Mark Zuckerberg thinks the idea of fake news affecting the election is 'crazy'

Since Trump's election, a lot of people in the tech industry turned their heads towards Facebook in their search for answers. Some speculated that a major factor in the elections was misinformation, spread through fake news on Facebook. Mark Zuckerberg, on the other hand, thinks otherwise.

Yesterday he appeared on the stage of Techonomy for an interview on “People, Power and Politics” with David Kirkpatrick. The interviewer made sure to steer the conversation towards Facebook's influence and around 12 minutes in, Zuckerberg commented:

“Voters make decisions based on their lived experience,” continued Zuckerberg. He believes that the speculations that blame fake Facebook's news, are a result of “profound lack of empathy”. According to Zuckerberg, people who believe said speculations, “haven't internalized the message that Trump supporters are trying to send”.

To back up his statements that “this surely had no impact”, Facebook's creator asked why would people think that there would be fake news on one side and not the other. He also made sure to emphasize that hoaxes are a very small volume of the content on his platform and the Facebook team is doing its best to reduce them even more.

Kirkpatrick then moved on to a broader subject about Facebook's influence in general. Zuckerberg commented that he wants his company to have a good impact on the world. “I want people to have a diversity of information,” he said, before stating that Facebook's impact on the general population “isn't really a problem”.

The influence of Facebook and social media as a whole has been a hot subject for quite some time now. And Facebook and Mark are certainly under a lot of pressure since Trump's election, so we're bound to hear more on the subject pretty soon. In the meantime, feel free to let us know what you think. Has Facebook helped The Donald secure the Oval Office, or did it play no part at all?



1. trojan_horse

Posts: 5868; Member since: May 06, 2016

The hypothesy of Facebook somehow influencing or helping Donald to secure the Oval officie - kinda weird perspective, as Facebook isn't pivotaly a news hub. I think the mainstream TV news are accountable for the most of the influence which might have had an impact in the outcome of this election. CNN and MSNBC did a heck of brainwashing and polls-rigging.

4. TerryTerius unregistered

I wouldn't put it on any one thing. It's partly an expression of the grievances that the right has had with social changes over the decades, partially due to the decline of economic fortunes in small towns and rural areas areas, and partially due to the media and social bubbles we can choose to live in that serve as echo chambers which pull us to the extremes... our alliance on other people feeding us our opinions. Not to mention the general distrust and animosity that has been growing between liberals and conservatives for decades. These issues have very deep roots, and blaming it mostly on the media would be misguided in my honest opinion. That is missing the bigger picture. Besides, what's most worrying is the lack of participation in this election. Yes the candidate should be able to get the base excited, but people need to take some d*mn responsibility for themselves and pay attention to what's going on. That is certainly getting harder as it's almost impossible to discern what is true or not on the Internet, and yellow journalism and corporatism has corrupted the news... but if you decide to not participate, you give others the power to decide for you. And if you don't like the results, you have no right to complain. A democractic republic can only work with informed voters. If the people are both ignorant and apathetic then I fear what lies in the future for our country.

7. trojan_horse

Posts: 5868; Member since: May 06, 2016

@TerryTerius Quote:."I wouldn't put it on any one thing". I put most of it on the news media! Quote: "Besides, what's most worrying is the lack of participation in this election." Because both candidates weren't good, to begin with. Those who disliked both of them, simply decided not to vote. "...but if you decide not to participate, you give others the power to decide for you." What if I decide not to participate because I do not vouch for either candidate? I wouldn't care of the outcome of the election. That isn't giving others the power to decide for me, but that's instead not helping either one to win, as voting for the less evil of them two canditates doesn't make it any less of an evil, no? Those who are now protesting against the winner of this election, probably voted for the other candidate who lost... So, they have the right to complain/protest as they're currently doing. To your last paragraph, the people's ignorance (brainwashing) is the work of those whom I put most of it on: the MEDIA!!

9. TerryTerius unregistered

Then you are truly blinding yourself to the bigger picture if you don't see that there are far more factors at play besides media alone. That's all I really have to say about that. Whether or not you care about the outcome has nothing to do with the fact that you will be affected by it. It's certainly your right to not participate, but you are literally leaving it to everyone else to make a choice for you in that case. Non participation has been a trend for years now, it is not isolated to this election or these candidates. Personally, I have nothing positive to say about anyone who believes that doing nothing is going to somehow change anything. I don't mean that as an attack on you personally, to be clear. They have the right to protest but it doesn't make a difference. The outcome of the election isn't going to change just because you don't like it. Trump stands for nearly everything that I don't, but I choose to focus my energy on things that can actually make a change. I hope they do the same after all the noise dies down. That is where the occupy movement fell short.

14. trojan_horse

Posts: 5868; Member since: May 06, 2016

What are the other factors at play? Oh, the establishment itself! Hencd he brainwashing I spoke of. "They have the right to protest but it doesn't make a difference." That's debatable, it could make a difference, just like how it did in Egypt, some years ago. Though such is less likey to occur in the US. "The outcome of this election isn't going to change just because you didnt like it". Fair enough, but there's something called "power to the people" and a slogan saying "we are the 99%". "Trump stands for nearly everything I don't" But that's still on you, though... "but I choose to focus my energy on things that can actually make a change." Fair enough, though I ponder on what exactly are those things that you focus which are gonna make a change is this case. And regarding your second paragraph, I disagree. Come on, dude. You sound like the left-wing liberals, are you? Doing nothing can actually change something! Oh, are you aware that Hillary doesn't stand for what you do? Don't kid yourself.

16. trojan_horse

Posts: 5868; Member since: May 06, 2016

EDIT: What are the other factors at play? Oh, the establishment itself! Hence the brainwashing I spoke of. Dude, you need to open your eyes to see the other side of the coin. Let's not fool ourselves, not voting make a difference, it just depend on which case is at hand. That's not giving power to others to decide for ne, nor is it "throwing hands in the air and absolve from responsability", as you told me last time. Come on.

19. TerryTerius unregistered

Let me ask you this a different way. If your child is an a$$hole and you choose to do nothing to correct their behavior, why exactly would your kid ever change? Not voting and deciding to leave the same people in power who are responsible for making policies you don't agree with is not punishment. You're just continuing to let them do what they were already doing. That is effectively endorsing their behavior and giving them a greenlight to do whatever they wish. After all, you didn't bother trying to remove them for power so why would they do anything different? It seems we're just going to fundamentally disagree on this, let's just drop it.

24. trojan_horse

Posts: 5868; Member since: May 06, 2016

Such analogy isn't really accurate, as this goverment isn't my child I'll want these people in power to get lost and other people take thier place and bring the policies I'll agree with. If candidates like Sanders, Cruz, or Kasich made it past the primaries and if one of the mention three were to be voted for, in place of Trump or Clinton, then in this case, voting makes sense to me. But it was either of them two we had to vote, so I ditch voting altogether, as I approve none of them two. "After all, you didn't bother trying to remove them for power so why would they do anything different?" I'll bother trying to remove them from power, if the candidates available to replace those in power are candidates which I can end endorse and vouch for... But that wasn't the case in this election, so ditching the vote altogether is what I'll always do in such cases. You get my point? I hope you aren't exhausted on this topic; it's a pleasure to debate with you, Adonis Draco! - Edin Marin, aka trojan_horse Cheers

18. TerryTerius unregistered

Of course I'm a liberal, that should be blatantly obvious. And Hillary wasn't my candidate, I don't know why you're assuming that. But I still would have voted for her over Trump. News organizations didn't devastate small towns and leave them jobless. News organizations aren't anywhere near solely responsible for the social changes that have swept the nation over the past 100 years. The media hasn't caused families to go bankrupt from their inability to afford being sick or injured. News organizations haven't caused the increase in diversity and demographic changes across the country over the past hundred years. News organizations haven't put our Congress in permanent gridlock for the past eight years. News organizations aren't responsible for stagnant wages and outsourcing. And News organizations aren't responsible for the advent of selective reality that is afforded to us by the Internet. Has the media made certain thing worse and spread misinformation in some cases? Absolutely. Have some outfits practiced yellow journalism? Yep. Is manipulation of the news a thing? Sure is. But there are far more fundamental reasons for this outburst of unrest over this election cycle, and people being fed up with politicians in general. In many cases, a lot of people simply don't like where the country is going with its increased liberalism. Like I said, the factors that have built up to make it possible for someone like Donald Trump to win go back decades. It didn't come out of the blue, and it wasn't because of the media. That is what I'm talking about when I say you're being really shortsighted. Yes, in theory anything could happen. You are right. But realistically, these relatively small protests are nowhere near the scale in intensity required for something like that to happen. What happened in the Middle East was basically full on Civil War. We are not even close to that point. And I'll be getting more involved in government directly, that's all I'll say for the time being.

21. trojan_horse

Posts: 5868; Member since: May 06, 2016

Dude, your second paragraph is literally what I said by "the establishment" as a factor too. "But I still would have voted for her over Trump" Are you saying that you didn't vote in this past election? Howcome? Weren't you worried that the majority of yanks didn't vote? And you say that not voting is absolving from responsability! Sorry to assume that Hillary was your candidate. Who was it? B. Sanders, I guess... "What happened in the Middle East was basically full of Civil War. We are not even close to that point". I mentioned Egypt for a reason. Their protest which brought down their presidents twice (Mubarak and Morsi) stemed from protets, (like the one currently ongoing in certain states) not ftom civil war. "And I'll be getting more involved in gorvement directly, that's all I'll say for the time being". Oh wow that's nice. The last time I recall, you said to be a musician and a fitness trainer... ^_^

23. kiko007

Posts: 7499; Member since: Feb 17, 2016

God I'm tired of you right-wingers with your "establishment" BS rhetoric. Seriously, how long are you gonna blame the media for your party's incompetence? How long are you gonna act like Trump won the popular vote? How long before you realized he lied to you about his entire premise for presidency? How long before you see the fruits of your affection crushed by a clown with no sense getting nowhere with any of his policies?

29. TerryTerius unregistered

It has been interesting to see the right-leaning side of this country blame the media for nearly everything ever since Nixon started doing it. And I did vote for her in the last election, that was bad phrasing on my part. My bad. I am a musician and a fitness trainer. I'll still be getting more involved in government. One doesn't preclude the other.

30. TerryTerius unregistered


31. trojan_horse

Posts: 5868; Member since: May 06, 2016

Yay, I was aware of you doing modeling too, and you're 24 years old, living in Atlanta, right! Cheers

5. warrenellis93

Posts: 550; Member since: Jul 21, 2011

Actually those news networks were biased against trump, and i would constantly see people sharing and talking about "news" that sounded fake to me and most of the time it came from facebook. If you have someone constantly sharing conservative "news" stories then you would know about the affect of facebook

6. TerryTerius unregistered

That is a result of the echo chambers we reside in online. That is not restricted to Facebook. That's true of Reddit, Twitter, and so on. It's an issue for social media in general. Selective reality.

2. SailfishOS

Posts: 109; Member since: Nov 06, 2016

Funny thing is, Mark was on Hillary Clinton's side... Its all in the leaked emails

3. sissy246

Posts: 7124; Member since: Mar 04, 2015

The only thing that get him in office is people being sick of things the way they are. I don't like the guy but now it's hope for the best.. I am going to go on with my life and hope in 4 years we have someone good running.

8. NarutoKage14

Posts: 1327; Member since: Aug 31, 2016

The US has elected Neo Hitler as it's next president. The things Trump has said bear a remarkable resemblance to the things Hitler said. If you don't see it you need to go back to history class.

11. lyndon420

Posts: 6818; Member since: Jul 11, 2012

Hail Trump lol.

10. lyndon420

Posts: 6818; Member since: Jul 11, 2012

CNN and MSNBC (among others) tried their best to steer public opinion towards a win for Hillary and failed. News isn't supposed to be curated but we all know that isn't the case with mainstream news outlets. I really got a kick out of Donald during one of his speeches where he started calling out the corrupt media and focused on CNN (who ended up turning their cameras off lol). The media giants who favored Hillary actually did her a huge disservice by NOT censoring out more/most of her campaign...she would've stood a better chance of winning if we weren't subjected to her opinions - the more she opened her mouth the worse she made it for herself. If you want the real news, seek out the underdogs and whistleblowers who have little to loose and aren't paid off by big corporations and/or other countries.

12. kiko007

Posts: 7499; Member since: Feb 17, 2016

That doesn't change the fact that a bigot, dumbass, sexist, rape tendency, f**ktard got elected into office. I could be nice and explain each and every aspect of why this is bad, but that'd take way too much effort. Just know, Trump will do nothing positive in office. He has zero economic understanding. Zero poverty reducing tactics. Zero actual international ideology other than "build a wall". And zero apathy for the average man. He plays people for fools, and they bought it like idiots.......

15. lyndon420

Posts: 6818; Member since: Jul 11, 2012

You pretty much described every president that came after Kennedy. If Hillary was elected you would have been able to add pedophile and supporter of terrorism to that list...just saying. ;)

17. kiko007

Posts: 7499; Member since: Feb 17, 2016

Sure, she's no "Rose in the meadow" either. However, at least she has experience in international affairs. The only experience he has regarding anything NOT related to border are failed business ventures and shifty relationships with dictators! The guy's a class A idiot with a silver spoon so far down his throat Jennifer Love Hewitt would be proud. My point is, even though BOTH candidates were suspect, one actually HAD a general idea of his to lead a nation, and it wasn't him...

20. TerryTerius unregistered

EXACTLY It is baffling that people only engage in that type of logic when it comes to politics. If you had a doctor, lawyer, or anyone else you would want the most experienced and knowledgeable person possible. But for some reason, a certain segment of this country thinks experience is a detriment when it comes to running the most powerful military in the world and stewarding our economy.... what? There is a difference between experience and policy positions/character, and people seem to legitimately believe experience is a bad thing when it comes to governing. That blows my mind.

22. kiko007

Posts: 7499; Member since: Feb 17, 2016

Precisely. They seem to think that SOMEHOW he will circumvent the power distribution aspect of American politics, with ZERO policymaking skill or knowledge. This was my first year of eligibility to vote, and I'm utterly shocked at the outcome before me. I thought people had more sense than this......I mean, him? That's who you want representing the free world, a rookie with no discernible political understanding to speak of? Not to mention his own party can't stand him, to the point P.Ryan probably would rather have ass herpes than deal with Trump. I highly doubt any bill he proposes will see the light of day.....yay! So basically, we have a figurehead leader with little to no common sense.... #makeAmericaevenworsesomehow

27. lyndon420

Posts: 6818; Member since: Jul 11, 2012

The type of international experience that Hillary has is what America needs to rethink and finally do away with. It's time for change and a better way of doing things.

13. FlySheikh

Posts: 444; Member since: Oct 02, 2015

Ouch kiko

28. lyndon420

Posts: 6818; Member since: Jul 11, 2012

What did you like about Hillary's campaign so much that Trump won't be able to do better? Sure Trump had some bad investments and bankruptcies etc that he recovered from, but he came from literally nothing and he's far from poor right now so he obviously knows business. If actors can become presidents (Reagan) and governors (Schwarzenegger) etc, well...let's put it this way - running a country is serious business, so maybe someone who knows business and loves America as much as Trump does should be at the helm for once.

Latest Stories

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. You can order presentation-ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers at or use the Reprints & Permissions tool that appears at the bottom of each web page. Visit for samples and additional information.