5 ms·

How Meta Is Planning for Elections in 2024

38 points by wallbrownf 3y ago

wallbrownf 3y ago
Next year, more than two billion people will head to the polls in elections across some of the world’s biggest democracies, including the United States, India, Indonesia, Mexico and the European Union. Over many years, Meta has developed a comprehensive approach for elections on our platforms. With so many important elections approaching, we are setting out how the policies and safeguards we have established over time will apply in 2024. No tech company does more or invests more to protect elections online than Meta – not just during election periods but at all times. We have around 40,000 people working on safety and security, with more than $20 billion invested in teams and technology in this area since 2016. While much of our approach has remained consistent for some time, we’re continually adapting to ensure we are on top of new challenges, including the use of AI. We’ve also built the largest independent fact-checking network of any platform, with nearly 100 partners around the world to review and rate viral misinformation in more than 60 languages. This approach is consistent with how we have sought to prevent abuse of our platforms during recent major elections in Nigeria, Thailand, Turkey and Argentina, and this year’s state and local elections in the US. While we are conscious that every election brings its own challenges and complexities, we’re confident our comprehensive approach puts us in a strong position to protect the integrity of next year’s elections on our platforms. Industry-Leading Transparency Around Political Ads Since 2018, we have provided industry-leading transparency for ads about social issues, elections or politics. Advertisers who run these ads are required to complete an authorization process and include a “paid for by” disclaimer. These ads are then stored in our publicly available Ad Library for seven years. For example, there are now more than 15 million US entries in our Ad Library. Starting in the new year, advertisers will also have to disclose when they use AI or other digital techniques to create or alter a political or social issue ad in certain cases. This applies if the ad contains a photorealistic image or video, or realistic sounding audio, that was digitally created or altered to depict a real person as saying or doing something they did not say or do. It also applies if an ad depicts a realistic-looking person that does not exist or a realistic-looking event that did not happen, alters footage of a real event, or depicts a realistic event that allegedly occurred, but that is not a true image, video, or audio recording of the event. As in previous years, we will also block new political, electoral and social issue ads during the final week of the US election campaign. Ads that have previously run before this restriction period will be allowed to run during this time. Our rationale for this restriction period remains the same as it has since 2020: in the final days of an election, we recognize there may not be enough time to contest new claims made in ads. This restriction period will lift the day after the election. You can find more details of our approach to the 2024 US Presidential election in this fact sheet. Preventing Election and Voter Interference We continually review and update our election-related policies, and take action if content violates our Community Standards, including our policies on election and voter interference, hate speech, coordinating harm and publicizing crime, and bullying and harassment. We remove this content whether it was created by a person or AI. Our teams fight both foreign interference and domestic influence operations, and have taken down more than 200 malicious influence campaigns involved in what we call Coordinated Inauthentic Behavior. We’ve also designated more than 700 hate groups around the world – including more than 400 white supremacist organizations – and we continue to identify and assess new hate groups...
- PM_me_your_math 3y ago
  [dead]
- username135 3y ago
  Meta PR
- cbeach 3y ago
  How could you ever regain credibility after you de-platformed a US President and many of his supporters? If that’s not election interference I don’t know what is. I’m not saying Trump is a nice guy, or that we should vote for him, but I believe the best way to expose a bad actor is with disinfecting sunlight, as opposed to martyrdom.
tohnjitor 3y ago
[flagged]
voisin 3y ago
2025: Oops, we broke democracy again. Promise to do better next time!
ImAnAmateur 3y ago
How much does an angry face reaction on an article count relative to a like? I know it was reduced from five times more, but I'd like to know what it sits at today. That kind of behavior is indicative of prioritizing "engaging content" above discourse.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
asylteltine 3y ago
Metas social media products should be illegal. How much more proof do you need they are massively harmful to society? Ban them
- nightfly 3y ago
  How far would you extend this? Twitter illegal? Nextdoor illegal? Gaiaonline illegal?
  - username135 3y ago
    The onus for validity shouldnt ve on us. Make the argument why they should exist.
    - nightfly 3y ago
      That's not how regulation/laws work here.
  - candiddevmike 3y ago
    Algorithmic feeds should be illegal. Chronological only.
    - samplatt 3y ago
      I don't mind this idea, tbh, as impossible to police as it would be. Social media still has negative impacts to mental health without the algorithmic feeds but at least it'd be a lot easier to control.
    - lovecg 3y ago
      I feel like this is overblown. If you spend any time on the likes of Telegram or Whatsapp you’ll know that the lack of a feed doesn’t prevent viral content from spreading. It’s just something inherent to people and mass communication.
    - nightfly 3y ago
      I used to be in the chronological only camp, but trying to be on twitter where one or two people I follow post like every 30 minutes and other people who's stuff I wanna see has days/weeks/months/years between posts it just doesn't really work out. Facebook has similar problems: I'm a member of a handful of groups and if I set my default feed to chronological using F.B. Purity lots of stuff I would wanna see gets buried. Tangent: what I really want is a way to only see stuff that people I follow/am friends with made themselves and skip re-tweets, quotes, etc
crtified 3y ago
I'm not sure it's relevant to this topic, but in my unqualified opinion [irrelevant, Tick, unqualified, Tick, .. "read on!"] the matter of stealthily paying people/teams from other countries (or not) to swing the weight of social media discourse in an orchestrated and directed manner, from FB to Reddit and beyond - or 'astroturfing' as I guess it's known - and particularly during critical time periods e.g. the month prior to elections, is probably a pretty big deal, a meaningful bias. [vague metric, Tick...] If you, or the backroom funding associate of a political party, can buy ten t-shirts from another country for the same cost as one in your own, then why not the same for Reddit posts or FB engagement? I'm glad some measures are being taken and attention paid to the matter of significant-scale political interference via the worlds relatively new social media vector, but there are a lot of holes in this dam, and I think we'll not be hearing the end of these issues for some time yet.
asciii 3y ago
This is definitely some smoke screen/cover for Meta's (aka Mark's) real intentions. From his obsession with Augustus Caesar to ownership stake of Meta and how he would sometimes end his meetings with "Domination!", yeah, this definitely is how Meta will plan for elections in 2024 ;)
- candiddevmike 3y ago
  Mark doesn't need to be president if the future president is required to kiss his ring.
ratneshkjain 3y ago
[flagged]
- rvba 3y ago
  Fascinating how even on hacker news people dont see that Russia spammed the whole internet with Trump. I wonder if your account is also a part of this propaganda effort, or just brainwashed.
  - mikecoles 3y ago
    You have zero room to speak on the topic of being brainwashed.
robomartin 3y ago
Here's a twisted thought... There are many things in election systems I don't really understand. One such example is being able to vote while not living in your country of citizenship for a very long time. NOTE: I am only using the US here as an example. The issue is likely present in many other nations. I have a friend who moved his entire family to Australia twenty-five years ago. They have no intention to return to the US. They can, however, vote one every election. Of course, the reason is that they are US citizens and they our laws grant them this right. And yet, I think it would be just to consider that this should not be allowed. Why? If you have relocated to another nation and become a citizen of that nation, your vote is forcing a choice on those living where you used to while you do not have to live with your decisions. Say you vote for a tax increase. Everyone pays. You don't. Say you vote for a serious change to laws pertaining to education. Everyone has to live with your decision, you don't. You vote for a lunatic for president, governor, minister, whatever. No consequence to you. Not the same for those still living there. Perhaps the requirement should be that the person has to have lived in-country for a minimum of five contiguous years prior to casting a vote. That means you have been a part of the affected population recently enough and long enough to have "skin in the game". There is another side to this idea which takes a very different path: Voting as a weapon. Imagine a scenario where a nation with billions of people under totalitarian regime sends millions of people to another nation. They instruct them to stay there long enough to become citizens of that nation. In the US that would be about two years. After that, they are forced to repatriate (perhaps there's an implied threat to their family, which ensures repatriation). Once back, these millions of people can be ordered to legally vote as citizens of the other nation. They would vote as directed by the adversarial government. This government could use remote voting as an economic tool and, in many ways, a weapon of war. What happens if this adversarial government systematically plans and executes such a strategy over decades. At some point they could have control over tens of millions of votes in other nations through their planted naturalized citizens. They could, quite literally, sink entire economies into chaos. Impossible? Well, the laws, as far as I know, would not prevent such a scenario. Either way, I sometimes feel that those who chose to leave a country behind and emigrate to other lands should not have to right to vote and influence life in the country they left. EDIT: Wow. Really? Why are people arguing about US-specifics that are utterly irrelevant rather than discussing the concept of the potential nefarious use of "remote voting" in any nation? Didn't read my note at the very top? Geez.
HHC-Hunter 3y ago
Ffs why do we need arbiters of truth on the internet. We didn't trust in back in the day, why are we under a notion that we can and should trust it today?! Where are people's critical thinking skills?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- 15457345234 3y ago
  > Ffs why do we need arbiters of truth on the internet. Because otherwise people might believe the wrong lies.
- pfannkuchen 3y ago
  Back in the day there wasn’t much value in convincing people on the internet that arbiters of truth were needed because there weren’t enough people on the internet to determine political power contests. There were enough people watching television back in the day to determine political power contests, and hey would you look at that there were arbiters of truth there back in the day.
  - PM_me_your_math 3y ago
    [dead]
- two_handfuls 3y ago
  We very much need to give the truth a leg up because there are powerful moneyed interests peddling lies. Also because the threat is diffuse, so it’s not as easy to sue for (say) slander as it was with newspapers.
  - brigandish 3y ago
    > there are powerful moneyed interests peddling lies When has this not been the case? > the threat is diffuse, so it’s not as easy to sue for (say) slander as it was with newspapers. By this, do you mean that anonymity is preventing lawsuits? Regardless, it's never been easy to sue newspapers and win.
stefantalpalaru 3y ago
[dead]

38 points by wallbrownf 3y ago

Next year, more than two billion people will head to the polls in elections across some of the world’s biggest democracies, including the United States, India, Indonesia, Mexico and the European Union. Over many years, Meta has developed a comprehensive approach for elections on our platforms. With so many important elections approaching, we are setting out how the policies and safeguards we have established over time will apply in 2024. No tech company does more or invests more to protect elections online than Meta – not just during election periods but at all times. We have around 40,000 people working on safety and security, with more than $20 billion invested in teams and technology in this area since 2016. While much of our approach has remained consistent for some time, we’re continually adapting to ensure we are on top of new challenges, including the use of AI. We’ve also built the largest independent fact-checking network of any platform, with nearly 100 partners around the world to review and rate viral misinformation in more than 60 languages. This approach is consistent with how we have sought to prevent abuse of our platforms during recent major elections in Nigeria, Thailand, Turkey and Argentina, and this year’s state and local elections in the US. While we are conscious that every election brings its own challenges and complexities, we’re confident our comprehensive approach puts us in a strong position to protect the integrity of next year’s elections on our platforms. Industry-Leading Transparency Around Political Ads Since 2018, we have provided industry-leading transparency for ads about social issues, elections or politics. Advertisers who run these ads are required to complete an authorization process and include a “paid for by” disclaimer. These ads are then stored in our publicly available Ad Library for seven years. For example, there are now more than 15 million US entries in our Ad Library. Starting in the new year, advertisers will also have to disclose when they use AI or other digital techniques to create or alter a political or social issue ad in certain cases. This applies if the ad contains a photorealistic image or video, or realistic sounding audio, that was digitally created or altered to depict a real person as saying or doing something they did not say or do. It also applies if an ad depicts a realistic-looking person that does not exist or a realistic-looking event that did not happen, alters footage of a real event, or depicts a realistic event that allegedly occurred, but that is not a true image, video, or audio recording of the event. As in previous years, we will also block new political, electoral and social issue ads during the final week of the US election campaign. Ads that have previously run before this restriction period will be allowed to run during this time. Our rationale for this restriction period remains the same as it has since 2020: in the final days of an election, we recognize there may not be enough time to contest new claims made in ads. This restriction period will lift the day after the election. You can find more details of our approach to the 2024 US Presidential election in this fact sheet. Preventing Election and Voter Interference We continually review and update our election-related policies, and take action if content violates our Community Standards, including our policies on election and voter interference, hate speech, coordinating harm and publicizing crime, and bullying and harassment. We remove this content whether it was created by a person or AI. Our teams fight both foreign interference and domestic influence operations, and have taken down more than 200 malicious influence campaigns involved in what we call Coordinated Inauthentic Behavior. We’ve also designated more than 700 hate groups around the world – including more than 400 white supremacist organizations – and we continue to identify and assess new hate groups...

PM_me_your_math 3y ago
[dead]
username135 3y ago
Meta PR
cbeach 3y ago
How could you ever regain credibility after you de-platformed a US President and many of his supporters? If that’s not election interference I don’t know what is. I’m not saying Trump is a nice guy, or that we should vote for him, but I believe the best way to expose a bad actor is with disinfecting sunlight, as opposed to martyrdom.

tohnjitor 3y ago

[flagged]

voisin 3y ago

2025: Oops, we broke democracy again. Promise to do better next time!

ImAnAmateur 3y ago

How much does an angry face reaction on an article count relative to a like? I know it was reduced from five times more, but I'd like to know what it sits at today. That kind of behavior is indicative of prioritizing "engaging content" above discourse.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

asylteltine 3y ago

Metas social media products should be illegal. How much more proof do you need they are massively harmful to society? Ban them

nightfly 3y ago
How far would you extend this? Twitter illegal? Nextdoor illegal? Gaiaonline illegal?
- username135 3y ago
  The onus for validity shouldnt ve on us. Make the argument why they should exist.
  - nightfly 3y ago
    That's not how regulation/laws work here.
- candiddevmike 3y ago
  Algorithmic feeds should be illegal. Chronological only.
  - samplatt 3y ago
    I don't mind this idea, tbh, as impossible to police as it would be. Social media still has negative impacts to mental health without the algorithmic feeds but at least it'd be a lot easier to control.
  - lovecg 3y ago
    I feel like this is overblown. If you spend any time on the likes of Telegram or Whatsapp you’ll know that the lack of a feed doesn’t prevent viral content from spreading. It’s just something inherent to people and mass communication.
  - nightfly 3y ago
    I used to be in the chronological only camp, but trying to be on twitter where one or two people I follow post like every 30 minutes and other people who's stuff I wanna see has days/weeks/months/years between posts it just doesn't really work out. Facebook has similar problems: I'm a member of a handful of groups and if I set my default feed to chronological using F.B. Purity lots of stuff I would wanna see gets buried. Tangent: what I really want is a way to only see stuff that people I follow/am friends with made themselves and skip re-tweets, quotes, etc

crtified 3y ago

I'm not sure it's relevant to this topic, but in my unqualified opinion [irrelevant, Tick, unqualified, Tick, .. "read on!"] the matter of stealthily paying people/teams from other countries (or not) to swing the weight of social media discourse in an orchestrated and directed manner, from FB to Reddit and beyond - or 'astroturfing' as I guess it's known - and particularly during critical time periods e.g. the month prior to elections, is probably a pretty big deal, a meaningful bias. [vague metric, Tick...] If you, or the backroom funding associate of a political party, can buy ten t-shirts from another country for the same cost as one in your own, then why not the same for Reddit posts or FB engagement? I'm glad some measures are being taken and attention paid to the matter of significant-scale political interference via the worlds relatively new social media vector, but there are a lot of holes in this dam, and I think we'll not be hearing the end of these issues for some time yet.

asciii 3y ago

This is definitely some smoke screen/cover for Meta's (aka Mark's) real intentions. From his obsession with Augustus Caesar to ownership stake of Meta and how he would sometimes end his meetings with "Domination!", yeah, this definitely is how Meta will plan for elections in 2024 ;)

candiddevmike 3y ago
Mark doesn't need to be president if the future president is required to kiss his ring.

ratneshkjain 3y ago

[flagged]

rvba 3y ago
Fascinating how even on hacker news people dont see that Russia spammed the whole internet with Trump. I wonder if your account is also a part of this propaganda effort, or just brainwashed.
- mikecoles 3y ago
  You have zero room to speak on the topic of being brainwashed.

robomartin 3y ago

Here's a twisted thought... There are many things in election systems I don't really understand. One such example is being able to vote while not living in your country of citizenship for a very long time. NOTE: I am only using the US here as an example. The issue is likely present in many other nations. I have a friend who moved his entire family to Australia twenty-five years ago. They have no intention to return to the US. They can, however, vote one every election. Of course, the reason is that they are US citizens and they our laws grant them this right. And yet, I think it would be just to consider that this should not be allowed. Why? If you have relocated to another nation and become a citizen of that nation, your vote is forcing a choice on those living where you used to while you do not have to live with your decisions. Say you vote for a tax increase. Everyone pays. You don't. Say you vote for a serious change to laws pertaining to education. Everyone has to live with your decision, you don't. You vote for a lunatic for president, governor, minister, whatever. No consequence to you. Not the same for those still living there. Perhaps the requirement should be that the person has to have lived in-country for a minimum of five contiguous years prior to casting a vote. That means you have been a part of the affected population recently enough and long enough to have "skin in the game". There is another side to this idea which takes a very different path: Voting as a weapon. Imagine a scenario where a nation with billions of people under totalitarian regime sends millions of people to another nation. They instruct them to stay there long enough to become citizens of that nation. In the US that would be about two years. After that, they are forced to repatriate (perhaps there's an implied threat to their family, which ensures repatriation). Once back, these millions of people can be ordered to legally vote as citizens of the other nation. They would vote as directed by the adversarial government. This government could use remote voting as an economic tool and, in many ways, a weapon of war. What happens if this adversarial government systematically plans and executes such a strategy over decades. At some point they could have control over tens of millions of votes in other nations through their planted naturalized citizens. They could, quite literally, sink entire economies into chaos. Impossible? Well, the laws, as far as I know, would not prevent such a scenario. Either way, I sometimes feel that those who chose to leave a country behind and emigrate to other lands should not have to right to vote and influence life in the country they left. EDIT: Wow. Really? Why are people arguing about US-specifics that are utterly irrelevant rather than discussing the concept of the potential nefarious use of "remote voting" in any nation? Didn't read my note at the very top? Geez.

HHC-Hunter 3y ago

Ffs why do we need arbiters of truth on the internet. We didn't trust in back in the day, why are we under a notion that we can and should trust it today?! Where are people's critical thinking skills?

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
15457345234 3y ago
> Ffs why do we need arbiters of truth on the internet. Because otherwise people might believe the wrong lies.
pfannkuchen 3y ago
Back in the day there wasn’t much value in convincing people on the internet that arbiters of truth were needed because there weren’t enough people on the internet to determine political power contests. There were enough people watching television back in the day to determine political power contests, and hey would you look at that there were arbiters of truth there back in the day.
- PM_me_your_math 3y ago
  [dead]
two_handfuls 3y ago
We very much need to give the truth a leg up because there are powerful moneyed interests peddling lies. Also because the threat is diffuse, so it’s not as easy to sue for (say) slander as it was with newspapers.
- brigandish 3y ago
  > there are powerful moneyed interests peddling lies When has this not been the case? > the threat is diffuse, so it’s not as easy to sue for (say) slander as it was with newspapers. By this, do you mean that anonymity is preventing lawsuits? Regardless, it's never been easy to sue newspapers and win.

stefantalpalaru 3y ago

[dead]