Facebook executives lay out their plan to protect US election integrity in the future

Polycount

Posts: 3,017   +590
Staff

Facebook has certainly been in a bit of hot water lately. The company has been the target of numerous lawsuits and widespread community backlash following the recent Cambridge Analytica data privacy debacle and CEO Mark Zuckerburg soon plans to testify in front of Congress regarding the incident.

Regardless, it seems the company is ready to move past their issues now. Today, several Facebook executives laid out the their plans to improve the platform in the future. For now, those plans include steps Facebook is taking to "protect election security" during the US 2018 midterm elections and onward.

"...during the 2016 US election, foreign actors tried to undermine the integrity of the electoral process. Their attack included taking advantage of open online platforms — such as Facebook — to divide Americans, and to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt," Facebook's VP of Product Management Guy Rosen said during a press conference. "...none of us can turn back the clock, but we are all responsible for making sure the same kind of attack our democracy does not happen again."

...Facebook is working on four main "election security areas:" eliminating foreign interference, removing fake accounts, increasing ad transparency and reducing the spread of false news.

To accomplish this goal, Facebook is working on four main "election security areas:" eliminating foreign interference, removing fake accounts, increasing ad transparency and reducing the spread of false news.

How Facebook plans to address the first security area is unclear. Executives merely say they're working with unidentified experts to keep track of potential foreign threats and proactively looking for "potentially harmful types of election-related activity" that could have a negative impact on America's democratic processes.

However, the second security area, the removal of fake accounts, is something the social media platform was much more straightforward about. Using artificial intelligence, Facebook can detect and delete suspicious accounts more quickly than ever before. Indeed, executives say the company is now deleting millions of false accounts on a daily basis thanks to this technology.

The third security area, ad transparency, is particularly interesting. Facebook plans to allow average users, researchers, government officials or any other interested parties to see how much money an advertiser is spending on any given ad, how many impressions the ad has received over time, the candidate or campaign the advertiser is representing and more.

Every single ad on the platform, whether it's related to the elections or not, will be subject to these rules. Ads will be viewable via a dedicated tool, though Facebook didn't elaborate on where that tool will be located or when it might roll out.

This information will remain publicly available for "four years" after the ads initially run. This decision is not likely to be popular with advertisers but it could go a long way towards protecting Facebook's integrity.

The final security area, reducing the spread of fake news, is something Facebook has struggled with for some time now. Fortunately, the social media platform has a pretty solid plan in place to address the issue.

To begin with, third-party fact checkers will now be able to label images or videos as false in addition to standard article links. Additionally, the social media platform plans to penalize domains that push fake news more than others, restricting their ability to "[reach, grow, or profit] from their audience."

Only time will tell if Facebook's plans will prove effective in the long term but it's nice to see the company take significant steps to address their users' concerns.

Permalink to story.

 
"To begin with, third-party fact checkers will now be able to label images or videos as false in addition to standard article links."

I assume that Politico, Factcheck.org and Wikipedia won't be among them since they've all been repeatedly busted for ignoring fake news on their own sites.
 
"...during the 2016 US election, foreign actors tried to undermine the integrity of the electoral process. Their attack included taking advantage of open online platforms — such as Facebook — to divide Americans, and to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt,"

Huh? - divide Americans, and to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt!!!

That's exactly what each side tries to do with their ads, commercials, rallies, etc.
 
"To begin with, third-party fact checkers will now be able to label images or videos as false in addition to standard article links."

I assume that Politico, Factcheck.org and Wikipedia won't be among them since they've all been repeatedly busted for ignoring fake news on their own sites.

Wikipedia is a non-profit with editors that span a wide range of political beliefs and they have transparent review processes. You have been trying to spread a false narrative about them for some time but I've yet to see you provide any wikipedia "fake news". Now I've googled the subject but the only claim of "fake news" on wikipedia is from a neo-nazi website that doesn't even provide an example of said "fake news". FYI wikiepedia doesn't even do news in the first place, it's an online encyclopedia.

Factcheck.org gets a good chunk of it's funding from the Annenberg Foundation, which is a foundation that gives money to many non-profits. It's not an organization that only donates to one political party. In addition, they disclose the identity of any donor who gives more than $1,000 which is far more transparent then either the democratic or republican parties are.

On politico

"In a 2007 opinion piece, progressive watchdog group Media Matters for America accused Politico of having a "Republican tilt".[56] In contrast, in 2011 politically conservative The Daily Caller declaimed Politico as having a pronounced liberal bias.[57]

Despite these accusations, a 2012 study found that the percentage of Politico readers that identify as Democrats – 29% – is the same as the percentage that identifies as Republicans.[58] As of 2018, the largely crowd-sourced analysis engines AllSides rates Politico as "Left Lean" in terms of bias.[59]"

The only websites to call out Politico for "fake news" are extremist websites like The Daily Caller and Breitbart.


Next time you make a claim, provide proof of such.
 
So much hysteria over the 'foreign interference' by buying false news ads on Facebook when it's just a fraction of the false news ads network. I don't have any figures to back this assertion, but it's clear that this is a case of focusing on what is minute because that's where the public's attention has been distracted . The sprawling false news network, which can be represented with a Power Point document of stunning complexity, has its funding attributed to Robert Mercer (but who knows who else might be involved.)

But if you want to talk about foreign meddling -- ever since Citizens United, foreign parties can donate an unlimited amount to U.S. election campaigns. That's where the change has to happen to increase the integrity of elections. What's being discussed here, in comparison, is trivial.
 
"To begin with, third-party fact checkers will now be able to label images or videos as false in addition to standard article links."

I assume that Politico, Factcheck.org and Wikipedia won't be among them since they've all been repeatedly busted for ignoring fake news on their own sites.

Wikipedia is a non-profit with editors that span a wide range of political beliefs and they have transparent review processes. You have been trying to spread a false narrative about them for some time but I've yet to see you provide any wikipedia "fake news". Now I've googled the subject but the only claim of "fake news" on wikipedia is from a neo-nazi website that doesn't even provide an example of said "fake news". FYI wikiepedia doesn't even do news in the first place, it's an online encyclopedia.

Factcheck.org gets a good chunk of it's funding from the Annenberg Foundation, which is a foundation that gives money to many non-profits. It's not an organization that only donates to one political party. In addition, they disclose the identity of any donor who gives more than $1,000 which is far more transparent then either the democratic or republican parties are.

On politico

"In a 2007 opinion piece, progressive watchdog group Media Matters for America accused Politico of having a "Republican tilt".[56] In contrast, in 2011 politically conservative The Daily Caller declaimed Politico as having a pronounced liberal bias.[57]

Despite these accusations, a 2012 study found that the percentage of Politico readers that identify as Democrats – 29% – is the same as the percentage that identifies as Republicans.[58] As of 2018, the largely crowd-sourced analysis engines AllSides rates Politico as "Left Lean" in terms of bias.[59]"

The only websites to call out Politico for "fake news" are extremist websites like The Daily Caller and Breitbart.


Next time you make a claim, provide proof of such.
For starters get off your high horse!

Breitbart is extremist? lmao. What is CNN then?
Dont tell me, tho' I might die of laughing.
 
"...during the 2016 US election, foreign actors tried to undermine the integrity of the electoral process. Their attack included taking advantage of open online platforms — such as Facebook — to divide Americans, and to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt,"

Huh? - divide Americans, and to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt!!!

That's exactly what each side tries to do with their ads, commercials, rallies, etc.
Exactly! It's important that the people tricking our dumber citizens are also American Citizens. It's important.
 
Back