A whistleblower is not required to determine that Meta, and all adtech companies, have been severely damaging not just to the US, but to all governments and societies where these platforms are used. They don't need to collude with any adversarial government for this to be true.
The same tools built to manipulate people into buying things, are used to manipulate them into thinking and acting in ways that could be beneficial to someone. Advertising and propaganda use the same tactics, after all. When these tools are accessible to anyone, including political adversaries, it would be naive to think that they're not being used for information warfare.
The Cambridge Analytica leak was just the tip of the iceberg. These companies and agencies are still operating at a global scale, and business is booming. Why adtech companies weren't heavily investigated and regulated after this became public is beyond me. These are matters of national security, which anyone sane would consider more important than any financial or practical value they might have.
Banning TikTok was a step in the right direction, but that's far from the only service that needs to be heavily regulated. And even that decision is flip-flopped and very controversial, so the idea of going beyond must be unthinkable. Yet not doing so will lead to the eventual downfall of the US, and the current western hegemony. The instability we're seeing now is just the beginning, and my only hope is that it doesn't escalate to a major global conflict.
On the other hand these tools do allow individuals to connect and share.
I see it like politics ( at least the way it's managed in the UK ) - democracy means everyone get's to vote, leaflet door to door, politically organise etc. However there are ( in the non-online space ) strict regulations about money not being able to buy a larger voice - political spending is(was) strictly limited. You can't use broadcast media for political ads, apart from the government allocated slots.....
The regulations haven't kept up with the digital world - but they need to. Looking at what unfettered money has done to US politics is all the incentive you need.
One of the core problems is astroturfing is so easy online - money pretending to be people - in the end, I think the only solution is the loss of anonymity online - anonymity enables sock puppetry and astroturfing.
ie if we want to keep people's freedoms online to say what they want ( but within the law ), but at the same time stop money drowning out all voices, then you have to know what's automated and what's real - and people need to be held accountable for what they say or do - that's how the real world works.
You don't need authoritarian laws regulating content - social peer pressure is quite effective - after all democracy is the tyranny of the majority.
Blogging platforms also allow people to connect and share, but are prob less profitable. A lot of the role of blogs was taken over by social media, this created larger networks but with a lot of downsides. But these downsides are not inherent to all the online platforms where people can connect and share.
Honestly, it's crazy that any country allows online media to control the national discourse about politics without having any insight into how the algorithms decide what kind of content is shown to whom and how content is moderated or controlled. Then there's bot/propaganda accounts run by who knows who poisoning any political discussion.
If you're upset with what Meta does in the U.S., consider that Meta's engagement algorithms played a key roll in driving the Rohingya massacre in Myanmar[1].
"Internal studies dating back to 2012 indicated that Meta knew its algorithms could result in serious real-world harms. In 2016, Meta’s own research clearly acknowledged that “our recommendation systems grow the problem” of extremism."
They knew there was a problem, but refused to act until Myanmar's government shut them down in 2014. After that, their response was half-hearted, inept, and actually made things worse[2].
Governments should not simply be paying attention to what users publish on Facebook, but also how Facebook's algorithms promote material to its users. Meta has demonstrated they will not take preventative action themselves. Meta needs to be carefully and extensively regulated by the government of any jurisdiction Facebook operates in.
It's easy to appreciate concerns that regulating social media could result in state propaganda or censorship. However, regimes likely to do this are probably already using other forms of control anyways. Taking Meta's remorselessly proft-seeking engagement algorithms out of the picture may be the lesser evil by a substantial margin.
A valid solution is, of course, authoritarian levels of control over all media outlets. This puts countries like China and Russia at an advantage in this case.
Since most western citizens would object to this, surely middle ground solutions can be found that would prevent abuse and foreign (and domestic) manipulation, while preserving democracy, free speech and individual freedoms. I'm inclined to believe that democracy and authoritarianism doesn't have to be zero-sum, and that a balance can exist that allows societies to prosper even among hostile actors.
It’s amusing that the right used to complain about “information warfare”—Marxist infiltration of universities, newspapers, and Hollywood—while now the left does so.
I don't think that it's a left/right thing. There was a link that appeared here yesterday for a book newly released on Project Gutenberg called Masters of Deception. I went to the library to get a hard copy as it was originally published in 1958. I never thought that I would be agreeing with J Edgar Hoover so much. This is no longer just about Communism.
Communism wasn't an authoritarian movement back then, it was anti authoritarian. What is being opposed is authoritarianism.
China isn't really communist, and neither was the ussr. It's just a regressive authoritarian regime with different propaganda.
Authoritarianism is fundamentally right wing. Freedom for the right wing is fundamentally doublespeak for freedom for the oligarchs to gain power and oppress. Secondarily that freedom to acquire and impose power is granted to racists so the oligarchs have their foot soldiers.
> They have threatened her with $50,000 in punitive damages every time she mentions Facebook in public … even if the statements she is making are true,” he said.
Unless Congress asks for the testimony, which is probably why Meta tried to stop the hearing.
But infinitely rich companies can of course bankrupt any ordinary human by suing them over and over again. They already look bad, so it doesn't make them look worse. Why wouldn't they just keep suing her?
> infinitely rich companies can of course bankrupt any ordinary human by suing them over and over again
No. Not only does SLAPP prevent that, a rich, unpopular company trying to silence a whistleblower through tort is running a PR campaign for their legal defence fund.
More realistic: being blacklisted from employment.
All I see in this story are a bunch of things that were under discussion at some point, but never happened.
But then, “Meta considered doing business in China, evaluated and negotiated with the Chinese government what would be required to do so, and then did not proceed” isn’t a story that is going to sell a lot of books or get her a lot of attention.
Another tell that this is a stunt for attention and not a genuine issue is her trying to blame China’s progress in AI on Meta’s release of an open-source model.
> But then, “Meta considered doing business in China, evaluated and negotiated with the Chinese government what would be required to do so, and then did not proceed” isn’t a story that is going to sell a lot of books or get her a lot of attention
It could be as simple as Meta did not want to give the Chinese government partial ownership and their IP.
I remember when this happened, it was in the news then, except the conversation was everyone in SV was doing it, including Google. They decided not to. We don't convict for thinking about robbing a bank, you actually have to attempt it and nothing being discussed was explicitly illegal, merely unethical by some arguments, but then again, NSA has several listening posts at AT&T hubs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A), and Apple is building backdoors for iCloud in the UK, its the cost of doing business in western countries, that ethically its simply complying with local laws at that point, just degrees of magnitude.
Read her book Careless People [1] where she shared many details. A crucial aspect of the China story is that FB/Meta conveyed to the Chinese officials that they were ready to do anything they asked for in the hope that they will be allowed in China.
IS there a TLDR for why it didn't happen. Reporting at the time said internal dissent (woke/liberal internal culture + worker power) at the time killed the project like it did similar initiative at Google (Project DragonFly).
"Hawley, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Crime and Counterterrorism Subcommittee, said that Meta or Facebook tried "desperately to prevent" him from holding the hearing.
"They have threatened her with $50,000 in punitive damages every time she mentions Facebook in public ... even if the statements she is making are true," he said. "Facebook is attempting her total and complete financial ruin. They're attempting to destroy her personally, they're attempting to destroy her reputation and I think the question is, `Why?'"
"What is it they are so afraid of?" Hawley asked.""
Meta has a stellar reputation to protect. Honest people doing honest "work".
It's interesting to think about the way in which the Chinese government operates compared to the government of other countries like the US. The US government was conceived as merely a public utility to fund public works; there was no single ideological basis beyond that. Freedom isn't a "single" ideology because it encapsulates all possible ideologies. The ideology rested with the people themselves to implement on an individual basis. The CCP, on the other hand, was conceived as an ideological movement with specific goals.
Now that the Chinese economy has become so important in the world, the ideological aspects are seeping into the economies of all countries, though it doesn't translate well into western politics. I think this is because the western political system was a limited-trust system, it only worked well when the state was anemic; if the state becomes big (cash-rich), companies will find that they can start to earn significant sums of money from the state, they will redirect their attention to catering to the needs of the state and away from the private sector. Unfortunately the western state has no intrinsic ideology, no intrinsic needs or goals, so it will lead to corruption or faux-adoption of external ideologies (as a means to serve private financial interests).
Western governments cannot form genuine ideological movements (besides the ideology of economic pragmatism) IMO because their foundations aren't designed to support anything besides that. They are founded on the principles of individualism and limited state power.
Precisely why China needs to be a whole lot less important to the world.
Freedom and personal liberty actually are ideologies. They don’t encompass every ideology that doesn’t make sense at all.
I’d say CCP and many other governments like Russia and Ukraine are FAR more corrupt than the US. Your argument really doesn’t make sense.
> Freedom and personal liberty actually are ideologies.
Feyerabend in particular would likely differ, and say instead that freedom and liberty are what emerge when mature adults democratically order their societies, irrespective (or in spite) of any ideologies used to bind them
Dude the US is insanely corrupt, it's just that a lot of the corruption is called "lobbying" and "consulting." Sometimes also certain forms of "legal counsel." It's whitewashed and normalized.
And China has no corruption or grifting in the government? I do not believe that at all. I reckon it's just as rife as any western government. What the do get right is long term planning and sticking to it, but giving it a time limit (5 years) and the reevaluate priorities. The American government literally has several founding documents and a purpose, I don't see how you think otherwise? Can cronyism happen? Sure, no one is denying that. However what set us apart during the recent downturn is we had some of the most free trade in the world. Now Trump is wrecking that with tariffs and short sighted "look a squirrel!" tactics.
Not really surprising. I'm sure all the major tech companies are engaged in this kind of deal making. The influence of China over Amazon is obvious and there has been cases of algorithmic tampering and account unlocking in their favor.
Readit News
The same tools built to manipulate people into buying things, are used to manipulate them into thinking and acting in ways that could be beneficial to someone. Advertising and propaganda use the same tactics, after all. When these tools are accessible to anyone, including political adversaries, it would be naive to think that they're not being used for information warfare.
The Cambridge Analytica leak was just the tip of the iceberg. These companies and agencies are still operating at a global scale, and business is booming. Why adtech companies weren't heavily investigated and regulated after this became public is beyond me. These are matters of national security, which anyone sane would consider more important than any financial or practical value they might have.
Banning TikTok was a step in the right direction, but that's far from the only service that needs to be heavily regulated. And even that decision is flip-flopped and very controversial, so the idea of going beyond must be unthinkable. Yet not doing so will lead to the eventual downfall of the US, and the current western hegemony. The instability we're seeing now is just the beginning, and my only hope is that it doesn't escalate to a major global conflict.
I see it like politics ( at least the way it's managed in the UK ) - democracy means everyone get's to vote, leaflet door to door, politically organise etc. However there are ( in the non-online space ) strict regulations about money not being able to buy a larger voice - political spending is(was) strictly limited. You can't use broadcast media for political ads, apart from the government allocated slots.....
The regulations haven't kept up with the digital world - but they need to. Looking at what unfettered money has done to US politics is all the incentive you need.
One of the core problems is astroturfing is so easy online - money pretending to be people - in the end, I think the only solution is the loss of anonymity online - anonymity enables sock puppetry and astroturfing.
ie if we want to keep people's freedoms online to say what they want ( but within the law ), but at the same time stop money drowning out all voices, then you have to know what's automated and what's real - and people need to be held accountable for what they say or do - that's how the real world works.
You don't need authoritarian laws regulating content - social peer pressure is quite effective - after all democracy is the tyranny of the majority.
Ok, Mark. That's enough.
Any coder can build a tool that allows individuals to connect and share. It's not a unique feature of Meta tools.
The unique property of Meta is that they have a hegemony. Which is ok.
They went further than that, though, and built the infrastructure for influencing the decisions of individuals. That's no longer ok.
Yes , with the NSA, MI6 and other 3 letter agencies. The best democracy ever.
"Internal studies dating back to 2012 indicated that Meta knew its algorithms could result in serious real-world harms. In 2016, Meta’s own research clearly acknowledged that “our recommendation systems grow the problem” of extremism."
They knew there was a problem, but refused to act until Myanmar's government shut them down in 2014. After that, their response was half-hearted, inept, and actually made things worse[2].
Governments should not simply be paying attention to what users publish on Facebook, but also how Facebook's algorithms promote material to its users. Meta has demonstrated they will not take preventative action themselves. Meta needs to be carefully and extensively regulated by the government of any jurisdiction Facebook operates in.
It's easy to appreciate concerns that regulating social media could result in state propaganda or censorship. However, regimes likely to do this are probably already using other forms of control anyways. Taking Meta's remorselessly proft-seeking engagement algorithms out of the picture may be the lesser evil by a substantial margin.
[1]https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/09/myanmar-faceb...
[2]https://www.lemonde.fr/en/pixels/article/2022/09/29/rohingya...
Since most western citizens would object to this, surely middle ground solutions can be found that would prevent abuse and foreign (and domestic) manipulation, while preserving democracy, free speech and individual freedoms. I'm inclined to believe that democracy and authoritarianism doesn't have to be zero-sum, and that a balance can exist that allows societies to prosper even among hostile actors.
Wondering what has changed in the meantime.
China isn't really communist, and neither was the ussr. It's just a regressive authoritarian regime with different propaganda.
Authoritarianism is fundamentally right wing. Freedom for the right wing is fundamentally doublespeak for freedom for the oligarchs to gain power and oppress. Secondarily that freedom to acquire and impose power is granted to racists so the oligarchs have their foot soldiers.
Unless Congress asks for the testimony, which is probably why Meta tried to stop the hearing.
No. Not only does SLAPP prevent that, a rich, unpopular company trying to silence a whistleblower through tort is running a PR campaign for their legal defence fund.
More realistic: being blacklisted from employment.
But then, “Meta considered doing business in China, evaluated and negotiated with the Chinese government what would be required to do so, and then did not proceed” isn’t a story that is going to sell a lot of books or get her a lot of attention.
Another tell that this is a stunt for attention and not a genuine issue is her trying to blame China’s progress in AI on Meta’s release of an open-source model.
It could be as simple as Meta did not want to give the Chinese government partial ownership and their IP.
[1] https://www.amazon.com/Careless-People-Cautionary-Power-Idea...
"They have threatened her with $50,000 in punitive damages every time she mentions Facebook in public ... even if the statements she is making are true," he said. "Facebook is attempting her total and complete financial ruin. They're attempting to destroy her personally, they're attempting to destroy her reputation and I think the question is, `Why?'"
"What is it they are so afraid of?" Hawley asked.""
Meta has a stellar reputation to protect. Honest people doing honest "work".
Now that the Chinese economy has become so important in the world, the ideological aspects are seeping into the economies of all countries, though it doesn't translate well into western politics. I think this is because the western political system was a limited-trust system, it only worked well when the state was anemic; if the state becomes big (cash-rich), companies will find that they can start to earn significant sums of money from the state, they will redirect their attention to catering to the needs of the state and away from the private sector. Unfortunately the western state has no intrinsic ideology, no intrinsic needs or goals, so it will lead to corruption or faux-adoption of external ideologies (as a means to serve private financial interests).
Western governments cannot form genuine ideological movements (besides the ideology of economic pragmatism) IMO because their foundations aren't designed to support anything besides that. They are founded on the principles of individualism and limited state power.
Deleted Comment
I’d say CCP and many other governments like Russia and Ukraine are FAR more corrupt than the US. Your argument really doesn’t make sense.
Feyerabend in particular would likely differ, and say instead that freedom and liberty are what emerge when mature adults democratically order their societies, irrespective (or in spite) of any ideologies used to bind them
https://youtu.be/f3DAnORfgB8