Facebook is unarguably the most influential platforms that exists. According to recent statistics that were released by Statisa, ‘Market leader Facebook was the first social network to surpass 1 billion registered accounts and currently sits at 1.59 billion monthly active users.’
With all of society at its fingertips, Facebook has more than once experimented with its power. For instance, take the mood manipulation idea that Facebook tested back in early 2012. Without the knowledge of hundreds of thousands of users, Facebook launched their experiment, releasing posts which were designed to alter people’s emotional state and then monitoring the results. The outcome was that what they were shown had a direct effect on what users would post.
That being said, there is now speculation that Facebook could directly affect the up and coming presidential campaign. The Economist draws up impressive statistics on the topic:
Where Facebook will hold most sway this election is as an important advertising platform. In 2016 candidates in all elections (including presidential but also local and state polls) are likely to spend more than $1 billion on digital ads. That is around 10% of the $11.7 billion that Borrell Associates, a research firm, expects to be spent in total, and is 50 times more than digital spending in 2008. Facebook is going to be a major beneficiary of this shift toward digital ads. Through Facebook candidates can target audiences more directly than they can on mass media like television, by going after voters in specific states with inferred interests in political issues.
Considering how much power the app already has over the public, it would be a simple task to change the presidential polls. Through either promoting or demoting the campaign of any given candidate, Facebook could directly control the final decision of a significant percentage of voters. A previous study run by researchers from the University of California agrees.
Voter mobilization experiments have shown that most methods of contacting potential voters have small effects (if any) on turnout rates, ranging from 1 percent to 10 percent. However, the ability to reach large populations online means that even small effects could yield behavior changes for millions of people. Furthermore, as many elections are competitive, these changes could affect electoral outcomes. For example, in the 2000 U.S. presidential election, George Bush beat Al Gore in Florida by 537 votes (less than 0.01 percent of votes cast in Florida). Had Gore won Florida, he would have won the election. (The Atlantic)
No matter how interesting the facts are, the situation is concerning. Although Facebook and many researchers claim that the app has no reason to socially engineer results for the elections, there is room for suspicion. Having tried many other forms of social experimentation, there is a good chance Facebook won’t stop now.
What does that mean for Facebook users? It doesn’t necessarily mean to close down your accounts and never look at it again. But it does give us incentive to take time to disconnect and decide for ourselves what we think would best benefit our country.