Digital Content

Lisbon-based telecommunications firm MEO has been rolling out packages that provide users with data plans limited to specific apps. Customers using apps outside the package will be charged more for data. “[That’s] a huge advantage for entrenched companies, but it totally ices out startups trying to get in front of people which stifles innovation,” wrote Rep Ro Khanna (D-CA). “This is what’s at stake and that’s why we have to save net neutrality.”

[Commentary] If we want to reduce the dangers of political ignorance and deception, we should focus less on the details of technology and more on the structure of incentives we have created for voters and political elites. The painful truth about online fake news is that it is just a new symptom of a longstanding problem.

[Ilya Somin is Professor of Law at George Mason University.]

Facebook is trying to make it easier to identify political ads in your News Feed. The company announced it will soon require advertisers — especially political candidates — to disclose more information about their advertising efforts on the platform as the company seeks to temper concerns from the US Congress about Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election.

Facebook’s new policies include labeling political ads so they’re easier to identify, and creating a catalogue of these and other ads so users can see how much advertisers are paying and who they are targeting. But many of the changes intended to create more transparency don’t appear to address the most problematic ads purchased in 2016 by Kremlin-backed, online trolls. These ads, referred to as "issue ads," sought to stir social and political unrest in the United States around issues like Black Lives Matter, not necessarily to promote candidates like Donald Trump. Still, the announcements come as Facebook prepares for what could be a brutal grilling before the House and Senate Intelligence Committees. The panels are investigating Russia’s suspected interference in the 2016 presidential election, and they’ll also hear from senior executives at Google and Twitter during back-to-back hearings on Nov. 1.

Sen Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) is demanding that Facebook and Twitter turn over reams of new data about Russian disinformation spread on their platforms during the 2016 US presidential election. Her requests — detailed in exhaustive letters to the two tech giants’ chief executives — are part of her broader probe into the Kremlin’s potential coordination with President Donald Trump’s campaign.

Specifically, Sen Feinstein seeks information about any Russian-connected user accounts, pages, organic content and ads that targeted their efforts at the United States. And with Twitter, in particular, she asks the company to share some direct messages sent and received by Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks. In both cases, though, Sen Feinstein demands answers by Nov 6. That’s five days after Facebook and Twitter are set to send their senior legal advisers to Capitol Hill for back-to-back hearings before the House and Senate Intelligence Committees, which have spearheaded lawmakers’ Russia investigations.

Facebook removed thousands of posts shared during the 2016 election by accounts linked to Russia after a Columbia University social-media researcher, Jonathan Albright, used the company's data-analytics tool to examine the reach of the Russian accounts. Albright, who discovered the content had reached a far broader audience than Facebook had initially acknowledged, said that the data had allowed him "to at least reconstruct some of the pieces of the puzzle" of Russia's election interference. "Not everything, but it allowed us to make sense of some of this thing," he said.

Facebook confirmed that the posts had been removed. But a spokesman said it was because the company had fixed a glitch in the analytics tool — called CrowdTangle — that Albright had used which provided "an unintended way to access information about deleted content." "Facebook is cooperating fully with federal investigations and are providing info to the relevant authorities," the spokesman said.

Sen Ed Markey (D-MA) and Rep Ted Lieu (D-CA) have teamed up to introduce a bill to boost IoT cybersecurity by creating a voluntary self-certification program under the Department of Commerce. The Cyber Shield Act would establish a voluntary cybersecurity program for the Internet of Things things, with input from an advisory committee comprising "academia, industry, consumer advocates, and the public" on benchmarks for security for consumer devices from baby monitors, cameras and cell phones to laptops and tablets. The goal is to have manufacturers hold themselves to "industry-leading cybersecurity and data security standards, guidelines, best practices, methodologies, procedures, and processes" for the reward of branding their products as such. Manufacturers would self-certify that their products met the benchmarks, and then could display a "Cyber Shield" label, like a "Good CyberHouseprotecting" seal of approval.

The committee will advise the Secretary of Commerce, who could elect not to treat a product as certified unless it was tested and accredited by an independent laboratory. The secretary would have two years from the enactment of the legislation to establish the cybersecurity benchmarks. The program would get a going over by the Commerce inspector general every two years staring not more than four years after enactment.

[Commentary] It is this committee’s mission to protect consumers, and in the coming months, we will be taking a more expansive look at the online experience to ensure safety, security, and an unfiltered flow of information. Recently, the Equifax data breach compromised the personal information of 145 million Americans, including social security numbers, addresses, credit card numbers, and more. This committee held a hearing on the breach and will continue to deeply scrutinize the staggering amount of personal information changing hands online and the business practices surrounding those transactions.

My colleagues and I will hold a separate hearing to assess identity verification practices, and determine whether they can be improved to protect personal data on the web even after a consumer’s information has been breached. These hearings are just the start of a long-term, thoughtful, and research-focused approach to better illuminate how Americans’ data is being used online, how to ensure that data is safe, and how information is being filtered to consumers over the web. While technology is responsible for a lot of positive change in our world, malignant behavior online can have consequences that are not fully disclosed to the American people.

At this moment, AI is at the center of every business conversation. Companies, governments, and researchers are obsessed with data. Not surprisingly, so are adversarial actors.

We are currently seeing an evolution in how data is being manipulated. If we believe that data can and should be used to inform people and fuel technology, we need to start building the infrastructure necessary to limit the corruption and abuse of that data — and grapple with how biased and problematic data might work its way into technology and, through that, into the foundations of our society.

On Sept. 15, nine days before the elections in Germany, the Green party complained to Facebook about a popular series of attack ads deriding its stances on gender-neutral bathrooms, electric cars and other topics. The party accused the advertiser, Greenwatch, of providing false contact information on its Facebook page and blog, which would violate a German Media Authority regulation requiring accurate contact information. But Facebook didn’t take down the ads or trace their origins. And after the election, Greenwatch disappeared. Its website and Facebook page were deleted, leaving behind only the nine Greenwatch ads that were captured by ProPublica’s Political Ad Collector, a tool that enables Facebook users to collect political ads that target them.

The Greenwatch episode illustrates that ads of dubious provenance aren’t just aimed at Facebook users in the US, but in Europe as well. Facebook’s failure to confront the advertiser — despite repeated complaints — raises questions about whether and how the world’s largest social network will deliver on its promise to monitor political advertising aggressively on its platform.

Twitter has has banned two Russian media outlets from advertising on the social network after concluding that they colluded with the Kremlin to influence the US election. Russia Today (RT) and Sputnik, which have spent a combined $1.9 million on Twitter adverts, were blacklisted after an internal investigation into the two, following US intelligence reports saying they were part of a Russian effort to disrupt 2016’s vote. The decision prompted a furious response from the two news outlets, which are funded by the Russian government and seen as its mouthpieces in the West.