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.
They are mixed on T. While the tech firms love deregulation and lower taxes, they don't like losing their supply of overseas labor, and don't like being told when and how include/exclude security features to allegedly help law enforcement and DHS.
Table-ized A.I.
Yes. They really should say, "You don't get it! The internet is a GLOBAL network, that fortunately you don't get to control."
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
The voter turnout for the 2016 election was a 20-year low. The problem was not how many people voted, but that they were A) intentionally misinformed and B) given a poor choice of candidates.
Support Right To Repair Legislation.
So, you're saying that Hillary should not have been going to the British for "opposition research"? Got it.
we shouldn't have to deal with the Russians creating a charged atmosphere of political divisiveness
Yes. That should be the exclusive purview of our own corporate controlled media.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
Propaganda changes people's minds and votes all the time by it's very nature. The best part about using it is the first and only response by many is "It's a farce." The super best part is your targets will argue that point for you.
--
"It's raining and it's cold" - El Perro
Check it out, a politician is demanding that a citizen give a straight answer!
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.
Yup. We would still investigate, only the other partisans would join in and put it on their news channel.
Overall it seems to cause more problems than the alleged 'benefits' it provides. Twitter, Facebook, etc, please just die.
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.
The voter turnout for the 2016 election was not a 20-year low.
FTFY. Turnout in 1996: 51.7% (Clinton vs Dole). Peak in 2008: 61.6% (Obama vs McCain) back down in 2012: 58.6%, then up again in 2016: 60.2%...
Source: http://www.electproject.org/ho...
The problem was not how many people voted, but that they were
A) intentionally misinformed
Clearly, as you are helping to demonstrate
and B) given a poor choice of candidates.
Well, duh. Isn't that always the case?
The Chinese government uses the same excuse to censor their internet.
Good, you're capable of rational thought. Now, consider the possibility that they did it not by "exposing what the Democrats have been doing" but simply by just lying about what everybody has been doing. Seriously consider the possibility that this very premise of your initial assumption is false and start over again from the beginning to see what your capacity for rational thought comes up with then.
First, until the whole kit and caboodle of information relating to these advertisements and accounts is revealed to the public we can't even begin to have an informed and fruitful discussion about what the intention was. That we do not have this information now is telling. It is an intentional smoke screen put up by our government, supported by the tech companies, and enabled by the press. It shows you one thing more than anything else, namely the first rule of the carnival: Don't let the rubes see the man behind the curtain. If you haven't figured it out, you are the rube, rube.
Second, these politicians appear to be upset that the fertile ground they created is being planted by other parties. Forsooth, it is their perpetual use of wedge issues and focus groups that gives them the ability to force coherent blocks of the electorate apart with intentionally fomented hatred and suspicion. After all of these decades of intentional mistreatment by the people we elect, the people are so sensitized to social issues they cannot even have a rational and sane discussion of the same.
Third, how the holy fucking fuck do they know that what the "Russians" did with advertising is effective? Oh, yeah, right...they do it themselves all of the time and have definitive proof of how to manipulate the American public.
Fourth, with all of the money and influence going back and forth from BOTH parties to Russia, I would not be surprised if payments were made from the US political parties to Russia to place these advertisements in the first damn place. If you would be surprised by this I recommend you study up on one thing that will open your mind to the truth. It's called: American History.
I am firmly convinced that if you are scared of the Russia boogeyman in the election you are so incredibly gullible and stupid they should lock you in a room and throw away the room.
When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
Realistically you're there to sit and take whatever they say because otherwise they'll put your ass in a sling.
Realistically if it were me I would simply smile and walk out. Oh, you mean they will hold me in contempt of congress? Let's see how that will pan out in front of the supreme court
Congress has the right to subpoena anyone to answer questions that are important to pending legislation. Congress does (or individual senators/representatives do) not have a right to force me to listen to their political speeches or campaigning. That is not the intent of Congress' right to subpoena. Doing so would violate my civil rights and the supreme court, however much they like to stay out of Congress' business, will be quick to recognize that.
They can ask questions, listen to my answers, and then create, amend or abolish laws. That's what they're there for. Which, funnily enough, is the one thing they have been doing a piss-poor job at lately, dems and reps.
I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
The 2016 election is a massive data point against the assumption that companies can just "buy" an election. All the corporate interests were aligned with Clinton. She raised and spent twice as much as Trump. All after Trump beat out better finances candidates in the GOP primary.
I do hope you realise that you're addressing a bunch of ideologists and opportunists who frequently name their companies, kids, projects, etc., after Ayn Rand and titles and characters from her novels. They don't believe in big gubbermint, except for a source of very lucrative contracts, and so really don't believe they have to listen to you. Freeze their big gubbermint contracts and then ask them your questions. You'll get a much more sincere response from them then. Then again, they may just turn around and tell you to pry their computer keyboards from their cold dead hands :P
Debate is a form of harassment. Do not question my truth.
"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.
While I agree with your general sentiment, if you look at the details of this specific issue it was actually pretty nefarious. The summary comes nowhere near describing what actually happened.
The Russian trolls tried to get people out for a demonstration by a (fake) group called "Heart of Texas" and ALSO to get other people out for a demonstration by a (fake) group called "United Muslims of America". At the same time. At the same place. In front of an Islamic center.
Here's an article with a lot more details about it (first hit that came up on a search): http://www.washingtonexaminer....
It shouldn't take much imagination, regardless of your political inclination, to see that this was an attempt to destabilize American society. It's also not hard to imagine that this will be a continuing threat. It actually reminds me of this Twilight Episode: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
USA has dropped to 21st on the Democracy index.
It is a flawed democracy equal with Italy, ahead of France and just behind Japan.
A turnout of ~ 60% is to be ashamed off, not celebrated.
Your political system is deeply flawed and corrupt.
Change it and stop whinging, other countries have but then they probably aren't as great as the USA.
No, I did not say it would be easy but that is your 'challenge'.
New Zealanders are well balanced with a chip on each shoulder. One represents Australia, the other the rest of the world
Ummm, I dunno, maybe that supporting an unwavering, unchanging story that came out before any investigations were done is incredibly naive, even delusional?
The fact that no facts were known, but that every factoid that is revealed fits the story perfectly in some people's minds is uncanny to the point that it is unrealistic. The facts keep changing, but the story and what the facts mean keep staying the same. That's delusional.
The only other choice is it's intentional. A story repeated so often becomes the justification of an investigation and everything learned from the investigation is somehow definitive proof of the story. Don't bite the hand that feeds, I guess.
Personally, all I can think of is "Methinks thou dost protest too much" when it comes to this subject. Since before any evidence we have heard the same thing from the same people. When I am force fed something like this I always look at it with scrutiny and objectivity. Drinking the kool-aid is a great way to allude to what happens to people who can't think for themselves. They are used for someone else's purposes and then left for dead. Sorry, I won't be that guy. I would prefer others were as circumspect, but alas, too many fanbois.
You can spin this into "He's a Trump supporter" if you like. It would be an intentional lie on your part and the accusation would be a small price to pay for me to learn exactly who I am dealing with. If you want to know the facts, it is simply this: I don't trust our government leaders, their hanger's on in the politico-sphere, the media pundits, or anyone else who has been trying to sell me this story for months now. I don't even trust the ones that haven't been trying to sell this story. I mistrust and pity anyone who has bought into this as wholeheartedly as ye olde AC has. They are obviously compromised in either their integrity, their mental capacities, or both.
When someone is so easily programmed by voices from a box (pick one: their TV, their computer, their phone) to spout other people's propaganda, it is also easy to visualize their mental processes as a simple mechanism rather than an emergent phenomena demonstrating the infinite complexity capable of the human mind. They don't seem to be aware of the fact they have awareness, or possessing the knowledge that they can observe themselves during their observation of themselves observing something. They merely parrot and regurgitate on command. No synapses necessary...
When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
Good, you're capable of rational thought. Now, consider the possibility that they did it not by "exposing what the Democrats have been doing" but simply by just lying about what everybody has been doing. Seriously consider the possibility that this very premise of your initial assumption is false and start over again from the beginning to see what your capacity for rational thought comes up with then.
Nobody had to lie to get me to vote against Clinton. Nobody needed to. The real things that she did and said, and the real overreach of her party, were more than enough.