Mark Zuckerberg explains how Facebook fights against electoral interference

Mark Zuckerberg held his promise on Rosh Hashana on Thursday to tell the public how he tackles the toughest problems Facebook is facing.

Zuckerberg has published a very detailed 3,300 word article on Facebook, detailing the company's approach to fighting electoral interference.

"These are incredibly complex and important issues, and this year has been intense," Zuckerberg wrote. "In 2016, we were unprepared for the coordinated information operations we regularly face, but we have learned a lot since then and have developed sophisticated systems that combine technology and people to prevent people from getting out of it." electoral interference in our services. "

Zuckerberg said that Facebook is now better prepared to prevent electoral interference than in 2016. He detailed all the steps taken by Facebook, but stressed that coordination with government agencies, security companies and others outside Facebook would be crucial.

"No tactics will prevent all abuses," wrote Zuckerberg.

First, Zuckerberg explained how Facebook fights false accounts. In six months, between October and March, Facebook has removed more than $ 1 billion – or a billion fake accounts – from its network. But he said it was difficult because the fake accounts can be automated and obvious, but also subtle and sophisticated. To this end, Facebook has doubled the size of the team investigating false accounts to 20,000.

"The false accounts continue to pass without detection – and we also make a mistake in the other direction by mistakenly taking people who use our services illegally," wrote Zuckerberg. "These systems will never be perfect, but by investing in artificial intelligence and more people, we will continue to improve."

Then he tackled Facebook's efforts to counter misinformation. Spammers and fake accounts are the most obvious tools in the arsenal of the propagandist. But the difficulty comes when real people unconsciously propagate false stories. Facebook has chosen to downgrade and ban advertising by fake information networks. He also used independent fact controllers to report articles, a strategy that has been criticized.

Third, Zuckerberg looked at Facebook's transparency advertising initiatives since the 2016 elections. He tackled the challenge of how to handle ads. Some companies, for example, complained that publications celebrating the Month of Pride were considered political. But he explained that Facebook has decided to keep both political ads and ads on the network to keep Facebook as a platform where everyone has a voice.

In deciding this policy, we also discussed the opportunity to completely ban political ads. Initially, it seemed simple and attractive. But we refused – not because of the money, because this new auditing process is expensive and we no longer make any significant profit on the political ads – but because we believe in the possibility of giving a voice to people. We did not want to remove an important tool that many groups use to engage in the political process.

Fourth, Zuckerberg explained how he works with independent researchers. Facebook has opened its platform to a group of researchers to learn how Facebook affects elections and politics, and Facebook will not monitor their findings. However, Zuckerberg has put forward the recent advocacy of researchers and journalists to create a safe haven for entities outside Zuckerberg's handpicked team to continue using Facebook for research.

Finally, Zuckerberg called on governments around the world to work more closely together in the fight against information. He explains that the goals of government agencies and Facebook are sometimes not aligned: Facebook wants to delete accounts, while the government wants to use social media to identify and accuse bad actors. . But Zuckerberg calls for collaboration and extols their common goal.

"The definition of success is that we stop cyber attacks and coordinate information operations before they cause damage," Zuckerberg wrote. "We need to create a culture in which stopping these threats is what constitutes success – not the source of the information revealing the attack, and for the complexity of the challenges ahead, it's the best way forward."