Slashdot Mirror
Facebook, Twitter and Google Berated by Senators on Russia (bbc.com)
From a BBC report: Russian operatives, likely working from St Petersburg, provoked angry Americans to take to the streets, a US Senate committee heard on Wednesday. The May 2016 protest, arranged by a group named Heart of Texas, was one example of Kremlin-backed efforts to destabilise the American electoral process. Lawyers for three technology companies -- Facebook, Twitter and Google -- were told they were grossly underestimating the scale of the problem. "You just don't get it," said California Senator Dianne Feinstein. "What we're talking about is a cataclysmic change. What we're talking about is the beginning of cyber-warfare." She added: "We are not going to go away, gentlemen. This is a very big deal." [...] Several senators suggested that more hearings and consultation would be needed, expressing their frustration that the companies were not being represented by higher-ranking executives. "I'm disappointed that you're here, and not your CEOs," said independent senator Angus King. From a FastCompany report: Senator Mark Warner (D-VA) had one specific and simple question for Facebook's Colin Stretch. He wanted to know about 30,000 fake accounts Facebook discovered earlier this year that were trying to influence the French election. At the time, Facebook bragged that it was able to discover these accounts and swiftly took them down. Warner wanted to know if Facebook, after discovering these accounts, cross-checked to see if these same accounts also tried to tamper with the U.S. election. "Your leadership bragged about how proactively you were in the French election process," said Warner, "Did you check those accounts [with the U.S. election]?" Stretch couldn't give a straight answer. "The system that ran to take down those accounts -- which were fake accounts of all type and any purpose -- is now active worldwide," he said. Warner wasn't amused. "Just answer my question," he said. "Have you reviewed the accounts you took down in France that were Russian-related to see if they played any role in the American election?" Once again, Facebook couldn't answer.
Facebook, Twitter and Google Berated by Senators on Russia
Took a bit to parse this.
Logically it feels more like the subjects are just swapped. "Russia Berated by Senators on Facebook, Twitter, and Google"
Then it looks like the senators that are doing the berating are Russian.
It would need to read something like, "Senators berate Facebook, Twitter, and Google on Russian Interference"
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
So if some site in Russia is posting divisive crap to try to manipulate American opinions, that's bad. But if some idiot in Boulder creates an opaque network of sites posting divisive crap to drive ad revenue, well that's just fine?
Some tools are just tools, and you need to look at the users to figure out if the tool is being used badly. The tools in question are DESIGNED to divide us and influence us to do things we wouldn't choose to do if we actually thought about it. Russia having access to these tools is a relatively minor problem in the overall scheme of things, but I guess it's easier to blame Russia, throw in some stupid "fixes" which don't address the underlying problem, and claim victory.
Two words speak louder than anything. Google, Facebook and Twitter get it. They did it for the Ad Revenue. Plan and simple. The online advertising industry is wild wild west and it is a joke. Anything can be stated without any facts as long as you pay for the ad campaign.
"Voter turnout" is not an end in and of itself. If it were, we'd simply make voting mandatory.
The ability to abstain is a basic rule of the common law parliamentary process for good reason: an uninformed voter or one who votes carelessly or randomly dilutes the decision-making ability of the remainder.
I don't want "more people to vote". I want people to "vote carefully". If someone is not capable of voting carefully, then I'd prefer that they don't vote.
In terms of getting "the right people to vote", the Senators didn't mention it, but Facebook has proved that it has the power to do exactly that by adjusting advertising and emotional tone of what it presents to users in their Newsfeed. If Facebook decides on election day to add a little "Don't forget to vote today!" notice on the top of the page for anyone who self-described as a Republican, and hides the "I voted!" posts otherwise visible to you if you self-describe as a Democrat, that would be rather worthy of censure, wouldn't it?
Hire a Linux system administrator, systems engineer,
Coordination is not necessary for my assertion to be true. It only requires each party to act in their own self interest and to completely ignore their responsibilities.
Our government entities want to be able to control the narrative by selective release of facts. First, it helps them distract and misdirect. More importantly, it makes sure they can continue to do the things that they are upset at the "Russians" for doing with their ad buys, namely propagandize and manipulate the American electorate. So, no full disclosure, no full release of facts. Never let a good created crisis go to waste.
The tech companies don't want egg on their face so they are willing to hold back as much damning info as they can. The info that is released is damage controlled by their own spin teams, but the real problem they face is they were so easily exploited due to their intrinsic function. Suffice it to say, if the general public knew just how granular the reverse engineering of their users has become things might not go so well for the tech companies. If all of the ways their users have been dissected, analyzed, and packaged up for would be advertisers were well and fully known, it could affect their bottom line. So, tight lips when share price is on the line.
The press I am most disappointed in. They, who should be the ally of the electorate, are more concerned with their advertising revenue which has resulted in increasingly partisan coverage, which is no coverage at all. When the facts are so colored by "appealing to your intended audience" that they stop being facts it's no longer news and is no longer the exercise of the prerogative of the fourth estate. They aren't interested in getting us the facts, sans narrative wrapper and omitted details. They want page views and subscribers of a certain demographic and political leaning, which means massaging the facts to be easily consumed by politico-cultural factions created by the wedge issues of the political "parties." So, no way we will get the facts from a news corporation. Investigative journalism was sacrificed on the altar of the new partisan yellow journalism our weak minded fellow Americans call news.
When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.