You'll recall that even back in 2014 a lot was being made about Putin's troll factories, or the oodles of hired underlings paid by the Russian leader to fill the internet with bile and disinformation twenty-four hours a day. Much of what we originally learned about these disinformation shops came from Russian whistleblowers like Lyudmila Savchuk. Savchuk spent two months employed by the operation and was so disgusted that she quit, launched an anti-propaganda social activist campaign, and successfully sued the Russian government for one Ruble in a bid to expose the effort.
Many tried to downplay the impact and scope of these efforts in the following years, insisting that no real damage could come from a bunch of marginally-competent Russians with broken english shitposting on the internet (a narrative that doesn't quite gel with the DOJ indictment or the whistleblower accounts that have emerged since, showing the efforts were notably more nuanced and sophisticated than initial 2014 and 2015 reporting suggested).
This week, a new report from Buzzfeed made it clear that 2016's disinformation wave wasn't just constrained to a few warehouses in St. Petersberg. Back in 2016, reports emerged suggesting that some entrepreneurial "teens in the Balkans" had been part of a broad effort to spread disinformation in support of Trump ahead of the 2016 election. The stories at the time identified more than 100 pro-Trump websites being run from a single town in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. At the time, these efforts were largely brushed aside as the result of local teens eager to cash in on Facebook monetization of garbage information:
"The young Macedonians who run these sites say they don't care about Donald Trump. They are responding to straightforward economic incentives: As Facebook regularly reveals in earnings reports, a US Facebook user is worth about four times a user outside the US. The fraction-of-a-penny-per-click of US display advertising — a declining market for American publishers — goes a long way in Veles."
But an investigation by Buzzfeed has since uncovered a notably more industrialized propaganda effort, aided, in part, by Americans:
"But after reviewing social media posts, government records, domain registry information, and archived versions of fake news sites, as well as interviewing key players, BuzzFeed News, the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project, and the Investigative Reporting Lab Macedonia can now reveal that Veles’ political news industry was not started spontaneously by apolitical teens.
Rather, it was launched by a well-known Macedonian media attorney, Trajche Arsov — who worked closely with two high-profile American partners for at least six months during a period that overlapped with Election Day.
The report states that Arsov, in turn, was working with Americans like Paris Wade, who is currently running for office in Arizona. It also notes that at least one member of Russia's Internet Research Agency indicted by Robert Mueller was in Macedonia three months before the first web domain for the country’s US-focused disinformation site was registered. And while there's no hard, public evidence yet linking Russia to the effort, the report heavily implied that American and European investigators are pretty clearly headed that general direction:
"Reporters did not find any evidence connecting the Russian, Anna Bogacheva, to the Veles sites. Arsov denies any links to Russia. But now Macedonian security agencies are cooperating with law enforcement in the United States and at least two Western European countries to probe possible links between Russians, US citizens, and the pro-Trump “fake news” websites, two senior Macedonian officials said.
A senior FBI agent familiar with the Macedonia case confirmed that the bureau is assisting with the investigations. The agent said that information determined to be of interest to Mueller is being shared with his office, but declined to comment further."
Granted that's not to say that much of the motivation wasn't just simple profit for folks like Arsov, who proclaimed that duping Americans into consuming bullshit was profitable -- at least until Facebook started weeding out garbage. But the story also makes it clear that Arsov was pretty cagey about his relationship with allies in the States, and quotes former FBI agents like Clint Watts, who suspect that much of the initial funding and analytics know how may have originated with people like Anna Bogacheva, who was among the 13 Russian nationals indicted by the Mueller probe back in February:
"According to the indictment, Bogacheva at one point oversaw the “data analysis group” for the agency’s US operation. Along with another agency employee, Bogacheva allegedly traveled around the United States for about three weeks in June 2014, gathering information for an intelligence report that was shared with her superior at the agency.
Exactly a year later, she arrived in Macedonia."
And while there's again no hard ties between Russia and the Macedonia efforts yet, the report makes it clear that multi-country law enforcement inquiries are in their very "early stages" as they try to unravel the scope of the disinformation assault. Meanwhile, if there's one thing that has been made clear since this wave of propaganda was first unearthed, it's that this entire affair keeps getting larger, weirder, and more complicated, in stark contrast to those intent on framing it as some meaningless trolling by a handful of innocuous, ineffective and hapless shitposters.
Internet filtering -- whether it's for copyright reasons or "for the children" [INSERT FAVORED OFFENSIVE CONTENT HERE] -- doesn't work. It certainly never works as well as advertised. And when those ads are being paid for with your tax dollars to push filters that make the internet worse for the sake of making the internet "safer," you'd probably like to ask for a refund.
The UK is implementing porn filters and adding in fun stuff that's less definable like "extremist content. " Governments all over Europe want the biggest service providers to filter out whatever happened to be offending them this legislative session. Most recently, it was copyright infringement. Fortunately, the EU's proposed filtering legislation died before it could ruin the internet, but its unwieldy corpse is bound to be reanimated by seething publishers and performance rights groups.
If you're skeptical, there's always science. A recently-released research paper confirms what everyone (except politicians, moral majority types, legacy content industries...) already knows: internet filters aren't worth the bits they're expending.
“It’s important to consider the efficacy of Internet filtering,” said Dr, Nash. “Internet filtering tools are expensive to develop and maintain, and can easily ‘underblock’ due to the constant development of new ways of sharing content. Additionally, there are concerns about human rights violations – filtering can lead to ‘overblocking’, where young people are not able to access legitimate health and relationship information.”
Results suggested that caregiver's use of Internet filtering had inconsistent and practically insignificant links with young people reports of encountering online sexual material.
If you want to believe it's working, you can. But you'd better not ask the people it's supposedly protecting. Because it isn't. As the report notes, filtering systems -- especially those erected through government mandate -- are the worst of both worlds. They both underblock and overblock, creating two problems and zero solutions.
Despite their wide adoption in the developed world, filters are expensive and imperfect technologies in three key ways: First, in financial terms, they are costly to develop and maintain, and even if offered free at the point of use, their costs are ultimate borne by the consumer or taxpayer. Second, in practical terms, they present the problem of underblocking, a phenomenon in which new problematic sites, content, and apps may slip through. Finally, in informational terms, filters also present the problem of overblocking, wherein the content is unnecessarily blocked, restricting access to necessary health, cultural, and social information. In practice, this means that filters offer only imperfect protection, and impose informational costs on children and adolescents seeking legitimate information, contrary to the information rights recognized in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Overblocking weighs most heavily on those who lack accessible sources of information offline; research suggests that lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning adolescents, for example, are particularly reliant on the Internet for information about health and relationships.
Filters are a waste of time and money. The only value they add -- if it can even be called that -- is a slightly smug feeling of wellbeing for those who implement them. Politicians and caretakers like filters because it lets them believe they're doing something. But research shows they may as well have done nothing at all.
We found that this protective effect was modest, accounting for less than 0.5 percent of the variability we observed in our outcome variables. In other words, more than 99.5 percent of whether a young person encountered online sexual material had to do with factors beside their caregiver's use of Internet filtering technology.
It's one thing when a parent or direct caretaker spends their own money to buy something that doesn't work. It's quite another when a government mandates it, requiring every tax payer to pitch in for useless services. But there's nothing in this report that will dissuade filtering advocates from advocating for more filters. Evidence and research is no match for fervent beliefs.
Earlier this year, we wrote about EPIC, makers of the popular Fortnite game, picking up the baton from Blizzard to pretzel copyright law such that it believes it can sue those that cheat in its game for copyright infringement. This belief centers on the claim that these cheaters break the EULA, despite the fact that no actual copying occurs when breaking a EULA. To make PR matters worse for EPIC, the company managed to sweep up a fourteen year old in its lawsuit-blitz. Despite the teenager supposedly being quite brazen in his use of cheats, and in his communications to others about how to cheat in Fortnite, I had assumed that EPIC would find a way to quietly back away from this particular suit, given how shitty the optics would be. It did the opposite, pursuing the case and seeking a summary judgement after the teenager failed to respond. The court refused, however, citing a letter to the court from the teen's mother, who argued that the suit against her son was overkill and, critically, that the argument over the EULA was null because her minor son couldn't legally enter into such an agreement without her input.
Rather than again trying to salvage some PR positivity from any of this, EPIC then decided instead to take on the mother's letter as a legal matter, with its lawyers countering it as a legal argument. EPIC argued that caselaw is clear that such contracts aren't void, even if one party is a minor, so long as that minor enjoyed the benefits of the contract. Unfortunately, the judge in the case has decided that he will not dismiss and will allow this lawsuit to move forward.
“As detailed in plaintiff’s response memorandum, defendant has not shown that the complaint fails to allege sufficient facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face,”
“[T]herefore, in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, plaintiff has stated a plausible claim, and the motion to dismiss must be denied.”
Now, in fairness to the judge, the court is required to adjudicate motions to dismiss with an eye towards favoring the plaintiff. Frankly, it was somewhat of a commitment to fairness that the court even allowed the mother's letter to serve as a motion to dismiss in the first place. On the other hand, it's useful to frame this ruling as one that comes from a judge steeped in the law, favoring a large company with a legal team likewise steeped in legal knowledge, and against the mother of a fourteen year old who cheated in an online game. When seen in that light, this whole thing is plainly ridiculous.
And dangerous, too, particularly as part of a trend in gaming companies misusing copyright law in this way to go after cheaters in online games. Yes, those cheaters are annoying. Yes, this teenager appeared to be a fairly bad actor. And, yes, EPIC has gone out of its way to suggest it wouldn't be trying to bankrupt this family and mostly just wants the cheating to cease. All of that can be true while it also being true that abusing copyright law in this way is both bad and opening a litigious door that we should want to remain shut.
As was widely expected, earlier today, the EU Commission brought down its latest antitrust fine against Google, this time for an eye-popping $5 billion. The number gets the attention, but it's worth looking at the underlying details here. This was the result of a two year investigation, specifically into certain bundling practices that Google used concerning Android and some of its apps. When Competition Commissioner Margrethe Vestager first announced the investigation in April of 2016, she more or less explained where they were headed:
The Commission's preliminary view is that Google has implemented a strategy on mobile devices to preserve and strengthen its dominance in general internet search. First, the practices mean that Google Search is pre-installed and set as the default, or exclusive, search service on most Android devices sold in Europe. Second, the practices appear to close off ways for rival search engines to access the market, via competing mobile browsers and operating systems. In addition, they also seem to harm consumers by stifling competition and restricting innovation in the wider mobile space.
And... that's more or less exactly what the Commission found in today's announcement.
Commissioner Margrethe Vestager, in charge of competition policy, said: "Today, mobile internet makes up more than half of global internet traffic. It has changed the lives of millions of Europeans. Our case is about three types of restrictions that Google has imposed on Android device manufacturers and network operators to ensure that traffic on Android devices goes to the Google search engine. In this way, Google has used Android as a vehicle to cement the dominance of its search engine. These practices have denied rivals the chance to innovate and compete on the merits. They have denied European consumers the benefits of effective competition in the important mobile sphere. This is illegal under EU antitrust rules."
In particular, Google:
has required manufacturers to pre-install the Google Search app and browser app (Chrome), as a condition for licensing Google's app store (the Play Store);
made payments to certain large manufacturers and mobile network operators on condition that they exclusively pre-installed the Google Search app on their devices; and
has prevented manufacturers wishing to pre-install Google apps from selling even a single smart mobile device running on alternative versions of Android that were not approved by Google (so-called "Android forks").
I've been critical of some antitrust activity and supportive of others over the years, and I think it's important to take a step back and look at whether or not this actually will likely lead to greater innovation -- no matter what the reasoning is (and, it should be noted, many European officials have made it clear they think EU antitrust activities should be used to harm American companies because they're big and American, rather than for any principled reason concerning competition or innovation). And, of course, there are some people who simply hate big tech companies and will cheer on any attack on them whether it's for good or bad reasons.
Just to set some signposts for the discussion: I believe, and have argued strongly over the years, that competition is the key to innovation and innovation is an important component of making everyone's lives better. You are free to disagree with those claims, but then we're having a very different discussion. This is the lens through which I view this entire discussion. Based on that, antitrust activities are useful when they are used to stop truly harmful monopolistic practices that hold back competition and innovation. But, antitrust activities for other reasons, or which don't seem likely to result in greater competition and innovation tend to be wasteful and silly. So... where does this latest fine from the EU come down?
As I noted when the investigation was first announced, it seemed that only one of the three "prongs" of the investigation really seemed like a big issue: the preventing manufacturers from selling phones with alternative versions of Android. There is a non-nefarious reason why Google might want this -- because if those non-Google Android versions are poorly done, it could confuse people and reflect poorly on Google... but this condition could clearly be used to stifle competition and innovation in the space. There's a reasonable argument that this was always a step too far, and Google never should have gone down that path in the first place.
The other reasons given for the fine remain... a lot less compelling. First, there's the issue of tying Google search and Chrome to offering Google Play as a pre-installed app. First off, the EU admits (oddly) that this is unfair because everyone expects the Google Play store to be pre-installed:
As part of the Commission investigation, device manufacturers confirmed that the Play Store is a "must-have" app, as users expect to find it pre-installed on their devices (not least because they cannot lawfully download it themselves).
Okay, fair enough. But you know what that very same Play Store lets you do? Download other browsers and search apps. I don't use Chrome on my phone (I use Firefox, Firefox Focus -- which is fantastic, or Brave). I've even used alternative app stores in the past, but eventually shifted back to the Play Store, mainly because Google seemed to do a much better job of stopping dangerous or crappy apps from getting on my phone. And, as Google has suggested, part of the reason for requiring Chrome to be installed is that tons of other apps actually use Chrome components as part of how they work. So not installing Chrome with the Play Store would actually lead to a lot of apps not working properly.
The other issue for which Google was dinged was the payments to device manufacturers to make Google search the "exclusive" pre-installed search on those devices. Now, I could totally see a valid antitrust complaint on this point if Google were forcing manufacturers into this agreement against their will, and were able to force them to do so. But... here it's about Google doing a business deal to pay manufacturers to be the exclusive. As we pointed out at the beginning of the investigation, how is that different than when Google paid Mozilla to be the default search engine in Firefox? Then Microsoft outbid Google and Bing became the default.
Either way, on this issue, Google stopped doing this practice entirely in 2014.
Google says it's going to appeal this decision, and Google CEO Sundar Pichai is hinting that if the ruling is upheld, Google may no longer be able to offer Android for free in the EU. Google also argues that the way its designed its Android business has created a tremendous amount of choice -- including providing smart phone / tablet / other devices that are available at price points and in markets where Google's main competitor in this space, Apple, refuses to make any real offerings. And that's a fairly compelling point.
The bigger question, again, though is what will be the real impact on innovation for end users of all of this. I'm not convinced (should this hold up) that it will have much of an impact either way. I doubt making any of the required changes will really harm Google that much (as noted, in at least one case, it already gave up the practice four years ago). But I also don't see how any of the required changes really helps competitors or app developers in any significant way. It doesn't make any of them more likely to get more users, or provide a better way for them to get their services out there.
One of the issues with anything having to do with innovation is that it's impossible to envision the "innovation that would have occurred" in the counterfactual scenario in which the supposed antitrust violations never occurred. But looking over these issues, I'm hard pressed to think of how anything would have developed all that differently if Google hadn't done these things in the first place. Perhaps Amazon's Fire devices would have a larger market? Perhaps we'd have seen more innovation with other third parties building out their own versions of Android with their own playstores. But it seems unlikely that it would have materially changed how the search market and browser market developed.
Of course, it should be noted that there is some amount of karma here. Back during the Microsoft antitrust fight, Google stepped up in 2006 to complain to the EU Commission about Microsoft's bundling and default practices. Specifically, Microsoft's browser at the time included a built in search box that defaulted to Microsoft's own search (at the time, called MSN search). And Google didn't like that.
"The market favors open choice for search, and companies should compete for users based on the quality of their search services," said Marissa Mayer, the vice president for search products at Google. "We don't think it's right for Microsoft to just set the default to MSN. We believe users should choose."
And, amusingly, Microsoft's own response to that criticism was nearly identical to Google's today, saying that "the user is in control" and it's easy to change the defaults. So there's absolutely some hypocrisy in how Google has acted through this whole thing.
However, in the end, I'm still hard pressed to see how today's fine will actually change anything in a way that improves innovation and what the public gets to do. Google is competing with lots of companies on a variety of different fronts these days. Earlier this year we had a podcast exploring how companies might disrupt Google, and I don't see how these moves make any of what we discussed any easier at all. Instead, it seems to be fighting the last fight, over mobile UI, rather than the next real competitive and innovative fights on different kinds of services.
Do you guys remember Hadopi? This French version of a law designed to kick copyright infringers off of the internet essentially ended in 2016, after all kinds of reports showed the program to be an inefficient, unreasonably harsh failure that actually resulted in more infringement rather than less. Well, this travesty probably seems altogether silly here in 2018, given that Hadopi largely targeted filesharing infringement, while the majority of "piracy" these days takes the form of streaming content online rather than downloading it. Those enforcing Hadopi have no real way to track that kind of "piracy", making the whole thing useless.
But the French government appears to want to see if it can repeat its mistakes all over again, with reports that it will institute a streaming site blacklist, which will be every bit as effective as Hadopi. Making all of this especially odd is that it comes at a time when so-called pirates in France are increasingly turning to legal offerings and spending gobs of money on them.
A new report published by consultancy firm EY reveals that the number of French pirates has dropped by 8%, from 11.6 million in 2016, to 10.6 million last year. The remaining pirates also downloaded and streamed less infringing content than the year before, with consumption dipping 4%.
In fact, it appears that pirates are increasingly “going legal.” This doesn’t mean that they have quit their copyright infringing habits completely, but they are more likely to pay for access too. In the span of a year, the number of pirates without a video on demand subscription dropped by nearly 30%. The result is that more than half of all pirates also pay for a legal movie streaming service now.
The reasons why someone might simultaneously pirate content and pay for it through legit services have been covered here many times in the past. It ends up coming down to some combination of content-availability, not wanting to work through the silos content-providers have erected around what customers want, and reasonable pricing models for that content. What data like this ultimately shows is that so-called pirates are perfectly willing to pay for content if its offered to them in a convenient and reasonable way with few mental transactions needed. You know, how all of commerce works.
And, yet, for some reason the French government has decided to try to censor streaming sites -- which it is guaranteed to do badly -- in the face of this optimistic data. Instead, it should be working with content producers and streaming providers alike to make that content as widely available as possible.
“Netflix has managed to reel in pirate consumers who weren’t signed up with a legal service before. In 2017, there were 20% more pirate consumers paying for a Netflix subscription than the year before,” EY’s report states.
This suggests that the main goal of movie studios and other content providers is to make sure that their work is widely available on legal streaming platforms. Ideally, without any delays and at a reasonable price.
Giving the customer what they want, how they want it, at reasonable prices. What a completely novel and hard to grasp idea.
The dumpster fire that passes for security and privacy standards in the internet of things space is by now pretty well understood. It's also pretty clear that in this sector, "smart TV" vendors have been among the laziest sectors around in terms of making sure private consumer data is adequately encrypted, and that consumers understand that their viewing habits and even some in-room conversations are being hoovered up and monetized, usually sloppily.
Recent studies have found that upwards of 90% of smart TVs can be compromised remotely, and leaked documents have made it clear that intelligence agencies have been having a field day with the lack of security in such sets, easily exploiting paper-mache grade protections in order to use TV microphones to monitor targets without anybody being the wiser.
Meanwhile, set vendors and viewing tracking firms continue to do a pretty dismal job clearly explaining to the end user what data is being collected and monetized. The New York Times, for example, recently did a profile piece on a company named SambaTV, whose viewer-tracking software is now collects viewing data from 13.5 million smart TVs in the United States. Owners of these sets will find Samba's Interactive TV software already installed, and are told that the software simply lets you receive handy recommendations and experience TV "in a whole new way":
"Interact with your favorite shows. Get recommendations based on the content you love. Connect your devices for exclusive content and special offers. By cleverly recognizing onscreen content, Samba Interactive TV lets you engage with your TV in a whole new way."
But at no point during set up does the company really make it obvious just how much data is being collected or how it's used:
"Once enabled, Samba TV can track nearly everything that appears on the TV on a second-by-second basis, essentially reading pixels to identify network shows and ads, as well as programs on HBO and even video games played on the TV. Samba TV has even offered advertisers the ability to base their targeting on whether people watch conservative or liberal media outlets and which party’s presidential debate they watched."
That's certainly something that would never be abused, right? Especially since we keep seeing story after story after story about how anonymized data isn't really "anonymous", such data isn't particularly well protected, and consumers don't actually have the faintest understanding of what's being collected and monetized in the first place. Consumer advocates say that transparency about what data is collected remains utterly lacking, as most users of this software have zero understanding it can potentially even track their political leanings:
“It’s still not intuitive that the box maker or the software embedded by the box maker is going to be doing this,” said Justin Brookman, director of consumer privacy and technology policy at the advocacy group Consumers Union and a former policy director at the Federal Trade Commission. “I’d like to see companies do a better job of making that clear and explaining the value proposition to consumers."
The FTC last year fined TV vendor Vizio $2.2 million for hoovering up the viewing data on 11 million consumer TVs without consumers’ knowledge or consent. But FTC enforcement is inconsistent, and is often slow to address how companies now use numerous devices in concert (your smart phone, your home assistant, and your TV) to deepen in-home surveillance capabilities further. The rabbit hole gets deeper still when you consider that your ISP is also cashing in on your IOT device usage without much transparency or oversight thanks to the recent attacks on privacy rules and FCC authority over ISPs.
Quite often, such data hoovering systems are actively misrepresented as being of ambiguous benefit to the end user. And because users can technically dig through Samba's 4,000 word privacy policy and 6,500 word terms of use to discover what's actually happening (something companies know users won't do and may not even understand if they did), they're technically adhering to the law. Eventually we'll get around to working together on modernizations of the law, but pretty clearly not before years and dozens of additional privacy and security scandals drive the point home.
We've been covering the mess that is electronic voting machines for nearly two decades on Techdirt, and the one thing that still flummoxes me is how are they so bad at this after all these years? And I don't mean "bad at security" -- though, that's part of it -- but I really mean "bad at understanding how insecure their machines really are." For a while everyone focused on Diebold, but Election Systems and Software (ES&S) has long been a bigger player in the space, and had just as many issues. It just got less attention. There was even a brief period of time where ES&S bought what remained of Diebold's flailing e-voting business before having to sell off the assets to deal with an antitrust lawsuit by the DOJ.
What's incredible, though, is that every credible computer security person has said that it is literally impossible to build a secure fully electronic voting system -- and if you must have one at all, it must have a printed paper audit trail and not be accessible from the internet. Now, as Kim Zetter at Motherboard has reported, ES&S -- under questioning from Senator Ron Wyden -- has now admitted that it installed remote access software on its voting machines, something the company had vehemently denied to the same reporter just a few months ago. That was then:
In a statement, ES&S said, ‘‘None of the employees who reviewed this response, including long-tenured employees, has any knowledge that our voting systems have ever been sold with remote-access software.’’
This is now:
In a letter sent to Sen. Ron Wyden in April and obtained recently by Motherboard, Election Systems and Software acknowledged that it had "provided pcAnywhere remote connection software … to a small number of customers between 2000 and 2006," which was installed on the election-management system ES&S sold them.
This should be a massive scandal considering the potential impact on our democracy, but considering all the other scandals going on right now with the potential to impact our democracy, expect this one to not get nearly enough attention. Wyden's own comment on this is noteworthy:
Wyden told Motherboard that installing remote-access software and modems on election equipment “is the worst decision for security short of leaving ballot boxes on a Moscow street corner.”
As for the pcAnywhere software ES&S had installed on those voting machines, well...
In 2006, the same period when ES&S says it was still installing pcAnywhere on election systems, hackers stole the source code for the pcAnyhere software, though the public didn’t learn of this until years later in 2012 when a hacker posted some of the source code online, forcing Symantec, the distributor of pcAnywhere, to admit that it had been stolen years earlier. Source code is invaluable to hackers because it allows them to examine the code to find security flaws they can exploit. When Symantec admitted to the theft in 2012, it took the unprecedented step of warning users to disable or uninstall the software until it could make sure that any security flaws in the software had been patched.
Around this same time, security researchers discovered a critical vulnerability in pcAnywhere that would allow an attacker to seize control of a system that had the software installed on it, without needing to authenticate themselves to the system with a password.
So... that's disturbing.
Anyway, elections are a very tricky problem to do securely. It is a nearly impossible task. But there are lots of things that you clearly should not do, and for some reason, the e-voting manufacturers seem to want to do all of them, and don't seem particularly apologetic about any of it. And, while in the past the idea of hacking an election may have seemed far fetched and conspiracy-minded, these days... not so much. This is a key issue concerning our democracy, and the most incredible thing is how flippant many people are about all of this. Computer security professor Matt Blaze, who knows more about any of this than anyone reading this points out that "in the more than quarter century I've been doing computer security, I've never encountered a problem space nearly as difficult or complex as civil elections."
And yet, we're letting people who don't understand even the slightest bit of the problems and challenges run the show. What a mess.
SKEYE Nano 2 is the world's smallest camera drone, and boasts an unrivaled flying experience, streaming a real-time first person view of the tightest spaces directly to your smartphone. With adjustable gyro sensitivity and 6-axis flight control system, this tiny drone is easy to control for even the most novice pilots. Heck, if you're just controller-averse, you can even use your phone as a remote control thanks to on-board WiFi. It's on sale for $29. The skies are waiting!
Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.
So, yesterday the House Judiciary Committee did what the House Judiciary Committee seems to do best: hold a stupid, nonsensical, nearly fact-free "hearing" that serves as nothing more than an opportunity for elected members of Congress to demonstrate their ignorance of an important topic, while attempting to play to their base. This time, the topic was on the content filtering practices of Facebook, Twitter and Google. Back in May there was actually a whole one day conference in Washington DC on this topic. The Judiciary Committee would have been a lot better served attending that than holding this hearing. I'd recommend not wasting three hours of your life watching this thing, but if you must:
The shortest summary would be that some Republican members of Congress think that these websites censor too much conservative speech, and some Democratic members of Congress think that they don't censor enough other speech (including hoaxes and conspiracy theories)... and almost no one wants to admit that this is not even remotely an issue that Congress should be concerned about. There's a narrative that has been picked up by many that insist that social media platforms are unfairly censoring "conservatives." There is basically zero evidence to support this. Indeed, a thorough analysis of the data back in March by Nieman Labs and Newswhip found that conservative-leaning sites get much, much, much more engagement on Facebook than liberal-leaning sites.
But, never let facts get in the way of a narrative. Since that seems to be the way many hyperpartisan sites (at either end of the spectrum) deal with these things, Congress is helping out. The only bit of sanity, perhaps bizarrely, came from Rep. Ted Lieu, who reminded everyone of the importance of free markets, free speech and the fact that private platforms get to decide how they manage their own services. Considering that Republicans often like to claim the mantle of being the "small, limited government" party who wants the government's hands out of business regulation, the fact that most of the hearing involved Republicans screaming for regulating internet platforms and a Democrat reminding everyone about the importance of a free market, capitalism and free speech, it really was quite a hearing. Lieu's remarks were some of the rare moments of sanity during the hearing -- including defending Facebook leaving Alex Jones' conspiracy theories on its site. Let's start with that high point before we dive into the awfulness. His comments come at about 2 hours and 10 minutes into the video:
... we're having this ridiculous hearing on the content of speech of private sector companies. It's stupid because there's this thing called the First Amendment. We can't regulate content! The only thing worse than an Alex Jones video is the government trying to tell Google... to prevent people from watching the Alex Jones video. We can't even do it if we tried. We can't even do any legislation out of this committee. And we're having this ridiculous second installment hearing after the first hearing about Diamond and Silk not getting enough likes on Facebook.
He then went on to ask questions "so the American public understands what a dumb hearing this is." And those questions -- again -- seemed like the kinds more expected from supposedly "free market" conservatives. Specifically he asked the companies if they were private companies aiming to maximize profits for shareholders. And he wasn't doing that to show that companies were evil, he was doing that to show that that's how the free market works. He followed up with this:
I noticed all of you talked about your own internal rules. Because that's what this should be about. You all get to come up with your own rules. But not because government tells you what to do. Or because government says you have to rule this way or that way. And the whole notion that somehow we should be interfering with these platforms from a legislative, governmental point of view is an anathema to the First Amendment. And really it's about the marketplace of ideas.
Kudos to Rep. Lieu. This is the kind of speech that you'd normally expect to hear from a "small government" conservative who talks about respecting the Constitution. But, in this case, it's a Democrat. And it's shameful that others (on both sides of the aisle) weren't making the same point. Instead, there was a ton of pure nonsense spewed from the Republicans at the hearing. It's hard to fathom that the following statements were made by people we've actually elected to our legislative body. There were so many dumb statements made that it's difficult to pick out just a few.
Let's start with Rep. Steve King, who has made quite a name for himself saying and repeating bigoted nonsense. Starting at about an hour and five minutes in the video, King seemed particularly concerned about traffic to Gateway Pundit, a site famous for trafficking in utter nonsense.
It's a matter of Congressional record that Gateway Pundit, Mr. Jim Hoft, has introduced information into the record that in the span of time between 2016 and 2018, he saw his Facebook traffic cut by 54%. Could you render an explanation to that?
Um... what? How the hell is it of any concern to Congress whatsoever the traffic a single site gets? And, as we were just discussing recently, traffic to lots of news sites from Facebook has dropped massively as Facebook has de-prioritized news. In that post, we pointed out that Slate was self-reporting a drop in Facebook traffic over that same period of time of 87%. Based on that, why isn't King asking about Slate's traffic dropping? Perhaps because Gateway Pundit publishes the kind of nonsense King supports and Slate points out that King is a bigot?
And... isn't that, again, kind of the point of the First Amendment? To protect news sites from having Congress play favorites?
Incredibly, King then concludes his time by first claiming he's all for free speech and free enterprise, but wonders about turning social media sites into regulated utilities.
I'm all for freedom of speech and free enterprise and for competition and finding a way that we can have competition itself that does its own regulation, so government doesn't have to, but if this gets further out of hand, it appears to me that Section 230 needs to be reviewed, and one of the discussions that I'm hearing is 'what about converting the large behemoth organizations that we're talking about here into public utilities.'
Are we living in an upside down world? A Democrat is praising the free market, profits and free speech, and a Republican is advocating for limiting free speech and in favor of turning some of the most successful US companies into public utilities? What is even going on here?
Around an hour and 18 minutes, we get our old friend Rep. Louis Gohmert, who has a fairly long and extensive history of making the dumbest statements possible concerning technology issues. And he lived down to his usual reputation in this hearing as well. It starts off by him trying to play down the issue of Russian interference in elections, by claiming (?!?) that the Russians helped Truman get elected, and then claiming that Russians had helped basically every Democratic President get elected in the past 70 years. And then spent a long time trying to complain that the platforms wouldn't tell him if Chinese or North Korean intelligence services had also used their platforms. Remember, these companies were asked to come and testify specifically about Russian use of their platforms to interfere with the election and Gohmert stepped in with this insane "what about other countries, huh?" argument:
Gohmert: I need to ask each of you. You've been asked specifically about Russian use of your platforms. But did you ever find any indication of use of your platform, utilized by the Chinese, North Korea, or any other foreign country intelligence or agency of that country. First, Ms. Bickert?
Bickert/Facebook: I would note, Congressman, that we're not in North Korea or China. In terms of whether we've seen attacks on our services, we do have -- we are, of course, a big target -- we do have a robust security team that works...
Gohmert: Well, but that's not my question. It's just a very direct question. Have you found... You don't have to be in North Korea to be North Korean Intelligence and use... We have foreign government intelligence agencies IN THIS COUNTRY. So have... It seems to me you were each a little bit vague about "oh yes, we found hundreds" or whatever. I'm asking specifically, were any of those other countries besides Russia that were using your platform inappropriately? It should be a yes or no.
Actually, no, it shouldn't be a yes or no. That's a dumb and misleading question for a whole long list of reasons. Of course, lots of other intelligence agencies are using Facebook, because of course they are. But, the entire point of this line of questioning seems to be Gohmert trying to play down Russian use of the platform, which is... odd. Especially after he started out by praising the fact that maybe the Russians might help "our side" get elected going forward.
Bickert: I don't have the details. I know we work to detect and repel attacks...
Gohmert: I know that. But were any of them foreign entities other than Russia?
Bickert: I can certainly follow up with you on that.
Gohmert: SO YOU DON'T KNOW?!? You sure seemed anxious to answer the Democrats questions about RUSSIA's influence. And you don't really know of all the groups that inappropriately used your platform? You don't know which were Russians and which were other foreign entities?
No, that's not what she's saying at all. She's pretty clearly saying that this hearing was specifically about Russian influence and that's what she was prepared to testify on. She didn't say that Facebook can't tell Russians from other entities, just that the other entities aren't the ones accused of messing with the election and thus there isn't that much relevant right now. But that's quite a deflection attempt by Gohmert.
Let's move on to Rep. Tom Marino at about an hour and a half into the video. Marino seems to have a fairly bizarre understanding of the law as it concerns defamation. He focuses on the guy from Twitter, Nick Pickles, and starts out by reading a definition of "libel." Then he asks
Have any of you considered libel? Or do you think you are immune from it?
This is an incredibly stupid question. Twitter is clearly not immune from libel. Marino's line of questioning is an attempt to attack CDA 230, which provides immunity to Twitter from liability for defamatory statements made by its users. This is an important distinction that Marino conveniently ignores as he continues to bug Pickles.
Pickles: We have clear rules that governs what happens on Twitter. Some of those behaviors are deplorable and we want to remove them immediately... So, terrorist content is one example, where we now detect 95% of the terrorist accounts we remove...
Marino: Okay, I understand that sir. But how about... we in Congress, we put up with it all the time. I know we're public officials, same with people in the movies... but do you specifically look for and address... republication can be used in a defamation case. Do you look at libel and defamation content?
I don't even know what that means. Do you look at libel content? What? How does Twitter know if something is libelous? Especially against public officials? How is Twitter supposed to make that judgment when that's what courts are there to figure out? And, for what it's worth, Twitter has been known to abide by court rulings on defamatory speech in deciding to take down that content, but Marino seems to be asking if they make an independent judgment outside of the courts of what's libelous. Which is both crazy and impossible. Pickles makes a valiant effort in response, noting how Twitter focuses on its rules -- which is all that it's required to do -- but Marino clearly seems to want to attack CDA 230 and magically make Twitter liable for libelous content on its platform. After Pickles again explains that it focuses on its rules, rather than making judicial rulings that it cannot make, Marino puts on a dumb smirk and makes another dumb statement:
With all due respect, I've heard you focus on your rules about 32 times. DO. YOU. LOOK. FOR. LIBEL. OR. DEFAMATION. IN. YOUR. COMPANY'S. OPINION?
You can't "look for libel or defamation" like that. That's not how it works. Marino is a lawyer. He should know this. The Facebook and YouTube representatives neatly sidestep Marino's silly line of questioning by pointing out that when informed of legal rulings determining "illegal" speech, they take it down. Marino doesn't even seem to notice this very specific distinction and asks "where do you draw the line?"
At an hour and forty minutes, we have everyone's favorite, Rep. Lamar Smith, author of SOPA back in the day. He spews more utter nonsense claiming conservatives have been more negatively impacted by the moves of these social media companies, and then (bizarrely) argues that Google employees forcing the company not to help surveillance activity is somehow an attack on conservatives. Excuse me? Conservatives don't support the 4th Amendment any more? Say what? But the real craziness is this line:
Google has also deleted or blocked references to Jesus, Chick-Fil-A and the Catholic religion.
I'm going to call time out here and note [citation needed] on that one, Smith. Google pretty clearly shows me results on all three of those things. I've been trying to figure out what the hell he's referring to, and I'm guessing that Smith -- in his usual Smithian nonsensical way -- is confusing Google for Facebook, and Facebook's bad filter that initially blocked a page about "Chick-fil-Appreciation Day," and some Catholic church pages. The "Jesus" blocking is also Facebook and was in reference to an ad for a Catholic university.
All of these examples were not, as Smith implies, evidence of "liberal bias" on behalf of Facebook, but rather evidence of why it's so problematic that governments are putting so much pressure on Facebook to magically filter out all of the bad stuff. That's not possible without making mistakes. And what happens is that you set up guidelines and those guidelines are then handed to people who don't have nearly enough time to understand the context, and sometimes they make mistakes. It's not bias. It's the nature of trying to moderate millions of pieces of content every damn day, because if they don't, these same idiots in Congress would be screaming at them about how they're letting the bad content live on. I mean, it's doubly ridiculous for Smith to use the Jesus example as even the guy who bought the ad, the university's web communications director, specifically said that he didn't believe it had anything to do with bias, but was just a bad decision by an algorithm or a low level staffer.
Finally (and there are more, but damn, this post is getting way too long) we get to Rep. Matt Gaetz. At around an hour and 55 minutes into the hearing, he suddenly decides to weigh in that the First Amendment and CDA 230 are somehow in conflict, in another bizarre exchange between Gaetz and Twitter's Pickles.
Gaetz: Is it your testimony or is it your viewpoint today that Twitter is an interactive computer service pursuant to Section 230 sub c(1).
Pickles: I'm not a lawyer, so I won't want to speak to that. But as I understand, under Section 230, we are protected by that, yes.
Gaetz: So Section 230 covers you, and that section says "no provider of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another"... is it your contention that Twitter enjoys a First Amendment right under speech, while at the same time enjoying Section 230 rights?
Pickles: Well, I think we've discussed the way the First Amendment interacts with our companies. As private companies we enforce our rules, and our rules prohibit a range of activities.
Gaetz: I'm not asking about your rules. I'm asking about whether or not you believe you have First Amendment rights. You either do or you do not.
Pickles: I'd like to follow up on that, as someone who is not a lawyer... I think it's very important...
Gaetz: Well, you're the senior public policy official for Twitter before us and you will not answer the question whether or not you believe your company enjoys rights under the First Amendment?
Pickles: Well, I believe we do, but I would like to confirm with colleagues...
Gaetz: So what I want to understand is, if you say "I enjoy rights under the First Amendment" and "I'm covered by Section 230" and Section 230 itself says "no provider shall be considered the speaker" do you see the tension that creates?
There is no tension there. The only tension is between the molecules in Gaetz's brain that seemed to think this line of nonsensical argument makes any sense at all. There is no conflict. First, yes, it's obvious that Twitter is clearly protected by both the First Amendment and CDA 230. That's been established by dozens of court rulings with not a single ruling ever holding otherwise. Second, the "tension" that Gaetz sees is purely a figment of his own misreading of the law. The "no provider shall be considered a speaker" part, read in actual context (as Gaetz did earlier) does not say that platforms are not speakers. It says that they are not considered a speaker of other people's speech. In fact, this helps protect free speech by enabling internet platforms the ability to host any speech without facing liability for that speech.
That helps protect the First Amendment by ensuring that any liability is on the speaker and not on the tool they use to distribute that speech. But Twitter has its own First Amendment rights to determine what speech it decides to keep on its site -- and which speech it decides not to allow. Gaetz then, ridiculous, tries to claim that Pickle's response to that nonsensical response is somehow in conflict with what Twitter's lawyers have said in the silly Jared Taylor lawsuit. Gaetz asks Pickles if Twitter could kick someone off the platform "for being a woman or being gay." Pickles points out that that is not against Twitter's rules... and Gaetz points out that in the Taylor case, when asked the same question, Twitter's lawyers stated (1) that Twitter has the right to do so but (2) never would.
Again, both Pickles and Twitter's lawyers are correct. They do have that right (assuming it's not a violation of discrimination laws) but of course they wouldn't do that. Pickles wasn't denying that. He was pointing out that the hypothetical is silly because that's not something Twitter would do. Twitter's lawyers in the case were, correctly, pointing out that it would have the right to do such a nonsensical thing if it chose to do so, while also making it clear it would never do that. Again, that's not in conflict, but Gaetz acts as if he's "caught" Twitter in some big admission.
Gaetz falsely then claims that Pickles is misrepresenting Twitter's position:
Right but it is not in service of transparency if Twitter sends executives to Congress to say one thing -- that you would not have the right to engage in that conduct -- and then your lawyers in litigation say precisely the opposite.
Except that's not what happened at all. Pickles and the lawyers agreed. At no point did Pickles say that Twitter did not have "the right" to kick people off its platform for any reason. He just noted that it was not a part of their policy to do so, nor would it ever be. That's entirely consistent with what Twitter's lawyers said in the Taylor case. This is Gaetz making a complete ass out of himself in completely misrepresenting the law, the constitution and what Twitter said both in the hearing and in the courthouse.
Seriously, people, we need to elect better Representatives to Congress. This is embarrassing.
We've noted repeatedly that while Silicon Valley giants like Facebook and Google are portrayed as net neutrality supporters, that hasn't been true for many years now. Google stopped giving a damn about the idea back in 2010 or so when it started eyeing the broadband (Google Fiber) and wireless (Android, Project Fi) markets. Similarly, Facebook has never really been much of a genuine supporter, and has actively undermined the concept of net neutrality overseas in developing nations. Once they became powerful and wealthy enough, they stopped seriously worrying about the threat posed by broadband monopolies.
But as Netflix has grown more powerful, its advocacy for net neutrality has waned proportionally. The company has repeatedly made it clear that now that it's large and successful, it no longer really has to worry about being bullied by ISPs like Comcast, since it can now afford to pay the abitrary troll tolls they're keen on erecting around the internet:
"It’s not narrowly important to us because we’re big enough to get the deals we want,” Hastings said. It was a candid admission: no matter what the FCC decides to do with Title II, Netflix isn’t worried about its ability to survive. Hastings says that Netflix is “weighing in against” changing the current rules, but that “it’s not our primary battle at this point” and “we don’t have a special vulnerability to it."
That's arguably myopic, and it's unlikely the next Netflix is quite so confident. Because Netflix is wealthy and powerful enough to fend off anti-competitive efforts by AT&T, Verizon and Comcast, doesn't mean the death of the rules won't be problematic for thousands of small businesses, startups and entrepreneurs who'll be operating on a decidedly-tilted playing field.
Netflix doubled down on its myopia this week during the company's conference call with analysts and the media, when CEO Reed Hastings tried to insist that the death of net neutrality rules here in the States was no big deal. Why? Apparently, "consumer expectations" will somehow magically keep telecom giants on their best behavior:
"Around the world net neutrality has won as a consumer expectation," Hastings said Monday during a video discussion of Netflix's second-quarter financial performance. "Broadly around the world consumers have the expectation and ISPs are delivering it," he added, referring to Internet service providers.
"The net neutrality advocates have won the day in terms of those expectations," he said.
That's not how any of this works.
Consumers can have all the "expectations" they want in terms of a healthy, open internet. But expectations mean nothing in the face of limited broadband competition and napping or compromised regulators, since there will soon be no penalty for behaving anti-competitively. ISPs right now are on their best behavior because they're worried about adding fuel to the looming lawsuits against the FCC. But should ISPs win in court, we'll quickly get a crash course on how little "expectations" will matter in the face of unchecked monopoly power.
RSS
