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.
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.
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 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.