Slashdot Mirror


Facebook Will Open a 'War Room' Next Week To Monitor Election Interference (theverge.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: Sheera Frankel and Mike Isaac [write from The New York Times]: "Sandwiched between Building 20 and Building 21 in the heart of Facebook's campus, an approximately 25-foot by 35-foot conference room is under construction. Thick cords of blue wiring hang from the ceiling, ready to be attached to window-size computer monitors on 16 desks. On one wall, a half dozen televisions will be tuned to CNN, MSNBC, Fox News and other major cable networks. A small paper sign with orange lettering taped to the glass door describes what's being built: "War Room."

Set to open next week, the conference room is in keeping with Facebook's nick-of-time approach to midterm election preparedness. (It introduced a "pilot program" for candidate account security on Monday.) It's a big project. Samidh Chakrabarti, who oversees elections and civic engagement, told the Times: "We see this as probably the biggest companywide reorientation since our shift from desktops to mobile phones." Of course, the effort extends beyond the new conference room. Chakrabarti showed the Times a new internal tool "that helps track information flowing across the social network in real time," helping to identify misinformation as it goes viral or a surge in the creation of new (and likely fake) accounts.

16 of 218 comments (clear)

  1. Just to clarify by Brett+Buck · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A War Room to monitor election interference that doesn't go their way.

    1. Re:Just to clarify by Vinegar+Joe · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Nailed it.

      --
      "The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
    2. Re:Just to clarify by Time_Ngler · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You realize you are treating Facebook, a private company that unabashedly sells your private information to the highest bidder, whether you have an account or not as long as your friends do, as a appropriate arbitrator of justice. Good move.

  2. 2008 by Jarwulf · · Score: 3, Insightful

    2012 election help for obama from Facebook: A Bold Model for our Tech infused Future. 2016 election generic 'help' for trump far less extensive than what Obama got and Hillary turned down: Dark tech invasion of privacy! Election manipulation! Birth of Fake News! Muh Russians!

  3. Zuckerberg needs Zyklon-B. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Enough said.

  4. I'm not so sure by rsilvergun · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Facebook is a mega corporation, so odds are they're going to win the election either way. There's a few anti-corporation candidates, but not nearly enough that even something as tame as Liz Warren's current bill will pass (and Trump would just Veto it anyway). Basically, I don't think they have any particular agenda to push. They're not as left wing as everybody likes to make them out to be (they really only kicked Alex Jones off out of fear of a negligence lawsuit and they've left a lot of his hanger-ons alone).

    OTOH if they keep ignoring election interference sooner or later somebody's gonna regulate. And if there's any sign of playing sides that'll hurt too. They've already got multiple Republicans talking about regulating or nationalizing them, and the Republicans are in power (and likely to continue to be). I suspect they're going to do everything in their power to shut both sides down from the kind of crap that happened in 2016.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re: I'm not so sure by Highdude702 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You people have lost your damn minds. YOU CAN NOT SURVIVE WITHOUT AN ID IN THE USA!!! Unless you live under a rock that is. I have needed an ID for every day life since i was fucking 15, how the FUCK do you claim others can do it? How do they do ANYTHING. Also you realize in a large portion of the US you can be detained for up to 72 hours for not having identification? John Doe laws.

    2. Re:I'm not so sure by lgw · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Google is a mega-corporation, but they are explicitly anti-Trump, or haven't you seen the internal videos? Management exhorting the engineers to make sure Google does its part to influence the election. You think Facebook or Twitter is any different?

      For whatever dumb reason, "get woke; go broke" is very real, and companies don't even blink at throwing profits overboard to go 110% for progressive causes.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  5. Fox in hen house by AndyKron · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They want to make sure their interference is going smoothly

  6. Re:You should get that treated. by Brett+Buck · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "Butthurt", that;s so cute...Jimmy got a new catch phrase.

            I actually don't care very much what Facebook does, anyone who spends a lot of time there or believes what they see there is patently a moron.

            The ridiculous pretense of actually trying to be fair, and concerned over the integrity of the election process. It's the absolutely unashamed and apparently oblivious hypocrisy that makes me laugh.

             

  7. Re:You should get that treated. by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The best manipulation is always the most innocuous. I mean, if you get too overt, you will get called out. So the fact that things seem superficially innocuous might not necessarily tilt the scales to either option.

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  8. Leadership by example by Max_W · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Corinthians 11:1 Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ.

  9. Re:*Foreign* by Uberbah · · Score: 4, Insightful

    To be clear, it is a CRIME for a foreign country to interfere in US elections.

    Based on which international law? One that is consistent and thus makes the United States worse in this category than all other nations combined?

  10. Indictments mean shit by Uberbah · · Score: 3, Insightful

    All an indictment is, is an accusation from a prosecutor. Ever hear the phrase that they could "indict a ham sandwich"? Grand juries are under the complete control of prosecutors, and they could indict just about anyone for anything if they wanted to.

    If Mueller had actual evidence of actual collusion, we would have seen it a year ago, instead of all this fucking around with Twitter trolls, Facebook ads placed after the election, and money laundering from ten years ago with zero connection to Trump (but plenty to Hillary's campaign manager, John Podesta). More to the point, Mueller has never had the FBI investigate the DNC severs, the alleged hacking of which is the entire basis of Russiagate. Which either means Mueller is far too incompetent to be trusted to run the office Keurig machine by himself, or this was never a real investigation, only a puppet show for rubes who learned nothing from the lies told about Iraq. One of those liars being one Robert Mueller.

    Pick one.

    1. Re:Indictments mean shit by Kiuas · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If Mueller had actual evidence of actual collusion, we would have seen it a year ago

      This statement is based on absolutely nothing, it's just an assertion you throw out about a large on-going investigation without anything to back it up. 'Because the investigation is taking so long it cannot lead to anything' is some of the worst logic possible.

      However you're missing the point I was making entirely. I'm not American, I'm Finnish. My point in the comment was not to take on side over the other as to the result of the investigation. Whether or not there was collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian information warfare campaign is another matter that remains to be seen once the investigation completes, but that was not my point. It may be that there was no collusion, but that does not negate the fact that the Russians are actively posing as western citizens and pumping out propaganda to influence elections and sow political discontent throughout the West and not just in the US. That was my point, and there's plenty of evidence of that that's not coming from Mueller & al, including from your own intelligence agencies as well as other non-governmental researchers (see for example the report about the interference in Europe).

      --
      "It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
    2. Re:Indictments mean shit by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1, Insightful

      but that does not negate the fact that the Russians are actively posing as western citizens and pumping out propaganda to influence elections and sow political discontent throughout the West and not just in the US.

      And on the internet, I can actively pose as your sister.

      Seriously, if 100K of ludicrous FB ads actually decided the election, then it doesn't matter what we do.