Category: Digital Culture

Mach (digital) Tuck?

Not long after I wrote a post suggesting there is little difference between naive human engagement and bot engagement on policy issues, a couple of things happened.  One was the publication of a story by Max Read in New York Magazine reporting that a substantial (though hardly surprising) amount of material and people on the internet are fake.  The other thing was a recent get-together with my best friend of 30 years, who told me that his eighth-grader son said he was worried that “Article 13 is going to destroy YouTube.”  Perhaps most tellingly, the kid complained to his father, “The [legislative] language is too vague!”

Now, I love my friend’s kids as I love my own, and I hope they and their contemporaries become engaged citizens as they grow up; but none of them is yet qualified to have an informed opinion about the precision, or lack thereof, in the language of bills proposed at the European Parliament or any other legislative body.  The broad irony here is hard to miss:  In contemporary, digitally-distracted America, we can only hope the next generation learns about the constitutional separation of powers and other rudimentary civics, while YouTube videos frighten them about “hazards” lurking in arcane proposals they cannot possibly have the background to understand.

This is no way to run a liberal democracy, yet my friend’s son in this scenario, to no fault of his own, has been turned into a bot.  Fortunately, his father doesn’t generally take the policy views of his children at face value, but you can bet that more than few parents are apt to be less attentive when it comes to some obscure (let alone European) bit of cyber-policy.  Their kids announce,  “Hey, XYZ will destroy the internet,” and the next day, a meme with the same message just happens to appear on Facebook, Mom or Dad shares it, and civilization is destroyed one guileless click at a time.  

Of course, it isn’t one click at a time.  It’s millions of clicks that, apropos the aforementioned New York article, do not even represent real people in many cases.  In fact, Max Read states, “Studies generally suggest that, year after year, less than 60 percent of web traffic is human; some years, according to some researchers, a healthy majority of it is bot.”  

If that statistic is off by even a wide margin, that is still a hell of a lot of bot, which leads me to the following question:  If we combine total bot + humans acting like bots + hackers & other disinformation brokers, how close are we to approaching maximum inescapable bullshit?  We might also add just plain bad reporting under brand names like this piece on forbes.com about Article 13, which refers to the non-existent “FAIR USE Act” — an error gross enough to disqualify the author from commenting on copyright law at all.  But here we are.

It was the same best friend mentioned above who, when we were college freshmen, taught me the aeronautical term mach tuck.  Put simply, this is a hazardous condition that occurs, usually in subsonic aircraft traveling faster than they’re supposed to, when the airflow over the wing nears, or even exceeds, Mach 1.  This causes the nose of the plane to pitch downward, and in an aircraft not designed to fly at or above the speed of sound, correction may not be possible.  Thus, the downward pitch naturally causes the plane to accelerate, which exacerbates the problem by increasing the windspeed over the top of the wing.  This vicious cycle called mach tuck can plunge the aircraft into an unrecoverable dive.  

Obviously, I took that aerodynamic detour to ask whether the “information age” has achieved—or could soon achieve—mach tuck?  Is the flow of garbage streaming so quickly, and accelerated by forces beyond our control, that we are about to enter—or are already in—an information nose dive from which we cannot recover?   

Optimistically, I don’t think so.  While it is not entirely clear that the pros of digital engagement sufficiently outweigh the cons, the pros are still evident and abundant.  No one can, or should, doubt that there is a wealth of useful, credentialed, instantly-accessible information online.  The challenge, though, is that the major social platforms—which happen to be owned by the wealthiest and most politically-influential corporations—distort information through a mosaic of visual stimuli that probably overpower critical thinking.  Assuming that’s true, things may be about to get worse before they get better.

I suspect 2019 will be the year a lot more people hear about “deepfakes,” a software developed by Google, which enables even a modestly-skilled individual to effectively “skin” any face onto any body in a video clip.  Both “deepfakes” and the more elaborate CGI capabilities of motion picture suppliers have raised new questions about publicity and a celebrities’ rights to control the use of their likenesses in mainstream fare.  And, yes, not at all surprisingly, the likenesses of popular actresses have indeed been grafted into pornographic scenes in which they did not appear.  

But while these issues for mainstream performing artists are debated as a matter of policy and contract law in the coming year, stay tuned for information warfare to get a lot uglier through the use of these technologies.  New darling Democrat Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was throwing molotov cocktails at nuns?  Of course she was, here’s the video.  Is that Rep. Doug Collins giving a speech at a Nazi rally?  Roll that clip.  And all of it hosted on YouTube which doesn’t have to remove any of it because…free speech?  

The old cliché that “seeing is believing” has always been a duplicitous axiom.  Just about any major critic who has ever written about photography will tell you that seeing may result in believing but that this should not be confused with seeing the truth.  “…the camera’s rendering of reality must always hide more than it discloses,” wrote Susan Sontag in 1973, long before the technological capacity for amateurs to create realistic, moving pictures, depicting real people in scenes for which they were never present.

Of course, if fake video clips like I describe are deployed en masse, there is the possibility that this could trigger a healthy skepticism for believing what we see.  Presumably, this will depend on the degree of subtlety employed by the manipulators, and it is worth noting that the hackers at the St. Petersburg-based Internet Research Agency have been described as both subtle and sophisticated in their use of disinformation on social media. 

Of course, if rampant fake video were to induce new skepticism, this implies a potential  new hazard—that we no longer believe what is, in fact, true (i.e. mach tuck).   These are the kind of challenges that companies like Google should be helping to address instead of spending their vast resources to scare the kids about comparatively modest proposals like Article 13 in the EU Single Market Directive. 

The irony that these companies invoke free speech in their efforts to protect their own revenue could not be more pellucid as their platforms and policies literally help to unravel the very reason speech was a protected civil right in the first place—a hope among a handful of 18th century idealists that the electorate, while always debating what should be, might at least find common ground in what is.

Techdirt Dissembles on FOSTA in Rebuke of Kristof

In a recent post on Techdirt, Mike Masnick calls columnist Nicholas Kristof a hypocrite based on a narrative Masnick just plain made up.  On December 12, Kristof published a brief column in The New York Times with a picture of a 12-year-old girl who is starving to death as a victim of the US-backed, Saudi-Arabian war in Yemen.  The girl is naked but for a diaper and a bandage on her foot, and the image of her skeletal, wasting body is truly humbling, which is why Kristof says he devoted so much of the page to the image itself.  

After the story was posted on Facebook, the social platform apparently kept deleting the photograph, which prompted the following tweet from Kristof on December 16:

Facebook seems to have repeatedly blocked the photo of Abrar that went with my column:  Come on, Facebook! If you want to end these horrifying images of starving children in Yemen, then help end the U.S.-backed Saudi war that causes the starvation.

Kristof’s complaint was then seized upon by Masnick, who concocted a typically sarcastic “gotcha” on the premise that because Kristof backed the counter-sex-trafficking legislation known as FOSTA (Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act), he has no right to “whine” about Facebook removing this photo for its “sexual content.”  True to form, Masnick smugly alleges that Kristof knew nothing about how FOSTA worked, despite the fact that Masnick grotesquely misrepresents the law, as well as the nature of Facebook moderation, in his post.

Without even getting into FOSTA, anyone who has been on Facebook for the past decade or so knows that the platform has often removed images—even fine art—that some moderator believed violated its “community standards.”  Facebook has been making these, often laughable, mistakes since long before anyone introduced the legislation that became FOSTA and which passed into law in April of this year.  In fact, Masnick’s recent post cites one of his other posts from 2016 criticizing Facebook for censoring the iconic, Pulitzer Prize winning photo of the naked Vietnamese girl running from a napalm strike.  

Notably, the removal of that famous photograph was actually mentioned in the documentary The Cleaners, which I wrote about in November, and which profiles the Philippines-based  moderators to whom Facebook has outsourced most, if not all, of its “community standards” oversight.  The documentary reveals a melange of human fallibility in the decision-making behind content moderation, and Kristof’s photo might have been repeatedly removed for being “disturbing” rather than “sexual.” 

Regardless, the broader point is that millions of images a day are processed by these young moderators—and they are required to meet quotas—whose culture is not grounded in American principles of speech, press, etc., and it is almost impossible to generalize about their motivations and judgment calls.

At the same time, even if, in the most depraved imagination, someone could identify Kristof’s photo of this poor child as “sexual,” then it would simply violate child pornography laws, which predate FOSTA, predate Facebook, and even predate the birth of Mark Zuckerberg.  Yet, somehow The New York Times published the image, which nobody seems to have confused with pornographic exploitation.  All of which is to say that neither the Facebook moderation regime nor Kristof’s specific complaint about the photo, which no sane person could confuse as “sexual,” has anything to do with FOSTA.

As explained in several posts, what FOSTA does is affirm that no internet service provider is automatically immunized against criminal or civil allegations of contributing to sex-trafficking.  FOSTA does not mean that a plaintiff who brings a claim has any less burden to prove a platform’s culpability in that crime.  (Y’know, the way the law works.)  In fact, all one needs to do is look at the volume and nature of the evidence gathered against Backpage to see that proving a contributory role in sex-trafficking takes a hell of a lot more than hosting some “nudity.”

While it is possible that, in an abundance of caution after passage of FOSTA, attorneys at Facebook recommend simply removing anything that can even remotely be deemed “sexual,” it is also evident that the platform was generally doing this long before FOSTA.  Next, the platform will, and should, remove material that is patently child pornography.  And finally, the attorneys at Facebook are well aware that hosting content which may be used as evidence of “contributing to sex-trafficking” is a distinct and high bar for a would-be plaintiff to meet.

So, it is a leap and a half to allege that platforms are now over-censoring as a result of FOSTA, to say nothing of the current reality that Facebook has way bigger content moderation problems right now.  In this regard, I think the folks at Techdirt, and everyone else, ought to be more concerned that Facebook cannot seem to distinguish between a third-party like The New York Times and just some other account holder.

It ought to be a simple enough, internal practice to determine that if a mainstream news company—which is also not immunized against allegations of illegal conduct—can publish an image without legal jeopardy, then Facebook can safely host the same image.  Why this does not appear to be the case has everything to do with the platform’s overall management and nothing to do with FOSTA.  

I’ll leave it to the judgment of the reader to consider Masnick’s labeling Kristof as having a “savior complex” for his interest in starving children and trafficking victims.  But given the choice between a guy who wants to save kids and a guy who wants to save legal liability shields for mega-corporations, well, let’s just say Mike may not make the Nice list this Christmas.

Internet Platforms Above the Law?

Silicon Valley may have done ‘bare minimum’ to help Russia investigation, Senate Intel Committee told … 

That headline from CNN, and which was echoed in several news stories that began appearing late Monday, will elicit no surprise among my friends and colleagues working in IP law, privacy, publicity rights, security, and various other matters of justice in the digital marketplace.  Those of us who believe that the rule of law is not anathema to the internet are used to the major platforms behaving as though they operate in some alternate universe where the laws of old-model, physical humans do not apply.  After all, these companies and their executives were nurtured on exactly that manifesto when the late John Perry Barlow first read his Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace at Davos in 1996. 

To put it mildly, Barlow was utterly full of shit when he declared the internet to be a “home of mind” that could not, or should not, be governed by the “weary giants of flesh and steel.”  Perhaps he can be forgiven some poetic license in the service of a sincere hope that the internet might truly be an incorporeal space that would help us transcend human folly and connect to one another through our better angels.  But that’s not what happened.  And debates about cyber policy should stop pretending it can still happen.

Fast-forward to the harsh realities of the present, and the “home of mind” is dominated by glorified advertising platforms, easily exploited by the worst kind of malicious actors and which clearly appeal to our lesser—even our profoundly stupid—angels.  And the sad irony is that, far from operating benignly adjacent to physical society, social media platforms have been exploited to infiltrate, corrupt, demoralize, and degrade the foundations of society in very real and very dangerous ways.

Two independent reports commissioned by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence investigated the St. Petersburg-based Internet Research Agency (IRA), the professional troll farm erected for the sole purpose of inflaming political discord in the United States and other liberal democracies around the world.   The reports reveal that disinformation on all major platforms was, and still is, more widespread than initially believed; and they describe the methods by which specific groups like African Americans were targeted in an effort to dissuade voter turnout for the 2016 election.

I plan to read both reports and follow up, but for now, I thought it worth highlighting the detail that the reports’ authors allege that the major platforms were far less cooperative than one might hope given the gravity of the circumstances.   As The Washington Post quotes …

“Unfortunately, Google made the unusual choice to provide data to the Committee in nonmachine‐readable format.  The ads data was provided in lengthy PDF format whose pages displayed copies of information previously organized in spreadsheets (Google could have provided the original spreadsheets in CSV or JSON files).”

Think about that one.  Google stifling the use of computers as the U.S. Senate tries to better understand exactly how a foreign and hostile power has been working to fracture the American democratic process.  Further, while skimming the report submitted by New Knowledge, I caught the statement that begins, “Regrettably, it appears that the platforms may have misrepresented or evaded in some of their statements to Congress.”  

In this regard, I was intrigued by the strident tone lately adopted by Senator Ron Wyden in response to Silicon Valley’s less than forthright conduct in these investigations.  Vowing to pass “legislation with teeth,” Wyden has proposed a new consumer privacy bill aimed at restricting what these platforms may do with user data, particularly with respect to the manner in which that data may be leveraged to target disinformation about politics and policy issues.  Further, the proverbial “teeth” in Wyden’s bill would impose substantial penalties, including potential imprisonment for executives, for failing to provide honest and complete testimony to Congress.

For my colleagues who work in copyright advocacy, Wyden has not exactly been the rule-of-law representative when it comes to holding Silicon Valley accountable.  But perhaps the thinking will change as the senator and his colleagues must now address the many indisputable ways in which a liability-free internet industry has, quite possibly, done more harm than good for American democracy.

Meanwhile, despite mounting evidence that the major social platforms are more often a home of mindlessness than mind, Barlow’s Declaration remains the cosmic background noise still ringing in the heads of too many defenders of what we generically call “the internet.”  Whether it’s the Electronic Frontier Foundation or Techdirt or MEP Julia Reda’s anti-copyright campaign in the EU or the Internet Association or even the American Library Association, one can still hear the strains of a misguided faith in a pure internet, unsullied by the taint of law, in the rhetoric deployed against almost any policy that might demand platform responsibility.

For far too long, a false premise undermining copyright enforcement specifically—and almost all other types of enforcement generally—has been that it is better to allow harmful or illegal content to remain online than to risk censoring even a micro-byte of protected speech.  But that premise is, paradoxically enough, a pre-digital-age idea and a blind allegiance to Barlow’s naive cyber-utopianism.  It is a laissez-faire approach, which casually ignores the new reality in which an unfettered amount of harmful or illegal content continues to undermine the values it claims to uphold.  

After all, if an American inadvertently shares a political meme that was written by a malicious actor in St. Petersburg—and whose goal is to weaken global democracy—can anyone honestly say that free speech is fulfilling its purpose in that moment?  This is just one reason why, about a month ago, I personally stopped most activity on Facebook:  because I’m not sure it’s possible to avoid feeding that particular cancer.  At the same time, it is notable that we do not even need bad actors as dramatically well-organized as the IRA to weaponize disinformation on a wide range of issues; but that’s a subject for a different post. 

So, I look forward to reading the Senate-commissioned reports; but for now, I thought it worth noting the allegations that the major platforms are stonewalling and obfuscating in these investigations—still behaving as though they operate outside the rule of law.   Of course. the tragically ironic twist to Barlow’s vision of cyberspace as separate from, and elevated above, “weary” reality is that our present reality too often resembles the craven, mean-spirited, and willfully misinformed cyber-world of social media.

Robot image source by digitalstormcinema