Lawyers from Facebook, Google and Twitter testified before congress at the start of November, 2017. One of the main reasons these companies attracted the attention of congress was the cyberwarfare campaign launched by the Russians through these companies against the United States during the 2016 Presidential campaign.
One narrative is that companies like Facebook are naively focused on all the good things that are possible with social media and that they are blind to misuses of this sort. On this narrative, the creators of these companies are like the classic scientist of science fiction who just wanted to do good, but found their creation misused for terrible purposes. This narrative does have some appeal—it is easy for very focused people to be blind to what is outside of their defining vision, even extremely intelligent people. Perhaps especially in the case of intelligent people.
That said, it is difficult to imagine that companies so focused on metrics and data would be ignorant of what is occurring within their firewalls. It would also be odd that so many bright people would be blissfully unaware of what was really going on. Such ignorance is, of course, not impossible—but seems unlikely.
Another narrative is that these companies are not naïve. They are, like many other companies, focused on profits and not overly concerned with the broader social, political and moral implications of their actions. The cyberwarfare launched by the Russians was profitable for their companies—after all, the ads were paid for, the bots swelled Twitter’s user numbers, and so on.
It could be objected that it would be foolish of these companies to knowingly allow the Russians and others to engage in such destructive activity. After all, they are American companies whose leaders seem to endorse liberal political values.
One easy reply is courtesy of one of my political science professors: capitalists will happily sell the rope that will be used to hang them. While this seems silly, it does make sense: those who focus on profits can easily sacrifice long term well-being for short term profits. Companies generally strive to ensure that the harms and costs are offloaded to others. This practice is even defended and encouraged by lawmakers. For example, regulations that are intended to protect people and the environment from the harms of pollution are attacked as “job killing.” The Trump administration, in the name of profits, is busy trying to roll back many of the laws that protect consumers from harm and misdeeds. As such, the social media companies are analogous to more traditional companies, such as energy companies. While cyberwarfare and general social media misdeeds cause considerable harm, the damage is largely suffered by people other than social media management and shareholders. Because of this, I am somewhat surprised that the social media companies do not borrow the playbooks used by other companies when addressing offloading harms to make profits. For example, just as energy companies insist that they should not be restrained by “job-killing” environmental concerns, the social media companies should insist that they not be restrained by “job-killing” concerns about the harms they profit from enabling. After all, the basic principle is the same: it is okay to cause harm, provided that it is profitable to a legal business.
Of course, companies are also quite willing to take actions for short term profits that will cause their management and shareholders long term harms. There is also the fact that most people discount the future—that is, they will often take a short-term benefit even it means forgoing a greater gain in the long term or experiencing a greater harm later. As such, the idea that the social media companies are knowingly allowing such harmful activity because it is profitable in the short term is not without merit.
It is also worth considering the fact that social media companies span national boundaries. While they are nominally American companies, they make their profits globally and have offices and operations around the world. While the idea of megacorporations operating apart from nations and interested solely in their own profits is considered the stuff of science fiction, companies like Google and Facebook clearly have interests quite apart from those of the United States and its citizens. If being a vehicle for cyberwarfare against the United States and its citizens is profitable, these companies would have little reason to not sell, for example, the Russians the digital rope they will use to hang us. While a damaged United States might have some impact on the social media-companies’ bottom line, it might be offset by profits to be gained elsewhere. To expect patriotism and loyalty from social-media companies would be as foolish as expecting it from other companies. After all, the business of business is now shareholder and upper management profit and there is little profit in patriotism and national loyalty.
“Google styles itself as a friendly, funky, user-friendly tech firm that rose to prominence through a combination of skill, luck, and genuine innovation. This is true. But it is a mere fragment of the story. In reality, Google is a smokescreen behind which lurks the US military-industrial complex. The inside story of Google’s rise, revealed here for the first time, opens a can of worms that goes far beyond Google, unexpectedly shining a light on the existence of a parasitical network driving the evolution of the US national security apparatus, and profiting obscenely from its operation…” Read more: “How the CIA made Google” https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/how-the-cia-made-google-e836451a959e
I think the idea that Russian propaganda had any real effect is ludicrous. I guarantee we would not be talking about this if Hillary had won the election.
Remember, Americans are a jaded and suspicious audience. We are bombarded with clickbait, false advertising, spam, and a wide range of viewpoints, so the idea that we would be particularly gullible to Russian propaganda is just silly.
What *is* dangerous is that people like Mike are abandoning their commitment to free speech over an hallucination.
Do you really believe that Mike ever had a “commitment” to free speech such that his commitment to his polemics were ultimately subordinate?
Mike is a pretty good barometer of what Democrats are thinking. It really looks like they have given up on the first amendment.
Very sad, really.
Agree on the barometer thing. Especially in the sense that a barometer is an unthinking reactor to an external force. Begs the question should taxpayers be subsidizing such a tool?
I’m reasonable sure the Russians do not have a 1st amendment right to run cyberwarfare campaigns against us. But, it is reasonable to be concerned that the laws and tools used to try to protect us from threats can be used to impose improperly on rights. The war on terror provides a good example of how such things can be misused.
That said, it is difficult to imagine that companies so focused on metrics and data would be ignorant of what is occurring within their firewalls. It would also be odd that so many bright people would be blissfully unaware of what was really going on. Such ignorance is, of course, not impossible—but seems unlikely.
I don’t understand why it would seem unlikely. Of course, I have worked both in tech companies, and large organisations whose purpose is to get specific things done. The structures and cultures of both these kinds of organisations discourage attention to factors not relevant to their purpose.
Without writing far too much:
1. Tech companies, and indeed tech workers, see themselves as carriers rather than creators (or censors) of content. Whether you’re working in an ISP, or Facebook, or developing a spreadsheet, you are focused on making sure the content is processed and copied correctly, not what is in the content. You might say that our message is the medium!
2. Large organisations with specified deliverables create rules, processes, and structures to ensure that the product is made and delivered correctly. Whether you’re assembling iPhones or issuing driver’s licences, any person not focused on doing their part is hurting productivity. Anyone sitting around discussing the existence class for electricity or the politics of car standards is hurting everyone else, and will not last long.
There were 3000 ads in question, over about a year, before and after the election, with a total spend of ~$100K. That is less than one one-MILLIONTH of Facebook’s total ad traffic. That’s about a grain of sugar compared to a human body … and over the course of a year. You have written of being conscious of your diet and exercise: would you really notice if you ate an extra 1/350th of a grain of sugar each day?
Further, from various articles I’ve seen, it’s not clear to me that these were terribly different from some ads that were otherwise placed by Americans. While the Russian ads were aimed at being divisive, there is certainly a lot of home-grown divisiveness for it to get lost in.
I’d love to see a complete analysis of ads placed using divisive language and subjects, and see how these compare.
Now that the foreign nature of the ads has been headlined, I feel sure that Facebook and others will install extra “immune system” type processes to supplement those that already blocked many of the Russian ads that were attempted to be placed, but automatically rejected because they used some phrases that were flagged.
Fair points; if all that is true of FB, etc. then they could be utterly ignorant of what was going on.
As you note, they no longer have the option to use the naive ignorance excuse-they now know they should, for example, consider the currency used to buy certain types of adds (although non-stupid people will just use dollars).
Ignorance of what, though?
The initlal story broke in the context of “interference with the election”, and that’s the angle that the media focused on, especially the ones making out like bandits from the click-throughs of Trump-haters.
That wasn’t invalid, exactly, but from (lesser-headlined) information that followed, it was clearly only one piece of the picture. The same source also placed ads targeting the other side, and continued placing ads at a similar rate after the election.
So this wasn’t about influencing the election, at least not entirely. That was merely an opportunity in a larger campaign.
Further, we still don’t have the full picture. We never have the full picture, of course, but Facebook wasn’t the only destination for placed comments. There was also Twitter. And Google. And if there was Facebook and Twitter and Google, why would the same source not have used Instagram and Tumblr and other avenues?
Of course, it’s trivial to bypass any blocks Facebook et. al. might set up. The size of the discovered plated ads: an average of 9 ads a day, over a year, with $100K spend? I could do that myself, on my credit card. If some foreign actor wanted to continue, it would be trivial to place those ads through a couple of dozen Americans hired for the job.
Are the ads themselves distinguishable in any way from things everyday and political groups say? At the rate I see Americans tearing into each other, I doubt it.