To say that the internet affected the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election would be a gross understatement. It has fundamentally changed our lives in countless ways, and the institutions of politics and governance are no exception.
Three companies that played major roles were Twitter, Facebook, and Google. From shaping conversations to facilitating voter engagement, these companies’ fingerprints can be seen on this election, how it was covered, and how it turned out.
Of course, whenever our routines and behaviors undergo rapid and drastic changes, there’s going to be positive change as well as some turbulence along the way. As such, there were both positive and negative results of the platforms’ influence.
Let’s take a look at the good and bad reasons these three companies proved their importance this presidential election
Over the summer, tronc (an oft-maligned publishing conglomerate) posted a job listing for a content specialist who would have to “develop and support our news content harvesting robots.” The listing spread like wildfire across media Twitter accounts, drawing much derision. As it turned out, this type of job is fairly common, and tronc merely chose easily-mocked verbiage to describe it.
But robots have entered the mainstream in other ways. One way has been on Twitter, particularly with regards to the election.
Twitter bots are accounts that tweet (and retweet) based not on the whims of a human operator, but on an algorithm designed to build syntax of a certain kind. While bots have been used for political purposes before, this presidential election produced an unprecedented number of them. Numbers vary from source to source, but researchers at Oxford University estimated that more than a third of pro-Trump tweets and nearly a fifth of pro-Clinton tweets between the first and second debates were from automated bot accounts.
Aside from the bots, there was one human Twitter user who had an unprecedented impact on the election: President-elect Donald Trump.
Has anyone looked at the really poor numbers of @VanityFair Magazine. Way down, big trouble, dead! Graydon Carter, no talent, will be out!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 15, 2016
Trump’s Twitter presence has always been inflammatory, confrontational, and outlandish. These characteristics took on a surreal new importance as his campaign built momentum and support. Even before his candidacy was being taken seriously, much was made of his ability to build a massive Twitter audience.
Considering the disjointed nature of his tweets, the tendency of some journalists to call him a “mastermind” of the platform seemed a stretch. The fact is, though, that he was elected President, and his use of Twitter played a major role.
Facebook was also active in promoting political participation on its platform. But their recent history in the political realm hasn’t been all positive. This summer, Facebook experienced controversy when it was revealed that the curators of its Trending news platform were exercising bias in choosing which stories to feature. In response to the scandal that followed, Facebook opted to pick Trending stories strictly via an algorithm. That, in turn, led to its own round of controversy, as the algorithm frequently confused fabrication and satire for legitimate news sources.
Now, the company is facing some heat from the left side of the political aisle. In the wake of Donald Trump’s surprising election as President, many journalists have repudiated Facebook for its hands-off approach to phony news outlets.
Perhaps the true extent of the problem wasn’t clear until it came out that fake stories weren’t merely being created and shared for political gains. It has also become a lucrative practice for people who have no dog in the U.S. political fight whatsoever. For example, The Guardian reported earlier this year that enterprising young people in Macedonia were exploiting American Facebook users, ever hungry for explosive headlines, to make a quick cash grab on ad revenues.
Alex (pseudonym), one such Macedonian, admits that he started his site by “copying and pasting stories from conservative US news sites but says he’s recently hired a half-dozen US-based writers to produce original content.”
Of course, Facebook isn’t obligated to comb through and fact check the millions of posts on its platform each day. Still, it should be concerned about the role its platform plays in shaping public discourse. If Facebook’s ambitions are as far-reaching as they appear, it’s in their best interest to create some filters – whether human, algorithmic, or a combination of the two – to eliminate demonstrably false news stories.
Google homepage, 11/8-9/2016
This presidential election season, Google rolled out multiple features aimed at informing and engaging the electorate (most of whom use Google regularly). Importantly, the search giant seems to have made it through the election without any real controversy – unlike the major social platforms.
Its main engagement feature was a tool to help users quickly find their polling stations. If you were logged into Chrome, Google helpfully showed you your polling station without you even having to ask. If not, the tool still appeared at the top of the page and suggested entering your address to find out.
There were also educational tools beyond the nuts and bolts of finding polling stations. Google helpfully included information about the candidates themselves, including tidy and unbiased bits of information on issues and policies.
The simplicity and speed of this tool reminded me how effective Google can be when it’s flexing its “micro-moment” muscle.
The term was introduced by Google as a way to describe the shrinking time it takes for mobile users to process their buying options. In this case, instead of brands using the concept to boost sales, Google is using it to boost voter engagement. More than anything else it represents an example, brief as it may be, of Google actually living up to its original company motto, “Don’t be evil.”
This election was one that many people found grating and depressing even before the results came in. More than ever before, the conversation and news gathering took place on social media, and these new avenues of communication enabled us to spread ideas more quickly and efficiently. With those benefits, though, came new challenges, like the tendency to create echo chambers. As time goes on, these companies and others like them will continue to influence our daily lives, our personal interactions, and yes, how we elect our leaders.
The post How Tech Companies Handled The Presidential Election appeared first on Mainstreethost.
