According to the petition, two people asked [Meta AI] to pick a number between 1 and 25. They gave no instructions and made no reference to the election. In one attempt, the AI answered 13. In the other, it answered 22. Those are the party ballot numbers of Lula and Flávio Bolsonaro, respectively. The groups question the coincidence.

My confidence in the validity of their claims tanked right about here.

I'm all for regulating transparency into social media algorithms. Meta most certainly is compromised by foreign actors. But can we choose less stupid hills to die on than numerology and GIFs? Headline is not remotely supported by the evidence.

Big tech is so rigged (intensional or not), the question if it is socially net negative has become rhetorical.

“End algorithms”? Even a firehouse of newest comment (or most upvoted as suggested) would benefit Bolsonaro if his online support outnumbers opposition. Ban both candidates from the platform, or make every search show them both? That will probably not work; confuse Brazilian citizens why their politicians are being censored (which will influence them because their politician is being attacked by Lula’s court, or even Facebook acknowledges their opponent politician is dangerous); and not end the lawsuits if they continue bringing “evidence” like Meta AI randomly generating Bolsonaro-related numbers.

The most egregious evidence against Meta are suspending Lula’s official accounts. This can also be attributed to a neutral system processing opponents’ mass reports, but has an obvious solution: give every official account immunity from suspension except by the highest level admins, because they’re supposed to only be suspected according to guidelines, and a $trillion company has enough resources to closely monitor high-level official accounts.

Every state should have foreign agent laws (NGOs must register and must be transparent over their financials). Every state should have control over their information space (especially educational, social and news media). Russia and China understood, Brazil and Europe did not.

- personalized ads

- election ads

by law strictly two different things.

The risk of voter manipulation is just way to high. This also isn't just about manipulation by US companies, the system they created is just to ab-usable by others, too. To make it worse the more ethical values a person has/upright and honest they are the less likely are to use such means but the more likely they would make a good elected politician for the general population. At the same time humans are just way too easy to manipulate.

(Naturally there is also a case for _any_ personalized ads being a high risk for societies, especially democracies, and in turn the concept if it should be banned. Important here is to note that often just basing ads on the "non ad content" they are displayed alongside with is getting you quite far. So if there even is a need for highly personalized ads can be put in question. Through the topic gets far more complicated with highly personalized non ad content recommendation systems..)

(1): Might be worth pointing out here that Meta has a long history of basing personalization not just on what you do but what people "close to you" do. E.g. if Meta knows you are in the same location (e.g. same WiFi, not sure if they use that today) and then shortly after the other person searches for idk. air purifiers the chance of you getting air purifier ads is largely increased.

- https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/28/technology/twitter-far-ri...

- https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2024/10/29/elon-mu...

- https://www.vanityfair.com/news/story/x-has-disproportionate...

- https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/social-media/elon-musk-turned-x...

We forget this but hard right content is still highly promoted on X, especially related to white supremacy and anti-immigrant, and it is also protected from content violations.

Right-wing folks are driven by social media since ~2016. Their content is emotional, aggressive and naturally conducive to more engagement. It’s what their base feeds on. So a lot of the situations described here are just standard ranking algorithms doing their job.

But that begs the question: is the existence of these platforms that amplify divisive and inflammatory content the problem itself? I vote yes. The power of reaching a wide audience should not be handed off without any cross-checks.

It's getting ridiculous online.

I am sure that everyone involved must be feeling invincible but this is how you build resentment that will last and in most cases result in conflicts or regulations. Probably Musk, Zuckerberg and Thiel will be fine but they will destroy the prospects of the upcoming libertarians and cement the Chinese dominance as they don't have a problem of unruly billionaires and the problem of someone getting rich by doing one thing getting the right to do decide on everything and screw it up for everyone. Sad, I really don't want to live in a China-style political system.

It has to end. Millions of lives are at sake.

Cuts to Sundar starring blankly.

Related:

Meta employees say Lula’s accounts restricted in Brazil election: Report

https://smackernews.com/item/50227639 HN

This should be regulated to avoid interference from anyone.

The biggest problem now is that the billionaires behind social media nowadays will push for a liberal / right wing agenda in the west for their own interests.

Basically with corruption you can control what democracies do. We see this with the orange mafia in charge of the USA right now - even though sometimes it also yields entertainment, indirectly:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZvfePoni9eM

No.

Its flagship product, its anthropological jewel, its greatest achievement, is the right-wing poor person. A genuine feat of social engineering: materially deprived, yet rich in convictions that run counter to their own interests.

They have been carefully molded. They have been taught that their problems always come from below or from next door — the immigrant, the welfare recipient, the civil servant, the unemployed — never from above.

They have been taught to hate taxes while surviving thanks to public services. To defend heirs to fortunes while having nothing to pass on themselves. To applaud those who crush them, as long as they speak loudly and promise law and order.

The right-wing poor person is a fascinating creature. They vote against their own interests with fervor, convinced that one day, perhaps, they too will find themselves on the right side of the fence.

They mistake brutality for courage, authoritarianism for protection, injustice for merit. They are sold fear in a ready-made package, identity at bargain prices, and anger in bulk on a monthly subscription.

At the dawn of this new world, the monsters do not emerge from the margins: they rise from the ballot boxes, television studios, and simplistic slogans.

They thrive on manufactured misery and sabotaged political awareness.

Capitalism has not merely produced poverty; it has achieved something far worse: it has made the poor docile, obedient, spiteful, and grateful.

A masterpiece, I'm telling you!"

Maximino Fernández