Just about every social human being with an Internet connection has an account on Facebook, or at least did until very recently. Some of us only check it every couple of days or weeks; some of us every couple of minutes. Facebook’s stated goal is to “make the world more open and connected,” and it certainly has succeeded well beyond its original purpose of connecting university students new to college.
I was an early adopter to Facebook (2005) because I love connecting with people, at all levels, from a stranger sitting next to me on an airplane who I might have a deep conversation with (and who I know I’ll never see again) to my wife, someone I’m literally sharing my entire life with every day, and everyone in between.
 I am perpetually fascinated by other people and their lives, and how they live them, and I’m occasionally reprimanded by my wife for sharing too much with people, because I’m constantly looking for commonalities. You’re from Boston? I went to BU! You’re enjoying a hamburger? I occasionally eat food as well! (In the real world sometimes it takes a while to find those commonalities.)
The point is, the most effective way to connect with other people is to mutually discover that you have something significant in common with them, and Facebook provided the means to do this better than anything that’s ever been invented – for better or worse.
Of late, a narrative has emerged that Facebook has done this more for “the worse,” and this narrative is personified in two words: Cambridge Analytica.
In 2016 the Trump campaign used Cambridge Analytica to help accumulate data from Facebook to – get ready for this – attempt to influence voters to vote for their candidate for president. Shocking, I know.
No laws were broken. Nothing was stolen. No one’s social security numbers or e-mail passwords or credit card numbers or anything like that was obtained. In fact, in the worst telling of “scandal,” Cambridge Analytica held onto data too long of 87 million users “Names, locations (generally towns or cities, not actual addresses), birthdays and political preferences.” That’s it. Marketing demographic data, in other words, the same sort of data that Neilson and Arbitron uses to target TV and radio commercials.
The fact that the Trump campaign ultimately won the election was not supposed to happen, you see, so if members of the media can get away with calling this a “scandal” they will, but it’s not.
Earlier this week during Mark Zuckerberg’s testimony on Capital Hill, I tweeted (@koolidge) a thread that attempted to explain this “Facebook scandal” in 10 simple tweets. Here they are, with minor modifications for this column:

1. In 2004 Mark #Zuckerberg creates essentially the biggest single advertising platform of all time, the stated purpose of which is to “connect people.”
2. Facebook’s genius is that instead of advertising that’s coupled with original content (TV, radio, print, other websites) the original content of Facebook is the audience itself, as they “connect” with each other on its online “social network” (a brand new phrase back then) platform.
3. Like any and every business, ever, at some point Facebook needs to find a way to get people to voluntarily give them lots of money. Who though? Well, companies/entities that want to influence groups of people to do things (duh).
4. In order to target advertising effectively, Facebook collects data on its individual users (also, duh).
5. These entities come to FB and buy for its assistance in reaching their target audience. Some of those entities are products (“I see you like trucks. Buy an F150!”) Some of these entities are candidates for political office (“I see you like Noam Chomsky. Vote for Bernie!”)
6. When the media/big city/elite establishment-types are happy with the results of the big elections (2008, 2012), there’s no scandal. It’s just business/political acumen. “Hey, Politics ain’t bean bag.” - D. Axelrod
7. When media/big city/elite establishment-types are not happy with the results of an election (2016): “This is a scandal! How did this happen?”
8. Bottom line, the services/data that FB made available to Cambridge Analytica before the 2016 election is no different than what the Obama campaign did directly with Facebook in 2008 and 2012. Neither are “scandals.”
9. Both situations are akin to a TV or radio ratings company like Neilson or Arbitron selling data to a business (Pepsi, Ford) or political candidate (Trump, Hillary) that helps them decide the best radio and TV programs with original content (Roseanne, Will & Grace) to buy ads on.
10. Facebook’s genius, again, is that it’s a gargantuan amalgam of a ratings company (all its data) and original programing (“people connecting”).
But none of us is forced to be on Facebook, it’s completely voluntary. And so none of us should be surprised that the data we voluntarily share – about ourselves, to the world – is used to sell us things, or attempt to convince us to vote for certain candidates for office.
I have other concerns about Facebook’s alleged bias and shadow banning toward right-of-center content creators such as Diamond and Silk (google them, they’re hilarious), and the fact that Mark Zuckerberg couldn’t define what they term “hate speech” means exactly. I additionally have concerns about Facebook being a monopoly.
But as far as Cambridge Analytica goes, this wasn’t a scandal in any way, shape or form, and it should stop being reported that way.
See you on Facebook.

Mike Koolidge lives in Rochelle and hosts the regionally syndicated radio program The Michael Koolidge Show (www.koolidge.com) heard daily on thirteen radio stations statewide, including Rockford’s 1440 WROK from 9 to 11 a.m. live every weekday morning. Public officials and citizens can reach the show anytime at radio@koolidge.com or 815-561-7130. You can also follow Mike on twitter (@koolidge) and Facebook by searching for “The Michael Koolidge Show.”