Sue Halpern - Facebook, Twitter & Trump // Fintan O'Toole - The US will not be at the heart of a new world order after this election
'After
studying four million election-related tweets created between September 16 and
October 21, the University of Southern California computer science professor,
Emilio Ferrara, and his colleagues, determined that one in five were generated
by bots. And once they were, they were retweeted again and again by actual
humans, who sent them ricocheting around the web, especially those that were
antagonistic; in earlier work, Ferrara’s group found that negative tweets
traveled 2.5 times faster than positive ones.
“As
a result, [the bots] were able to build significant influence, collecting large
numbers of followers and having their tweets retweeted by thousands of humans,”
and leading to the “spreading of content that is often defamatory or based on
unsupported or even false, claims.” Ferrara further noted that, “previous
studies showed that this systematic bias alters public perception.
Specifically, it creates the false impression that there is grassroots,
positive, sustained support for a certain candidate.”
Facebook shows you what it “thinks” you want to see, which is what your friends are seeing, too. Reaching a vast audience that even the largest news organizations can’t rival, it’s become the most powerful purveyor of self-reinforcing news consumption
In
the weeks and months and years ahead, as people who care about such things
debate how, in the twenty-first century, the American people elected a
demagogue to the presidency, they will be invoking—blaming—the usual suspects:
the pollsters with their broken models, the out-of-touch campaign advisers, the
complacent or complicit mainstream media, the misguided electorate, the
uninspiring candidate, and so on. They won’t be wrong: there is plenty of blame
to go around. It is an open question whether this gnashing of teeth will lead
to a different outcome four years from now—if that is even an option. But what
is missing from these analyses is a recognition of the outsized influence the
Internet has had in this election, influence that may be less susceptible to
fixing than, say, tweaking polling methods or replacing political consultants.
Many
have lamented the demise of legacy journalism, as local and national daily
newspapers go out of business or get bought by billionaire moguls with undisguised
political agendas. And much has been made of the migration of “news” to the
web—news conveyed via social media, Facebook and Twitter especially, but also
through partisan websites that, while devoting little or no resources to
fact-based reporting, have followed the Fox News playbook of taking on the
appearance of traditional news-gathering operations.
While it is true that this
can be confusing to some readers, who are led to believe that the sites they
rely on for information are honest and objective when, instead, they are
designed to throw poisonous content into the news cycle, the actual effect is
even more insidious: it has created an equivalence between those ideological
sites and traditional journalism. In the Internet world, there is no difference
between The New York Times and Breitbart. To many Breitbart readers,
it’s the Times that is pushing a particular point-of-view. And in
certain ways, as we saw with the coverage of both Bernie Sanders and Donald
Trump, one might have to agree with them. Still, the machinations of the
ideological “press” are not the same as the noblesse oblige permeating
traditional news organizations, however misguided it may be.
By
now, nearly a quarter-century into our Internet dependency, it is well-known
that many people—and I would not exempt myself—gravitate toward online news
sources that confirm our own biases. We also tend to relay what we’re learning
to our friends, and since our friends tend to hold the same biases, those
biases fade to invisibility. This is how echo chambers are created. This is how
tribalism or Balkanization become pervasive. According to a recent Pew study, 62 percent of Americans now get their news via
social media, with Facebook topping the list. Facebook shows you what it
“thinks” you want to see, which is what your friends are seeing, too.
Reaching
a vast audience that even the largest news organizations can’t rival, it’s become
the most powerful purveyor of self-reinforcing news consumption. If, on
election day, your Facebook newsfeed had post after post from some of the more
than one million members of the “secret” feminist Facebook group Pantsuit
Nation, you would have been shocked when more than 50 percent of white
women—the majority demographic, it seemed, of people posting on Pantsuit
Nation—voted for Trump. Social media envelop users in a false reality. But of
course there is no such thing as a false reality, there is only real reality,
as we learned the other night.
Add
to this the strange, largely hidden power of automated “Twitter bots,” the
computer-generated social media posts unleashed into the global conversation by
untraceable agents, governments, political parties, individuals, and
organizations among them. Last May, after the Nevada primary,
Wired magazine noted that
many members of Trump’s Twitter cheerleaders, despite their stereotypical
Hispanic names, were actually non-humans impersonating Hispanic voters at a
time when the candidate needed to demonstrate his appeal to Latino voters, the
very group he had been delighting in denigrating.
Writing
in The Atlantic the following month, reporter Andrew McGill pointed to an analysis of five hundred pro-Trump
Twitter accounts that had encouraged voters to lodge complaints with the FCC
about the Cruz campaign, the majority of which had previously tweeted “17
Marketing Tips for B2B websites.” In other words, they were fake supporters bought
and deployed to push a message and look like a small army of concerned citizens
while doing so. According to the website Twitter Audit,
4,645,254 of Donald Trump’s 11,972,303 Twitter followers—about 39 percent—were
bots, compared to 524,141 of Hillary Clinton’s 10,696,761, or just 5 percent.
Here was another way that Trump triumphed.
After
studying four million election-related tweets created between September 16 and
October 21, the University of Southern California computer science professor,
Emilio Ferrara, and his colleagues,
determined that one in five were generated by bots.
And once they were, they were retweeted again and again by actual humans, who
sent them ricocheting around the web, especially those that were antagonistic;
in earlier work, Ferrara’s group found that negative tweets traveled 2.5 times
faster than positive ones. “As a result, [the bots] were able to build
significant influence, collecting large numbers of followers and having their
tweets retweeted by thousands of humans,” and leading to the “spreading of
content that is often defamatory or based on unsupported or even false,
claims.” Ferrara further noted that, “previous studies showed that this
systematic bias alters public perception. Specifically, it creates the false
impression that there is grassroots, positive, sustained support for a certain
candidate.”
At
the same time that hundreds of thousands of bots were working at warp-speed to
influence Internet users, Julian Assange, the Wikileaks necromancer, was
demonstrating that the reach of the Internet is now so great that a single
person can hack an entire country. By hack I mean upend a democratic election,
inserting himself between the candidates and the electorate. Though self-exiled
in a small room in the Ecuadorian embassy in London with little more to amuse
himself than a treadmill and a laptop - and, in recent weeks, ostensibly without
an Internet connection - his gleeful release of thousands of private stolen
emails from Clinton campaign manager John Podesta was sufficient to reinforce
the image of Hillary Clinton and her advisers as corrupt and venal, even when,
for the most part, the emails showed little, if any, actual malfeasance, just
the cynical plotting and vacuous ambition that has come to characterize much of
contemporary politics. The echo in the chamber grew ever louder as Assange dribbled
out Podesta’s emails, and in the last days of the campaign - following FBI
Director James Comey’s announcement that his agency had found hundreds of
thousands more Clinton emails on the unsecured computer of the repulsive
cybersex addict Anthony Weiner - little else could be heard over it.
Expect
more hacking in the future. That was the message on October 21, when whole
swaths of the Internet went dark after someone or some group used publicly
available malware to take over refrigerators and baby monitors and other
connected devices to launch a distributed denial of service attack on one of
the companies that manages domain names for some of the biggest players on the
net. At the time, the fear was that this was a rehearsal for a bigger, broader
attack on election day. That didn’t happen, and it didn’t need to happen for
democracy to be undercut by the increasingly routine practices of our digital
life.
http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2016/11/11/facebook-twitter-trump-how-internet-changed-election/
Fintan O'Toole - The US will not be at the heart of a new world order after this election
Behind
all the bluster about restoring America’s standing as the global alpha male, Donald Trump seems
to understand these realities. His response is typically incoherent, a strange
mix of anti-militarist isolationism and militarist unilateralism. But his
confusion is not unique: George W Bush also won the presidency as an
isolationist and we know how that worked out.
What’s
different about Trump is that he wants to follow his “America First” logic in
every direction, specifically into trade policy and the destruction of the Paris
climate change accord. And he will bring to this a mindset that cannot be
appeased, even if other leaders are minded to try to do so. He simultaneously
imagines the US as pathetically weak, kicked around by its trade partners and
robbed blind by its military allies, and as immensely strong, able to dictate
the terms of all of its engagements with the rest of the world. That’s a
formula not for deal-making, but for a toxic cocktail of paranoia and petulance
that no one is going to drink.
The
world can’t wait around this time and hope for a new Obama to ride in and
restore the natural order of American leadership. The old Obama couldn’t even
do that, and after a minimum of four years of President Trump the world will be
a much more anarchic place. With Trump’s election, the US has lost for a
generation the claim that underlay its supremacy: the claim to be the shining
light of democracy and tolerance. If there is a world that the US leads now, it
is the increasingly unfree world of the new “managed democracies”, in which
ethnic nationalism and media control fuel elected dictatorships...