Facebook and the Brexit vote

Facebook is also under investigation in the UK to see how much Russian operatives might have interfered in the Brexit vote.

The Telegraph: MPs order Facebook to hand over evidence of Russian election meddling

The Digital, Culture, Media and Sport committee has demanded that the US internet giant release adverts and pages linked to Russia in the build up to last year’s EU referendum and June’s general election.

On Tuesday Damian Collins, the chairman of the committee, wrote to Facebook’s chief executive Mark Zuckerberg asking for the company to hand over examples of adverts bought by Russian-linked accounts as well as details about how much they cost and how many people saw them.

The committee is currently investigating the influence of fake news, which critics say has thrived on Facebook in the last year amid politically-divisive votes in the US and across Europe.

“Part of this inquiry will focus on the role of foreign actors abusing platforms such as yours to interfere in the political discourse of other nations,” Mr Collins wrote.

Facebook sparked a political storm in the US last month when it revealed that thousands of adverts were bought by Russians in the run-up to Trump’s election victory.

Under investigation from Congress it has handed over 3,000 adverts purchased over two years by the Internet Research Agency, a group linked to the Russian Government. Mr Collins said he was looking for similar evidence in the UK.

The US adverts, which also appeared on Instagram and were seen by 10 million people, focused on divisive topics such as race, immigration and gun rights, and were allegedly used to help propel Donald Trump to the White House. Mr Trump has attempted to play down the impact of the adverts, saying the amounts spent were “tiny” and claiming that Facebook was on Hillary Clinton’s side.

Mr Zuckerberg has said it “just wouldn’t be realistic” to stop all interference in election campaigns on Facebook, although the company has since vowed to manually review every advert targeting people by political affiliation or race.

The Internet has become a key component in the globalisation of dirty politics.

Dirty democracy: Clinton, Trump, Russia

Investigations and revelations continue on dirty democracy involving the US and Russia.

The use of Facebook by Russians continues – CNBC: House panel plans to release Russian ads that ran on Facebook, committee leaders say

The House Intelligence Committee plans to release Russia-linked ads that ran on Facebook during the 2016 election, the panel’s leaders said Wednesday, according to NBC News.

The House committee is investigating Russian efforts to influence the 2016 election and possible collusion between the Kremlin and the Trump campaign. Reps. Mike Conaway, R-Texas, and Adam Schiff, D-Calif., are leading the probe.

Facebook has already shared about 3,000 ads bought by Russia-linked groups with the congressional committees investigating the Russian influence campaign.

Google also has discovered that Russian operatives spent tens of thousands of dollars on ads on its platforms, according to reports.

Recode:  Facebook admits Russia agents used Messenger to disrupt U.S. presidential election

A top Facebook executive admitted Wednesday that Russian agents had used the social network’s popular Messenger platform to interfere in the 2016 presidential election.

Facebook Messenger boss David Marcus disclosed that a “very small” number of the 470 accounts active in the Russian interference campaign were using Messenger to communicate with their users.

Messenger was reportedly used by some pages with ties to Russian operatives. Marcus, like other Facebook executives, argued that the work done by Facebook around the world was being wrongly “overshadowed” by the Russia “narrative.”

Investigations continue into possible links between the trump campaign and Russians.

Newsweek: DID TRUMP FAMILY, ASSOCIATES BREAK LAW WITH RUSSIA? A GUIDE TO POTENTIAL SUSPECTS IN MUELLER’S PROBE

It has been a big few days in the ongoing investigation into Russia’s efforts to influence the 2016 election and possibly collude with Donald Trump’s campaign. The president’s personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, has appeared before multiple congressional committees…

Paul Manafort: At the same time, the investigation led by special counsel Robert Mueller is delving deeper into Paul Manafort, Trump’s former campaign manager.

This week, it was reported that the U.S. attorney’s office in Manhattan, in conjunction with Mueller, is investigating Manafort for money laundering. It is widely believed that Mueller aims to use the money laundering charges to flip Manafort and turn him into a witness against Trump.

Roger Stone: A longtime adviser to Trump, Stone boasted during the campaign that he was in communication with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange before that outfit released emails from the account of Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, John Podesta. Stone has also confirmed that he exchanged messages with a hacker believed to be responsible for attacking the Democratic National Committee.

NBC:  Kushner Under Scrutiny By FBI as Part of Russia Investigation

Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law and one of his senior advisers, has come under FBI scrutiny in the Russia investigation, multiple US officials tell NBC Nightly News.

And the Clinton campaign is also reported to be close to Russia in it’s dirty campaigning too – Washington Post: Clinton campaign, DNC paid for research that led to Russia dossier

The Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee helped fund research that resulted in a now-famous dossier containing allegations about President Trump’s connections to Russia and possible coordination between his campaign and the Kremlin, people familiar with the matter said.

Marc E. Elias, a lawyer representing the Clinton campaign and the DNC, retained Fusion GPS, a Washington firm, to conduct the research.

After that, Fusion GPS hired dossier author Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence officer with ties to the FBI and the U.S. intelligence community, according to those people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

Elias and his law firm, Perkins Coie, retained the company in April 2016 on behalf of the Clinton campaign and the DNC. Before that agreement, Fusion GPS’s research into Trump was funded by an unknown Republican client during the GOP primary.

So both the Republicans and then the Clinton campaign have had Russian connections in what appears to have been a particularly dirty campaign.

The US and Russia have interfered in other democracies for a long time, but it is becoming increasingly apparent that Russia has tried to interfere in the US election, and both sides have had connections to Russia in conducting their campaigns.

Vanity Fair: THE DIRTY TRUTH ABOUT THE STEELE DOSSIER

On many levels, the Post story merely confirms earlier reports about Steele’s backers. The same day that BuzzFeed published the dossier in its entirety, CNN confirmed much of Corn’s earlier reporting. “The memos originated as opposition research, first commissioned by anti-Trump Republicans, and later by Democrats,” Evan Perez, Jim Sciutto, Jake Tapper and Carl Bernstein wrote. (As Howard Blum recently reported for Vanity Fair, the funding for the research originally came from a “Never Trump” Republican but not specifically from the war chest of one of Trump’s rivals in the G.O.P. primary, according to a friend of Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson.)

The involvement of Clinton and the D.N.C. in funding the Steele dossier is not surprising, but it does add fuel to the partisan fire. “I have to say, the whole Russian thing is what it’s turned out to be,” Trump told reporters at the White House on Wednesday morning. “This was the Democrats coming up with an excuse for losing an election.” Conservative pundits and commentators celebrated on Twitter, seeing in the Post story validation of their arguments that the connections between the Trump campaign and Russia were overblown, if not fabricated.

Complicating matters is the fact that Fusion GPS has also worked with Natalia Veselnitskaya, the Kremlin-connected Russian lawyer who attended the infamous June 2016 Trump Tower meeting, in which Donald Trump Jr. was promised damaging information on Clinton as part of what was described to him as a Russian government effort to help elect his father.

It is all extremely messy.

It has become a very dirty democracy in the US, with mud covered credibility. I don’t know if it is repairable.

The end result so far is the Trump presidency that risks becoming an increasingly disastrous train wreck.

Trump versus the MSM and social media

Donald Trump is claiming the media was against him again – attack is a good sign he is trying to defend or divert.

Reuters: Trump slams Facebook as lawmakers await ads amid Russia probe

U.S. President Donald Trump on Wednesday criticized Facebook as “anti-Trump” and questioned its role during the 2016 presidential campaign, amid probes into alleged Russian interference in the election and possible collusion by Trump’s associates.

His salvo came as the social media giant prepares to hand over 3,000 political ads to congressional investigators that it has said were likely purchased by Russian entities during and after last year’s presidential contest.

Trump appeared to embrace the focus on the social media network in his comments on Wednesday, which also took aim at more traditional medial outlets, long targeted by the president as “fake news.”

“Facebook was always anti-Trump. The networks were always anti-Trump,” Trump said on Twitter, leveling the same charge against the New York Times and the Washington Post. “Collusion?”

Trump’s success was largely due to the amount of attention he received by all media, and arguably how his campaign successfully used social media, especially Facebook.

Business Insider:  Steve Bannon reportedly tried to place a mole inside Facebook before joining Trump’s campaign

Former White House chief strategist and current Breitbart News chief Steve Bannon reportedly tried to infiltrate Facebook last year with the help of far-right provocateur Milo Yiannopolous.

BuzzFeed reported on Monday that in August 2016, shortly before joining the President Donald Trump’s campaign, Bannon sought t0 dispatch a subordinate to apply for a job at Facebook and serve as an informant about what the job application process was like.

Wired: WHAT WE KNOW—AND DON’T KNOW—ABOUT FACEBOOK, TRUMP, AND RUSSIA

From last November:  How the Trump Campaign Built an Identity Database and Used Facebook Ads to Win the Election

 

Party impact on social media

Here is the current imp[act of the major parties on Facebook and twitter, as measured by Zavy.

Facebook:

ZavyFacebook20170912

That may be a reflection of the amount of negative and attack politics that us prevalent.

Twitter:

ZavyTwitter20170912

Twitter is dominated by media reports, journalist comment and reactions to those. Labour dominates the activity but has the poorer ‘pulse’.

Both Facebook and Twitter pulses suggest that National is struggling to turn things around

 

CIA versus Facebook

 

Wikileaks released information today about how the CIA can hack devices for surveillance, like TV sets. Sounds terrible.

But what is the ordinary person most at risk of, the CIA spying on them (very slim chance especially here in New Zealand) or Facebook monitoring everything you do online and storing data history of millions of people, with that data being used to directly influence individuals?

And on WikiLeaks:

HDCA: cot case bar set for ‘harm’

A judgment was been given on an application to dismiss a prosecution under the Harmful Digital  Communications Act that suggests that to succeed with a prosecution the victim would virtually have to become a cot case.

Judge C J Doherty ruled that the posting of semi-nude photos on Facebook had taken place with the intention of causing harm to the victim, but that there was insufficient evidence that “serious emotional distress” had occurred (as defined in s 4 of the HDCA).

It appears from this that the legislation, backed by this judgment, has set a very high bar for a prosecution under the HDCA.

This rules out a conviction under the act for malicious digital communications that may seriously harm someone’s reputation but that they don’t get ‘seriously distressed’ about. Getting very pissed off or angry or upset with a harmful attack would seem to be insufficient.

In this case an estranged husband still has to face a charge of breaching a protection order, but the judge ruled on a breach of s 22 of the Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015 (HDCA) “that the prosecution has not established a prima facie case that the complainant in fact suffered harm as defined in s 4”.

[3] The second charge alleges a breach of s 22 of the Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015 (HDCA) (“the second charge”). It is alleged that the defendant posted a digital communication, being semi-nude images of Mrs Iyer, from whom he is separated. The prosecution alleges that: in posting the communication, the defendant intended to cause Mrs Iyer harm; that posting the communication would cause harm to an ordinary reasonable person in Mrs Iyer’s position; and that posting the communication caused serious emotional distress to Mrs Iyer.

From the Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015:

22 Causing harm by posting digital communication:

(1) A person commits an offence if—

(a) the person posts a digital communication with the intention that it cause harm to a victim; and
(b) posting the communication would cause harm to an ordinary reasonable person in the position of the victim; and
(c) posting the communication causes harm to the victim.

4 Interpretation: ‘harm means serious emotional distress’.

Posting a digital communication

First the judge considered in detail whether posting to Facebook constituted a digital communication:

“the defendant claims the prosecution has not proved that a Facebook post qualifies as a digital communication, as defined by s 4 of the HDCA”

The HDCA definition:

digital communication-
(a) means any form of electronic communication; and
(b) includes any text message, writing, photograph, picture, recording, or other matter that is communicated electronically

The judge ruled against the defendant on that:

I am satisfied, without evidence of the precise protocol and technological basis of Facebook, that the photographs included on the [name of account deleted] account constituted digital communications.

It would have been absurd if posting to Facebook was not a digital communication.

The judge next found that the timing of the posting of the photograph had happened after the HDCA came into force on 1 July 2015.

The judge then considered intention  to cause harm.

[51] The evidence must tend to prove that the defendant posted the “digital communication with the intention that it cause harm to a victim” (in this case Mrs Iyer). Harm is further defined in s 4 of the HDCA as “serious emotional distress”.

[52] I have been unable to find the phrase “serious emotional distress” in any other piece of legislation. Accordingly, it does not appear to have been judicially defined, thus I must consider the definition in terms of the plain meaning of the words, and the wider purpose of the HDCA.

[54] It is clear from the inclusion of the word “serious” that the intended harm must be more than trivial. Being merely upset or annoyed as a consequence of a digital communication would not be sufficient to invoke the sanction of criminal law.

Also, I emphasise that the conduct criminalised by the HDCA is harmful conduct. Offensive, morally repugnant or merely upsetting conduct will not suffice. In order to attract criminal sanction, the conduct must go further.

[56] Turning to the purposive approach, in my view it is clear that the definition of serious emotional distress is designed to balance two competing concerns: the serious effects of calculated emotional harm, and the importance of maintaining free speech.

[58] This Parliamentary discussion reveals that any harm associated with digital communication must be taken seriously. It is important that the court does not assume that emotional distress caused by digital communications is inherently any less harmful than other forms of harm. From this, I interpret that the bar to a successful criminal prosecution must not be set too high.

But:

[59] However, it is also clear that the need to deter harmful online conduct must be weighed against the value of freedom of expression. Freedom of expression is a right protected by s 14 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBORA). It includes the right to “impart information and opinions of any kind in any form”.

Although NZBORA rights are not absolute, s 6 of NZBORA requires that I consider s 14 when interpreting other statutes, a requirement that is reinforced by s 6(2)(b) of the HDCA.

This demands that the courts do not give an interpretation that would have an unduly restrictive effect on free speech. Indeed, this risk is heightened in the HDCA context, which criminalises expression that would not attract liability if it were communicated through a different medium.

Accordingly, I consider I must not reach an interpretation of “serious emotional distress” that is set too low. Taking a purposive approach requires that I balance the deterrence of online harm with the preservation of freedom of speech.

[60] The text of the statute and the wider purposive context both bring me to the same conclusion. In order to attract liability under s 22 of HDCA, conduct must be harmful to an identifiable victim. I conclude that the definition of “harm”, being “serious emotional distress”, may include a condition short of a psychiatric illness or disorder, or distress that requires medical or other treatment or counselling.

[61] The nub of this element is the intention of the defendant. An intention to elicit a serious response of grief, anguish, anxiety or feelings of insecurity would, in my view, qualify as intention to cause harm for the purposes of HDCA s 22(1).

[63] I stress that at this stage I need only find that the prosecution has made out a prima facie case. It is open to the defence to prove that the defendant was not motivated to control the complainant’s life, or that he could have achieved his motive without inflicting serious emotional distress. However, at this stage of proceedings I find that the prosecution has established a case to answer for this element.

Next the judge considered “where posting the digital communication would cause harm to a reasonable person in the position of the victim”

[64] The prosecution must prove that the communication would cause harm to an ordinary reasonable person in the position of Mrs Iyer (HDCA s 22(1)(b)). Section 22(2) sets out a non-exhaustive list of factors which the court may consider, including:

(a) the extremity of the language used:
(b) the age and characteristics of the victim:
(c) whether the digital communication was anonymous:
(d) whether the digital communication was repeated:
(e) the extent of circulation of the digital communication:
(f) whether the digital communication is true or false:
(g) the context in which the digital communication appeared.

[65] I consider that factors (b); (c); (d); (e); and (g) are relevant to the present
case.

[71] I find that the prosecution has established a prima facie case that the posting would cause serious emotional distress to an objective person in the position of Mrs Iyer.

Finally “whether posting the communication causes harm to the victim”:

[72] It is not enough to prove that the digital communication would cause harm to an objective person. The prosecution must establish that the communication did, in fact, cause harm to the victim.

[73] I have found that discovering the post of the photographs resulted in Mrs Iyer being frustrated, angry, anxious and very upset and that she considered taking time off work. (although she did not recall that she did so).

The only other evidence was from Ms Shroad who reported that at the time she viewed the post, Mrs Iyer almost cried and appeared “very depressed” and required someone to be with her for support. I hasten to add this was not a clinical diagnosis but a lay person’s description of what she observed.

Mrs Iyer did not elaborate on her frustration, anger, anxiety or upset. Ms Shroad did not elaborate on what she meant by “depressed” nor describe Mrs Iyer as exhibiting feelings of serious anxiety or insecurity. What Ms Shroad meant by Mrs Iyer needing “someone to be with her for support” was not elaborated upon.

While the evidence clearly points to some degree of emotional distress, it is not sufficient to satisfy me it has reached the threshold of serious emotional distress (as explored above at paragraphs [52]–-[60]).

I do not overlook the fact that Ms Shroad’s observation, while proximate to the time of discovery of the post, is not necessary determinative of the distress of Mrs Iyer; the distress may have manifest itself later. Nor have I ignored the notion that an inference might be drawn that the needing of support itself meant Mrs Iyer was suffering serious emotional distress.

But the absence of specific evidence as to the root cause of her need is a telling factor against the drawing of such an inference.

[74] The prosecution need only prove that the electronic communication caused harm; not that it caused harm immediately. Whether harm in the form of serious emotional distress was caused is a matter of fact. The prosecution has not led cogent evidence to this effect. Such evidence could have been provided by more detailed and specific evidence from Mrs Iyer as to her reactions, feelings or physical symptoms and their duration or by expert evidence, such as the evidence of a psychologist or counsellor. However, none has been led.

[75] On this basis, I consider that the prosecution has not established a prima facie case that the complainant in fact suffered harm as defined in s 4.

So in summary the judge ruled that:

  • Posting photos to Facebook constitutes a digital communication
  • The defendant intended to cause harm
  • The posting would cause serious emotional distress to an objective person in the position of the defendant

But

  • There was insufficient evidence of harm defined as “serious emotional distress”.

Based on this it seems that prosecutions for ‘harm’ under the HDCA will only succeed in fairly extreme cases proving “serious emotional distress”.

I don’t think this is the judge’s fault, he went to some length to understand and comply with the Act.

Those who deliberately set out to cause harm online shouldn’t have much difficulty keeping degree of the damage below this threshold, unless they misjudge someone’s emotional state and tip them over the edge.

The judgment is here: RESERVED DECISION OF JUDGE C J DOHERTY ON APPLICATION FOR DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO S 147(4)(B) CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011

Fake news, elections, Facebook

Attention continues on how fake news is being used in political campaigns, how fake news helped win the US presidential election for Donald Trump, and how Facebook is a significant  part of spreading false news.

Gizmodo: Facebook’s Fight Against Fake News Was Undercut by Fear of Conservative Backlash

It’s no secret that Facebook has a fake news problem. Critics have accused the social network of allowing false and hoax news stories to run rampant, with some suggesting that Facebook contributed to Donald Trump’s election by letting hyper-partisan websites spread false and misleading information.

Mark Zuckerberg has addressed the issue twice since Election Day, most notably in a carefully worded statement that reads: “Of all the content on Facebook, more than 99 percent of what people see is authentic. Only a very small amount is fake news and hoaxes. The hoaxes that do exist are not limited to one partisan view, or even to politics.”

Still, it’s hard to visit Facebook without seeing phony headlines like “FBI Agent Suspected in Hillary Email Leaks Found Dead in Apparent Murder-Suicide” or “Pope Francis Shocks World, Endorses Donald Trump for President, Releases Statement” promoted by no-name news sites like the Denver Guardian and Ending The Fed.

Gizmodo has learned that the company is, in fact, concerned about the issue, and has been having a high-level internal debate since May about how the network approaches its role as the largest news distributor in the US.

According to two sources with direct knowledge of the company’s decision-making, Facebook executives conducted a wide-ranging review of products and policies earlier this year, with the goal of eliminating any appearance of political bias.

One source said high-ranking officials were briefed on a planned News Feed update that would have identified fake or hoax news stories, but disproportionately impacted right-wing news sites by downgrading or removing that content from people’s feeds. According to the source, the update was shelved and never released to the public. It’s unclear if the update had other deficiencies that caused it to be scrubbed.

“They absolutely have the tools to shut down fake news,” said the source, who asked to remain anonymous citing fear of retribution from the company. The source added, “there was a lot of fear about upsetting conservatives after Trending Topics,” and that “a lot of product decisions got caught up in that.”

on Facebook:

1. Facebook is a perfect example for why government regulation is important.

2. The incentives are all wrong here:
  a) Users are happy with fake news
  b) FB is happy making billions
  c) Advertisers are happy with clicks

3. The fake news literally makes everyone involved happy–from producers and distributors to advertisers and users.

4. In this way, it’s not unlike, say, heroin, which also makes everyone in the chain happy–until someone dies. And that’s why it’s illegal.

I don’t know how government regulation will help prevent fake news being fed via other countries.

Guardian: Click and elect: how fake news helped Donald Trump win a real election

We are fully ensconced in the post-truth world. The greatest editor this paper ever had, CP Scott, had it that “facts are sacred”. CP Scott, by the way, apparently used to have this thing where he brushed his teeth a certain way so the flecks of toothpaste would make a rude shape as they hit the bathroom mirror.

Zuckerberg has said: “Personally, I think the idea that fake news – of which it’s a small amount of content – influenced the election is a pretty crazy idea.”

The influence of verifiably false content on Facebook cannot be regarded as “small” when it garners millions of shares. And yes, it runs deep. The less truthful a piece is, the more it is shared.

In Zuckerberg’s follow-up statement, he seems to have shot himself in the foot, by saying it was “extremely unlikely” fake news on Facebook had an impact on the election, but also boasting that Facebook was responsible for 2 million people registering to vote. So which is it, Zuck? Does Facebook have influence or not?

Where do these stories originate? Well, some are created by teenagers in Macedonia. Wait, that one isn’t a joke – non-partisan kids looking for cash just catering to demand. Many more come from people we now term the “alt-right”, who cook up stories on boards such as 8chan, 4chan and social media, and are then co-opted either by genuine right-leaning sites or shill sites, and are then shared again on social media by accounts with Pepe the Frog or eggs as their avatars. It’s a bit like the water cycle, but if the water cycle were diarrhoea.

‘Alt-right’ is a sanitising term. Perhaps Alt[-wrong or Alt-deliberately-wrong would be more appropriate.

Some of these stories are frankly ridiculous (myth busted: Hillary Clinton is not the leader of an underground paedophile ring), and cater to an increasing number of conspiracy theorists. But others are relatively benign if wildly inaccurate. They have still begun on message boards created by the same people who – and I will not sugarcoat this – refer to people who are not white as “shit-skins”.

A better term for many of the alt-right, therefore, might be “far-right”. For “alt-right” is an ambiguous term and encompasses many forms. Sure, they are internet-savvy millennials who reject mainstream conservatives and despise Paul Ryan. But they’re also far-right lurkers who probably bid on Nazi memorabilia and have moved from white supremacist sites such as Stormfront. Then there’s the Russian faction; online commenters bought in bulk. And on social media, there are the bots and sockpuppet accounts to inflict automated insult to injury.

But let’s be clear: the internet alt-right is more successful as an In Real Life political force than the online left.

And that success is why it will be hard to combat.

Just like old media seem to put clickbait ahead of accuracy, and Facebook is driven by revenue, political activists are driven by a desire to win, and if they win with fake news they will keep peddling fake news.

And they will get better at disguising it as legitimate news, and they will get better at spreading it before it can get busted as fake.

The Internet was a great new hope for spreading information and communication to the masses, but it is becoming a means of duping the masses on an unprecedented scale.

This will evolve and change – for better and for worse.

Facebook and fake news

Fake news on the Internet is a growing problem, and Facebook has been under fire for it and how it may have affected the US election.

In response to the Mark Zuckerberg has posted:


I want to share some thoughts on Facebook and the election.

Our goal is to give every person a voice. We believe deeply in people. Assuming that people understand what is important in their lives and that they can express those views has driven not only our community, but democracy overall. Sometimes when people use their voice though, they say things that seem wrong and they support people you disagree with.

After the election, many people are asking whether fake news contributed to the result, and what our responsibility is to prevent fake news from spreading. These are very important questions and I care deeply about getting them right. I want to do my best to explain what we know here.

Of all the content on Facebook, more than 99% of what people see is authentic. Only a very small amount is fake news and hoaxes. The hoaxes that do exist are not limited to one partisan view, or even to politics. Overall, this makes it extremely unlikely hoaxes changed the outcome of this election in one direction or the other.

That said, we don’t want any hoaxes on Facebook. Our goal is to show people the content they will find most meaningful, and people want accurate news. We have already launched work enabling our community to flag hoaxes and fake news, and there is more we can do here. We have made progress, and we will continue to work on this to improve further.

This is an area where I believe we must proceed very carefully though. Identifying the “truth” is complicated. While some hoaxes can be completely debunked, a greater amount of content, including from mainstream sources, often gets the basic idea right but some details wrong or omitted. An even greater volume of stories express an opinion that many will disagree with and flag as incorrect even when factual. I am confident we can find ways for our community to tell us what content is most meaningful, but I believe we must be extremely cautious about becoming arbiters of truth ourselves.

As we continue our research, we are committed to always updating you on how News Feed evolves. We hope to have more to share soon, although this work often takes longer than we’d like in order to confirm changes we make won’t introduce unintended side effects or bias into the system. If you’re interested in following our updates, I encourage you to follow our News Feed FYI here: http://bit.ly/2frNWo2.

Overall, I am proud of our role giving people a voice in this election. We helped more than 2 million people register to vote, and based on our estimates we got a similar number of people to vote who might have stayed home otherwise. We helped millions of people connect with candidates so they could hear from them directly and be better informed. Most importantly, we gave tens of millions of people tools to share billions of posts and reactions about this election. A lot of that dialog may not have happened without Facebook.

This has been a historic election and it has been very painful for many people. Still, I think it’s important to try to understand the perspective of people on the other side. In my experience, people are good, and even if you may not feel that way today, believing in people leads to better results over the long term.


Another issue with Facebook is how it feeds you news that it thinks fits your interests, but this filters out different types of topics and different opinions (I don’t use Facebook for following news much but a lot of people do).

An interesting comment just after the US election:

facebookbubble

There’s a lot more news available now but if you want to get different views of news and issues you have to go looking.

 

Labour’s annual conference, offline

I think Labour is having their annual conference this weekend and will mark 100 years since the party was founded, but it’s hard to tell from their online presence.

13615386_10153752496691452_3217164495635400169_n

Oddly I can see no sign of this on the home page on their website.

labourwebsitenoconference

The ‘latest’ is last weekend’s news.

I got the 100 years graphic from their Facebook page, but remarkably there is no obvious sign of their conference there either.Under Events:

labourfacebookevents

That August campaign launch is presumably for the local body elections. No mention of any event relating to the Mount Roskill by-election, and more remarkably, no sign of their centenary conference.

I also see that there’s a gap in the history montage, no Norm Kirk from the 1970s, nor David Lange from the 1980s.

“New Zealand Labour Party does not have any upcoming events.”

Remarkable. Is this a result of the exodus of communications staff from Andrew Little’s office? Or under the Memorandum of Understanding do they leave social media to their Green Party branch?

No sign of any posts  about the conference at The Standard yet either.

Someone must have thought to tell a journalist though, as 1 News have reported Labour to mark centenary, look to future at annual conference.

Do they see no future in online promotions?

Labour will celebrate their past and their future when as many as 600 delegates head to Auckland for their annual conference this weekend.

This year marks 100 years since the party was founded and while marking the milestone the event will focus on the campaign to win government in 2017, President Nigel Haworth says.

“We know it’s going to be difficult because we’ve got a well funded, well resourced government in power,” he told NZ Newswire.

“We’re feeling very comfortable we’ve got a strong campaign.”

“I think the way it’s come out over the last year we’ve dealt with most of the hard issues, this year is very much about campaigning,” Mr Haworth said.

Maybe that strong campaign will be launched at the conference.

“It will be an opportunity for us to reiterate our platform about New Zealand being a place of genuine opportunity for everyone regardless of the circumstances of their birth, and I’ll have a policy to announce relating to jobs,” Mr Little said.

The Party is expecting between 500 and 600 delegates to attend the three-day event which kicks off with a President’s welcome from Mr Haworth tonight.

It starts tonight. Maybe they notified some of their members by snail mail.

Mr Little will address delegates in the main event on Sunday afternoon.

Will Little’s policy on jobs include a new opportunity for someone to promote the Labour Party online?

Advertising – newspapers versus Google

From a @jayrosen_nyu tweet – ‘a useful chart’:

advertising-ewspaperversusgoogle

That gives an indication of why newspapers are struggling, and why some are posting a lot of trivial clickbait on their news sites.

It doesn’t tell the whole advertising story as it excludes broadcast (TV and radio) revenue, and doesn’t include other online advertisers like Twitter.

But it shows graphically how much newspaper advertising revenue has plummeted.