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.

13 of 176 comments (clear)

  1. Headline is a mess by TWX · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Headline is a mess by burtosis · · Score: 4, Funny

      You simply need to translate from slasheadlinian to English. I think there is a chrome extension that can help.

  2. Re:Surely the tech firms LOVE Trump by Tablizer · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  3. Re:provoked angry Americans to take to the streets by Comboman · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.
  4. Re:provoked angry Americans to take to the streets by Shotgun · · Score: 3

    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
  5. Oh the irony by PeeAitchPee · · Score: 4, Funny

    Check it out, a politician is demanding that a citizen give a straight answer!

  6. But it's alright if it's just to drive ad revenue? by shess · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  7. Re:provoked angry Americans to take to the streets by slew · · Score: 4, Informative

    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?

  8. Re:What is getting "stirred up"? by Narcocide · · Score: 3

    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.

  9. Re:send a pleb by sabri · · Score: 3

    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.
  10. Re:Senate: Come on, guys, please take us seriously by WrongMonkey · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  11. Re:provoked angry Americans to take to the streets by Etcetera · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "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?

  12. Re:What is getting "stirred up"? by Optic7 · · Score: 3, Informative

    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/...