Category: Culture

Social Media’s Power to Manipulate

The FCC, in a narrow vote this week, elected to adopt rules to protect the principle known as “net neutrality.” The agency will now regulate broadband as a public utility in order to ensure that ISPs cannot discriminate between one kind of customer and another, namely that they may not speed up traffic for higher paying users or slow it down for lower paying ones.  Many view the vote for “net neutrality” as a win for universal digital rights, others see it as government overreach into the free market; and both sides claim to be on the side of free speech.  I have expressed doubts before about some of the more extreme fears of a world without net neutrality, and Alex Pareene, writing for Gawker, reminds us that the “win” in this case can be credited to what he calls a “cartel” of Internet industry giants like Google, Microsoft, eBay, Facebook, and Amazon. Whether or not net neutrality is essential for maintaining a level playing field for competing interests, one rhetorical talking point overused by all parties is this idea of preserving the Internet as “the greatest tool for free expression and democracy.”  It ought to be, but the more I consider this premise, the more I wonder if it may prove to be one of the worst lies of the digital age — no matter how fast it travels through the proverbial tubes.

In an article posted on Ars Technica, cryptographer and security expert Bruce Schneier explains exactly how easy it can be to manipulate public opinion through social media.  I’ve been on this kick since starting this blog — the idea that more expression can actually make the electorate less well informed, not because people are necessarily dumb or lazy, but because the way in which we take in information now is so heavily bombarded with aggregated impressions.  Unless one really has time to research and calmly consider every story that might pop up on a Facebook feed, for instance, it’s almost impossible not to be influenced by the constant flow of impressions being made with images, headlines, and memes.  The more these impressions jibe with our own biases, the more they solidify those prejudices, making us less receptive to ideas that might challenge our thinking.  And because a walled garden like Facebook tends to expose us to items based on our group of like-minded Friends and on an algorithmic interpretation of our tastes and interests, the experience is far more circumscribed than we might necessarily notice. Schneier offers a relatively simple example of possible political manipulation thus:

“During the 2012 election, Facebook users had the opportunity to post an “I Voted” icon, much like the real stickers many of us get at polling places after voting. There is a documented bandwagon effect with respect to voting; you are more likely to vote if you believe your friends are voting, too. This manipulation had the effect of increasing voter turnout 0.4% nationwide. So far, so good. But now imagine if Facebook manipulated the visibility of the “I Voted” icon based on either party affiliation or some decent proxy of it: ZIP code of residence, blogs linked to, URLs liked, and so on. It didn’t, but if it did, it would have had the effect of increasing voter turnout in one direction. It would be hard to detect, and it wouldn’t even be illegal. Facebook could easily tilt a close election by selectively manipulating what posts its users see. Google might do something similar with its search results.”

The implications of that are rather staggering.  Forget lobbying and other forms of corporate meddling in the political process.  A vested interest could sway an election at the local, state, or federal level without anyone really noticing, and paradoxically by using these same technologies we believe provide us with better insight and a stronger voice in the process. The Internet can hardly be a tool for transparency, if we’re each looking through our own opaque set of lenses; but then combine this habit of human nature with  manipulation of the data, and you get the opposite result of the new enlightenment that was supposed to come with the digital age. Again from Schneier:

“The first listing in a Google search result gets a third of the clicks, and if you’re not on the first page, you might as well not exist. The result is that the Internet you see is increasingly tailored to what your profile indicates your interests are. This leads to a phenomenon that political activist Eli Pariser has called the “filter bubble”: an Internet optimized to your preferences, where you never have to encounter an opinion you don’t agree with.”

I think Pariser’s “filter bubble” accurately describes the human component that is so often excluded from the discussion, but I will also be presumptuous enough to examine this notion of “an opinion you don’t agree with.”  Depending on how we define that phrase, I actually find the social media experience is chockfull of opinions with which I disagree and that I could spend an unreasonable amount of time sifting through all those opinions in search of competing ideas. After all, opinions and ideas are not quite the same thing. Competing ideas are about problem solving. Competing opinions are mostly theater, and media loves theater. Cable TV news produced many years worth of passive theater comprising competing opinions in the service of few ideas.  Social media turns this into participatory theater that adds the element of narcissism, which serves to exacerbate the divisiveness in our political process.  In short, I suspect the environment is ideal for manipulators to subtly manipulate political outcomes without us  noticing.  The promise that the Internet “democratizes” information certainly sounds progressive, but the ways in which we interact with these tools as they are designed doesn’t necessarily foster progress; and to Schneier’s point, it doesn’t have to be the least bit democratic.

Advertisers Announce Effort to Keep Ads Off Illicit Sites

A longstanding challenge with regard to websites that profit from pirated media, counterfeit products, and/or malware is the frequent placement of major brand advertising on the pages of those sites.  Musician David Lowery’s activist website The Trichordist has published lists of major advertisers whose banner ads have appeared on various pirate sites, seeking to hold advertisers accountable for supporting exploitation of musical artists. This kind of activism has drawn both public and industry attention to the problem. In its most basic form, the principle is that Legit Entity A should not benefit from a site that derives its traffic by exploiting Legit Entity B. That probably sounds reasonable to most people, including most advertisers themselves, but what to do about it is another matter — until now.

This morning, the advertising industry announced a new, voluntary initiative that helps advertisers better understand the nature of sites on which their ads may be placed.  The initiative produced by the Trustworthy Accountability Group (TAG)  is called the Brand Integrity Program Against Piracy and it was developed in collaboration with the three major advertising associations — the Association of National Advertisers, the American Association of Advertising Agencies, and the Interactive Advertising Bureau.

For context, it is generally true that advertisers do not want their ads placed on sites dedicated to illegal or harmful trade. Companies spend billions of dollars and thousands of hours developing, cultivating, and managing their brands; and even as brands evolve and experiment to keep up with a changing consumer market, very few brand managers will actively choose to be associated with a site engaged in illegal or exploitative commerce.  Chrysler and Target really don’t want their ads next to an ad for a questionable “dating service” or a link to a media player that will probably load spyware onto your computer.  But unlike other media, ad buying on the Internet is not all directly placed by the advertiser.  When you see an ad on a major site, it was selected and specifically paid for, like when Nissan buys a week of placement all over CNN.com.  But other ads scattered around the Web are what are called “remnants,” and these are placed somewhat blindly through low-cost, generic buys with various ad services.  It’s a bit confusing, but the blind aspect of these media buys has been one reason the advertising community has responded to the content industry that they only unintentionally advertise on sites hosting infringing content. In fact, the aforementioned Target makes a good example.  As Target now offers a movie streaming service, it would stand to reason that the company does not purposely choose to advertise on a site dedicated to movie piracy.

The whole problem won’t be solved with a single program, but thanks to demand by advertisers themselves, TAG today announced a new technology solution that enables advertisers to view site analysis based on assessed risk to their brands.  From the press release issued by TAG:

“Under the program, TAG will work with a small number of independent third-party validators, including Ernst & Young and Stroz Friedberg, to certify advertising technology companies as Digital Advertising Assurance Providers (DAAPs). To be validated as a DAAP, companies must show they can provide other advertising companies with tools to limit their exposure to undesirable websites or other properties by effectively meeting one or more criteria.”

The initiative is designed to identify what TAG calls Ad Risk Entities (AREs), meaning sites that have a high probability of facilitating illegal activity, including dissemination of unauthorized intellectual property.  Through voluntary application of these tools by the advertising industry, the expectation is that online providers who want to maintain relationships with quality advertisers will make the effort to become Digital Advertising Assurance Providers (DAAPs).  A validated DAAP would have to take steps–or show that it already takes steps–to mitigate advertiser exposure to risk according to five criteria designed to provide safeguards and assurances that their brands are not inadvertently supporting illicit activity.  These criteria include identifying properties disseminating infringing material, enabling advertisers to restrict ad placements, preventing fraudulent transactions, providing tools to monitor ad placements, and eliminating payments to undesirable entities.  It is the first initiative of its kind in which the advertisers who support most websites seek to collaborate with providers to keep legitimate trade from supporting black-market trade.

tag graphic

Not only is this effort a step forward in terms of putting advertisers in control of their placements, providing them better stewardship of their brands; but it also demands greater accountability of advertisers by rights holders and other victims of exploitative sites.  In short, the “I didn’t know” defense weakens considerably with the deployment of these new tools, and since this effort comes from the advertising community, it’s fair to assume they’re generally not looking to hide behind that excuse. Still, the initiative only works if enough parties participate, so we can certainly expect The Trichordist and similar watchdogs to continue to look out for major brand advertising on infringing sites. But on the whole, I expect advertisers do hope to shun these associations because their ad value is being effectively hijacked by these types of sites.  There’s a reason most torrent and cyberlocker sites are so often supported by very sleazy ads:  because it’s a very sleazy business.

Releasing police body cam video undermines their purpose.

Last week, The Los Angeles Times reported that the 7,000 officers of the LAPD will soon be wearing body cameras to record their interactions while on duty.  Communities that have employed these cameras have reported significant decreases in the number of claims of police misconduct (reductions as impressive as 90%), and it is fair to assume those statistics represent both actual changes in officer behavior as well as a reduction in false claims of misconduct.  The fact that the presence of body cameras can provide evidence that can protect both civilians and officers is a very attractive proposition; but the extent to which the videos captured should be made automatically available to the public via the Internet is a subject of debate in Los Angeles and other communities. While some citizens will argue a right to know in this regard, I generally agree with LA Police Chief Charlie Beck, who is quoted in the Times article thus:

“I think people misunderstand transparency as having everybody and all the public have access to everything. And it isn’t so much that as having the ability to have oversight by multiple entities outside of the Police Department. I think that’s the meaning of transparency.  I don’t think that transparency means we post every interaction on YouTube.”

Indeed, in viewing both the social trends and the economics associated with social media, I believe the potential harm of broad distribution of police body camera video outweighs the benefits of doing so and could undermine the value of deploying the technology in the first place.

Privacy & Decency

As cited in the Times article, Chief Beck emphasizes that officers respond to a wide range of calls, like entering the homes of victims who have experienced horrible violations by all manner of perpetrators.  So, I hope we can all agree that perhaps a woman who just called the cops because her husband beat her up should not become not free reality TV for us to ogle via social media.  And domestic battery is relatively tame compared to the anthology of horrors that humans visit upon one another and to which police officers are often witness.  More to the point, the volume of police encounters involving events that we have no business watching (let alone allowing some website to monetize) is far greater than the volume of encounters in which may see a need to scrutinize the conduct of the officers.  And in cases in which such scrutiny is necessary, justice is likely to be best served if the related video remains sequestered during investigations and trials.  By distributing all police body cam video to the public, we risk turning various forms of human suffering into a Circus Maximus that is more likely to serve our crass taste for ugly spectacle than it is to serve justice.

Due Process

There are several good reasons why evidence in a case remains sealed and juries are meant to be comprised of citizens who have seen or heard as little evidence as possible at the start of a trial.  Imperfect as our criminal justice system may be, I really don’t think we want to substitute the fundamental components of due process and jury trials for digitally deputized lynch mobs, no matter how incontrovertible video evidence might appear to be.  In the immediate aftermath of the Boston Marathon bombing, a self-appointed posse formed on Reddit that zeroed in on a suspect, who drew attention partly because he had gone missing.  It turned out that the poor guy the Redditors had identified was “missing” because he had taken himself to a secluded location to commit suicide. And the only result the online posse managed to achieve was to spawn harassment of the young man’s family in advance of the grief that would come when they  learned of his death.

Online vigilantism frequently turns into actual harm; and it doesn’t matter if many of us think the victim “deserves” it because we saw a video of him doing something bad.  Evidence has already shown, and logic certainly suggests, that the mere presence of the body cameras already brings about desired effects without dumping all the video onto YouTube for the world to chat about.  It is sufficient, and probably even more effective, for an officer to be aware that a constant record is being stored, which can be entered into evidence in a case against him for abusing his authority.  If that same video is made public, the officer’s attorney has an opening to strike it from the record, the prosecutor has a harder time empaneling a jury of peers who haven’t drawn early conclusions; and these factors alone are more likely to further entrench the standard practice of not indicting officers for apparent wrongdoing than to move the trend in the other direction.

It Probably Wont Help the Larger Cause

I personally believe the case of Michael Brown is pretty fuzzy because the only evidence available corroborates Officer Wilson’s testimony. But the Eric Garner case in NYC is another matter; we have citizen-filmed video that shows an officer using excessive force and killing Mr. Garner with an illegal choke hold.*  While it’s true that even video footage requires context and other evidence to properly weigh any case, the fact that there was no indictment in the circumstances involving Mr. Garner is a travesty; but the reasons for this failure are cultural, political, and yes, racial.

The flaws of law enforcement policy and any underlying racism that may affect procedure in various communities require real social change that is just as likely to be stymied by constant distribution of body cam footage as it is to be aided by whatever illusion of transparency that distribution would create.  I say illusion because, as I have argued in several contexts, there is an assumption by well-meaning citizens that raw, decontextualized information must inevitably foster a majority and morally-aligned public who will pressure authorities for change.  Interestingly, though this assumption is contradicted by the fact that for all the increase in leaks and smart-phone videos and raw data dispersion, we see even greater schisms and social discord on a range of issues  than in years prior to this media saturation. Unfortunately, an unexpurgated video has the same potential to ignite a racially-motivated defense of police brutality as it is to ignite racially-motivated retaliation against police in general.  Reason based on evidence does not necessarily prevail in the larger public forum; in fact, it rarely does. And video can be a highly emotional medium.

We have a lot of video now that has sparked plenty of outrage but has done very little to move us toward greater balance or away from policies that, for instance, disproportionally place black citizens in conflict with police officers.  There is no denying that there are millions of Americans who will support those policies by saying “Yeah, but there are more black criminals,” and then we’re off to the races in every sense of the word. How are the cultural complexities of that or any other shouting match going to be calmed by the mass distribution of these videos? I suspect tempers would not be mollified, that these raw images would throw more fuel on an already smoldering fire.  If that’s true, the resulting increase in tensions will only make communities less politically capable of adopting law enforcement policies that might forge better relations among citizens and officers. Or am I missing something?  Have internet comment threads generally decreased the level of vitriol in society?

As stated, I like the idea of these cameras as a hedge against officers who might abuse their authority and as a tool to protect officers who may be wrongly accused of such abuse.  But turning the footage itself into an ongoing spectacle, calling it oversight, and then allowing YouTube and others to monetize the show, does not sound to me like social progress.

*The proximate cause of death may not have been the choke hold.  I don’t mean to write  anything careless about the case itself and thank commenter Angry Villager for making a valid criticism.  The larger point, of course, is that even with a video viewed by millions, the conditions preventing further investigation or indictment may prevail.