Russia Investigation Has Tech Giants Shying From ‘Social’ Label

What a laugh! A non-issue causing a bunch of left coast snowflake "tech giants" to have a melting fit. Love it!

“in the past no government had the power to keep its citizens under constant surveillance. The invention of print, however, made it easier to manipulate public opinion, and the film and the radio carried the process further. With the development of television, and the technical advance which made it possible to receive and transmit simultaneously on the same instrument, private life came to an end. Every citizen, or at least every citizen important enough to be worth watching, could be kept for twenty-four hours a day under the eyes of the police and in the sound of official propaganda, with all other channels of communication closed. The possibility of enforcing not only complete obedience to the will of the State, but complete uniformity of opinion on all subjects, now existed for the first time.” George Orwell, Animal Farm. What would George Orwell think about fake news and the narrow-casting propaganda communicated through today's social media purveyors?

John Kelly has demonstrated that he holds racist sentiments. I don’t know why the media continues to portray him in a positive light and a moderating influence in the White House.

Does anyone else feel that the idea that a relatively small number of Facebook, Google, and Twitter ads and Russian (or maybe Macedonian) trolls could have effected the outcome of the presidential race? Is this not an insult to the public at large? Have we really devolved to that level of gullibility? I couldn't care less about who posts what on these platforms, but I do feel that they have become in effect public platforms and should not be allowed to censor posts just because they, or a bot they built, finds the idea expressed offensive. If Homeland Security or the FBI comes to them and says, "This post is promoting terrorism. Take it down now.", I have no problem with that, but I have a problem with these companies becoming suppressors of speech in a nation that used to be proud of its tradition of free speech and open exchanges of ideas. I have heard the argument that they are private companies and should be able to control who and what is on their platform, but I've heard that argument before and regardless of its merits, restaurants can no longer refuse service to people based on race.

The thing that's most pernicious about this narrative being put forward by the media, Congress, investigators, and tech executives, is that it obfuscates the real problem with hegemonic corporate-owned "social media" networks. The real problem with these platforms is not that entities with nefarious intentions use them to spread "fake news" meant to influence public opinion and election results, although that is part of the negatives consequences of having this much concentrated power (reach). The real problem lies in the very essence of these networks: the use of increasingly-sophisticated psychographical algorithms that over time become capable of anticipating people's reactions to both information and the ways and means that information is presented (notifications, etc.). And of course, what drives this approach is the relentless search for never-ending profit growth. Inevitably, this leads these companies to research ways to psychologically-manipulate people (users) into being glued (as it were) to their "smart" phones and tablet's "social media" feeds. And they are succeeding as more and more people become addicted to the screens, causing all kinds of negative effects, from physical and psychological ailments, to social alienation and dysfunction. Don't expect institutions (government, etc.) or the tech companies to come up with solutions. The only way to remedy this situation is for people to stop using these networks. Turn them into the next MySpace!

Just remember that these companies are payed mega millions from our federal government to share their ''social media'' sites information with them. Two peas in a pod here. Or information privacy parasites leeching off of one another. Unflattering? Embarrassment? Please, no such thing.

"Facebook reported another blockbuster financial quarter..." Whose money was it that made the quarter so successful?

All this hand wringing over social media companies and their “responsibilities”? The solution is really very simple: Don’t participate in social media! There is only one reason why businesses like Facebook exist and that’s to make money from people’s private information. They don’t exist to make the world a better place regardless of whatever flowery propaganda they reference in their ads. Read the EULA’s of these companies before you create an account. It’ll scare you.

read this book... its enough to make you shiver http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/03/books/review/the-circle-by-dave-eggers...

I'm glad this shift is happening. I have always been uncomfortable w/ social media, all the companies operating in this space make the service free to users because we are their actual product. They made it easy for companies to laser-target us for corporate propaganda (oops, I mean advertising) which for whatever reason does not bother people so much. I'm pretty sure most would not be bothered if the political propaganda was home-grown - an attitude that should be a concern. As much as I loathe Russian interference w/ US elections, it is nice they did it so it became obvious all the systems these companies developed so we can be exploited by corporations and internal governments can be used just as well by foreign agents.

Social networks have been very beneficial to me. These inventions save a lot of time. If a person brings about their use or adherence to such networks I immediately know not to spend more of my valuable time with such a shallow individual.

There is a lot to fear from the growing omnipotence of the big Internet companies. I don’t think Russian disinformation campaigns are the major concern. Most of the information the Russians have allegedly posted, for example malfeasance by the DNC, is factual. And they are not the only ones who slant news coverage. There’s a strong liberal bias, which sometimes crosses the line to “fake news,” in much of the mainstream American press. The same can be said of some conservative media outlets. Bogus reviews of products, restaurants, and services have long been a characteristic of the wild west of the Internet. Nothing new here. What I worry about is the extraordinary loss of privacy, much of it from the activities of popular online firms, very much including the tech giants, and often carried out in a clandestine manner. Even this newspaper tracks every page a reader opens and every article a reader reads, without asking permission, and without so much as an opt-out option. When I worry about national security and governments using the Internet to undermine our democracy, my greatest fear isn’t the Russians. They’re not doing anything our own CIA hasn’t been doing for decades. What worries me is ISIS and other terrorist groups using Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and myriad other internet services to recruit members and foment horrendous acts of violence against the innocent. This is what the tech giants need to stop.

The hideous phrase “social media” seeks to portray blogging or ranting online as a social activity, as a coequal of face-to-face interaction. The distinction is not a trivial one. It has influenced how Americans view socialism itself, and not for the better.

I find this all laughable and pathetic. Let's investigate the forces unleashed by the Powell Memo in 1971 - those shenanigans have been going on for almost fifty years.

The worst part about all this is that most haven't learned from the failing (not failed, since they're still trying) Google+ misventure. They harrassed YouTube and other Google service users to show and use their real names in public, chased away many good users who commented there (like myself), and made absolutely no impact on the level of troll, flame, spam, and just-plain-STUPID comments and threads on YouTube because (1) trolls will happily post under their real names and (2) even if they don't, a troll only has to be lucky for a day with a made-up "real name" while long-term honest users have to make sure they don't get banned for not using one. It's the worst example of Larry Page's domination of Google, and especially of his saner partner-in-crime Sergey Brin. What did many NYT commenters say on the how-to-fix Facebook article? "Use and verify real names." What did sane NYT commenters think when seeing them? "lol no."

“Without sufficient oversight, these companies never imagined hostile intelligence services would misuse their platforms in this way,..." They didn't need oversight; they just needed some actual adults at the top who know that not everyone in the world is a sweet, loving person who wants to share videos of kittens and puppies. Guess what, guys, propaganda has been around a long time and you simply gave them quick, direct access to the eyes of the American public (and everyone else in the world). Repeat a lie loud enough and long enough and people will believe the lie. That's exactly what you have set up on these sites. You put the product (viewers' eyes) up there. You sold the product to foreign investors. You made money. You did this. Stop trying to tell us you want to be considered as good guys when you've already proven you put profit ahead of everything else.

I am all for net neutrality but these businesses need to be held responsible when they are taking payments in roubles and posting obviously propagandistic content from foreign powers. They are also making obscene amounts of money while stifling competition and reinvesting nothing into the IT infrastructure that sustains them. The information they sell about users also needs some constraints. Time for governments to investigate further and take some action with these corporate giants that act like they are above the law because there are no laws, particularly Facebook.

All this talk and analysis is for nothing. No one wants to take blame, and maybe there is no blame to go around because the social media is a place where free speech to a large degree, is allowed. Content is the issue and how to filter that is impossible, barring extreme censorship. But then that goes against free speech. So what is the solution? Let the 'educated' public decide what is 'fake' and what is not. Dreaming? Guess so!! Reflect on November 2016!

Social media companies should be held responsible for what is published on their platforms the same way traditional media companies are held responsible for what they publish. Let social media companies get sued for liable, slander, intentional infliction of emotional distress, invasion of privacy, etc. Online discourse would improve and the bogus stories and foreign government interference in elections would decline.

What is it they always say about groups? Nothing is as dumb as all of us! Anyone who goes to social media for news gets what they get because it's a lazy way of staying informed. Social media just wraps plastic around you and fees you a constant diet of stuff that confirms your opinion. I'm almost surprised the NYT doesn't point that out more. "Are you getting your news from Facebook?" would be a good ad campaign perhaps.

Russian created click-bait content pales in comparison to the sledgehammer that is American originated, 'conservative' television and radio; in terms of influencing voters. I feel this part of the story of the 2016 election is being overblown.