Facebook Aided Donald Trump’s Campaign
Introduction
Technology application is ever-progressing, and its regulation has to be updated frequently. People can agree that technology has assisted humanity in many aspects, and for this reason, it will have a long journey with humankind. Facebook is one of the earliest social media applications, and it has managed to find its way into the hearts of the Americans. The owner, Mark Zuckerburg, is a talented person and a caring individual. Zuckerburg is always on a watch to make his product pleasing and efficient. However, Facebook has faced some allegations that distort its image and may lose its favor amongst the Americans. Facebook has been accused of aiding Donald Trump’s campaign illegally. This article will dwell on the allegations and identify the violated ethics. The paper will examine whether Facebook violated its codes and identify the relationship between Facebook and Cambridge Analytica. This paper will also include a philosophical perception of the matter at hand.
The Facebook Scandal
Cambridge Analytica was a political consulting firm established in the United Kingdom in 2013 and became prominent in a rather infamous manner. Cambridge Analytica was accused of fishing data from Facebook servers and selling the information to the politicians. It is believed that Cambridge recruited a British individual with the sole purpose of collecting data from Americans’ Facebook accounts (Tuttle, 2018). This person had a tool to aid him in his mischievous actions, and no stiff regulations were present to challenge his motives. The information gathered seemed useful, as more than fifty million accounts were accessed and manipulated. People believe that the accessed information was used to generate a psychographic projection used to assist Trump’s campaign.
Facebook was deeply involved in the campaigns in one way or the other. The Russians were involved as they managed to bolster Trump’s claim for the office. The Russians worked hand in hand with the Internet Research Agency to ensure Trump’s victory. The two bought ads that undermined Clinton’s candidacy and proposed to black people to vote against her (Bump, 2018). These ads managed to reach the intended group as over two hundred million people used Facebook by the last quarter of 2016. The Russians were very adamant, and this made them go to the extreme ends as they used Facebook to arrange and promote real-world events and campaigns that favored Trump.
Donald Trump and his supporters made use of Facebook. Facebook is a social platform, and there was no right to deny anyone from having an account. Trump manifested his intentions, motives, and views through the platform. The process was much cheaper than holding events; hence it was suitable. Facebook gains a lot when more and more people join in, and Zuckerurg saw it as an excellent opportunity to aid political campaigns (Bump, 2018). Biasness occurred as Facebook was seen to favor Trump alone. Facebook set aside a team of staff members who would work with Trump’s team and assist them in their pursuit. Trump’s team was shown how to maximize the platform to achieve the desired outcome. Facebook assisted Clinton as well, but not to the full extent. Facebook notifications also influenced voters’ turnout as whenever a friend or a family voted, a user would be informed. The notifications were in favor of Trump, and therefore, one could clearly state that Facebook aided in Trump’s victory.
Several attempts have been made by Zuckerburg to change Facebook for the better. Zuckerburg admitted most of the allegations, and this made Facebook pay a fine. Zuckerburg made his intentions clear. He promised the Energy and Commerce Committee of the House of Representatives to do all the necessary changes to prevent a failure. Currently, Facebook has changed as Zuckerburg reviewed their relationship with the users. Facebook is now free from misinformation, unlicensed materials, and hate speech. These changes are significant for the survival of Facebook.
Facebook Violated Ethics
The American Bar Association Code of Conduct (ABA) clearly states its policies and regulations, and social media applications, together with the users, have to abide by the rules. Using Facebook, one accepts in the terms and conditions section that they will not post materials that are abusive, threats, hateful, bigoted, or offensive (Hornsby, 2011). Trump supporters failed to uphold their part of the agreement as they posted memes and videos that undermined Clinton’s campaigns. Likewise, Facebook had the authority and power to delete any posts that were considered inappropriate. Facebook failed to carry its task of removing posts aimed at defaming Clinton.
Peoples’ details should be safeguarded from outsiders. People feed in personal information such as locations, religions, gender, birthdays, and photos on their social media platforms. Facebook defied their professional code of ethics by working together with Cambridge Analytica and disclosed users’ information. There is no doubt that the information disclosed assisted Trump as Cambridge Analytica was working for Donald Trump. John Bolton was named the national security advisor by the president, and this person had a strong connection with the Cambridge Analytica (Confessore, 2018). There are speculations that Bolton had received voters’ profiles derived from Facebook databases. Cambridge Analytica was poorly managed. It was proven that the firm used illicit schemes such as accepting bribes and the use of seduction to trap politicians and manipulate foreign elections.
Personal Ethical Theory
The moral theory contractarianism defines ethical acts as those mutually accepted actions. People are not aware of the positions they will occupy at the beginning of a social group formation (Sayre‐McCord, 2013). All people will agree on laws and regulations that would favor all classes of society. Laws and regulations would vigorously promote equality, inhibit corruption, and avoid mischievous routes. People in a contractarianism-based society get what they deserve as there are no short-cuts allowed. Moral subjectivism could be seen as an ideal ethical theory, and whatever Zuckerburg and Trump agreed upon was on their self-interest and acceptable. However, after knowing the truth behind Trump’s victory, philosophers can agree that contractarianism ethical theory is more suitable.
Analysis
Zuckerburg admitted most of the allegations towards Facebook’s involvement in the election scandal. Based on the contractarianism system of ethics, Zuckerburg and Trump violated ethics as they did actions that defamed Clinton. Moreover, the two individuals would be entirely against whatever they did if they never knew they would occupy their respective positions. Facebook shouldn’t have disclosed users’ information to Trump’s team. Facebook, being a neutral party, should have assisted both Trump and Clinton to the same extent. Facebook ought to have removed all posts and materials that defame another, bearing in mind that it could be Mark Zuckerburg himself being defamed.
Conclusion
The 2016 United States Presidential Election would have yielded a different result if it were not for Facebook’s intervention. People can agree that Facebook failed to uphold its promises, leniency in the regulations paved the way for Cambridge Analytica to access voters’ details. The details were used to plan Trump’s campaigns. Facebook facilitated the downfall of Hillary Clinton as she lost many supporters due to her defaming. Finally, this paper has provided a personal view on the subject and aided in analyzing the matter at hand. Facebook defiled its ethics, and it got punished for it. Zuckerburg has to be more aggressive to ensure the continuity of Facebook. No one can refute the social benefits that Facebook has brought to society, but firm measures have to be taken to protect the users.
References
Bump, P. (2018). All the ways Trump’s campaign was aided by Facebook, ranked by importance. The Washington Post, 22.
Confessore, N. (2018). Cambridge Analytica and Facebook: The scandal and the fallout so far. The New York Times, 4, 2018.
Hornsby, T. E. (2011). The American Bar Association (ABA) 2007 Model Code of Judicial Conduct: What Does it Mean to Juvenile and Family Court Judges?. Juvenile and Family Court Journal, 62(1), 67-93.
Sayre‐McCord, G. (2013). Contractarianism. The Blackwell Guide to Ethical Theory, 332-353.
Tuttle, H. (2018). Facebook scandal raises data privacy concerns. Risk Management, 65(5), 6-9.