The accusations of “Russian meddling” are completely bogus but the threat against freedom of information is not.
How Russia’s meddling could spell the end of an era for Facebook, Google and Twitter
'I
think the time has come that we are going to see an end to Internet
exceptionalism'
19
October, 2017
One
consequence of a bitterly contested presidential election came into
clearer focus this week: politicians aren't letting Silicon Valley
off the hook.
Long
accustomed to lauding technology companies as paragons of American
creativity and entrepreneurship, legislators sifting through evidence
of Russian election influence are turning their attention to how the
freewheeling world of online speech has permeated our politics.
A
bipartisan trio of senators is pushing legislation that would compel
online platforms to disclose who is paying for the types of ads that
populate Facebook newsfeeds, Twitter timelines and Google search
results. Current election law does not apply to those ads, creating
what some critics call a loophole that online ad-buyers can exploit.
“It
basically is applying rules that now exist for old media onto social
media”, said Stuart Brotman, a professor of media at University of
Tennessee, Knoxville. “I think it’s an evolution, and I think
we’re at the stage in the evolution where it probably makes sense,
with the increase in political advertising that's done through social
media today”.
Whether
or not the bill passes - despite having a Republican cosponsor in
John McCain, it still faces an uphill battle to surmount a
Republican-controlled Congress and convince a president who has
vehemently rejected the notion of Russian interference - it suggests
that at least some members of Congress have arrived at a political
tipping point.
While
technology juggernauts cast themselves as apolitical purveyors of
content, some policymakers have come away from the 2016 election with
the conclusion that those platforms wield enormous political
influence and should be regulated as such.
“I
think the time has come that we are going to see an end to Internet
exceptionalism where platforms can continue to claim some sort of
immunity because of their nature”, said Sarah T Roberts, an
assistant professor of information studies at the University of
California, Los Angeles who studies online content moderation.
“It's
going to be an interesting moment of seeing where the rubber hits the
road in terms of…their kind of market positions as bastions of
liberal ideals, and their distaste and disdain for being regulated by
anyone but themselves”.
Silicon
Valley vs. European tech
Online
advertisements have come under intense scrutiny as Congress probes a
Kremlin-directed campaign to sway American public opinion in the
run-up to last year’s elections. Revelations that Russia used
online channels to project its influence - including by purchasing
divisive advertisements on prominent platforms - have thrown a
spotlight on how tech giants like Facebook, Google and Twitter
oversee paid content.
While
the Russian connection has dominated headlines, the bill testifies to
dynamics that preceded this presidential election and will persist
through future campaigns.
Online
platforms have become inextricably interwoven into all aspects of our
lives, and politics is no exception. The same sites people use to
communicate with friends or share links to cat videos have become
dominant conduits for information. Political operations have followed
voters into online spaces, increasingly looking to sway opinion not
just with traditional means like mailers and television spots but
with online content.
“We
have all come to rely on tools like Facebook and Google to
communicate with each other and get information, and at the same time
there’s this wild west situation where we don't know who’s
spending money to influence our votes”, said John Wonderlich,
executive director of the Sunlight Foundation, which supports greater
transparency and has lobbied in favour of the new bill.
A
study from the advertising research firm Borrell Associates found
that spending on digital advertising increased by $1.2bin last cycle
- easily dwarfing the $100,000 Russian operatives were said to have
spent on socially disruptive Facebook ads. Sophisticated targeting
capabilities allow campaigns to spend relatively small amounts of
money to float digital trial balloons, testing messages on small
subgroups so they can be honed for maximum effectiveness.
“There’s
great big money, and wherever there’s great big money there’s
great big problems”, said Kip Cassino, an executive vice president
at Borrell. “It looks like technology is pushing ahead of our
ability to come up with these regulations”, he added.
If
anything, Mr Cassino added, online advertising required a more
sweeping response.
“Passing
these laws as though advertising in the online spaces is just another
form of advertising like radio, television and the other legacy
advertising - its not. it’s very, very different," Mr Cassino
said. “It’s so quick and has so many implications that none of
the others ever had that it requires a review of its own, not just a
bandaid that tries to make it like all the other forms of advertising
that preceded it."
Representatives
of Google, Facebook and Twitter were circumspect about their plans.
Facebook and Twitter released statements pledging to work with
politicians; Google declined to comment.
But
lobbyists for both Facebook and Google have been actively working to
shape legislation, according to Politico. According to OpenSecrets,
Facebook has already spent some $5.6m on lobbying this year; Google
has plunked down $9.4m. Just as they are dominant social
institutions, they are also formidable political players.
Mr
Wonderlich of the Sunlight Foundation said it remained uncertain
where the tech companies would land on the bill. But he said that the
political landscape has shifted and argued tech firms would be wise
to adapt.
Given
“the sheer amount of spending and the revelations of foreign
influence, I think the centre has moved”, Mr Wonderlich said. “I
think there’s a new consensus that is emerging that we need to do
something”.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.