Elections and Media

Twitter is planning to notify users who may have been exposed to Russian propaganda during the 2016 presidential election, the company's head of public policy said during the Senate Commerce Committee hearing, "Terrorism and Social Media: #IsBigTechDoingEnough?". While the hearing was ostensibly about how social media companies can better combat terrorism, it veered onto other topics, primarily Russia.

[Commentary] The rules and incentive structures underlying how attention and surveillance work on the internet need to change. But in fairness to Facebook and Google and Twitter, while there’s a lot they could do better, the public outcry demanding that they fix all these problems is fundamentally mistaken. There are few solutions to the problems of digital discourse that don’t involve huge trade-offs—and those are not choices for Mark Zuckerberg alone to make. These are deeply political decisions.

[Commentary] For the better part of 20 years, Russian President Vladimir Putin has engaged in a relentless assault against democratic institutions abroad, universal values and the rule of law.

 Senate Commerce Chairman John Thune (R-SD) says the average American is not likely to be swayed in the 2018 midterms by Senate Democrats forcing a vote on reinstating the net neutrality rules. “I think they see it as a really hot political issue [that] gets their base kind of energized.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has systematically attacked democratic institutions across Europe and in his own country for two decades in efforts to undermine elections and other governments, Senate Democrats charged. Democrats on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee issued a 206-page report that said President Trump’s failure to recognize the danger or to challenge Putin means Russia is likely to interfere in the next US presidential race in a repeat of the 2016 campaign.

The Senate Intelligence Committee is still waiting on Twitter to answer questions in the committee’s Russia investigation, Committee Vice Chairman Mark Warner (D-VA) said.  “I’m disappointed. I’ve been disappointed throughout this” by Twitter Inc.’s failure to be more cooperative Vice Chairman Warner said. “The other companies met the deadline." Facebook and Alphabet's Google have delivered answers to detailed questions Senators posed after a public hearing with the three technology giants in 2017 on disclosures that Russians had exploited their networks.

[Commentary] Platforms help people self-segregate into like-minded filter bubbles, reducing the risk of exposure to challenging ideas. It took Brexit for me to begin to see the danger of this dynamic...I realized that the problems I had been seeing couldn’t be solved simply by, say, Facebook hiring staff to monitor the content on the site. The problems were inherent in the attention-based, algorithm-driven business model. And what I suspected was Russia’s meddling in 2016 was only a prelude to what we’d see in 2018 and beyond.

Generally speaking, pollsters are ill advised to ignore cellphone users, if only because they’d be missing half of the country. But there’s another reason that pollsters need to include cell users: The demographics of those with and without access to landlines is stark. Nearly two-thirds of Hispanic adults in the United States live in households that are wireless-only. More than half of black adults and Asian adults do, as well.

[Commentary] The so-called social media revolution isn’t what it’s cracked up to be. Sites like Twitter and Facebook exacerbate emotions like outrage and fear—and don’t help democracy flourish. Social media too easily bypasses the rational or at least reasonable parts of our minds, on which a democratic public sphere depends. It speaks instead to the emotional, reactive, quick-fix parts of us, that are satisfied by images and clicks that look pleasing, that feed our egos, and that make us think we are heroic.

The first hard data on fake-news consumption has arrived. Researchers posted an analysis of the browsing histories of thousands of adults during the run-up to the 2016 election — a real-time picture of who viewed which fake stories, and what real news those people were seeing at the same time. The reach of fake news was wide indeed, the study found, yet also shallow.