8 ms·

Testimony of Facebook, Google, and Twitter to US Senate

justboxing 9y ago
[RETRACTED]
- throwanem 9y ago
  What would be the point of sending the CEOs themselves? The message will be the same either way.
- hsod 9y ago
  Why ask pointed hypotheticals when the transcripts are right in front of you?
- omarforgotpwd 9y ago
  When the senate calls you in to testify, you cover your ass.
Kenji 9y ago
The fight against "fake news" and the control of social media is the beginning of pure fascism. Mark my words. Meaningful conversations will disappear into niches where capable people use secure encryption.
sova 9y ago
Facebook Counsel says: Our authenticity policy is the cornerstone of how we prevent abuse on our platform, and was the basis of our internal investigation and what we found. From the beginning, we have always believed that Facebook is a place for authentic dialogue, and that the best way to ensure authenticity is to require people to use the names they are known by. Fake accounts undermine this objective, and are closely related to the creation and spread of inauthentic communication such as spam—as well as used to carry out disinformation campaigns like the one associated with the Internet Research Agency (IRA), a Russian company located in St. Petersburg. Authenticity Policy went partially out the window when non-.edu addresses were able to register, and eventually completely out the window when new account registration was opened to everyone. Not really sure how big F can claim they have any sort of Authenticity Standards for user accounts. It seems to me that they encourage people to make multiple accounts, throwaways, business only accounts, pages for celebrities, pretty much everything but using your real name is encouraged at this point. They [Facebook AND Twitter] also count "impressions" as the number of times something appeared on screen, which is laughably inaccurate for how "impressed" some piece of news or media became on someone's psyche. Still no mention of a veracity metric or any sort of Bullshit-o-meter by neither Facebook, Twitter, nor Google. Then, Finally, I got to Clinn Watts' testimony, and this human is a saint: I propose "nutrition labels" for information outlets, a rating icon for news producing outlets displayed next to their news links in social media feeds and search engines. The icon would provide users an assessment of the news outlet's ratio of fact versus fiction and reporting versus opinion. The opt-out rating system would not infringe freedom of speech or freedom of press, but would inform users as to the veracity of content and its disposition. Clinn Watts, friend of veracity, thank you for this timely and appropriate suggestion. I pray the big players take heed to your idea.
- QAPereo 9y ago
  >Then, Finally, I got to Clinn Watts' testimony, and this human is a saint: I propose "nutrition labels" for information outlets, a rating icon for news producing outlets displayed next to their news links in social media feeds and search engines. The icon would provide users an assessment of the news outlet's ratio of fact versus fiction and reporting versus opinion. The opt-out rating system would not infringe freedom of speech or freedom of press, but would inform users as to the veracity of content and its disposition. Then the only challenge is to invent some cross between the biohazard and radiation hazard symbols, and just plaster it on 99% of the net.
  - sova 9y ago
    Ideally the icon shows a realtime value or reasonably up-to-date value of Ratio of Fact:Fiction, Ratio of Reporting:Opinion. If you saw a piece of news from YCorp and their Fact-to-Fiction ratio was 9:1 you may say, "okay, that sounds likely." If their Fact-to-fiction is 1:18 However, you might just remember to laugh instead of resharing potentially hazardous messages. To me "icon" can also mean values/numbers/measure and not just "this is healthy and green, this is toxic and glowing"
    - sjeohp 9y ago
      > potentially hazardous messages THOUGHTCRIME ALERT Must protect fragile minds from dangerous messages...
  - dangerlibrary 9y ago
    This place is not a place of honor. No highly esteemed deed is commemorated here. Nothing valued is here. This place is a message and part of a system of messages. Pay attention to it! Sending this message was important to us. We considered ourselves to be a powerful culture.
    - QAPereo 9y ago
      The WIPP?! I love it... a desolate plain of windblown sand, gathering around the base of massive, repulsive obsidian and concrete pillars. Then again, maybe we just go with, "There be dragons."
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
ou89 9y ago
Hey Russians! If you guys have worked out how to get the herd to stampede, then why for the love of cabbage, do you need to use this skill to just cause randomness??? I mean can't you guys get the herd to buy Russian iPhones or line up for Russian super hero movies or something? I really can't understand what the Russians have gained here. If Mueller's final report says the Russians had a major influence on the election, then what happens? I can't imagine it being good for anyone.
- mathperson 9y ago
  Are you serious? Donald is SIGNIFICANTLY more pro-russia than Hilary would have been. Ex-post facto that justified it. Actions of Donald: 1. Intense skepticism of NATO (Russia hates this). 2. attempted to remove sanctions 3. Return spy compounds 4. America turning inwards and rejecting its international role as the hegemonic power and guarantor of western institutions. 5. The russians have preferred the republicans for a few years now since they were viewed as being more real-politik. But mostly Donald wasn't hilary. Putin HATED Hilary for complex reasons linked to 1. bill clinton's expansion of NATO 2. What putin perceived as american support for violent regime change i.e. which he viewed as an existential threat. This included Hilary speaking in public in support of Russian dissidents and her exulting in the overthrow and execution of gaddafi (while she was secretary of state) 3. Hilary was basically an anti-russia hawk in general. It seems the active measures campaign was never expected to result in Donald winning. I think the reasonable expectation was that hilary would be discredited and ineffective after winning with no clear mandate and intense resistance by the right. It was by no means random. It is intensely idiotic to think a nation state ruled by a canny, KBG trained, dictator would invest substantial resources and risk American retaliation to cause 'randomness'. His actions had chaotic results to be sure...but he had clear goals. "If Mueller's final report says the Russians had a major influence on the election then what happens? I can't imagine it being good for anyone." and the alternative being we close our eyes and pretend not to see? hopefully it would result in a return to paper ballots and hardened cyber security all across the Western world. At this point though, we all know what the Mueller report will say in its generality. YES the russians had major influence on the election. Denying that at this point is delusional! Mueller is more about what role auspices of the trump campaign violated the law in their acceptance of russian aid...that is still somewhat of an open question as to degree and the level of criminality but it is quite clear that the Trump campaign had some amount of communication and coordination with agents of the Russian government.
factsaresacred 9y ago
> 56% of total ad impressions were after the election. > Most of the ads appear to focus on divisive social and political messages across the ideological spectrum, touching on topics from LGBT matters to race issues to immigration to gun rights. > Many of the ads and posts we’ve seen so far are deeply disturbing—seemingly intended to amplify societal divisions and pit groups of people against each other. "Deeply disturbing". The contrived pearl-clutching really is something else. Disturbing for whom, exactly? One ad apparently talked about saying Merry Christmas again. This is the 'meddling' they speak of. And this is what the media does 24/7. Every day they shove divisive social and political messages down our throats. What is the crime here?
- rrhd 9y ago
  You don't see the Russians attempting to influence the US elections via social engineering as a problem?
  - wslh 9y ago
    That is a naive thinking. If US has a defense system against nuclear weapons but you can attack it via social media the error is on the US side. US is not an exception and had also attacked a lot of countries before via different strategies.
    - rrhd 9y ago
      Uh okay, but that doesn't mean the US shouldn't examine this and respond as necessary.
      - wslh 9y ago
        Sure, I am just saying that it is "funny" that a superpower is attacked via social media in a naive way. This attack could be organized by any other entity with enough cash. It sounds like an easy hack.
  - factsaresacred 9y ago
xienze 9y ago
Could we just, you know, get some examples of these stunningly effective ads that have the power to sway elections? Is that too much to ask? Or would we find out that these ads that the Dems have been hyping up are nothing more than run-of-the-mill memes?
- nfoz 9y ago
  > these ads that the Dems have been hyping up The post under discussion is an article by Republican senator Lindsey Graham. Here's an interesting example I saw in [1], although I don't know if it was foreign-originating. It's an official-looking ad for Democrats that tells them they can vote from home by texting "Hillary" to a 5-digit phone number. [1] https://www.c-span.org/video/?436454-1/facebook-google-twitter-executives-testify-russia-election-ads https://www.c-span.org/video/?436454-1/facebook-google-twitt...
Balgair 9y ago
FB: $100K in ads barely made an impression on the election. Nothing to really worry about Also FB: Come buy our ads! Zuck man, either you have the power or you don't. I get trying to save face, but I didn't get that feeling from them. It felt to me that they really are that dissonant.
- jos3 9y ago
  Skip past the FB/Google/Twitter Lawyers at the hearings and listen to what the Security experts are saying. The tech companies are only reacting to whats happening on THEIR platforms, but the big picture emerges only when looking across multiple platforms and the dark web. This makes sense to me, as modern day marketing/targeting happens across as many channels as your budget allows. The target is not just spending his entire day on one site. I am no fan of Zuck or FB and what chaos they have enabled, but things have escalated way beyond what one tech company can counter. We are going to be borrowing lessons from China soon to get a handle on this mess.
  - Balgair 9y ago
    Unfortunately, I agree... Sorry Cory Doctorow, but the 'open' web is going the way of the open ranges of cattle drives. There's too many banditos robbing stagecoaches now, we need the Cavalry. As you say, this will end in a 'Chinese' manner. Nationalism and borders have proved to be stronger than the net.

[RETRACTED]

throwanem 9y ago
What would be the point of sending the CEOs themselves? The message will be the same either way.
hsod 9y ago
Why ask pointed hypotheticals when the transcripts are right in front of you?
omarforgotpwd 9y ago
When the senate calls you in to testify, you cover your ass.

The fight against "fake news" and the control of social media is the beginning of pure fascism. Mark my words. Meaningful conversations will disappear into niches where capable people use secure encryption.

sova 9y ago

Facebook Counsel says: Our authenticity policy is the cornerstone of how we prevent abuse on our platform, and was the basis of our internal investigation and what we found. From the beginning, we have always believed that Facebook is a place for authentic dialogue, and that the best way to ensure authenticity is to require people to use the names they are known by. Fake accounts undermine this objective, and are closely related to the creation and spread of inauthentic communication such as spam—as well as used to carry out disinformation campaigns like the one associated with the Internet Research Agency (IRA), a Russian company located in St. Petersburg. Authenticity Policy went partially out the window when non-.edu addresses were able to register, and eventually completely out the window when new account registration was opened to everyone. Not really sure how big F can claim they have any sort of Authenticity Standards for user accounts. It seems to me that they encourage people to make multiple accounts, throwaways, business only accounts, pages for celebrities, pretty much everything but using your real name is encouraged at this point. They [Facebook AND Twitter] also count "impressions" as the number of times something appeared on screen, which is laughably inaccurate for how "impressed" some piece of news or media became on someone's psyche. Still no mention of a veracity metric or any sort of Bullshit-o-meter by neither Facebook, Twitter, nor Google. Then, Finally, I got to Clinn Watts' testimony, and this human is a saint: I propose "nutrition labels" for information outlets, a rating icon for news producing outlets displayed next to their news links in social media feeds and search engines. The icon would provide users an assessment of the news outlet's ratio of fact versus fiction and reporting versus opinion. The opt-out rating system would not infringe freedom of speech or freedom of press, but would inform users as to the veracity of content and its disposition. Clinn Watts, friend of veracity, thank you for this timely and appropriate suggestion. I pray the big players take heed to your idea.

QAPereo 9y ago
>Then, Finally, I got to Clinn Watts' testimony, and this human is a saint: I propose "nutrition labels" for information outlets, a rating icon for news producing outlets displayed next to their news links in social media feeds and search engines. The icon would provide users an assessment of the news outlet's ratio of fact versus fiction and reporting versus opinion. The opt-out rating system would not infringe freedom of speech or freedom of press, but would inform users as to the veracity of content and its disposition. Then the only challenge is to invent some cross between the biohazard and radiation hazard symbols, and just plaster it on 99% of the net.
- sova 9y ago
  Ideally the icon shows a realtime value or reasonably up-to-date value of Ratio of Fact:Fiction, Ratio of Reporting:Opinion. If you saw a piece of news from YCorp and their Fact-to-Fiction ratio was 9:1 you may say, "okay, that sounds likely." If their Fact-to-fiction is 1:18 However, you might just remember to laugh instead of resharing potentially hazardous messages. To me "icon" can also mean values/numbers/measure and not just "this is healthy and green, this is toxic and glowing"
  - sjeohp 9y ago
    > potentially hazardous messages THOUGHTCRIME ALERT Must protect fragile minds from dangerous messages...
- dangerlibrary 9y ago
  This place is not a place of honor. No highly esteemed deed is commemorated here. Nothing valued is here. This place is a message and part of a system of messages. Pay attention to it! Sending this message was important to us. We considered ourselves to be a powerful culture.
  - QAPereo 9y ago
    The WIPP?! I love it... a desolate plain of windblown sand, gathering around the base of massive, repulsive obsidian and concrete pillars. Then again, maybe we just go with, "There be dragons."

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

ou89 9y ago

Hey Russians! If you guys have worked out how to get the herd to stampede, then why for the love of cabbage, do you need to use this skill to just cause randomness??? I mean can't you guys get the herd to buy Russian iPhones or line up for Russian super hero movies or something? I really can't understand what the Russians have gained here. If Mueller's final report says the Russians had a major influence on the election, then what happens? I can't imagine it being good for anyone.

mathperson 9y ago
Are you serious? Donald is SIGNIFICANTLY more pro-russia than Hilary would have been. Ex-post facto that justified it. Actions of Donald: 1. Intense skepticism of NATO (Russia hates this). 2. attempted to remove sanctions 3. Return spy compounds 4. America turning inwards and rejecting its international role as the hegemonic power and guarantor of western institutions. 5. The russians have preferred the republicans for a few years now since they were viewed as being more real-politik. But mostly Donald wasn't hilary. Putin HATED Hilary for complex reasons linked to 1. bill clinton's expansion of NATO 2. What putin perceived as american support for violent regime change i.e. which he viewed as an existential threat. This included Hilary speaking in public in support of Russian dissidents and her exulting in the overthrow and execution of gaddafi (while she was secretary of state) 3. Hilary was basically an anti-russia hawk in general. It seems the active measures campaign was never expected to result in Donald winning. I think the reasonable expectation was that hilary would be discredited and ineffective after winning with no clear mandate and intense resistance by the right. It was by no means random. It is intensely idiotic to think a nation state ruled by a canny, KBG trained, dictator would invest substantial resources and risk American retaliation to cause 'randomness'. His actions had chaotic results to be sure...but he had clear goals. "If Mueller's final report says the Russians had a major influence on the election then what happens? I can't imagine it being good for anyone." and the alternative being we close our eyes and pretend not to see? hopefully it would result in a return to paper ballots and hardened cyber security all across the Western world. At this point though, we all know what the Mueller report will say in its generality. YES the russians had major influence on the election. Denying that at this point is delusional! Mueller is more about what role auspices of the trump campaign violated the law in their acceptance of russian aid...that is still somewhat of an open question as to degree and the level of criminality but it is quite clear that the Trump campaign had some amount of communication and coordination with agents of the Russian government.

factsaresacred 9y ago

> 56% of total ad impressions were after the election. > Most of the ads appear to focus on divisive social and political messages across the ideological spectrum, touching on topics from LGBT matters to race issues to immigration to gun rights. > Many of the ads and posts we’ve seen so far are deeply disturbing—seemingly intended to amplify societal divisions and pit groups of people against each other. "Deeply disturbing". The contrived pearl-clutching really is something else. Disturbing for whom, exactly? One ad apparently talked about saying Merry Christmas again. This is the 'meddling' they speak of. And this is what the media does 24/7. Every day they shove divisive social and political messages down our throats. What is the crime here?

rrhd 9y ago
You don't see the Russians attempting to influence the US elections via social engineering as a problem?
- wslh 9y ago
  That is a naive thinking. If US has a defense system against nuclear weapons but you can attack it via social media the error is on the US side. US is not an exception and had also attacked a lot of countries before via different strategies.
  - rrhd 9y ago
    Uh okay, but that doesn't mean the US shouldn't examine this and respond as necessary.
    - wslh 9y ago
      Sure, I am just saying that it is "funny" that a superpower is attacked via social media in a naive way. This attack could be organized by any other entity with enough cash. It sounds like an easy hack.
- factsaresacred 9y ago

xienze 9y ago

Could we just, you know, get some examples of these stunningly effective ads that have the power to sway elections? Is that too much to ask? Or would we find out that these ads that the Dems have been hyping up are nothing more than run-of-the-mill memes?

nfoz 9y ago
> these ads that the Dems have been hyping up The post under discussion is an article by Republican senator Lindsey Graham. Here's an interesting example I saw in [1], although I don't know if it was foreign-originating. It's an official-looking ad for Democrats that tells them they can vote from home by texting "Hillary" to a 5-digit phone number. [1] https://www.c-span.org/video/?436454-1/facebook-google-twitter-executives-testify-russia-election-ads https://www.c-span.org/video/?436454-1/facebook-google-twitt...

Balgair 9y ago

FB: $100K in ads barely made an impression on the election. Nothing to really worry about Also FB: Come buy our ads! Zuck man, either you have the power or you don't. I get trying to save face, but I didn't get that feeling from them. It felt to me that they really are that dissonant.

jos3 9y ago
Skip past the FB/Google/Twitter Lawyers at the hearings and listen to what the Security experts are saying. The tech companies are only reacting to whats happening on THEIR platforms, but the big picture emerges only when looking across multiple platforms and the dark web. This makes sense to me, as modern day marketing/targeting happens across as many channels as your budget allows. The target is not just spending his entire day on one site. I am no fan of Zuck or FB and what chaos they have enabled, but things have escalated way beyond what one tech company can counter. We are going to be borrowing lessons from China soon to get a handle on this mess.
- Balgair 9y ago
  Unfortunately, I agree... Sorry Cory Doctorow, but the 'open' web is going the way of the open ranges of cattle drives. There's too many banditos robbing stagecoaches now, we need the Cavalry. As you say, this will end in a 'Chinese' manner. Nationalism and borders have proved to be stronger than the net.