Nieman Foundation at Harvard
HOME
          
LATEST STORY
Is the future about one all-knowing AI or many? The new app Poe gets you ready to chat with them all
ABOUT                    SUBSCRIBE
Nov. 2, 2017, 10:33 a.m.
Audience & Social

Facebook, Google, and Twitter faced Congress this week to talk Russian meddling. Here’s what we learned (and didn’t)

“Your actions need to catch up to your responsibilities.”

The big tech companies are finally opening up — albeit reluctantly — about just how extensively Russia used their tools to influence voters during last year’s presidential election. And, well, yikes.

Plenty had trickled out prior to the hearings already — for instance, that in addition to Russian-bought ads, Russia-linked Facebook accounts had helped organize “at least 60 rallies, protests and marches” across the U.S. “publicized or financed by eight Russia-backed Facebook accounts,” the Wall Street Journal reported. Is government regulation imminent? Is Facebook a publisher? How many bots are on Twitter exactly? What about all the mis- and disinformation on these platforms that aren’t paid ads, but can still sow discord?

“If anyone tells you they’ve got this all figured out, they’re kidding themselves — and we can’t afford to kid ourselves about what happened last year and continues to happen today,” Senator Richard Burr (Republican, North Carolina) said during his opening remarks on Wednesday at a Congressional open hearing, attended by representatives from the three platforms. “You three companies have developed platforms that have tremendous reach and therefore tremendous influence. That reach and influence is enabled by the enormous amount of data you collect on your users and their activities. Your actions need to catch up to your responsibilities.”

We learned that some congresspeople are not 100 percent familiar with social media (“No offense, I don’t use Twitter,” “What is a bot versus a troll?” “What is an impression versus a click”).

We learned a little bit about the three platforms approach to advertising and security and abuse on their platforms, though representatives for the companies were at times (and unsurprisingly) a little mealy-mouthed. (Google, it seemed to me at least, got off a little easier than the others.)

Facebook spent a lot of words highlighting that its goal is for “authentic” users to post authentic content. All pointed out their own renewed efforts — Twitter banning certain advertisers, Google updating quality search guidelines and including fact-check labels, Facebook ramping up its security team. Twitter made a point of mentioning it would be donating money earned from Russia Today to research efforts (though leading up to the U.S. 2016 election it apparently offered the Russian state–owned television network up to a 15 percent share of its elections-related advertising; whoops).

The House Intelligence Committee also released a sampling of these ads on Wednesday, along with metadata such as the amount paid for each ad (in Rubles!, several committee members fervently emphasized) and impressions and clicks for these ads. Alexis Madrigal of the Atlantic calculated the astonishingly high engagement rates:

Then shortly after the hearings Facebook proceeded with its third quarter earnings call, during which it announced $10 billion in quarterly revenue and told analysts it’s planning to spend heavily on security. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

POSTED     Nov. 2, 2017, 10:33 a.m.
SEE MORE ON Audience & Social
Show tags
 
Join the 60,000 who get the freshest future-of-journalism news in our daily email.
Is the future about one all-knowing AI or many? The new app Poe gets you ready to chat with them all
Poe lets you use ChatGPT alongside a new rival named Claude — which seems to work better in important ways.
Google now wants to answer your questions without links and with AI. Where does that leave publishers?
A dozen years ago, Eric Schmidt forecast the AI pivot that’s playing out this week. And the questions it prompts — around the link economy, fair use, and aggregation — are more real than ever.
A journalistic lesson for an algorithmic age: Let the scientific method be your guide
“One of the best parts about using the scientific method as a guide is that it moves us beyond the endless debates about whether journalism is ‘fair’ or ‘objective.’ Rather than focus on fairness, it’s better to focus on what you know and what you don’t know.”