WSU Facebooks Politics Arent Aging Well The Most Popular Social Media App Summary Please read a current WSJ article (must not be older than 3 months) and p

WSU Facebooks Politics Arent Aging Well The Most Popular Social Media App Summary Please read a current WSJ article (must not be older than 3 months) and provide the following:

1. Post the name of your WSJ Article in the Subject Line.

2. Provide a summary of the article( 200 words) and list three questions for the discussion of the article by Wednesday.

3. Provide your reference for the WSJ article.

4. Reply to two other student posts by Sunday. (I will post the discussion of two students here once i have it and then you need to reply to those discussions as well) Facebook’s Politics Aren’t Aging Well; The most
popular social-media app may be living its most
unpopular moment
Forman, Laura . Wall Street Journal (Online) ; New York, N.Y. [New York, N.Y]29 June 2020.
ProQuest document link
FULL TEXT
They say it is best not to talk politics among friends. But in trying to avoid the conversation, Facebook has stepped
right into the thick of it. Now, some of its most valuable relationships are at risk.
Since the Cambridge Analytica scandal in 2018, Facebook has been no stranger to controversies ranging from
election misinformation, security breaches, violent content and more. Widespread user movements have
encouraged those fed up with the platform to sign off permanently.
Most haven’t, though, as evidenced by the fact that Facebook has continued to grow. The platform added more
than 400 million monthly users—more than the entire population of the U.S.—between March 2018, when the
Cambridge Analytica news broke, and March of this year. Meanwhile, advertising revenue grew an average of 32%
annually over the last two calendar years. Facebook’s results have historically functioned as a powerful antidote to
seemingly any and all bad press. Despite swings along the way, Facebook’s stock has rebounded roughly 75% off
three-year lows hit in late 2018.
But Facebook’s resilience has limits. Ahead of the 2020 election, Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg has held firm in
his belief that it isn’t the job of his platform to fact check political ads or exclude anything but the most outright
harmful points of view from the social conversation. With the nation growing more divided by the minute over
issues of health, race, class and gender, this political inactivism has sparked widespread controversy, even driving
some employees to resign.
Now advertisers are joining the fray, hitting Facebook where it really hurts. News of major companies including
Unilever and Coca-Cola pausing ad spending on the platform on Friday got everyone’s attention. In response, Mr.
Zuckerberg published a blog post pledging his platform would start prohibiting a wider range of hateful content in
ads and would label newsworthy content that violated its policies, seemingly capitulating somewhat to mounting
protest.
AB Bernstein analyst Mark Shmulik said in a note on Friday that he expects advertiser participation in the boycott
to continue to climb on both Facebook and Instagram. While previously it was hard to know which individual users
were really deleting their accounts, major advertisers such as Coca-Cola are highly visible. Mr. Shmulik says the
public nature of today’s debate will create peer pressure for brands. As of Monday morning, a list compiled by
MKM Partners includes 184 companies that have joined the movement.
Particularly bad for Facebook, the boycott could be prolonged in the absence of more major policy change.
Facebook said in a statement regarding the boycott that it finds nearly 90% of hate speech on its platform, but it
knows it has more work to do. A website for the “stop hate for profit” movement lists 10 suggested policy changes,
including that Facebook refund advertisers whose ads ran alongside what was later removed as a violation of
Facebook’s terms. The company says it will work with civil-rights groups and experts to continue to fight against
hate.
UBS analyst Eric Sheridan says the brands involved in the boycott so far don’t make up a significant percentage of
Facebook’s revenue, even jointly. He estimates the vast majority of Facebook’s roughly 8 million advertisers are
PDF GENERATED BY SEARCH.PROQUEST.COM
Page 1 of 3
small and medium-size businesses.
Still, the near-term threat is real. Competitors including Twitter and Snapchat have tried to take a more active role
in policing problematic content, and could grow their appeal to advertisers at Facebook’s expense. Peer pressure
among advertisers remains a threat as well. At 16 years old, Facebook’s “cool” factor has long worn off. Until now
though, the company hasn’t faced a scenario in which being on Facebook earns you a negative stigma.
While it is likely Facebook will always retain a sizable network of loyal followers, meaningful return on its
investment requires mass popularity that expands, rather than contracts.
Write to Laura Forman at laura.forman@wsj.com
Credit: By Laura Forman
DETAILS
Subject:
Peer relationships; Hate speech
Company / organization:
Name: Cambridge Analytica; NAICS: 518210, 541618, 541820
Publication title:
Wall Street Journal (Online); New York, N.Y.
Publication year:
2020
Publication date:
Jun 29, 2020
column:
Heard on the Street
Section:
Markets
Publisher:
Dow Jones &Company Inc
Place of publication:
New York, N.Y.
Country of publication:
United States, New York, N.Y.
Publication subject:
Business And Economics
e-ISSN:
25749579
Source type:
Newspapers
Language of publication:
English
Document type:
News
ProQuest document ID:
2418139437
Document URL:
https://search.proquest.com/docview/2418139437?accountid=10378
Copyright:
Copyright 2020 Dow Jones &Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Last updated:
2020-06-30
PDF GENERATED BY SEARCH.PROQUEST.COM
Page 2 of 3
Database:
ABI/INFORM Global,Global Newsstream
LINKS
Database copyright ? 2020 ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved.
Terms and Conditions
Contact ProQuest
PDF GENERATED BY SEARCH.PROQUEST.COM
Page 3 of 3

Purchase answer to see full
attachment