10 Burst results for "Rene Terresa"

"rene terresa" Discussed on All In with Chris Hayes

All In with Chris Hayes

05:08 min | 2 months ago

"rene terresa" Discussed on All In with Chris Hayes

"Solution suggests that strongly encouraging vaccinations by beep interesting path or for a lot of other places. Maybe we should book the head of fox. Hr here talk about it. There's been a lot of back and forth about what to do about people not cutting back sonate. If you're looking for one of the most obvious places start it would be nice for the most influential mouthpiece. The entire conservative movement to stop actively undermining the health of its viewers now direct does technical research manager for the stanford internet observatory and her job. There is investigating the spread of maligned narratives across social networks. The other day she had a great twitter threat explaining the evolution of the antitax narrative. Its biggest spreaders the moment and she joins me now. Thanks for joining us. I liked what you had to say. There it sinked up with a sort of intuition. I add relative roles a social networks in these big medical phones in the case of fox. You know what is your research suggests about how these sort of messages vaccine skepticism or vaccine. Opposition are spreading where they're originating so it's really difficult to differentiate between media and social media at this point and that's because almost every major media property on every major media channel has a social media component as well. They reach their audiences on social media. Clips are put on social media and go viral. And what do you start to see is this. You know we're we're we're kind of perpetuating this idea that the to ecosystems are wholly different. That's not exactly right. What is different though is who is on them. And so we see. Some social media is people communicating with their friends or people who don't have mainstream mouthpieces. Who aren't you. Know anchors on on major pop worms create their own content. And put it out there. That's the kind of value of social media these You know kind of from the bottom up or or grassroots messaging. That begins to come out. There are a lot of true anti vaccine activists on social media but there reaches much much smaller. Their audiences are generally much smaller as well. So it's not so much an either or as understanding how the two worked together what. What are the sort of maine. Here's my question. Know social media's everywhere across the world and you know people have skepticism or distrust authorities and all kinds of places in all kinds of cultures. I wonder how much i keep coming back to this question. Are we dealing with the platform problem here. Are we dealing with like a cultural sociological problem. And as someone who studies the sort of platform aspects of this. I wonder what your answer to that is but my answer is that social media. Reflect society as well as shaping it which is possibly a very circular argument that you're not gonna wanna hear but i believe that that's that's where we are You know the tools that were all given as individuals to create and shape messages. We use those tools to share the kinds of things that resonate with us and in turn. We see things that are friends are sharing. We incorporate their opinions their content. We go on to share it on and so it's not so much a We're only taking from social media and we're all blank slates receiving these messages that we in turn are also putting our own content out there so it's really both finally the question is are there. Are there things that you've encounter in your research about how to deal with the vitality and the spread of stuff that just wrong. That's sort of frankly wrong about vaccines. Yeah i think that's early. Start to get questions of. What should the intervention be and there are a lot of really forty kind of complicated questions that go along with that a lot of the earliest platform interventions related to vaccine misinformation. We're not related to kovic cove. It is new. We don't have you know we all saw in real time. Scientists develop an understanding of how it moved how it was transmitted What the vaccines were going to be able to do. How a case was the vaccines would be. But early crackdowns. Against vaccine information on the part of platforms we're actually against misinformation spread about very routine long-established deeply successful vaccination interventions like the measles vaccine and what we have now we have to contend with now is an environment in which more people than ever are paying attention to these questions because the cova maxine really directly impacts all of us our friends our communities and our loved ones in a way that school vaccines may didn't so the platforms are faced with a much higher volume of content to try to understand how to create limits how to prevent wrong information since spreading. When it's not always entirely clear. What exactly is wrong or right. So that's a pretty significant challenge. We're starting to see is that moderation doesn't have to be a binary it doesn't have to be take up burning down you can also do things like introduced friction into sharing. You can put up labels to try to help. People get better information and you can surface higher caliber more reputable sources and those are the areas. That from exploring right. Rene terresa thank you so much for sharing your expertise with us tonight. I really appreciate next up from vaccine hesitant to getting his version of the vaccine. What it means the.

stanford internet observatory fox twitter maine cova maxine Rene terresa
"rene terresa" Discussed on All In with Chris Hayes

All In with Chris Hayes

01:33 min | 2 months ago

"rene terresa" Discussed on All In with Chris Hayes

"Another. Close trump associate arrested and charged with crimes of corruption. And his name is tom. Barrack is a billionaire businessman. He is accused of illegally lobbying. Donald trump on behalf of the united arab emirates prosecutors in the eastern district york today. Unsealing a huge seven count. Forty six page. Indictment go through it. We've got a reporter. Who's reporting on this. But this is a very important development a bunch of reasons not the least of which because when we last met here at this desk last night we were talking about the fate of the rule of law in the air of donald trump and particularly in the period where the justice department changed hands from attorney general in bar and then the final days of the trump administration. The lackey jeff rosen to joe. Biden's new attorney. General merrick garland last night. Here on this program. We were critical of the fact that justice department had according to reporting declined to prosecute trump's secretary of commerce wilbur. Ross that was according to reporting from both the associated press and government executive. Now that decision not to prosecute a came after the commerce department's own inspector general found at loss had lied to congress about a citizenship question that he wanted to add to the twenty twenty cents. We have an important update to that story. The government executive have both issued corrections. Clarifying that in fact it was the trump justice department that made the decision not to prosecute. Ross not the biden administration which is of course a very very big difference

stanford internet observatory fox twitter maine cova maxine Rene terresa
"rene terresa" Discussed on Kottke Ride Home

Kottke Ride Home

08:19 min | 11 months ago

"rene terresa" Discussed on Kottke Ride Home

"When prohibition began in the US in nineteen twenty, there were thirteen hundred breweries in the United States. By the time, it ended thirteen years later, less than a quarter of them remained many of them didn't make it back on their feet. Once the constitutional ban was lifted. A lot of them ended up being absorbed by the major manufacturers like anheuser Busch, there would take until two, thousand sixteen before the number of breweries in this country returned to our nineteenth century heyday today, there are over six thousand breweries in the United States topping the previous eighteen, seventy, three record of four, thousand, one, hundred, thirty, one. And that in itself is wild to think about considering that in nineteen ninety, there were only two, hundred, eighty six. So I. Guess I Kinda get why Anheuser Busch has been so salty about the craft beer revolution when they basically dominated the market for most of the twentieth century. But back to the point prohibition had huge lasting effects on the brewing industry in this country, and some think that the current pandemic will calls similar reverberations. Smithsonian curator and beer historian Theresa McCullough picked up on this as soon as lockdown orders started going into effect. She spent much of her career sorting through artifacts from prohibition and in March immediately set to work collecting materials, oral histories, and other documentations of the present. That could assist future historians. She's been on the hunt for limited edition packaging like quarantine cans from hackensack brewing company Menus, mentioning things like curbside pickup business records closed for lockdown signs and alternative products being produced by bars Makola sees a lot of parallels between prohibition and now. Just like every state and many towns have varying covid regulations so to the states get to decide how exactly to repeal prohibition leaving us with of the confusing liquor laws that varies state to state and county to county like how you can't buy alcohol on Sundays in some places. Some states sell all forms of alcohol in grocery stores, but others just sell beer and wine or just beer or nothing nor Allen Texas you can legally drink at any age. So long as your parents are with you and gave you the drink, the pandemic probably won't cause such huge shifts in variances in how states do things, but we are already seen some changes. That could stick quoting Bart Watson. The Chief Economist for the Brewers Association were already seen a shift in the short term regulatory environment with greater freedoms for breweries and off premise operators for things like delivery and to go it has the potential to set in motion a wave of different legislative structures because of the need for direct market access for small producers and quotes. And here in New York City for example, takeout cocktails have been a huge hit and while they haven't changed the open container laws, I wouldn't be surprised to see some kind of permanent shift going forward. In addition to changing regulations, a lot breweries have had to pivot to other products in order to stay afloat just like many did during prohibition quoting Atlas Obscure. During. Prohibition Breweries like Coors Jingling. anheuser Bush and the PABST brewing company pivoted to make near beer soft drinks, infant formula, frozen eggs, ice cream, and ceramics many survived by leasing their spaces to other companies and industries surviving on real estate holdings that small independent brewers lacked and quotes. Now many breweries and distilleries have been making hand sanitizer others have leaned into virtual events and selling merchandise are using hard to keep the industry and workers of flutes including raising funds for the United States Bartenders Guild, an effort that is truly needed. Quoting again in April brewers. Association survey of Small Breweries found a combined fifty eight percent said they would have to permanently close if social distancing measures remained equally strict for anywhere from one week to three months in the same survey found that sixty six percent brewery employees had been laid off or furloughed and quotes. It is going to be tough for many to weather the storm McCullough points out how the pandemic uniquely affects this particular industry because quote, the means to protect ourselves from the virus is to withdraw in terms of gathering in person and the way craft beer has grown in the last couple of decades is to emphasize the importance of people gathering in tap room's and quotes. So how do small independent local breweries in particular recreate that feeling that has served them so well, in recent years, it'll be a big challenge but as they continue to innovate and pivot in fascinating ways, McCullough will be there to make sure that we can look back on this time in museums one day in the future. In discussions about investing experts always that it's important to have a diversified portfolio stocks, bonds, mutual funds, that kind of thing. But if you've ever looked at a breakdown of the most successful portfolios, you'll typically see a diversified set of real estate. So why isn't it? One of the first asset classes you consider when you're looking to diversify simple it hasn't been available to investors like. You and me until now, thanks to fund rise they make it easy for all investors to diversify by building your portfolio of institutional quality, real estate investments so whether you're just starting to invest in real estate or looking to add more our friends at fundraise have you covered here's how fundraiser is an investing platform that makes investing in high quality high potential real estate as easy as. Investing in your favorite stock or mutual fund whether you're looking to add stable cash flow via dividends or prefer long-term growth through appreciation fundraise has you covered to date fundraise manages more than one billion dollars in assets for one hundred and fifty thousand plus investors at fundraisers team of real estate professionals. Carefully, vets inactivity manages all of their real estate projects and with their easy to. Use website, you can track your portfolio's performance and watch properties across the country are acquired, improved and operated via updates. Start Building your portfolio today get started at fundraise dot com slash Kanchi have your first ninety days of advisory fees waived. That's F. U. N.. D. R. I. E. DOT COM Slash Cocky to have your first ninety days of advisory fees waived fundraise dot com slash cocky. Kind of sponsor for this episode, the Jordan Harbinger Show, which is a podcast you should really be listening to and I know every day somebody tells you that you just have to listen to some podcast you sure. But never actually listen don't let that happen this time Jordan's show which apple named. One of its best of two thousand eighteen is aimed at making you a better informed more critical thinkers so. That you can get a sense of how the world actually works and come to your own conclusions about what's happening even inside your own brain. Each episode is a conversation with a different fascinating guest and when I say that there's something for everyone here I really mean that in one episode, Jordan talks to a hostage negotiator from the FBI who offers techniques on how to get people to like entrust you. Sounds useful and disturbing at the same time. Another episode tells the story of a cinematographer who discovered a lost city in the jungle and made one of the most important archeological finds of the century I recommend our listeners checkout. Jordan's conversations with bill nye about approaching the world with radical curiosity and with Rene Terresa. Tech platforms role in spreading disinformation conspiracy theories and more. Jordan's always focused on polling useful practical insights and of his brilliant guests. And not like the pop psychology or half-baked self-help kind of stuff. The episodes are loaded with bits of wisdom that you can use to legitimately change your mind and improve your life right away. I really enjoyed this show and I think you will as well. So search for the Jordan Harbinger show that's H. A. R.. B.. As in boy I N. as in Nancy G.. E.. R.. On Apple PODCASTS spotify or.

Jordan anheuser Busch Theresa McCullough United States Prohibition Breweries Small Breweries apple Brewers Association United States Bartenders Guild New York City Chief Economist Bart Watson anheuser Bush brewers Allen Texas hackensack
"rene terresa" Discussed on First Contact with Laurie Segall

First Contact with Laurie Segall

11:04 min | 1 year ago

"rene terresa" Discussed on First Contact with Laurie Segall

"Who's in the White House but you are talking about a White House? That has come under controversy for an immigration ban and these are technologies that you building that directly could impact in in that kind of way so I mean. Does that ever come into account for you? Does that ever play into into how you feel about it? I mean I think this is again. The beauty of the democratic process is that if there were some sort of policy that we had a strong disagreement with internally unanimously or at least unanimous across the leadership of the company. Would we push back and say like we're shutting the business down and not selling to the government? Because you know were afraid of where it's going. I can't say that it would be impossible that that would happen. Because you know obviously crazy things have happened to nation states and distress over the history of the world. I don't think we're there. I don't think we're like on the precipice of some sort of revolution. That's going to lead to some terrifying war war of significant ethical proportion so in that regard like the decision really comes about you know. Do you trust the democratic process. Do you trust that if a policy oversteps that there are ways that that policy can be corrected through the legislative process to the judicial process. And Right now I think the answer is unequivocally yes. We have a democratic controlled. House of Representatives. They have the ability to legislate. The Judicial Branch is functioning in America. Where like the constitutionality of the policies that are laid out by the executive and legislative branches constantly being evaluated. And as long as. That's the case. I think you know it is the right moral ethical thing to do to continue working with the government of the United States of America. I didn't mean Donald are laughing but my follow was going to be. Would you deploy a light sabers to the White House? I mean we could talk about the like ideology of the last three star wars movies. Because I think Luke Skywalker in the last Jedi. I would certainly say that. The answer should be no because jet. I can't be trusted. And they should be a radical from from the earth because it's too much power but I don't think we're talking about that and I also think J.J. Abrams clearly disagrees and made that very clear and rises skywalker stars Fan. I really appreciate it. Okay I WANNA know sorry. Totally derailed that What is it like being involved in a business that a lot of folks in Silicon Valley? Kinda disagree with because you're looking at. I think it was two thousand eighteen. You have Amazon employs sending a letter to Jeff Bezos saying stop selling facial recognition services to the US government. You had I think four thousand Google Employees for project MAVEN PROTESTING. This contract work with the government. This is an issue. That's very sensitive of tech companies. Doing business with the government especially this current administration do you that Andrew that it's not not a popular thing. You're doing two answers to the question. I is external to the company and the second one I think is internal to the company extra of the company. First and foremost it is incredibly important that I am available accessible and having serious dialogue and conversation around what I believe are some of the world's most important questions around the ethics of defense technology. So I and this goes for all of the CO founders of the company Palmer Included in that that's basically like. Are we going to be dismissive of people's concerns? No we should not be dismissive of people's concerns. Should we be involved in the dialogue around? How these technologies are bill how the regulations are formed. Absolutely we should be involved in that and I think that's kind of key to having this conversation with you Lori and to hosting dinners at my house and going down to Washington DC. Which I'm doing later this afternoon to engage in conversations with policymakers it is really important to think through all of the implications of these decisions and make the right ethical decisions to the extent possible. In every case internal to the company. I think is slightly different so you could see Brad Smith at Microsoft. Jeff Bezos Amazon came out and took strong stances of support for the US government for the Department of Defense. Google kind of went in a different direction and I think has started backtracking. A little bit on those decisions Based on just a realization of the control of the business that the activists had internally but at annual weren't unique position because unlike Google unlike Amazon unlike Microsoft our employees signed up to work on defense technology. And so when you read those letters that were written at other tech companies. The key point of contention was that they didn't quote sign up to work on. Defense Will Andro Andro. They quote signed up for defense. They knew that from day one and so regardless of political persuasion whether they're socialists or libertarians. Or Big are Republicans or little are. It doesn't matter. Everyone at the company is bought into the mission. And so when we have these discussions we have ethical discussions. We have mission discussions. But it doesn't come down to the nature of the company or the Vision for the future that we have. May I make a suggestion? You may okay. It'd be interesting because you guys are having all these ethical conversations about the future having covered silicon valley all these years. It's a lot of dudes Ryan and I don't know about these dinners and item. Know about you know what it was like Palmer when you guys are talking about the future but whether it's women or diversity of mindset you know that's like a killer APP right. It's it's like thinking about empathetic mediums. Thinking about the human element in ways that I don't think a bunch of the same types of folks will be able to think about so I don't know what the the breakdown as and I don't want to judge it of Andrew but I hope you guys have a diversity of thought in the in the room when you're thinking about these types of things just because I do think you guys are very you have a big play at the future and so do you guys have diversity of thought in the room. I mean diversity of thought absolutely other forms of diversity diversity of thought that translates into the divers diversity dollar you know all of a this is something that we work really hard every day but don't give you the Silicon Valley line on it like you know to be in Silicon Valley working really hard to change it Blah Blah Blah and. It hasn't really changed. I agree we and we. We DO HAVE PEOPLE. That are critical to our mission internally. Do not look like standard Silicon Valley people of whether it's skin color or gender or whatever it might be But of course not enough. And that's something that we are working hard at. Which is I know as he said. Valley answer the other thing that I would I would say here is that oftentimes people say that in the defense community. it's like it's more unbalanced than in other industries. I think that is partly true. But there are some really really credible. minority populations That already exists within defense that I think is all as always very important for us to engage with You Know Undersecretary Ellen Lord is the head of acquisitions and sustainment at the Pentagon. She's you know one of the top people in the department and we engage with her frequently. their startup founders. Like Rachel only at Gio site and Danielle Perdomo go tanna. That are active. In the defence community. There are academics like Rene Terresa at Stanford That are that are really strong In the journalism space some of the strongest defense reporters are female. I think Larceny Laghman at foreign policy is incredibly strong. In defence knows what she's talking about Mortem Brennan. Cnbc is really strong. And so you know the this rejection or or some sort of suggestion that that doesn't exist it I think is just false and that should be tapped into for sure because you when we look at Russia and China as someone who's been deeply involved and looks at these types of threats what's the scariest thing about. Russia and China are doing that. You're a little bit concerned. That in the United States were not going to be able to keep up with our. We have to keep an eye out on by the very nature of the conversation. The scariest things are the ones that we don't know about. That's the first thing that I would say. The second is that China has an actual strategy around exporting ideology and technology in tandem with one another. And so you know if you look at the deployment of the export of surveillance technologies globally as I mentioned before you have these companies like Hick vision and Dowa that our camera companies Chinese camera companies. You have attack. Dj I that are drug companies. You have companies like Meg. V since time is the most valuable company in the entire world. That's interesting to And then you have all the networking and communications infrastructure behind. Wow Way and when China's going out to countries that you know it's engaging with for Bolton road or engaging with for a loan programs they're coming in they're saying Venezuela Ecuador Egypt Iran so and so forth. Here is not only the technology but also the ideology that wraps up the surveillance state. We've built in China and that we've used to systematically oppress entire people groups using the technology that's being built by tech community. That type of stuff is really scary to me. Not only because you know it's being exported at a rate that is really unbelievable and the last five ten years but also because this is not the engagement in the US our Defense Department does not work closely with the Tech Community and so post. Cold-war our best and brightest engineers kind of stopped going to the dod directly or to the defense primes like Lockheed. Raytheon General Dynamics sewn and so forth and they started going on optimizing at at Google and facebook. You know. That's where the the bulk of computer science talent is in the United States and so our exports if you look at the exports of United States technology internationally particularly related to the military Like foreign military financing for military sales facilitated by the Department of State. It's like F Thirty Five's AMRAAM MISSILES. It's all all this really high end military equipment that's built by primes and it's not the like low level stuff that actually runs the countries that were that were sending it to In that that's really concerning. Yeah I saw you you wrote in an OP. Ed like Putin in September twenty seventeen so that AI leadership was a means to become the rule of the world China has vowed to achieve a dominance by twenty thirty meanwhile much of the top talent and the United States is working on things such as add optimization so that definitely seems like it's something you think a lot about yeah absolutely you know some of these countries For what it's worth China Russia. They actually have the ability to conscripts their top talent into working on national priorities. I'm not suggesting by the way that we should conscripted talent in the United States. I'm just stating that. It is an obvious advantage that they have which means that we need to figure out ways to appeal to the talent that we need domestically to get them to work on those national priorities. Said how do you do that? Because there's been so much tension between Silicon Valley and the government for a while and and the government certainly has a reputation for moving slow and not really getting things done in..

United States Silicon Valley China Google White House Jeff Bezos Defense Department Amazon Palmer Andrew House of Representatives Russia J.J. Abrams America Luke Skywalker executive Brad Smith Washington Andro Andro Microsoft
"rene terresa" Discussed on On Point with Tom Ashbrook | Podcasts

On Point with Tom Ashbrook | Podcasts

04:32 min | 3 years ago

"rene terresa" Discussed on On Point with Tom Ashbrook | Podcasts

"He joins us from Baltimore. Scott. Welcome to the program. Mega. So first of all tell us a little bit more about what you reported about what this group of democratic operatives attempted to do in the Alabama special election using social media techniques. What did they try to do? Well, I have to say that the people who did this were not eager to talk about it. And so I'm not sure we have every detail, but essentially they deliberately experimented with what you might call the Russian techniques on social media, one of the things they did was they created a conservative page though. They were not conservatives oriented to are designed to attract conservatives in Alabama, and they use that among other things to try to split the Republican electorate. They also use it to communicate with a write in candidate whose candidacy they supported with the idea of drawing votes away from the Republican ROY Moore in the draining votes from him. And that was that was you know, certainly, a a fraud Yellen move in the sense that they were pulling. Considered and they weren't considered. And then something that remains a little murkier. But they in a report that obtained about this operation, they they describe it as an elaborate false flag operation that planted. The idea that the Moore campaign was amplified on social media by a Russian botnets, essentially, there were bunch of stories in the mainstream press saying, jeez, there's all these Russians who were following ROY Moore on Twitter, and you know, it was sort of embarrassment for the Moore campaign. And they said maybe it was a dirty trick. And no one really knew what where this came from. And we don't know exactly what was done whether these operators actually purchased as one can do, you know sensually Twitter account since know sent them after ROY Moore or how exactly work, but in any case they seem to have done something to try to discredit the Moore camp. Pain on Twitter. Okay. So now to be clear one as your reporting one of the participants in this. What hundred thousand dollars democratic peration was Jonathan Morgan that chief executive of new knowledge, and and destroy mind. Folks. Get new knowledge is the firm that wrote one of these reports that was just submitted to the Senate intelligence committee about Russian interference or Russian use of social media. So let me ask you the reason why we definitely wanted to talk to you today's as I as I mentioned at the beginning, we spoke with Rene duress STA who's with new knowledge now, and you talk to her as well, even though she didn't work for the company at the time in two thousand seventeen what role does she have to play in the story. Let me make a couple things clear. One thing is as far as we can tell the democratic campaign. Doug Jones campaign knew nothing about this and had no role in it. And literally learned learned about it in the last couple of days when we started calling them. So they had nothing to do with it. And according to Jonathan Morgan the CEO of New Jersey point out new knowledge as a company had nothing to do with it. This was sort of a side project that he participated in and early on he asked Rene Terresa, essentially for advice on this. And according to both of them, he called her up and said, hey, we want a sort of doing experiment where we test out some of these sort of Russian style, techniques and try to understand them better. What are what are the some of the things we we could do what are some of the things you can do on social media that we might sort of do intest and the and and he describes this as sort of? Academic exercise. And she she claims that she was not paid for it. And and really was just sort of a very early consultant in this process. Well, any quoted as saying that there were people who believe the Democrats needed to fight fire with fire and that she disagreed with that. But but I'm just we have like thirty seconds here to go. I just one less thing. I mean, so this is quite an eye opening report piece of reporting from you. It is a little jarring to hear some of these Democrats say this is like an academic exercise..

ROY Moore Jonathan Morgan Rene Terresa Twitter Alabama Moore camp Baltimore Scott Senate fraud New Jersey Doug Jones consultant chief executive CEO hundred thousand dollars thirty seconds
"rene terresa" Discussed on Slate's If Then

Slate's If Then

11:49 min | 3 years ago

"rene terresa" Discussed on Slate's If Then

"They have historically voted very strongly in alignment with the democratic candidate. So it's almost a recognition of the power of the community and a recognition of the deep underlying Griffiths in our society that that is. The reason why they would lean so hard into targeting the black community. And so one of the questions that has come up in the wake of your report is well did this swing the election, man? That's a question that people keep coming back to. But I think I think you're kind of tired of that question. Right. I you know, I don't have an answer to that question. Right. And and nothing in my nothing in the data set that I was provided. We give me the answer to that question. So I I think there's a couple of things here. I, you know, in as far as like is the only thing worth investigating whether or not Russia flipped in election. I was sitting answer is now. Right. I mean, I was talking to somebody in law enforcement in the way, he put it was attempted murder is still crime. You know, you still go investigate it, even if they didn't get it done. There was an assault on American democracy. There was a foreign adversary who spent three years manipulating and targeting American individuals pretending to be American interfering in social conversations political conversations that is something that we need to understand. We need to understand how they did it. If only to. Detect it faster in the future because they don't seem to be you know, there's no indication that they're going to go away as far as they're concerned. It was successful. They re up their budget. So I do I I wouldn't say frustration. Because I understand that everybody would like an answer to that question. When we think about impact, I think is also important to look at did this change attitudes within the community to shift the Overton window was the propaganda effective. It continues to perpetuate it continues to be propagated in the communities that that it targeted. And I think that that's in part and I ever de right? Like who goes and looks at a moment thing. So this is Russian propaganda. I do all the time now, but most people don't, and so it's this this content is still out there because on be there is a kernel of truth in a lot of it. And that's what makes it such challenging conversation. Yeah. And it's also like affective propaganda. It's not something that you really see the the whites of its is. You know, I it's it's hard to know if something is affective when you put a piece of information out there. It's broadcasting. So, you know, one one question, I have is is the about the calling this kind of information warfare is this is a kind of phrase that I I see batted around a lot in these conversations one hesitancy, I have with it is that by calling it, you know, war putting it in that militaristic context. It could open the door to increase surveillance of social media platforms that that could potentially, you know, affect communities that are already over surveilled, particularly by police that are closely watching the communications activities of black American communities, and so what are your thoughts on this kind of framing of information warfare? Is it useful? Are there are there pitfalls? You know, I I wrote that essay on the digital magical no line, and I and I use the metaphor of war in there. And it took literally six months for me to feel confident releasing that piece. Yeah. In part because I really worried about the the terminology in in the war metaphor what I would say to that is that they think of it as a war. And and that is where if you read the the indictments, and our if you go and you read project locked other the way that they describe what they're doing. This is not a, oh, we're just going to mess around with some Americans. Right. They have real strategic objectives. This is a toolkit that they have and this is the framing that they use. And so I got to thinking as as I read more of this or even if you look at kind of domestic trolling groups will use the phrase me, more, right? The great me Moore's of two thousand sixteen. So there's this. There's there's the sense among people who use these tactics and believe in the power of the outcomes that they can affect and they're using terms like war, and then the rest of us are kind of over here talking about like, well, it some shit posters on the internet. And and there's a there's a kind of a real divide there. And how we're thinking about it. You know, we're treating it as like, oh, this is just a problem of of governance. We just have to do a better job, you know, detecting the stuff earlier as opposed to thinking about ways to deter it. Which is which is the framework that you would use. If you were thinking about it more in militaristic terms. So I absolutely understand the reservations. And and I and I feel them acutely myself at the same time. I don't think that we're well served by pretending that these are just sort of dispirit attacks that happened to look the same way when they really do have in many countries the goal of regime change, right. Yeah. Also had a few reservations about the use of war. Although I can I can understand it. One thing that happens in more time is that you might suspend normal laws are normal civil liberties or that sort of thing, and I and I would worry if that's one of the implications of it. But I I see your broader point that this is this is a long term thing. This is a multi many states are involved in it. It's just gonna keep growing. It's not a one off. And it's something that we have to be prepared for I wanted to talk a little bit about your your other experience, studying misinformation and envir- -ality and network effects on social media. And what it is about the social networks that made them so vulnerable to this. I'm curious whether you think that there were they the victims of this or were they culpable. And what about the social networks enabled this Russian campaign to to be so effective? So I think that there's a structure, you know, our information ecosystem evolved in a certain way, and you can trace back how the platforms kind of crew. And acquired other companies and really sort of we amassed a an information ecosystem that's largely controlled by five kind of big entities. I think the interesting challenge of that is it it does kind of create these ready-made audit audiences for propagandists simultaneously. They know quite a lot about the users on their platforms because they're they're serving them ads. And so they are gathering data about those of us who use the platforms constantly for the purpose of selling ads. But then also for the purpose of making recommendations, so they have to keep you on site in order to continue to serve you content. And as part of that, this is where curatorial algorithms come into play some of the stuff that that I talk about a lot, which is what are the, you know, we can talk about the tactics of the IRA all day long. What is the information environment that generate that leads to those tactics why those tactics work, and I think that we have this idea of mass consolidation of audiences precision targeting and then game -able algorithms when you have these curatorial algorithms. Particularly early you know in in two thousand fifteen twenty sixteen you might remember what a disaster Twitter trending was prior to Twitter really taking into account things like quality of accounts any botany could make anything trend and regularly did. And so this is where the architecture of the information ecosystem just lends itself to influence operations in be in part because they are producing content with the goal of veracity. They're producing highly emotionally resonant content. They're oftentimes really working hard to kind of own their keywords and make it. So that when you search, you know, when you search for a term there what you find. And this is just, you know, this is how the environment has evolved. When we talk about victim. The idea of the tech companies victim there is I would say they did not expect this, and this is not necessarily the kind of alignment that one would expect right? Who's thinking about how is rush? And intelligence going to gain my platform. But where I do kind of assign some culpability is that starting in around two thousand fifteen we were talking about ISIS, and we were looking at other malign entities terrorist organizations that had begun to kind of coop the platform. And if you remember the conversation around that time people were really like, oh, what if we kick ISIS off Twitter? I mean who's next right? So it was framed as this this slippery slope. It was binary. It was like either relent them stay on here. Or were you know, we've just moved into an environment of censorship. And so there were some we we really erred on the side of of not moderating and the the government. The tech platforms really weren't collaboratively working together in any way, this is relatively soon after the Snowden revelations. They didn't want to be seen as cooperating with the government. So there was this challenge that there is a sort of lake this moment this almost like inflection point where we could have taken the time to look more deeply at this stuff. But it was just seen as like, well, this is just one random terrorist organization and not a big deal. When as we look back at that. If you look back at that. Now, you'll realize that while that was happening the Russian operation was already underway. And if you look at DARPA, right, which the defense advanced research projects team that its job is to prevent strategic surprise in this case, they were they were running studies looking at whether propaganda on social platforms was going to be a problem starting in two thousand twelve so there were sort of indications that maybe we should have been thinking about this and weren't I think it's really hard. And I'm not really interested in like kind of pointing the finger of blame back. I think we're the finger of blame is warranted is actually in how they comported themselves through twenty seventeen when there was indications that you know, when this became kind of abundantly clear, and we still had that kind of hedging from Facebook as opposed to being immediately transparent about it. I think they've come a long way since then. But that was. That was a particularly kind of tense time. How do you? How do you make this behemoth company except accountability for what happened? Yes, what is your recommendation at this point, you as you said that there's been a lot of movement in terms of what social media platforms are willing to do these days in in moderating in working with the government in taking the advice of researchers or where experts, but is there more that's needed. Are we in a better place for twenty twenty then we were for twenty sixteen? I think we are. I think we are because I think some of the the calls for multi stakeholder ISM from you know, myself and others have actually been resident some ways. Right. So we had a great example the investigation project that I did was outside experts working with government to understand what happened this third piece of that is really creating this multi stakeholder system that incorporates the tech companies in that rather than being backward-looking where we're all still trying to suss out what happened in two thousand sixteen that informed by these findings. We say. These are the this. This is how this investigation went. This is how it could have been improved. This is how we can structure it to be forward-looking and defined things that are going to be a problem in twenty twenty. I think that twenty eighteen midterms were a almost like a pilot project for that. I know I was in touch with you know, I could back tunnel things to tech platforms. Hey, look at this bought. Hey, look at this thing, and they were very receptive to it. So we had moved past that that period of. Okay, thanks, whatever. And we were solidly in the realm of this is great. Thank you for the Arctic. We'll get right on this kind of thing. So that's that's where I I hope that we kind of formalize some structures to to kind of continue on the positive work of two thousand eighteen or Rene Terresa. Thank you so much for joining us on if then thanks for having me. One more quick break. And then we'll do don't close my tabs some of the best things we've seen on the this week. At

Twitter Russia black community Griffiths assault DARPA Facebook Rene Terresa Moore twenty twenty Snowden three years six months
"rene terresa" Discussed on Slate's If Then

Slate's If Then

13:13 min | 3 years ago

"rene terresa" Discussed on Slate's If Then

"Them. And there is no way to deny the deep struggles and challenges that America has had with race for decades, including as this operation was taking place from two thousand fourteen or so till till now things like the black lives matter movement trying to achieve change the sort of social debates that that has that that has led to the uncomfortable feelings that that has brought up. So as this happens they're able to to latch onto that. And to increase the feelings of alienated and grievances among people who have. Legitimate feelings of nation and grievances. But to kind of double down on it, you see a lot of if you look at the far right content. You see a lot of there's existing rage and they really worked amplify that rage. The black community themes of alien nation, really deeply leaning into the alienating this country isn't for us. Right. And so they take things that are already there, and they work with what they have. Because there's a saying that the best propaganda is you know, ninety percent true. Right. And that's because it has to if it's easily discredited people dismiss it. So it has to feel real it has to feel resonant. I think the reason that they went so hard for the black community with the suppression. Narratives is that Kennedy? The black community is a powerhouse when it comes to voter turnout. Right. They turn out they vote. They have historically voted very strongly in alignment with the democratic candidate. So it's almost a recognition of the power of the community and a recognition of the deep underlying Griffiths in our society that that is. The reason why they would lean so hard into targeting the black community. And so one of the questions that has come up in the wake of your report is well did this swing the election, man? That's a question that people keep coming back to. But I think I think you're kind of tired of that question. Right. I you know, I don't have an answer to that question. Right. And and nothing in my nothing in the data set that I was provided. We give me the answer to that question. So I I think there's a couple of things here. I, you know, in as far as like is the only thing worth investigating whether or not Russia flipped in election. I was sitting answer is now. Right. I mean, I was talking to somebody in law enforcement in the way, he put it was attempted murder is still crime. You know, you still go investigate it, even if they didn't get it done. There was an assault on American democracy. There was a foreign adversary who spent three years manipulating and targeting American individuals pretending to be American interfering in social conversations political conversations that is something that we need to understand. We need to understand how they did it. If only to. Detect it faster in the future because they don't seem to be you know, there's no indication that they're going to go away as far as they're concerned. It was successful. They re up their budget. So I do I I wouldn't say frustration. Because I understand that everybody would like an answer to that question. When we think about impact, I think is also important to look at did this change attitudes within the community to shift the Overton window was the propaganda effective. It continues to perpetuate it continues to be propagated in the communities that that it targeted. And I think that that's in part and I ever de right? Like who goes and looks at a moment thing. So this is Russian propaganda. I do all the time now, but most people don't, and so it's this this content is still out there because on be there is a kernel of truth in a lot of it. And that's what makes it such challenging conversation. Yeah. And it's also like affective propaganda. It's not something that you really see the the whites of its is. You know, I it's it's hard to know if something is affective when you put a piece of information out there. It's broadcasting. So, you know, one one question, I have is is the about the calling this kind of information warfare is this is a kind of phrase that I I see batted around a lot in these conversations one hesitancy, I have with it is that by calling it, you know, war putting it in that militaristic context. It could open the door to increase surveillance of social media platforms that that could potentially, you know, affect communities that are already over surveilled, particularly by police that are closely watching the communications activities of black American communities, and so what are your thoughts on this kind of framing of information warfare? Is it useful? Are there are there pitfalls? You know, I I wrote that essay on the digital magical no line, and I and I use the metaphor of war in there. And it took literally six months for me to feel confident releasing that piece. Yeah. In part because I really worried about the the terminology in in the war metaphor what I would say to that is that they think of it as a war. And and that is where if you read the the indictments, and our if you go and you read project locked other the way that they describe what they're doing. This is not a, oh, we're just going to mess around with some Americans. Right. They have real strategic objectives. This is a toolkit that they have and this is the framing that they use. And so I got to thinking as as I read more of this or even if you look at kind of domestic trolling groups will use the phrase me, more, right? The great me Moore's of two thousand sixteen. So there's this. There's there's the sense among people who use these tactics and believe in the power of the outcomes that they can affect and they're using terms like war, and then the rest of us are kind of over here talking about like, well, it some shit posters on the internet. And and there's a there's a kind of a real divide there. And how we're thinking about it. You know, we're treating it as like, oh, this is just a problem of of governance. We just have to do a better job, you know, detecting the stuff earlier as opposed to thinking about ways to deter it. Which is which is the framework that you would use. If you were thinking about it more in militaristic terms. So I absolutely understand the reservations. And and I and I feel them acutely myself at the same time. I don't think that we're well served by pretending that these are just sort of dispirit attacks that happened to look the same way when they really do have in many countries the goal of regime change, right. Yeah. Also had a few reservations about the use of war. Although I can I can understand it. One thing that happens in more time is that you might suspend normal laws are normal civil liberties or that sort of thing, and I and I would worry if that's one of the implications of it. But I I see your broader point that this is this is a long term thing. This is a multi many states are involved in it. It's just gonna keep growing. It's not a one off. And it's something that we have to be prepared for I wanted to talk a little bit about your your other experience, studying misinformation and envir- -ality and network effects on social media. And what it is about the social networks that made them so vulnerable to this. I'm curious whether you think that there were they the victims of this or were they culpable. And what about the social networks enabled this Russian campaign to to be so effective? So I think that there's a structure, you know, our information ecosystem evolved in a certain way, and you can trace back how the platforms kind of crew. And acquired other companies and really sort of we amassed a an information ecosystem that's largely controlled by five kind of big entities. I think the interesting challenge of that is it it does kind of create these ready-made audit audiences for propagandists simultaneously. They know quite a lot about the users on their platforms because they're they're serving them ads. And so they are gathering data about those of us who use the platforms constantly for the purpose of selling ads. But then also for the purpose of making recommendations, so they have to keep you on site in order to continue to serve you content. And as part of that, this is where curatorial algorithms come into play some of the stuff that that I talk about a lot, which is what are the, you know, we can talk about the tactics of the IRA all day long. What is the information environment that generate that leads to those tactics why those tactics work, and I think that we have this idea of mass consolidation of audiences precision targeting and then game -able algorithms when you have these curatorial algorithms. Particularly early you know in in two thousand fifteen twenty sixteen you might remember what a disaster Twitter trending was prior to Twitter really taking into account things like quality of accounts any botany could make anything trend and regularly did. And so this is where the architecture of the information ecosystem just lends itself to influence operations in be in part because they are producing content with the goal of veracity. They're producing highly emotionally resonant content. They're oftentimes really working hard to kind of own their keywords and make it. So that when you search, you know, when you search for a term there what you find. And this is just, you know, this is how the environment has evolved. When we talk about victim. The idea of the tech companies victim there is I would say they did not expect this, and this is not necessarily the kind of alignment that one would expect right? Who's thinking about how is rush? And intelligence going to gain my platform. But where I do kind of assign some culpability is that starting in around two thousand fifteen we were talking about ISIS, and we were looking at other malign entities terrorist organizations that had begun to kind of coop the platform. And if you remember the conversation around that time people were really like, oh, what if we kick ISIS off Twitter? I mean who's next right? So it was framed as this this slippery slope. It was binary. It was like either relent them stay on here. Or were you know, we've just moved into an environment of censorship. And so there were some we we really erred on the side of of not moderating and the the government. The tech platforms really weren't collaboratively working together in any way, this is relatively soon after the Snowden revelations. They didn't want to be seen as cooperating with the government. So there was this challenge that there is a sort of lake this moment this almost like inflection point where we could have taken the time to look more deeply at this stuff. But it was just seen as like, well, this is just one random terrorist organization and not a big deal. When as we look back at that. If you look back at that. Now, you'll realize that while that was happening the Russian operation was already underway. And if you look at DARPA, right, which the defense advanced research projects team that its job is to prevent strategic surprise in this case, they were they were running studies looking at whether propaganda on social platforms was going to be a problem starting in two thousand twelve so there were sort of indications that maybe we should have been thinking about this and weren't I think it's really hard. And I'm not really interested in like kind of pointing the finger of blame back. I think we're the finger of blame is warranted is actually in how they comported themselves through twenty seventeen when there was indications that you know, when this became kind of abundantly clear, and we still had that kind of hedging from Facebook as opposed to being immediately transparent about it. I think they've come a long way since then. But that was. That was a particularly kind of tense time. How do you? How do you make this behemoth company except accountability for what happened? Yes, what is your recommendation at this point, you as you said that there's been a lot of movement in terms of what social media platforms are willing to do these days in in moderating in working with the government in taking the advice of researchers or where experts, but is there more that's needed. Are we in a better place for twenty twenty then we were for twenty sixteen? I think we are. I think we are because I think some of the the calls for multi stakeholder ISM from you know, myself and others have actually been resident some ways. Right. So we had a great example the investigation project that I did was outside experts working with government to understand what happened this third piece of that is really creating this multi stakeholder system that incorporates the tech companies in that rather than being backward-looking where we're all still trying to suss out what happened in two thousand sixteen that informed by these findings. We say. These are the this. This is how this investigation went. This is how it could have been improved. This is how we can structure it to be forward-looking and defined things that are going to be a problem in twenty twenty. I think that twenty eighteen midterms were a almost like a pilot project for that. I know I was in touch with you know, I could back tunnel things to tech platforms. Hey, look at this bought. Hey, look at this thing, and they were very receptive to it. So we had moved past that that period of. Okay, thanks, whatever. And we were solidly in the realm of this is great. Thank you for the Arctic. We'll get right on this kind of thing. So that's that's where I I hope that we kind of formalize some structures to to kind of continue on the positive work of two thousand eighteen or Rene Terresa. Thank you so much for joining us on if then thanks for having me. One more quick break. And then we'll do don't close my tabs some of the best things we've seen on the this week. At

black community Twitter America Kennedy assault Russia Griffiths DARPA Facebook Rene Terresa Moore twenty twenty Snowden ninety percent three years
"rene terresa" Discussed on Slate's If Then

Slate's If Then

13:09 min | 3 years ago

"rene terresa" Discussed on Slate's If Then

"Deep struggles and challenges that America has had with race for decades, including as this operation was taking place from two thousand fourteen or so till till now things like the black lives matter movement trying to achieve change the sort of social debates that that has that that has led to the uncomfortable feelings that that has brought up. So as this happens they're able to to latch onto that. And to increase the feelings of alienated and grievances among people who have. Legitimate feelings of nation and grievances. But to kind of double down on it, you see a lot of if you look at the far right content. You see a lot of there's existing rage and they really worked amplify that rage. The black community themes of alien nation, really deeply leaning into the alienating this country isn't for us. Right. And so they take things that are already there, and they work with what they have. Because there's a saying that the best propaganda is you know, ninety percent true. Right. And that's because it has to if it's easily discredited people dismiss it. So it has to feel real it has to feel resonant. I think the reason that they went so hard for the black community with the suppression. Narratives is that Kennedy? The black community is a powerhouse when it comes to voter turnout. Right. They turn out they vote. They have historically voted very strongly in alignment with the democratic candidate. So it's almost a recognition of the power of the community and a recognition of the deep underlying Griffiths in our society that that is. The reason why they would lean so hard into targeting the black community. And so one of the questions that has come up in the wake of your report is well did this swing the election, man? That's a question that people keep coming back to. But I think I think you're kind of tired of that question. Right. I you know, I don't have an answer to that question. Right. And and nothing in my nothing in the data set that I was provided. We give me the answer to that question. So I I think there's a couple of things here. I, you know, in as far as like is the only thing worth investigating whether or not Russia flipped in election. I was sitting answer is now. Right. I mean, I was talking to somebody in law enforcement in the way, he put it was attempted murder is still crime. You know, you still go investigate it, even if they didn't get it done. There was an assault on American democracy. There was a foreign adversary who spent three years manipulating and targeting American individuals pretending to be American interfering in social conversations political conversations that is something that we need to understand. We need to understand how they did it. If only to. Detect it faster in the future because they don't seem to be you know, there's no indication that they're going to go away as far as they're concerned. It was successful. They re up their budget. So I do I I wouldn't say frustration. Because I understand that everybody would like an answer to that question. When we think about impact, I think is also important to look at did this change attitudes within the community to shift the Overton window was the propaganda effective. It continues to perpetuate it continues to be propagated in the communities that that it targeted. And I think that that's in part and I ever de right? Like who goes and looks at a moment thing. So this is Russian propaganda. I do all the time now, but most people don't, and so it's this this content is still out there because on be there is a kernel of truth in a lot of it. And that's what makes it such challenging conversation. Yeah. And it's also like affective propaganda. It's not something that you really see the the whites of its is. You know, I it's it's hard to know if something is affective when you put a piece of information out there. It's broadcasting. So, you know, one one question, I have is is the about the calling this kind of information warfare is this is a kind of phrase that I I see batted around a lot in these conversations one hesitancy, I have with it is that by calling it, you know, war putting it in that militaristic context. It could open the door to increase surveillance of social media platforms that that could potentially, you know, affect communities that are already over surveilled, particularly by police that are closely watching the communications activities of black American communities, and so what are your thoughts on this kind of framing of information warfare? Is it useful? Are there are there pitfalls? You know, I I wrote that essay on the digital magical no line, and I and I use the metaphor of war in there. And it took literally six months for me to feel confident releasing that piece. Yeah. In part because I really worried about the the terminology in in the war metaphor what I would say to that is that they think of it as a war. And and that is where if you read the the indictments, and our if you go and you read project locked other the way that they describe what they're doing. This is not a, oh, we're just going to mess around with some Americans. Right. They have real strategic objectives. This is a toolkit that they have and this is the framing that they use. And so I got to thinking as as I read more of this or even if you look at kind of domestic trolling groups will use the phrase me, more, right? The great me Moore's of two thousand sixteen. So there's this. There's there's the sense among people who use these tactics and believe in the power of the outcomes that they can affect and they're using terms like war, and then the rest of us are kind of over here talking about like, well, it some shit posters on the internet. And and there's a there's a kind of a real divide there. And how we're thinking about it. You know, we're treating it as like, oh, this is just a problem of of governance. We just have to do a better job, you know, detecting the stuff earlier as opposed to thinking about ways to deter it. Which is which is the framework that you would use. If you were thinking about it more in militaristic terms. So I absolutely understand the reservations. And and I and I feel them acutely myself at the same time. I don't think that we're well served by pretending that these are just sort of dispirit attacks that happened to look the same way when they really do have in many countries the goal of regime change, right. Yeah. Also had a few reservations about the use of war. Although I can I can understand it. One thing that happens in more time is that you might suspend normal laws are normal civil liberties or that sort of thing, and I and I would worry if that's one of the implications of it. But I I see your broader point that this is this is a long term thing. This is a multi many states are involved in it. It's just gonna keep growing. It's not a one off. And it's something that we have to be prepared for I wanted to talk a little bit about your your other experience, studying misinformation and envir- -ality and network effects on social media. And what it is about the social networks that made them so vulnerable to this. I'm curious whether you think that there were they the victims of this or were they culpable. And what about the social networks enabled this Russian campaign to to be so effective? So I think that there's a structure, you know, our information ecosystem evolved in a certain way, and you can trace back how the platforms kind of crew. And acquired other companies and really sort of we amassed a an information ecosystem that's largely controlled by five kind of big entities. I think the interesting challenge of that is it it does kind of create these ready-made audit audiences for propagandists simultaneously. They know quite a lot about the users on their platforms because they're they're serving them ads. And so they are gathering data about those of us who use the platforms constantly for the purpose of selling ads. But then also for the purpose of making recommendations, so they have to keep you on site in order to continue to serve you content. And as part of that, this is where curatorial algorithms come into play some of the stuff that that I talk about a lot, which is what are the, you know, we can talk about the tactics of the IRA all day long. What is the information environment that generate that leads to those tactics why those tactics work, and I think that we have this idea of mass consolidation of audiences precision targeting and then game -able algorithms when you have these curatorial algorithms. Particularly early you know in in two thousand fifteen twenty sixteen you might remember what a disaster Twitter trending was prior to Twitter really taking into account things like quality of accounts any botany could make anything trend and regularly did. And so this is where the architecture of the information ecosystem just lends itself to influence operations in be in part because they are producing content with the goal of veracity. They're producing highly emotionally resonant content. They're oftentimes really working hard to kind of own their keywords and make it. So that when you search, you know, when you search for a term there what you find. And this is just, you know, this is how the environment has evolved. When we talk about victim. The idea of the tech companies victim there is I would say they did not expect this, and this is not necessarily the kind of alignment that one would expect right? Who's thinking about how is rush? And intelligence going to gain my platform. But where I do kind of assign some culpability is that starting in around two thousand fifteen we were talking about ISIS, and we were looking at other malign entities terrorist organizations that had begun to kind of coop the platform. And if you remember the conversation around that time people were really like, oh, what if we kick ISIS off Twitter? I mean who's next right? So it was framed as this this slippery slope. It was binary. It was like either relent them stay on here. Or were you know, we've just moved into an environment of censorship. And so there were some we we really erred on the side of of not moderating and the the government. The tech platforms really weren't collaboratively working together in any way, this is relatively soon after the Snowden revelations. They didn't want to be seen as cooperating with the government. So there was this challenge that there is a sort of lake this moment this almost like inflection point where we could have taken the time to look more deeply at this stuff. But it was just seen as like, well, this is just one random terrorist organization and not a big deal. When as we look back at that. If you look back at that. Now, you'll realize that while that was happening the Russian operation was already underway. And if you look at DARPA, right, which the defense advanced research projects team that its job is to prevent strategic surprise in this case, they were they were running studies looking at whether propaganda on social platforms was going to be a problem starting in two thousand twelve so there were sort of indications that maybe we should have been thinking about this and weren't I think it's really hard. And I'm not really interested in like kind of pointing the finger of blame back. I think we're the finger of blame is warranted is actually in how they comported themselves through twenty seventeen when there was indications that you know, when this became kind of abundantly clear, and we still had that kind of hedging from Facebook as opposed to being immediately transparent about it. I think they've come a long way since then. But that was. That was a particularly kind of tense time. How do you? How do you make this behemoth company except accountability for what happened? Yes, what is your recommendation at this point, you as you said that there's been a lot of movement in terms of what social media platforms are willing to do these days in in moderating in working with the government in taking the advice of researchers or where experts, but is there more that's needed. Are we in a better place for twenty twenty then we were for twenty sixteen? I think we are. I think we are because I think some of the the calls for multi stakeholder ISM from you know, myself and others have actually been resident some ways. Right. So we had a great example the investigation project that I did was outside experts working with government to understand what happened this third piece of that is really creating this multi stakeholder system that incorporates the tech companies in that rather than being backward-looking where we're all still trying to suss out what happened in two thousand sixteen that informed by these findings. We say. These are the this. This is how this investigation went. This is how it could have been improved. This is how we can structure it to be forward-looking and defined things that are going to be a problem in twenty twenty. I think that twenty eighteen midterms were a almost like a pilot project for that. I know I was in touch with you know, I could back tunnel things to tech platforms. Hey, look at this bought. Hey, look at this thing, and they were very receptive to it. So we had moved past that that period of. Okay, thanks, whatever. And we were solidly in the realm of this is great. Thank you for the Arctic. We'll get right on this kind of thing. So that's that's where I I hope that we kind of formalize some structures to to kind of continue on the positive work of two thousand eighteen or Rene Terresa. Thank you so much for joining us on if then thanks for having me. One more quick break. And then we'll do don't close my tabs some of the best things we've seen on the this week. At

black community Twitter America Kennedy assault Russia Griffiths DARPA Facebook Rene Terresa Moore twenty twenty Snowden ninety percent three years
"rene terresa" Discussed on Reliable Sources with Brian Stelter

Reliable Sources with Brian Stelter

04:03 min | 3 years ago

"rene terresa" Discussed on Reliable Sources with Brian Stelter

"Facebook under more and more scrutiny every single day, and that's partly because of this recent New York Times expose that still having repercussions. We can half later in a pre thanksgiving news dump the company's outgoing PR chief took the fall for some of the company's shady practices, but there's much more going on here including calls for testimony from Europe. And of course, discussion now a bipartisan discussion in the US about possible. Regulation of Facebook. I spoke with researcher Rene Terresa about all of this. She's been on the forefront of misinformation and disinformation studying how it spreads across social networks. Here's what she told me about what she took away from the New York Times recent reporting. I think that that indicates that really oversight is needed that that that was my key. Takeaway from the article that they're they're doing a good job. They've got really good people working there in the war room deeply committed to solving or solving the wrong word actually to managing this problem. But at the same time, I it really has to be something that's done in conjunction with oversight from government. There's been a lot of talk since two thousand eighteen election about fixing the problem of fake news of fixing the problem of misinformation, but you say that's entirely the wrong way to look at this. I don't think there is a fix for it. I I don't I don't mean that to sound pessimistic. It's it's just that. There has always been disinformation and propaganda in the world. There's always been disinformation propaganda on the internet. The issue is that right now, we haven't information ecosystem that really facilitates the application of that content. If the silicates at going viral, it facilitates it spreading, particularly among small groups at the information architecture, really lends itself to the the mass spreading of propaganda and disinformation the ecosystems not going to disappear we're not going to, you know, get rid of social networks. And even if we were to break them up there would just be more platforms for propaganda to go after. So I think we have to think of this as more of a chronic condition. I think we should be thinking of this a lot like we think about cybersecurity. Nobody seriously thinks that if Microsoft patches the latest security flaw that you know, windows is going to be perfect forever. So I think that there's a lot of parallels to that. And how we think about disinflation in the social ecosystem sort So of put of put in. it in the context of health chronic condition. This is not a broken arm. That can be healed. This is diabetes. There's somebody to manage for the rest of your digital life, the chronic condition of the internet, so that there has been some progress. But this really means that the attackers are getting more sophisticated doesn't it? They are getting more sophisticated. They're laundering narratives through real people. I think really it comes down to impress upon the platforms, the that they bear some responsibility here. And I am not advocating for the regulation of ideas. I am advocating for oversight. I think what we saw in that article from the New York Times is that self-regulation with no oversight does not work. It just does not work in this industry. And I think that looking, you know, creating better ways more transparency more accountability more governance, people need to have a better understanding of how curation functions work how their feet is ranked what the recommendation engine is doing because right now anytime the plot. Arms. Make the slightest change people really believe they're being censored. It's a really good point from the rest of their talking about the information ecosystem, and it does bring us right back to the way. We started this hour to this sense of there are two Americas. Living in two different news, world's Facebook, and Twitter and other social sites contribute to that sense by reinforcing people's echo chambers, reinforcing that filter bubble so becomes a filter prison. We are only seen stories you already agree with by the way, it's a problem for YouTube as well. I'm really curious to see when the Democrats take the house in January. Whether we're gonna see more bipartisan calls for legislation and oversight on this issue quick pug here before we go for reliable sources podcast on a more hopeful note, I interviewed story core founder, Dave I say about the power of storytelling..

New York Times Facebook Rene Terresa US Europe researcher YouTube diabetes Microsoft founder Twitter Dave I
"rene terresa" Discussed on Techdirt

Techdirt

05:35 min | 3 years ago

"rene terresa" Discussed on Techdirt

"Hello and welcome to the tech podcast. I'm Mike mass, Nick this week as we've done occasionally, we're actually going to play a panel that I was on recently. This one was recorded at missoula's offices in San Francisco a week or so ago. And it was a panel that was hosted by Rene Terresa who we've had on the podcast in the past. She is a Mozilla fellow and is working on a bunch of different issues generally around disinformation online. And so she hosted and moderated the panel which was officially entitled free speech. What is it and who is responsible and the panel itself was actually just two people besides Rene that was myself and then Guillaume Czeslaw from alco transparency. And we actually between the three of us, I think had a really good and sort of fun discussion. On the challenges around content, moderation and platforms, and all of the different issues around that. And since it was an interesting and fun discussion, we asked if we could put on the podcast and everyone was school with it. So that's what you're about to hear. Thanks. Does it quickly the doctor. So we thought the cop. Visit with this thing in the vision of the modern Monica. Police for pulling the on. Placate. Gained to take control. Does someone to think of the back. Does the cat. Thanks so much for joining us a million cited to have this conversation. When we discussed this topic, I thought, you know, I know two people who would be really great for this YoM who I know in the context of center for command technology and had actually met him when I read his work on YouTube recommendation, engine algorithms more than he did for the guardian about recommendation engines, pushing people towards particular types of content and how algorithm mccowan gauging with certain types of content actually kind of privileges more sensational content over things that we might consider better information as opposed to just content. And then Mike and I met years ago, think in the context of a DMC takedown gone wrong. And so we, we have disagreed on many things over the years, but always civilly. And so I really liked the idea of bringing him in and having a little bit of a debate a little bit more people who really disagree but have strongly rooted philosophical underpinnings to thinking about the speech infrastructure that we have the relationships between speech and harassment, the relationships between us speech application and algorithms. And so I'm very excited to introduce the two of them. And what we're gonna do is we're going to start by letting them actually introduce themselves on their works. We just going to speak for a few moments about what they focus on. So what Jim. So, yeah, it was engineer chewed working the recommendation AA on our website called Edgar transparency, dot org. That helps that people understand what is actually recommending in terms of and conspiracies on we affinity set of fiction outperforms strategy t from a point of view. Okay, Mike now, thank so I run a blog called Tekere where I write about a lot of this stuff. I also run a related think tank called the copy institute where we do a bunch of research and hold events related to this on this issue. I have a lot of very strong opinions concerning free speech and technology and how innovation plays into boats enabling greater speech, but then also understanding the consequences of that. Michopoulos Mike up. One of the things I wanted to. I'd love to have you start with Mike. Is you recently wrote a post about ways not to be a a free speech jerk. I think you called it or something along those lines. I thought I think it was hypocrite has. And I thought this is an interesting framing kind of in the modern era by someone who understands algorithms understands technology in has very strong thoughts about, I'm not to be a free speech hypocrite, I'd love you to just kind tell the audience a little bit about how you see the sort of very basic out of very basic level. What free speech is today and how. That's a very broad question. So. I mean, free speech is a concept I think is pretty straightforward. You know, generally speaking, when you're talking about free speech in in the American context, certainly you're talking about the first amendment whether or not the government can you know have any regulations against that that get in the way of your speech or expression and. And what is interesting nowadays is that obviously we have the internet, which at a first pass enabled, much greater communication, much greater speech, much

Mike mass Rene Terresa missoula YouTube San Francisco engineer Nick harassment Guillaume Czeslaw Jim