With the new ease of access to people with opinions different from your own, most people now require some self-consistent reason for not interacting with them and their views. The idea that other rational people can have differing views from our own is deeply unsettling as it allows for the possibility that our own views are incorrect.

Pre-social media, this was easy enough: the people with different opinions were just less educated or less informed, and once they became informed they would hold the same views that we do. Social media changed all that by bringing those with different views into direct confrontation where you could immediately connect with someone with different views to your own and educate or inform them.

This fails to work. As soon as we try that, we quickly realize that those with other views are already informed and have just taken a different judgement. So we're left with the problem: either our views are wrong or their views are wrong. Deeply concerning as it's just as likely to be our own views. The only solution then is to shift the blame - it's not our fault or people with other views at fault: it's that there are 'evil actors' working to 'brainwash' people. Therefore our views are correct, and it's just people with other views who have been brainwashed. Simple and clean, no need for self reflection or difficult questions.

Your conclusion is too closed. There are in fact people who are willing to use "nefarious" techniques to boost exposure to marginal ideas to those who may be in a position to swing opinion, or to perform damage control specifically towards those who may be swayed.

That's outside of this bigger experience we're all having about the necessity of respect towards those who hold different opinions and can demonstrate a systematic world view to get there.

I think the more nefarious purpose is to identify these people as part of a voter supression campaign.

So, it isn't to motivate somebody to vote for a particular candidate, but to not vote, or prevent the possibility of voting.

Target the opposition, if you will.

I think this is an interesting perspective and worth looking into. For example, targeting democrats in 2016 by assuring them that the election is in the bag so they're less likely to show up to vote.

Though I still think it's necessary to fight the temptation to believe such a campaign is as easy or effective as our conspiratorial nature might want us to believe.

The point of this is to compel Facebook to send notifications to millions of users stating that their personal information was wrongfully used by Trump, et al. It's a campaign tactic by the Democrats: use the gov't (FTC) to force Facebook to send authoritative messages to users shortly before the election this fall badmouthing the opposition. Free advertising. Very clever. Why pay for ads when you can compel Facebook to do it for free?

FYI I identify and vote as a liberal. Tilting at windmills like facebook/CA feels great for the ego but I'm trying to explain that it has nothing to do with why people vote a certain way. This is all a big sideshow to assuage the tender injury democrats are suffering from a Trump whitehouse.

So if you wish then let the sideshow be spectacular. Let facebook be the scapegoat and social media be regulated. When all of that and a smug attitude does nothing to stop global warming or another conservative president in the future don't be surprised.