“We must encourage more oversight by the owners of these social media platforms,” Jim Carrey said in a statement to CNBC. “This easy access has to be more responsibly handled. What we need now are activist investors to send a message that responsible oversight is needed. What the world needs now is capitalism with a conscience.”
The comedian tweeted on Tuesday he was selling his Facebook shares and deleting his page because the company profited from Russian interference during the 2016 U.S. election. He asked all “other investors who care about our future to do the same.”
“For a long time America enjoyed a geographical advantage in the world with oceans on both sides to protect it,” Carrey said. “Now, social media has created cyber-bridges over which those who do not have our best interest in mind can cross and we are allowing it. No wall is going to protect us from that.”
It seems that Jim Carrey believes that Americans are so selectively naive that they will just up and vote for whatever they see on an ad on social media. Oh, and the only ads they will put their absolute faith in are those that are designed or purchased by a foreign agent, as it seems the immensely larger amount of political ads and posts on Facebook have little to no effect on the voter population whatsoever.
Voters will make up their mind to vote for a given candidate not because of what they know, what they believe, or what they feel about public policy and the best interests of their nation, or even themselves, but because they happened to see an ad that was allegedly placed by foreign interests, totally unknown to them, to influence the election outcome. Apparently, only the Russian social media marketing is truly effective, while all of those digital media marketing firms hired for big bucks by political campaigns are worthless. As The Duran reported a few months ago:
“the DNC and the Hillary Clinton campaign spent 1000x more in Facebook ads than the measly $100,000 from accounts that are somehow linked to Russia (now under the scrutiny of the US Congress), and she still lost. “
Most of these ads were, in fact, only published on the social media platform after the votes had already been cast, and another quarter of them never received a presence on the platform, meaning that most of these ads had no possible way of reaching the voters they are alleged to have influenced in the first place. Facebook says:
“44% of total ad impressions (number of times ads were displayed) were before the US election on November 8, 2016; 56% were after the election. Roughly 25% of the ads were never shown to anyone. That’s because advertising auctions are designed so that ads reach people based on relevance, and certain ads may not reach anyone as a result.”
The social media giant added that “an estimated 10 million people in the US saw the ads” and that they “were able to approximate the number of unique people (“reach”) who saw at least one of these ads”. The Gateway Pundit reports:
Facebook executive Colin Stretch told the US Senate Judiciary Committee that the total number of those illegitimate ads are a drop in the ocean — less than 0.004 percent of all content — or about 1 in 23,000 news feed items.
Moreover, the ads, again, most of which were never portrayed prior to the election, actually contained content from both sides of the political spectrum, such that some of these were even in support of Hillary Clinton. These ads, alleged to have the aim of sowing “division within our society” actually ended up being content that was generated and disseminated widely by Americans. As the New York Times admits:
“A New York Times examination of hundreds of those posts shows that one of the most powerful weapons that Russian agents used to reshape American politics was the anger, passion and misinformation that real Americans were broadcasting across social media platforms.
And Zerohedge observes:
In other words, the Russia groups did little more than amplify political messages that were already deafeningly broadcast by the grassroots movement that emerged to support President Donald Trump during his quest for the Republican nomination, and later, the presidency.
Given the small dollar amounts spent on these campaigns, it’s difficult to imagine that these pages had a measurable impact on public opinion. In fact, most of the original sources of content that was repurposed by the Russians garnered far more views on their own platforms.
And for this, Jim Carrey wants us to disrupt the way we communicate with our friends and loved ones and tell us what we should be investing in to “send a message” to a global social media firm over a relatively minuscule number of ads displaying American political opinions that allegedly influenced the vote of millions of Americans who apparently put more stock into social media ads than anything that is really happening in their country.
If we believe Jim Carrey and the liberal media, we would indeed be saying to ourselves that this democracy experiment of ours really isn’t all that effective if “the people” can’t be responsible with their votes by being duly knowledgeable about the options and the process of picking our leaders.