![\"\"](\"https:\/\/world.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/10\/media-usage-at-high.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
There is not much time left until the 2020 US Election, and the tension is rising. It is hard to predict the winner between the current President Donald Trump and Joe Biden. Many factors will play a role in deciding the next POTUS, and nobody should underestimate large media companies\u2019 influence.<\/p>\n
How will Facebook and Google shape the US election? Even these companies confirmed that they are aware of their potential influence on the voters, but are they doing something about it? Here is an overview of how major companies have affected these and past elections, and whether it is possible to establish some order in this pre-election chaos.<\/p>\n
Did you know that \u2018embeds\u2019 might have played a crucial role in helping Trump come out as a winner of the 2016 Election?<\/p>\n
First of all, let\u2019s clarify the term \u2018embed\u2019 in this case. Major internet players, such as Twitter and Facebook, don\u2019t hide that they send their employees to their highest-paying advertising clients. These employees are called \u2018embeds,\u2019 and their goal is to help the advertisers identify the best strategy to achieve the desired results.<\/p>\n
While that sounds like a good business strategy, what if the highest-paying advertiser is a political campaign? That is what happens in the elections year, but it doesn\u2019t stop Facebook and other media from offering their embeds.<\/p>\n
The difference during the 2016 election process was that Hillary Clinton refused the help of social media operatives, while Trump accepted it. The Democrats tried to develop their apparatus for informing people over the web, but did that turn out to be the wrong move? Nobody would guarantee that Clinton would win with the help of the \u2018embeds,\u2019 but did they affect the result.<\/p>\n
A\u00a0study<\/a>\u00a0released in the Political Communication journal revealed that Facebook and other networks were extensively involved in the campaign via their \u2018embeds.\u2019 The authors of the study argue that social media administrators didn\u2019t stop the so-called \u201cfake news\u201d from spreading. Additionally, they discuss the role of these operatives in the campaigns.<\/p>\n According to the study, the operatives didn\u2019t hesitate to identify what photos and updates would perform best on social networks, including the dark posts that could deliver inaccurate content.<\/p>\n Twitter operatives analyzed the performance of the tweets of people who participated in the campaign. Based on that, they would recommend the next moves and how to shape updates for better results. Even Google assisted the candidates by helping them position their advertisements better when it comes to determining particular ads\u2019 locations.<\/p>\n Ultimately, it all depends on the point of view. For starters, who better to help you to maximize the social networks than people working there? Additionally, the services of \u2018embeds\u2019 were offered to both candidates. If you look at it this way, Clinton is the only one to blame for not taking advantage of that. It is a valuable asset that her team didn\u2019t recognize as important.<\/p>\n Social media has to power to influence the way people think. That might be something we are all afraid of, but what if we tell you that these networks don\u2019t even hide that? According to numerous\u00a0reports<\/a>, Facebook is well aware that it could influence people\u2019s voting decisions. After all, if they can point you in the direction of buying a particular product, why wouldn\u2019t they be capable of telling you who to vote?<\/p>\n You will find various success advertising stories on Facebook. Although they removed it, one related to the 2016 Election had been there earlier. It was a story about how Ted Cruz managed to win Iowa over Trump when the Republican nominee was supposed to be chosen.<\/p>\n The idea was simple \u2013 Facebook used its data to reveal the advertisements that would turn those who would vote Carson into those that will vote Cruz. The experts created a campaign that focused on Cruz as an outsider who would change everything in D.C. They also launched another ad that trashed the coziness that Trump has had.<\/p>\n Cruz didn\u2019t only win Iowa by using the services of Facebook experts, but he also used Super Tuesday to win in three more states. It is a perfect example of how social networks can influence the campaign. The biggest surprise in the entire story is that Facebook is not only aware of it, but also bragging that is the case.<\/p>\n Mark Zuckerberg rejected the idea that fake news had the power of influencing the election.<\/p>\n \u201cThat is a crazy idea. Fake news takes a small part of the content on Facebook, and they couldn\u2019t have affected the elections. People see over 99% of true content,\u201d said Zuckerberg.<\/p>\n While that might be true, the statistics indicate that Google and Facebook are the two companies that get the most income from digital ads during the elections. The problem is that these platforms don\u2019t seem to care about content accuracy as long as it brings them money.<\/p>\n We had a couple of relatively quiet years, but the fact that the elections will be held in November sparked the public\u2019s interest in digital advertisements. People throughout the country are asking whether Facebook plans to change their ad policy.<\/p>\n According to what was\u00a0published<\/a>\u00a0in February, Facebook wants to stay on its current course. That means they won\u2019t prevent political campaigns to deliver messages that might not be entirely truthful. While other digital ad giants adjusted the ad policy to implement restrictions, Facebook doesn\u2019t plan to do that. After all, it is a surefire way to remain number one when it comes to ad income. And they don\u2019t mind that the company will be criticized because of that decision.<\/p>\n We have a unique situation at the moment because it seems like everyone is complaining about Facebook. It doesn\u2019t fit anyone\u2019s taste, which is why the company might have refused to implement any changes. The current situation is that they are independent in deciding which ads to publish, even if that means they will publish them all.<\/p>\n It is worth noting that nobody obliges social networks to follow specific rules because there are no regulations in this area. Instead of censoring the ads, Facebook now offers an option to users who want to see less political content in their feed. By ticking the desired option, a voter can pick to see fewer ads of a particular type.<\/p>\n You will find that Jack Dorsey, the CEO of Twitter, doesn\u2019t think the same way as Zuckerberg. He\u00a0revealed<\/a>\u00a0that Twitter would ban all political ads on this media, which is a brave decision. Unlike that bold approach, Google published that it will limit the advertisements up to some extent.<\/p>\n The reactions were mixed \u2013 the Democrats believe that the loss of reputation that Facebook suffered lately is because they are not fighting against fake news. On the other hand, the Trump campaign believes that Google and Twitter are contributing to voter suppression.<\/p>\n Digital advertising is a powerful tool for political campaigns. Social media have a valuable weapon for influencing the voters in their hands. That is why it\u2019s not surprising that they are occasional victims of those weapons, too. If there is anything that\u00a0Biden and Trump agree on<\/a>, it is that they will target social networks in their advertisements.<\/p>\n According to the details, the Trump campaign purchased Facebook ads that will trash Twitter that it works against him. Biden decided to run a FB advertising campaign to ask voters to sign a petition to delete fake news and inaccurate content.<\/p>\n Now, this tells us that both parties are aware of how social media can be a powerful weapon. That is why they don\u2019t hesitate to use it in the campaign. At the same time, they use those very advertisements to criticize the policies of those networks. Are those double standards?<\/p>\n Facebook didn\u2019t stop an ad from Biden\u2019s campaign that talks about how this social media \u201cthreatens democracy.\u201d Democrats want fake news of the site, but that is a whole different topic. The hands-off approach that FB uses might be smarter than the one Twitter applies.<\/p>\n Trump knows how to use this opportunity, which is why you will see Facebook ads about \u201cTwitter trying to silence POTUS by interfering in his posts.\u201d<\/p>\n During the 2016 elections, it seems that trolls from Russia used Facebook to call people to fake political events and post controversial messages and ads to the platform. The biggest problem seemed to be misinformation and for a good reason. It is not about the messages that the politicians send, but about facts and information \u2013 they should both be accurate.<\/p>\n The major players on the internet don\u2019t hide that there are issues in this department. Furthermore, they already agreed on the actions to take to avoid the scenario that occurred four years ago. Are their actions enough to combat misinformation? And what can we expect from search engines we use every day?<\/p>\n According to\u00a0Science<\/a>, Google has the power of manipulating people using their search engine. As you browse the internet and use different search queries, you provide the company information about your preferences. The platform uses that information to tailor the content that they show to you. And even if they don\u2019t do that, there is still the option to choose what will be placed first in Google search results.<\/p>\n The problem is that Google is so popular and widely-used that billions of users trust it. Many of them won\u2019t go beyond the first few links provided. That gives the company plenty of room to manipulate the content. It is one of the reasons why the discussion about the\u00a0filter bubble<\/a>\u00a0started in 2010.<\/p>\n Now, that manipulation could push you in the direction of buying a product from a particular brand. But what if it shapes how you plan to vote, and does that with millions of other voters? That means Google can shape the entire country by repositioning the results in its search engine results.<\/p>\n An interesting study was done in California in 2014, and it focused on the elections in India held that year. The authors analyzed biased search results shown to undecided voters. They concluded that the content shown in search results affected at least 12% of those voters to decide for one of the prospective candidates.<\/p>\n Robert Epstein from the American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology indicates that Google could change the results of US Election votes by approximately 2.5 million voters (about 2%). The predictions for the upcoming elections predict a narrow win from one of the candidates, which means that a single search engine has a theoretical chance of deciding the next POTUS.<\/p>\n It is impossible to prove that Google affects search results in any way because the company has the right to keep how the algorithms work to itself. That is what the intellectual property laws specify, so we can only discuss the potential \u201cpower of suggestion\u201d implemented by Google in their search results.<\/p>\n However, it is known that the company uses this power under the excuse that it improves user experience. For example, if you start typing in Google\u2019s search bar, you will find autofill suggestions made by this platform. But did you know that suggestions are different from one user to another?<\/p>\n The company uses the information collected about your browsing in the past to give you the most relevant search suggestions. If you type hot, you might see \u201chot weather\u201d as an autofill suggestion, but another person could see \u201chot chocolate.\u201d<\/p>\n Google defends itself by saying that they use the same algorithm regardless of the person. That way, they provide the results closest to the user preference without wanting to affect what they search. Even if that is true, that means autofill suggestions are biased. That is why it might be difficult to access unbiased news on the web and get to know different opinions.<\/p>\n We live in a world where news posts are everywhere, and they are readily available to anyone. It seems like a paradox, but that makes it more difficult than ever to reach unbiased content. Major search engines don\u2019t hesitate to gather our private browsing info and abuse it to filter the content they show us. Is there a way to protect yourself and read objective news?<\/p>\n The answer lies in using\u00a0private search engines<\/a>\u00a0like Privado. These platforms are a valuable asset because they always deliver unbiased content. On top of that, they are both free and secure, which means you can use them as much as you want.<\/p>\n Here is why using a private\u00a0search engine\u00a0is how you will receive unbiased news on the internet:<\/p>\n Did you know that using a private search engine is easy? Here are the quick steps to conduct a secure search:<\/p>\nFacebook Is Aware That It Can Affect the Election Outcome<\/span><\/h4>\n
Fake News Are Only a Tiny Portion of Our Content<\/h4>\n
Will Facebook Political Ad Policy Change or It Will Keep Allowing Lies?<\/span><\/h4>\n
Should Facebook Even Be Allowed to Decide Which Content to Publish?<\/h4>\n
Social Networks Have Been the Victim of Political Ads, Too<\/span><\/h4>\n
Google, Facebook, and Twitter Will Fight Misinformation<\/span><\/h4>\n
Can Search Engines Influence How People Think and Vote?<\/span><\/h4>\n
Did Google Influence the Elections in 2016?<\/h4>\n
Don\u2019t Underestimate the Power of Suggestion.<\/h4>\n
How to Get Unbiased News on the Internet<\/span><\/h4>\n
Benefits and Steps to Using Private Search Engines<\/h4>\n
\n