Stories from Abroad

Most of Australia’s newspapers, radio stations and television broadcasters are controlled by only a handful of owners, like Rupert Murdoch’s media empire, making it one of the most concentrated media markets in the developed world. Soon, even more Australian media properties could be in fewer hands.

New legislation backed by Australia’s governing Liberal party would eliminate restrictions separating broadcast media from print and would allow media companies to own more outlets in a city. The legislation, which has cleared Australia’s Senate and could come before the lower house of Parliament as soon as next month, is widely expected to pass. Media owners say the rules are relics of a less digital era. Like media companies around the world, Australia’s newspaper and television station owners are contending with the rise of internet companies like Facebook and Google, which are drawing away advertising dollars, eyeballs and eardrums. But in an echo of debates raging in other countries, opponents say the changes would lead to a less diverse media market, with Murdoch’s company among those likely to benefit the most. They also contend the legislation’s backers are simply helping their political allies.

“We may have in America the best 20th-century military that money can buy, but we’re increasingly in a world where cyber vulnerability, misinformation and disinformation may be the tools of conflict,” said Senate Intelligence Committee Co-Chair Mark Warner (D-VA). “What we may have seen are the first tools of 21st-century disinformation.” He believes Russia’s use of social media to influence 2016’s election demonstrated how warfare has moved away from the battlefield and toward the internet. And the U.S. has been slow to adjust.

Earlier this summer we outlined some of our work to combat bots and networks of manipulation on Twitter. Since then, we have received a number of questions about how malicious bots and misinformation networks on Twitter may have been used in the context of the 2016 U.S. Presidential elections. Sept 28, Twitter Vice President for Public Policy Colin Crowell met with staff from Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence to discuss these issues.

Of the roughly 450 accounts that Facebook recently shared as a part of their review, we concluded that 22 had corresponding accounts on Twitter. All of those identified accounts had already been or immediately were suspended from Twitter for breaking our rules, most for violating our prohibitions against spam. In addition, from those accounts we found an additional 179 related or linked accounts, and took action on the ones we found in violation of our rules. Neither the original accounts shared by Facebook, nor the additional related accounts we identified, were registered as advertisers on Twitter. However, we continue to investigate these issues, and will take action on anything that violates our Terms of Service.

[Commentary] Actual policy actions to protect our vote from outside interference have been next to nil. That needs to change now.

First, and most obviously, our cybersecurity must be strengthened. We need greater education on how to prevent cyberattacks; more coordination between layers for cybersecurity at the individual, group and government levels; and new government regulation mandating upgrades in cybersecurity for everyone and everything involved in the electoral process. Second, information about Russian state propaganda — not censorship of these content providers — must be provided to the American people. Third, foreign purchase of advertisements aimed at influencing elections must be prohibited. Fourth, Americans who colluded with Russian (or any foreign) actors to influence the outcome of our elections must be punished.

[Michael McFaul is director of the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies and a Hoover fellow at Stanford University. He was previously special assistant to President Obama at the National Security Council from 2009-2012 and former U.S. ambassador to Russia from 2012-2014]

The European Union is once again asking Facebook, Google, Twitter, and other web companies to crack down on hate speech and speech inciting violence and terrorism — but this time, it’s taking things a step further. The European Commission has issued guidelines for web companies to follow, and it’s warning the companies that, if they don’t comply, the Commission may pass legislation. And that legislation, of course, could lead to some huge fines. There are a handful of guidelines so far.

The Commission recommends that web companies appoint a dedicated point of contact, who law enforcement can contact when illegal content is discovered. It wants web companies to allow third-party “trusted flaggers” with “specific expertise in identifying illegal content” to come in and monitor potentially illegal posts. And it asks web companies to invest in technologies that can automatically detect potentially illegal posts and speech.The Commission would also like companies to do more to prevent illegal content from being reposted after it’s been taken down. And the Commission says time frames may need to be established for how quickly illegal content is taken down once it’s discovered. Web companies should issue public guidelines, the Commission says, so that users know how takedown requests are treated and what kind of content gets removed.

The internet is global. So the approach to internet governance should be global as well, right? Not exactly.

The internet, as a network, is decentralized, which makes it inherently difficult to govern. It belongs to everyone, but is owned by nobody. This speaks to a question that’s been around for decades—one centered around how we might govern the technical aspects of the internet. Jovan Kurbalija, director of the DiploFoundation and head of the Geneva Internet Platform, spoke to these very issues at a New America event. “Global governance sounds logical, but when you really dig into the digital policy, you see that the impact of the internet is very local, given the social, economic, political, and cultural context,” Kurbalija said.

The United States has asked China not to implement its new cyber security law over concerns it could damage global trade in services. China ushered in a tough new cyber security law in June, following years of fierce debate around the move that many foreign business groups fear will hit their ability to operate in the country. The law requires local and overseas firms to submit to security checks and store user data within the country. The United States, in a document submitted for debate at the World Trade Organization Services Council, said if China’s new rules enter into full force in their current form, as expected by the end of 2018, they could impact cross-border services supplied through a commercial presence abroad.

“China’s measures would disrupt, deter, and in many cases, prohibit cross-border transfers of information that are routine in the ordinary course of business,” it said. “The United States has been communicating these concerns directly to high level officials and relevant authorities in China,” the US document said, adding it wanted to raise awareness among WTO members about the potential impact on trade. “We request that China refrain from issuing or implementing final measures until such concerns are addressed.”

Mark Zuckerberg pledged $1.5 million in aid to organizations assisting in Puerto Rico’s recovery from Hurricane Maria, together with direct assistance from Facebook’s connectivity team to help the country get back online.

The hurricane left 80 percent of the island without power, and citizens have faced intense shortages of food, fuel, and drinking water in the seven days since landfall. The $1.5 million donation is split between the World Food Programme, an anti-hunger organization, and NetHope, a consortium of non-profits that works to improve connectivity in undeveloped or disaster-stricken areas. Zuckerberg asked concerned followers to donate to Save The Children, which is working to distribute aid on the island. Zuckerberg emphasized the importance of communications in the recovery effort. “With 90% of cell towers on the island out of service, people can't get in touch with their loved ones, and it's harder for rescue workers to coordinate relief efforts,” Zuckerberg wrote. “We're sending the Facebook connectivity team to deliver emergency telecommunications assistance to get the systems up and running.” The company also plans to use donated Facebook ad space to share critical information with Puerto Rican users, although the ads will be of little use until power and connectivity is restored.

China has built a new wall, in cyberspace — the largest system of Internet censorship, control and surveillance in the world, nicknamed the Great Firewall of China. Thirty years on, it is extending those controls even further.

Since passing its broad new Cybersecurity Law in June 2017, the Communist Party has rolled out new regulations — and steps to enforce existing ones — that reflect its desire to control and exploit every inch of the digital world, experts say. Today, the Great Firewall is being built not just around the country, to keep foreign ideas and uncomfortable truths out, but around every individual, computer and smartphone, in a society that has become the most digitally connected in the world. The Cyberspace Administration of China effectively ended online anonymity here by making Internet companies responsible for ensuring that anyone who posts anything is registered with their real name. It has cracked down on the VPN (virtual private network) systems that netizens have used to jump the firewall and evade censorship, with Apple agreeing to remove VPN providers from its Chinese App Store in July and authorities detaining a local software developer for three days last month for selling similar services. And authorities dramatically expanded their controls over what people say in private online chat groups, making anyone who sets up a chat group legally responsible for its content and requiring Internet companies to establish systems to rate and score the online conduct of users — to ensure they follow the Communist Party line and promote “socialist core values.”

How much can Facebook tell us about what really happened when it comes to Russian sabotage of the 2016 election? Senate Intelligence Committee Co-Chair Mark Warner (D-VA), who is investigating Russian election interference, has been arguing lately that Facebook needs to come clean. It needs to publicly disclose the full scope and scale of how Russian entities used its social networking platform to spread fake news and propaganda in order to sow divisions among American voters and influence the outcome of the presidential election. We don’t know who paid for the ads on Facebook and, crucially, how and why the purchasers targeted certain Facebook users to see them in their feeds, and whether they worked with anyone in the United States to develop those lists of targets.