yesIssie LapowskyNone
×

Get access to Protocol

Will be used in accordance with our Privacy Policy

I’m already a subscriber
Politics

Don’t declare premature victory on Big Tech’s election work just yet

Have big tech platforms done enough to help prevent election chaos from spreading online? It's too early to call.

Don’t declare premature victory on Big Tech’s election work just yet

By almost any measure, misinformation and disinformation on social media have been as prolific as ever this week.

Photo: Jakub Porzycki/NurPhoto via Getty Images

The decisions Facebook and Twitter have made this week to stop the spread of election misinformation would have been unimaginable just four years ago. On Twitter, President Trump's feed has become an infinite scroll of warning labels. On Facebook, one of the fastest growing groups in the company's history, called Stop the Steal, got shut down in a matter of days. Twitter slowed recommendations of tweets that had been labeled as election misinformation, and Facebook is reportedly cooking up plans to do the same.

The companies' swift and aggressive action led some to speculate that tech giants — with the exception of YouTube — had succeeded in averting the mess they made in 2016.

But have they really? Is it worth cheering Facebook for shutting down a group over the risk of offline violence when armed protesters have already gathered at the gates and new groups are popping up in its place? Is it really enough for Twitter to label Donald Trump Jr.'s tweet as "disputed" when what he's calling for in that tweet is "total war"? As debunked rumors about dead people voting and watermarks on ballots continue to grow days after the election, is it really fair to say tech companies have fought the good fight against misinformation and won?

To put it in language we're all well-familiar with by now: It's too early to call.

"I really hate a lot of the reporting that's going on that's like they passed or they didn't pass," Alex Stamos, director of the Stanford Internet Observatory, said on a call with reporters Friday organized by the Election Integrity Partnership. "It's not that simple … In some cases they did really well. In some cases there's lots of room for improvement. And I don't think we can just dilute that down."

First: Credit where it's due. Recent research from Harvard has shown that President Trump and other elite conservatives are the biggest spreaders of misinformation about voter fraud, and this week has certainly proved the case. Both online and off, President Trump has continuously claimed without evidence that the election is being stolen. Facebook and Twitter have taken aggressive action on those claims, stringently policing the accounts of Trump and his inner circle.

"Facebook and Twitter are saying to Donald Trump, 'This disinformation on the platform won't fly, and we're going to enforce our policies,'" said Daniel Kreiss, a professor of media and communications at the University of North Carolina, who specializes in tech and policy. "From an elite perspective, I think they sent a message that they play a democratic role and will protect free and fair elections. That's an unmitigated good."

Trump's efforts to undermine the election results were something the tech platforms foresaw and had solid plans in place for, said Emerson Brooking, a resident Fellow at the Atlantic Council's Digital Forensic Research Lab. "They prepared a lot for a contested result and contestation coming from the President of the United States, and I think they've done as reasonable a job as you could," Brooking said on the Election Integrity Partnership call.

But their record has been mixed when it comes to the broader landscape of misinformation and disinformation. The EIP tracked the spread of the #Sharpiegate conspiracy, for one, which falsely claimed that Arizona ballots would be rejected if they were filled out with Sharpie. They found that tweets related to Sharpiegate started off being shared by unverified accounts with relatively small audiences Wednesday and rapidly ballooned as they were picked up by larger accounts over the course of the day. That's even after Arizona election officials debunked the rumor on Twitter.

Misinformation that begins on Facebook and Twitter has been spreading quickly to smaller platforms with less robust monitoring. One example: Twitter has repeatedly labeled tweets from the account @PhillyGOP for spreading false information. But according to Renee DiResta, a technical research manager at the Stanford Internet Observatory, posts that were identical to @PhillyGOP's would nearly simultaneously turn up on platforms like Parler, which bills itself as a "free speech social network." "They're just watching the Twitter account, and then they want to be the first person on Parler to spread the news," DiResta said on one of the EIP's press calls.

There's little Facebook and Twitter can do once posts have left their sites, but the researchers say there's a lot more they could be doing to at least prevent repeat offenders from continuing to violate their rules and amass a larger audience in the process. "The fact that you have the same accounts, who violate these rules over and over again that don't get punished is going to be something the platforms have to address," Stamos said. "If you can keep on getting punished, but in doing so, you increase your follower account, and there's no risk of your entire account being taken away, it's completely logical to do this."

The question of what to do with repeat offenders is particularly fraught when it comes to elected officials, like newly elected congresswoman and QAnon supporter Marjorie Taylor Greene, whose unsubstantiated tweets about the election being stolen were repeatedly masked under warning labels this week. And yet, she shows no signs of stopping. "These platforms have to consider permanently removing U.S. officials from platforms if they use them so destructively," Brooking said. "That will be a big challenge in the weeks ahead."

Facebook and Twitter, it's clear, are trying. Their websites are wallpapered with warning labels. But what good is wallpaper if you peel it back and find the walls are rotting?

By almost any measure, misinformation and disinformation on social media have been as prolific as ever this week. Much of that informational pollution came from the president himself and the media channels that exist to support him. Tech platforms were never going to be able to fully defend themselves against such an onslaught. But it's still unclear how formidable the defenses they do have in place have been. Did labels actually slow the spread of these rumors? What kind of a life did these posts take on on other platforms? What connection did all the online chatter have to offline action? Answering those questions will take more considered research than can be completed in a few days.

What is clear is at the moment, the country is teetering on the edge of instability, with hoards of angry and often armed voters taking to the streets and intimidating election officials. In some cases, they're doing it because of the things they saw online, which they've been conditioned over time by conservative media and tech companies' lax policies or lack of enforcement to believe are true. Do those same companies now deserve pats on the back for finally, suddenly telling them they're not? That, it seems, would be a premature declaration of victory.

App store laws, Microsoft AR and Square buys Tidal

Welcome to this weekend's Source Code podcast.

Cole Burston/Bloomberg

This week on the Source Code podcast: First, an update on Google's user-tracking change. Then, Ben Pimentel joins the show to discuss Square buying Tidal, and what it means for the fintech and music worlds. Later, Emily Birnbaum explains the bill moving through the Arizona legislature that has Google and Apple worried about the future of app stores. And finally, Janko Roettgers discusses Microsoft Mesh, the state of AR and VR headsets, and when we're all going to be doing meetings as holograms.

For more on the topics in this episode:

Keep Reading Show less
David Pierce

David Pierce ( @pierce) is Protocol's editor at large. Prior to joining Protocol, he was a columnist at The Wall Street Journal, a senior writer with Wired, and deputy editor at The Verge. He owns all the phones.

Sponsored Content

The future of computing at the edge: an interview with Intel’s Tom Lantzsch

An interview with Tom Lantzsch, SVP and GM, Internet of Things Group at Intel

An interview with Tom Lantzsch

Senior Vice President and General Manager of the Internet of Things Group (IoT) at Intel Corporation

Edge computing had been on the rise in the last 18 months – and accelerated amid the need for new applications to solve challenges created by the Covid-19 pandemic. Tom Lantzsch, Senior Vice President and General Manager of the Internet of Things Group (IoT) at Intel Corp., thinks there are more innovations to come – and wants technology leaders to think equally about data and the algorithms as critical differentiators.

In his role at Intel, Lantzsch leads the worldwide group of solutions architects across IoT market segments, including retail, banking, hospitality, education, industrial, transportation, smart cities and healthcare. And he's seen first-hand how artificial intelligence run at the edge can have a big impact on customers' success.

Protocol sat down with Lantzsch to talk about the challenges faced by companies seeking to move from the cloud to the edge; some of the surprising ways that Intel has found to help customers and the next big breakthrough in this space.

What are the biggest trends you are seeing with edge computing and IoT?

A few years ago, there was a notion that the edge was going to be a simplistic model, where we were going to have everything connected up into the cloud and all the compute was going to happen in the cloud. At Intel, we had a bit of a contrarian view. We thought much of the interesting compute was going to happen closer to where data was created. And we believed, at that time, that camera technology was going to be the driving force – that just the sheer amount of content that was created would be overwhelming to ship to the cloud – so we'd have to do compute at the edge. A few years later – that hypothesis is in action and we're seeing edge compute happen in a big way.

Keep Reading Show less
Saul Hudson
Saul Hudson has a deep knowledge of creating brand voice identity, especially in understanding and targeting messages in cutting-edge technologies. He enjoys commissioning, editing, writing, and business development, in helping companies to build passionate audiences and accelerate their growth. Hudson has reported from more than 30 countries, from war zones to boardrooms to presidential palaces. He has led multinational, multi-lingual teams and managed operations for hundreds of journalists. Hudson is a Managing Partner at Angle42, a strategic communications consultancy.
Protocol | Policy

Far-right misinformation: Facebook's most engaging news

A new study shows that before and after the election, far-right misinformation pages drew more engagement than all other partisan news.

A new study finds that far right misinformation pulls in more engagement on Facebook than other types of partisan news.

Photo: Brett Jordan/Unsplash

In the months before and after the 2020 election, far-right pages that are known to spread misinformation consistently garnered more engagement on Facebook than any other partisan news, according to a New York University study published Wednesday.

The study looked at Facebook engagement for news sources across the political spectrum between Aug. 10, 2020 and Jan. 11, 2021, and found that on average, far-right pages that regularly trade in misinformation raked in 65% more engagement per follower than other far-right pages that aren't known for spreading misinformation.

Keep Reading Show less
Issie Lapowsky
Issie Lapowsky (@issielapowsky) is a senior reporter at Protocol, covering the intersection of technology, politics, and national affairs. Previously, she was a senior writer at Wired, where she covered the 2016 election and the Facebook beat in its aftermath. Prior to that, Issie worked as a staff writer for Inc. magazine, writing about small business and entrepreneurship. She has also worked as an on-air contributor for CBS News and taught a graduate-level course at New York University’s Center for Publishing on how tech giants have affected publishing. Email Issie.
Transforming 2021

Blockchain, QR codes and your phone: the race to build vaccine passports

Digital verification systems could give people the freedom to work and travel. Here's how they could actually happen.

One day, you might not need to carry that physical passport around, either.

Photo: CommonPass

There will come a time, hopefully in the near future, when you'll feel comfortable getting on a plane again. You might even stop at the lounge at the airport, head to the regional office when you land and maybe even see a concert that evening. This seemingly distant reality will depend upon vaccine rollouts continuing on schedule, an open-sourced digital verification system and, amazingly, the blockchain.

Several countries around the world have begun to prepare for what comes after vaccinations. Swaths of the population will be vaccinated before others, but that hasn't stopped industries decimated by the pandemic from pioneering ways to get some people back to work and play. One of the most promising efforts is the idea of a "vaccine passport," which would allow individuals to show proof that they've been vaccinated against COVID-19 in a way that could be verified by businesses to allow them to travel, work or relax in public without a great fear of spreading the virus.

Keep Reading Show less
Mike Murphy

Mike Murphy ( @mcwm) is the director of special projects at Protocol, focusing on the industries being rapidly upended by technology and the companies disrupting incumbents. Previously, Mike was the technology editor at Quartz, where he frequently wrote on robotics, artificial intelligence, and consumer electronics.

People

WhatsApp thinks business chat is the future — but it won't be easy

From privacy policy screw-ups to UI questions, can WhatsApp crack the super-app riddle?

WhatsApp Business is trying to wrap shopping around messaging. It's not always easy.

Image: WhatsApp

At some point, WhatsApp was always going to have to make some money. Facebook paid $21.8 billion for the company in 2014, and since then, WhatsApp has grown to more than 2 billion users in more than 180 countries. And while, yes, Facebook's acquisition was in part simply a way to neutralize a competitor, it also knows how to monetize an audience.

The trick, though, would be figuring out how to do that without putting ads into the app. Nobody at WhatsApp ever wanted to do that, including co-founders Jan Koum and Brian Acton, who reportedly left Facebook after disagreements over ads. More recently, even Mark Zuckerberg has slowed the WhatsApp ad train, with The Information reporting that ads in WhatsApp likely won't come while the company's under so much regulatory scrutiny. So: $21.8 billion, no ads. What to do?

Keep Reading Show less
David Pierce

David Pierce ( @pierce) is Protocol's editor at large. Prior to joining Protocol, he was a columnist at The Wall Street Journal, a senior writer with Wired, and deputy editor at The Verge. He owns all the phones.

Latest Stories