[ad_1]
The Senate's Intelligence Committee showed on Wednesday a thorough understanding of how misinformation spread on social media was fueling political conflict. But with a few exceptions, Senators have shown little inclination to regulate political activities on online platforms or to challenge their user-targeted advertising.
"The Russians have conducted a campaign of structured influence, not against the US government, but against the American people," said Senator Richard Burr, RN.C. and chair of the committee, summing up his last hearing on foreign election interference. "Moscow saw the problems that leaders were shouting about cable information – race, religion, immigration and sexual orientation – and used them to sow discord and foment chaos. They used our social media to undermine our political system as well. But make no mistake, Russia does not lean left or right, it's just trying to get things moving. A weak America is good for Russia. "
But beyond urging senior executives of Facebook and Twitter to continue to protect their users and warn them of malicious or inauthentic messages that sowed the polarization, Burr's closing remarks
"Your businesses must be at the forefront and fight against these problems. You know your algorithms, your customers, and your data collection capabilities better than any government entity or should do it, "said Burr. "The government, civil society and the public will be in partnership with you. . . There is no clear and easy way to the front. We understand the problem. And it's a question of first amendment. We can not regulate around the first amendment. But we can not ignore the challenge either. I am convinced that by working together we can find a solution and a way forward. "
Indeed, the Senate Intelligence Committee seems to be largely relieved that the Silicon Valley media giants have begun doing what Congress has not done since the early 2000s, namely trying to regulate the actors online policies. (The last major campaign finance bill was the McCain-Feingold Act in 2002, which was removed as a result of lawsuits by GOP-related lawyers.)
In this regard, Facebook paved the way in Silicon Valley by requiring anyone who buys advertisements or political messages to certify and disclose its identity, spend and target audience and create a searchable archive of its political ads. Chief Executive Officer She has repeatedly set the tone that Facebook was an ally, not an adversary, of American democracy and Congress.
"We are improving in the search for and fighting against our opponents, from financially motivated Troll Farms to sophisticated military intelligence operations," she said. "We've removed hundreds of pages and accounts involved in coordinated inauthentic behavior – which means they misled others about who they were and what they were doing.
"The threat we face is not new," continued Sandberg. "America has always faced attacks from opponents who want to undermine our democracy. What's new is the tactics they use. It will take everyone – including industry, governments and civil society experts – to work together to stay ahead. "
Facebook also classified the content using external verifiers, removing "inauthentic content", alerting users when they received suspicious content, and taking other measures, including working quietly with the federal police and the police. intelligence agencies. To a lesser degree, Twitter and Google followed this pattern – even though Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey, who also testified, said he was cooperating with law enforcement to protect users' privacy.
"Twitter's goal is to serve the public conversation," he said. "We want to be a global place"
The claim by Facebook and Twitter that they are on the side of the good and that they are taking action as private companies that the government would have more trouble doing, is a good strategy that seems to work well for them.
The committee members were divided into partisan lines on what could be done, which is reflected in their questions. Democrats tended to wonder how platforms were checking what was authentic or not, which meant that some regulation of the election campaign was warranted. Republicans were concerned about the censorship of any user's political views, but then warned executives about working with opposing foreign governments.
Sandberg and Dorsey responded that they kept weighing these concerns and their responses. The question of senators did not dwell on the underlying business models. That is, these giant platforms spy on their users, track and compile personality profiles and sell micro-targeted ads based on information gleaned from domestic and foreign political activists. Instead, some senators urged Facebook to be more transparent about how they work and to encourage users more aggressively to take ownership of their personal data.
Sandberg and Dorsey both said that people had their data. They can access, download and delete it. But neither Sandberg nor Dorsey proposed changing the targeted advertising systems that made social media a powerful political tool. If mistakes were admitted, it was on the human side not to take the threat of malicious actors seriously or soon enough – something that Dorsey has repeatedly said by pledging to do better.
While some Democrats have alluded to the need to regulate the election campaign in the online media, the most notable case lay outside the political arena. Currently, under the Communications Decency Act of 1996, online platforms are not legally responsible for the content published by users. Senator Joe Manchin, D-W.V., Told Sandberg and Dorsey that their traffickers had used their platforms to sell opiates that had killed people.
"Do you all feel responsibility because a lot of people have been affected and many people have died, getting information on how to get drugs through your platforms?" . "We have adopted bills that will hold you accountable. Do not you think we should do the same thing?
Neither Sandberg nor Dorsey recognize guilt. Instead, they carefully stated that they were open to certain regulations – however, Congress should be very careful because doing too much could prevent them from doing other things to combat the abuses of their platforms.
"We are certainly open to dialogue on the CDA and its developments," Dorsey said. "We benefit from many protections that it gives us in the first place to act on the content of our service. The only reason we are able to speculate that we can increase health in the public arena is the CDA [Section] 230. We need to balance exactly what these changes are and what they mean. "
"Will it change the approach to your use of your platforms with the modification of code 230?" Asked Manchin.
"We have to do it regardless of the changes at 230," Dorsey said.
"These things [selling opiates] are against our policies, and we want them [our platform], and we want to take all measures to get them off, "replied Sandberg. "The 230 security zone was very important to allow companies like ours to proactively apply without increasing our liability. So we would like to work very closely on how that would be implemented. "
The Senate Intelligence Committee may have a better understanding of how social media platforms can be an unrivaled tool for communication, audience research and propaganda. But they also seem to understand that Silicon Valley unambiguously wants to be left alone to solve the problems it has helped to create.
The question of whether this status quo will continue beyond the 2018 deadline may depend on who wins in November – and whether congressional elections are considered free from interference.
