dos personas familiarizadas con las conversaciones.Otro producto, un algoritmo para clasificar y degradar el “cebo de odio” —publicaciones que no violan estrictamente las reglas de discurso de odio de Facebook, pero que provocan una avalancha de comentarios de odio— se limitó a ser utilizado solo en grupos, en lugar de páginas, después de que el equipo de políticas determinó que afectaría principalmente a los editores de derecha si se aplicaba más ampliamente, dijeron dos personas familiarizadas con esa estrategia.Rosen, el ejecutivo de integridad de Facebook, impugnó esas caracterizaciones en una entrevista, que se celebró con la condición de que no se le citara directamente.Dijo que la herramienta “corregir el registro” no era tan eficaz como se esperaba, y que la empresa había decidido centrarse en otras maneras de poner freno a la información errónea. También dijo que la aplicación del detector de “cebo de odio” a las páginas de Facebook podría castigar injustamente a los editores por los comentarios de odio dejados por sus seguidores, o hacer posible que los malos actores dañen el alcance de una página al enviar spam con comentarios tóxicos. Ninguno de los dos proyectos fue archivado por preocupaciones políticas o porque redujo el uso de Facebook, dijo.“Ningún cambio en el canal de noticias se realiza únicamente por su impacto en el tiempo empleado”, dijo Osborne, el portavoz de Facebook. Añadió que las personas que hablaron con el Times no tenían autoridad para tomar decisiones.De alguna manera, al final del gobierno de Trump, los cambios de Facebook para limpiar su plataforma se volverán más fáciles. Por años, Trump y otros líderes conservadores acusaron a la compañía de tener sesgos anticonservadores cada vez que tomaba medidas para limitar la desinformación.No obstante, incluso con el gobierno de Biden entrante, Facebook deberá equilibrar el deseo de los empleados de tener responsabilidad social con sus objetivos comerciales.“La pregunta es esta: ¿qué han aprendido de estas elecciones para dar forma a sus políticas en el futuro?”, opinó Vanita Gupta, directora ejecutiva del grupo de derechos civiles Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. “Mi preocupación es que reviertan todos estos cambios a pesar de que las condiciones que los impulsaron se sigan presentando”.En una reunión virtual de empleados celebrada la semana pasada, los ejecutivos describieron lo que vieron como éxitos electorales de Facebook, dijeron dos personas que asistieron. Mientras que el sitio seguía lleno de publicaciones que afirmaban falsamente que la elección estaba amañada, Chris Cox, jefe de producto de Facebook, dijo que estaba orgulloso de cómo la compañía había aplicado etiquetas a la información errónea relacionada con la elección, e indicado a los usuarios la información autorizada sobre los resultados, dijeron las personas.Luego la transmisión se cortó para mostrar un video que era una suerte de refuerzo moral por el Día de Acción de Gracias y que presentaba un desfile de empleados que hablaban sobre lo que estaban agradecidos este año.Kevin Roose es columnista de tecnología para el Times. Su columna The Shift, analiza la intersección de la tecnología, los negocios y la cultura. Puedes encontrarlo en Twitter, LinkedIn, Facebook, o Instagram. • FacebookMike Isaac es reportero de tecnología y autor de Super Pumped: The Battle for Uber, que ha estado en la lista de los más vendidos del NYT sobre el dramático ascenso y caída de la compañía de transporte de pasajeros. Cubre regularmente Facebook y Silicon Valley, y tiene sede en el buró de San Francisco del Times. @MikeIsaacSheera Frenkel cubre temas de ciberseguridad desde San Francisco. Pasó más de una década en el Medio Oriente como corresponsal en el extranjero para BuzzFeed, NPR, The Times of London y los diarios McClatchy. @sheeraf More