comparemela.com

Welcome to the second session of evidence today. We heard in the previous session and weretech companies joined by people who were leading the investigation and the search into the issues we were discussing in the first session. As the session goes on, we would certainly welcome any observations you have on the evidence we received from tech companies. I wonder if i could start first with david carol. In the session with facebook, there was a reference to the investigation the u. K. Investigation commission conducted. This is your case. I thought perhaps you could tell us something about it. My understanding is that you made an application to Cambridge Analytica for information they hold about you that is linked to the election period in america in 2016. Because at some point that data must have been in u. K. U. K. Office ishe looking into that. Area i am interesting sure will be interested in following up with the commissioner when we are back in the u. K. We welcome any insight you can give us about your case. Thank you for the opportunity to address the committee and share information about this transatlantic investigation. In february of 2017, i was advised that i could make a subject access request under the u. K. Data protection act to the company Cambridge Analytica because of reports they had been hired i various campaigns during the 2016 campaign season. That affords someone, if you have data that is being processed, that it can be provided to you. I received the data from the ofent company at the end and it was accompanied by a letter indicating they were compliant they were trying to be compliant to the u. K. Data protection act and some description of how the data was collected but nothing specific, some description of the kind of thirdparty entities that the data would be shared with but nothing specific, and an excel votersheet that contained Registration Information that tab of election returns relevant to my voting district and a panel called models which was an ideological model that tried to predict and analyze my political beliefs. It comprised 10 political topics that were ranked in order, it also try to compute my partisanship separate from my registered partitions ship and propensitympute my to participate. I decided to post this on twitter the day i received it while redacting my personal information. I soon was able to get a solicitor to represent me in the u. K. To challenge the compliance to u. K. Data protection act because we believe that the disclosure was not complete. At the same time, i was advised to file with the information commissioners office, which i did on july 4, 2017, which is a little bit poetic, and that was the ability to contribute to their Ongoing Investigation as companiesnalytics with reference to the election and the 2016 season. There is at least one u. S. Citizen who has filed with the ico and we have received updates that the investigation is far more complex than they anticipated. That hope to provide a report last fall, but as they dug deeper into it it became more and more complex. They are still working on it but we have received a followup that the investigation is coming along, it certainly has been useful to provide this information, also to the Senate Select committee on intelligence and others here in the u. S. Who are trying to figure out the companys role in 2016 election. The key idea is that u. S. Voter data appears to been processed in the United Kingdom and this is probably unprecedented. Why do you think that happened . Because of the construct of the ,ompany Cambridge Analytica the data has been processed outside america, are there any rules on the location of where data is stored and processed relating to politics in america . David it does not seem like u. S. Law was violated here. It really exposes how there are not sufficient u. S. Protections for voter data. It also exposes how u. S. Citizens do not have the same rights that u. K. Citizens and eu citizens enjoy, being able to get data controllers to disclose data held on them when they become a data subject. This experience has illuminated a lot of things, but one of the things that is most dark for us is that the u. S. Has inadequate protections in this regard. This is data that Cambridge Analytica is holding on you. Do you where the data is acquired from . David there was no indication of where they obtained the data and that is part of the insufficient disclosure, we should be able to know where did they get the data, how they process it, who did they share with, and do we have a right to opt out of it and have them delete the data and stop processing it in the future . You heard what facebook said in the earlier sessions about the right to request data and that Facebook Developers are required to give up any data they acquire from facebook users. Do you think it is as straightforward as that . I have myself downloaded my facebook data as they described and it is by no means a complete disclosure of all the data facebook has on a user. I also know that the company has pledged to try to be compliant with the general Data Protection regulations and will be launching new controls and new disclosures for users to try to be compliant with that new privacy regime. I look forward to seeing if users are able to actually get a complete profile when they download their data in the near future. , asf i could ask claire what was said in the previous panel, particularly what twitter said with regard to do you think it is irresponsible to have that attitude, if a major platform like twitter has an obligation to take down disinformation, that is an inhibitor in our efforts to try to combat issues like disinformation which we regard as being a social harm . The root of get to the question in this goes into what youre saying. It is interesting to hear american colleagues saying First Amendment, which has not come up yet in this discussion. Most of this information is not true or false and it is somewhere on a spectrum. We take specific examples and we want to say that seems wrong. Thisruth is the scale of and the issues around where many people believe there is not an obvious truth, it makes it much harder. The issue of where we know something is 100 inaccurate, how to we talk about that . At the moment it gets to this question of definitions when we are talking about this huge ctrum, we cannot talking we cannot stop talking about regulations and interventions if it is not clear what we mean. What is misleading and this question of hyper partisanship, in the british press, much of the content of our press is misleading in some way. It is hard to hear twitter say what they are saying, because from a particular example, that seems wrong, we would be in dangerous territory to start saying this is something that needs to be taken down and who does that . I wish we do not live in that world, we go to the pub and we all say Different Things and we gossip but that is part of what makes humans humans. I cannot imagine where we would start to say we live in a world where we can make those decisions. There are times when there are demonstrable lies, and in the debate looking at ,isinformation and fake use urinalysis and Academic Work demonstrates the different scales of fake news your analysis and Academic Work them in straits the different scales of fake news. For it to be spread anonymously as well. Been facingple have legal address because of tweets their shared on twitter because we know who they are. When even more concerning people use protection of anonymity to spread lies about other people. It makes us feel uncomfortable in that way. Because twitter does not have a real name policy it makes its feel uncomfortable. There are people who they have good reasons for not using their real name. Itself as as about selfcleaning oven because they would argue that many journalists would would correct lies quickly. There is not a way to attack that correction to the original piece of content. Journalists and Fact Checkers work on that, not just flag it, but have a way to connect alternative pieces of information to that. If we have a healthy debate about what is true or false, that is around the original content. That is something we need to look at from a technical point of view. To ive clarity on one point you just made. I try to think of where we may start on this. Where we start is where we already are. There are already established so whatd i am saying is, is there a sustainable argument which explains why people who run an Online Platform consider themselves to be at a different place legally than those who run an offline platform i. E. Newspaper. This is we havent heard it yet. I agree with your frustration. They say we are a publisher. No, youre a platform. The truth is they are in the middle, theyre a hybrid form of communication and what i would like to say and i did hear that this morning that we would like to be part of a conversation around what new form of regulation might look like. Because i dont think we can take the broadcast model and thelate speech on twitter way we do the bbc. I dont think we should say theres nothing in that space. My frustration is all of these conversations were not actually getting to what does this new hybrid form of regulation look like and thats where we need to get and we need to quite quickly, i would argue. I think some of the evidence this week from Tech Professionals and academics is that the moment for some regulation is passed. The social media platform will be taking it seriously. Certainly not as seriously as they take that commercial objectives therefore only option left is some kind of state intervention maybe like touch and gotten on to the fact that this act is now arranged around them . I sit on the european fake news the conversations in europe are different to the conversations the u. S. , but i dont think we should have state intervention that potentially is kneejerk and a reaction to the realities and challenges that come from this platform and scale, i want them to be a part of the conversation so we can have on this look at it. We should be the ones making the decisions. I agree, but we didnt see much evidence of it this morning. But the ideal opportunity for at least an indication that, that thought process is going on was surely going to be this morning. They wanted to be part of the conversation, but i didnt see them coming up. My question is relating to the line on electoral issues and regulation. I was very interested in what facebook in particular was saying about the different rules that they are beginning to introduce. I think they conceded that the past elections have shown that the capacity for the law to be broken because of failing to disclose information. What was your reaction to those proposals that they made and how does it fit with u. S. Electoral law . My concern is definition. If we talk specifically about elections, are we talking about what candidates and campaign they push out . If we look at the russian around the russian interference, it was about nothing to do with obvious political issues. They were cultural and social issues. At all the stuff actually causing problems. My fear is we create boundaries, which do nothing. At all the stuff actually causing problems. If we are talking about elections and physical content, you look at interest pinterest. It is not just about politics. Thats something we need to be careful about. That peoplesed werent looking for what they should be looking for. People can lie about their location. But people can buy advertising, but cant verify their location but we cant verify their location. That is obvious with twitter, because they dont have an address. In terms of volume and reach of twitter, that can have an impact. In the u. K. As well as National Rules the importance of local spenders is important. This makes it even more difficult. Even at a most basic level i i could post to facebook and say i am in antarctica. Up,fact that i can make it there are basic location issues on the platform we should think more carefully about. What about the question of access to the data that the platforms have . They seem to think that fact that they were looking at it, they would put the information up, it would be quite sufficient. Do we know they are complying with their own roles own rules . I would hope they recognize they need independent auditing of not just what is on the platform now but the steps they are taking. So the new fact check picks up what is tagged. There should be independent auditing of the data around that. There are ways they can make that data anonymous, so they should have ways where we can sample data and content. The same with public broadcasting in europe, to audit the output, there should be a way we should do exactly the same thing on social platforms and that seems , to be the low hanging fruit. At the moment, all the conversations we are having is because of excellent journalists. Examples you gave today are about journalists going to the platform and searching and have limited , access to the data. Imagine what we could find if they had true access. Theywhy we dont dont want to give it up. We are past the point that theyre going to give us that information. We have to have access to that data i would , argue. I would like to go back to the points this morning about algorithm secrecy and inherent biases. And looking at that against transparency and trust and user understanding of what is happening when they go on platforms. What do you think is the solution, where is the balance that could be found between those two competing interests . Is there an obvious or simple solution . X at most, users dont understand the space. Even if we are talking about use and Media Literacy curricular, that has to include teaching how to evaluate algorithms and how to understand what you see on amazon or netflix or facebook has been decided by an algorithm and how does an of a rhythm get how does an algorithm get developed and created by a search person . Has been excellent work on a logarithmic transparency. Algorithmic transparency. The town center in columbia, in 2014, talked about transparency and with the framework, what are the metrics for that algorithm, and how we can have more insight into the algorithm and think about frameworks of actually looking at algorithms irrespective of the platform. How can we set up that framework to be transparent across these particular aspects and elements, and that is the key. We keep talking about algorithms as black boxes. How do we get into those black boxes in a consistent way . The Business Model is based on secrecy, isnt it . They would talk about the secret source, but when it impacts people with the information they receive, they come up with a framework which i believe isnt about them sharing a competitive edge. It is saying can we talk about , the algorithm and why was why it was designed in the first place and what the metrics are and if this is the highest quality of information as quickly as possible . Yes, they are commercial companies and we have to understand that, but the influence of how they have become the dominant source of information globally means they have to be held to understand that responsibility. Said, we seepanies this as our responsibility. Thank you. What do you think the likes why do you think the likes of google, facebook, twitter, fear policymakers . What do you think consumers fear and what is the course of action to the key problem of disinformation, to keep it more under control . They fear they will not be what they profess to be which is technology companies, not Media Companies. Be heldr they will accountable for the content that they are merely facilitating and not producing. And they should be and must be to their own inadequate levels, accept some responsibility for promulgating. What they fear the most is regulation, the fear of the requirement to turn over their data, that there will be government regulators overseeing their businesses. They will not be able to be independent mega corporations with the mega revenue that they now generate. What do you think is most effective . Conversations like this are very effective. They are feeling the heat in a very powerful way. They are also feeling the heat in a very powerful way from the journalistic community, from the publishing community. I thought it was interesting to hear them talk about how theyre working with publishers to help them generate revenue. What is very powerful and very prevalent now is to make this conversation as stark as it is, to put online what is on the line, which is whether we are going to have an informed or deformed public discourse. And public process. And whether these companies are contributing to or subtracting from the Democratic Health that we value. I dont think that we can paint this in stark enough terms, and we have to bring them to the table and invite them to the table in ways theyre going to lead a conversation and not just be dragged through it. Do you think they understand that they have skin in the game . Some. They are all going to extraordinary lengths to hire new people, take a hard look at their social responsibility. Ive heard from people i know who have gone to work there in the Journalism Community who say wow. It is a culture of engineers and technocrats. The idea of larger editorial social concerns is a sort of Foreign Language in many cases. And that is more than a minor point. I will open this to any panelist. In much of the First Amendment, there is no First Amendment in other countries, these are American Companies which are acting on a global scale and have their impact. From my british and european perspective, what we see is Large Companies which produce large profits for large numbers of people impacting the very fabric of our society and potentially in a deeply negative way, particularly in the relationship when you have russia on your borders of europe in that regard. Do think, therefore, that dichotomy is it therefore the situation that effectively if there is to be any form of regulation or stepping up of requirements for consumer data in europe, the companies such as facebook, google, twitter will have to effectively up their game globally because they still want to trade in those countries . This takes away from the american base in that respect. It means they would have to do something. I would say that is absolutely one of the Biggest Challenges is the degree to which anything thats going to happen the Digital Space is global at this point. And we in the world and have very different ways of viewing and applying the law or not applying law to it. Session, at a conference at yale earlier, comes all the folks from a legal perspective that said this is to be the greatest challenge figuring out how were going to , have any kind of global approach to this that can cut across the boundaries, but it has to exist. The content and audiences are going crossplatform and Cross Country and across the seas. It is the case here in the u. S. , one of the greatest tensions is between a very, very longstanding, solid support for freedom of expression and freedom of the press and if we compare that to 38 Different Countries that we survey, the u. S. And many of these areas with freedom of expression sits outside where the global media would be. Americans are feeling that tension of that of against what is misinformation. Is causing a great deal of madeup newsis causing a great deal of confusion about the basic facts around current events. That is where the tension exists now. Whether its regulation or any one of these solutions, we now have nine in 10 u. S. Adults who are some of their news online, which means it is those who are more or less connected to the news of a regular basis and aware of whats actually going on in current events, more or less digitally savvy in terms of how to actually make their way and parse through the kind of information they see. More or less connected to the and who are more or less politically driven and politically motivated. Anything else . I want to comment very briefly on something you said where you talked about it was quite a long question. You talked about the damage this causes in society. I do think we need to be very careful here. Because obviously, what is bad information, subversive information, in one place is Vital Information in another. These remarkable platforms provide Vital Information, not just in the sense of our politics, but in health and medicine and all kinds of things. I think we just need to factor that in and define these terms , which are so vitally important. Do you think, therefore, that we need to talk about less about the User Experience and consumer experience, and talk more about Consumer Rights and approach from that direction . A freedom right, something that is about freedom in that respect. Is that the way in which effectively we can sort of square the circle, so to speak . I think any perspective is going to raise a lot of challenges around what gets included in certain types of information or not as clear was as clara was talking about the spectrum of different definitions. If we put made up news in perspective the study we did , recently, there was a case study of stories that were linked to on twitter about immigration. 42 came from what we would be calling around this table identified news organizations, most of which were legacy, theyre not just a digital native and very few that identified with any outlet that was named on a fake news list, and if we look at the coverage from established news organizations of the Trump Presidency during the first 100 days, we saw very different assessments of the actions of the presidency, based on the audience makeup of that particular outlet. Theres a lot of different kinds of misinformation and whether a user or consumers or consumer is going to think about my right to one type of content versus my right to another type of content can get very complicated as well. Anything to add . In regards to the Consumer Rights aspect, it is significant and we saw it play out with the Russian Investigation here in the u. S. And facebook and twitters response to the socalled Information Operation and it actually came from in some ways citizens applying pressure to the companies to disclose if they were exposed to foreign propaganda. And so by the pressure of citizens to the lawmakers, who then pressure the companies in the hearing to ask would you tell american citizens if they engaged with foreign propaganda that was impersonating their own citizens, and then therefore, facebook and twitter have made some steps to tell people if they have been exposed to this. It begins to move us towards the , are we debating about censorship or are we debating about privacy rights and disclosure rights, the right to know who is behind things in and the same applies to the issues of who is paying for advertising so the transparency of advertising and are we pushing the platforms to adopt the same kind of know your customer principles that are required in the finance industry to prevent things like Money Laundering . If we have similar highstakes disclosure issues at both the business side and the consumer side, it just calls for further demand for transparency. Another question is what do advertisers think of this debate right now . What do the advertisers think and what measures can they bring to bear on these companies to ensure that when they are paying the money they are getting what , they actually paid for . The advertisers have a significant economic incentive to be sold accurate metrics of the audiences they are buying. Theres a tremendous business pressure on the company is to companies to have accurate audience measurements, which is another force to weed out bad actors in the system who are defrauding the advertising ecology by impersonating fake will find fake impressions, to cheat the whole industry out of its own revenue. So there is a significant incentive there, but the question is, why isnt that sufficient to eradicate this huge amount of Facebook Accounts already . It increases about one million accounts a day and twitter is constantly removing accounts. The antifraud incentives arent even significant to eliminate this problem. Say i use facebook and twitter. I wanted to use that account to retweet i mentioned this in the first hearing on the nearly primarily breaking copyright. That would come down in minutes. I will probably be banned on my account. Deleted, etc. Can put a karen dislike out there in public accountcan get another to retrieve it and try and get it out there as possible and that could just how come i can put a horrendous lie in Public Domain and even if i get my accoun tdnt deleted, it can just stay there . The copyright issue is huge and it was a great question, and their answer was we have the technology to do that. We should create a database of known inaccurate content, we have your footprints, then we can compare against it and we should be actually starting to utilize the databases. But there is a financial reason why they dont move quicker on that. An individual is primarily not going to sue. Going back to advertising, a financial asset is one of the main motivations people make this content. If you talked to brands, the Biggest Challenges, they dont want to be advertised against one of these terrible sites. We are now in february, 2018 and january, the fact that we havent seen significant shifts says wefrom most brands dont trust advertising for quality. Are they not losing any money . Is a hugely complex problem. I worked with a researcher who showed me a list of new urls being created this week that is all over facebook. The fact that we cant stop the , it is due to mostly the scale of this challenge, and not having the conversational ability to do it to scale. Its worth remembering to a certain extent where all this stuff is. Its all new stuff. If these were guys 25 years ago coming up with these incredible platforms that we now accept as was the melnd there gibson cry of freedom, with arab spring happening, and it gave every individual a voice i toched people not expecting be where they were today. This is not where they came from. My impression is that the very thought of editorial control, tenets ofasic journalism, truth, accuracy fairness and impartiality, humanity, accountability, those things werent in their minds, they are media, they are not journalists. A journalisticng to impose a journalistic sort of regime upon them. First of all, i would like to get your impressions on if you agree with me, and how do we regulate that . They were not expecting it as far as i saw. It is certainly the case that none of the social media platforms were begun with news in mind. None of them started as news platforms. They were social platforms. Twitter was about conversing with friends. News was something that found the way to each of these platforms. People wanted to spend more and more time there because of the news to find out what was going on. Its definitely not the way things were initially structured around being a news provider, per se. Its interesting because i was a bureau chief at cnn when aol merged with time warner and we have these very visionary conversations about a matches of people who could get the weather aboute they wanted imaginative people who could get the weather anytime we wanted. And then we started seeing some instant messaging and the speed of this. People had a stars in their eyes but they had no idea of the , Critical Mass and the power of the sheer volume of correspondence and the impact that has. Married to that, nowhere in this process was a journalistic mindset or set of principles imposed on the creation of that ecosystem. In the right way journalism done the right way has gatekeepers, and those gatekeepers open and shut the gates before information goes out, not after the information is out. Done right. And theres a system of accountability and there is a finite number of people, and there is an org charge. Org chart. There is an order. There is no order to the social media process. Ive always pushed back against those who talk about crowdsourcing and citizen journalism. The true journalistic training and mindset is not something that just grows randomly. And that is part of the gigantic disconnect that we now have. We do not have a system of checks, balances, accountability gatekeepers and that is the Culture Shock i was talking about a moment ago. The question that springs to mind is what is the way forward . It occurs to me in discussions this week, that these companies should be working with the academic world more and that would give them control and would give them guidelines. How would you guide them . I completely agree. The people who started these companies believe the technology was going to make a pulled the if they spent more time at the the better place. If they spent more time at the pub with journalists, they wouldve realized that the world is dark and messy. Being a journalist requires you to make tough decisions about what the impact of publishing decisions are. I think a lot of these companies havent actually sat in a dark room together and said what is the worstcase scenario here. I dont think they are sharing data enough, i dont think they are thinking through what this might look like. I do think theres an element of yes, bring in academics, but we much ofalk about how so the same content travels across the same platforms. They are sitting in their silos. They should be searing sharing the same data with one another about how the same content is traveling across. We need to think about what is the worst that could happen, and think through what might happen and how to respond in real time, and not think about the bunch of inquiries. We should be ahead of the curve and thinking what is happening closed messaging apps, we havent talked about that today. Virtual reality, augmented reality. At whate looking today happened two years ago, we are in trouble. What you saw today, do you think that they are going to become entrenched, or are they up for change from the evidence you saw earlier today . I dont think they know how. They are terrified of opening up and lawyers who are terrified about them opening up. I think they were together around terrorism and extremist content. I think there are frameworks that they can Work Together on, but theyre not quite sure how to take the steps from where they are to where they need to be. It is a huge step. My regulation my fear is that regulation is going to get in front of that. I wish we could do the other way around. I wish we could do that the other way around. Thank you. I just wanted to explore very briefly what steps from a Consumer Protection point of view might reasonably be taken to get the social Media Companies to open up as to how they are able to target people. I just welcome thoughts from the panel, sort of opening up the box. I am not sure i have exactly the right answer on that based on our research. One step that news organizations have taken is definitely around transparency, with an understanding that by being more transparent with their readers and audiences and users, their likelihood of gaining trust and respect and having them come back and create a relationship is going to be greater, when news organizations the other news organizations the other conferences that are happening a lot is around trust. The loss of trust that news organizations feel, etc. And in many of those conversations, a lot of steps those organizations are taking is around transparency and sharing more about what they know and dont know. That doesnt speak to the same kind of transparency were talking about here. But it does go towards creating a relationship and a sense of trust with your user. My experience pursuing my own voter data has showed me firsthand the importance of the british and european Data Protection model, this idea of a legal subject and a legal controller which forms the basis of creating transparency. We heard this morning that facebook was quick to acknowledge that it has to abide by the u. K. Data protection act and as i mentioned, they are , going to be adopting the use e. U. Model. These models show how Consumer Rights can be expressed through Data Protection rules and also shows how these rules apply transnationaly. I was able to take advantage of british law in this case because my data was processed at there. The requirements of gdpr will force companies to abide by that. Even within that, the significance of being able to understand what your data that you get means, and how does it shape your experience and how can it be an understandable piece of data in the interface that is understandable. In terms of the algorithmic accountability problem, it is really well connected to the data transparency problem in that how is my newsfeed being shaped by my behavior, and how is my behavior on other websites affecting the things that im seeing . I dont think consumers have a strong understanding that all the websites they are visiting have their facebook identity attached to it, and that allows people to retarget that on facebook. We saw that, for example, the Internet Research agency probably used this technique to retarget americans across platforms. General consumers dont have a clear understanding about how their data is used in various ways, sometimes against them. Its worth pointing out that in all of this, it places more responsibly on the part of the consumer, and we dont have all members of the population that are proactive as david is in looking at his information and figuring out whats going on there. The privacys of settings people are allowed to set, turning on or off certain things, what is the population that will actually take advantage of doing those things, or taking the time to understand the data about themselves and how it will be used. I am fond of saying we are facing an information situation not unlike the food situation we face. There is amazing amounts of food available to you and its all labeled. But people eat what they want and we have an obesity problem , in the world that is getting really bad. Because they eat junk food. We have brain food and we have junk food and if we consume this kind of thing too much, we have very serious consequences. I think consumers have to be engaged and they have to be educated in a much more profound way and that needs to be built in the social Media Companies. Traditional Media Companies need to acknowledge that. They need to develop a series of guidelines. They should have ethics codes and various practices that spell out specifically from a consumer perspective what the end result outld be and layout lay levels of accountability along the way. That things have not yet happened on social media, but we are on the verge with media technologies, where i can take with ayour soundbites piece of video and make it look like you said something that you never said it. We are creating a whole new reality that goes beyond social Media Companies. The need to impose partnerships with some of these companies to be thinking about these things in a much more detailed way. This should be coupled with the research that pew and others are corporate cultures. Doing to be brought into these and others are doing to be brought into these corporate cultures. The best thing to do is to buy an ad on facebook. Peoples eyes pop when you see how you use those as to target. As a Literacy Campaign to get people to understand how the data is being used, we need to come up with those ways to get people understand whats happening. I imagine the companys default mindset is we dont charge for this, were giving it away for free. If you dont like it, pop out. Thats not good enough. Thats absolutely true, when people are not saying, theyre giving up data, people dont understand that. If people understood that properly, they could make an actual choice about whether they want to be there and what are the longterm applications of these companies having our personal data. When you start to get older the , amount of data they have on you starts to be put together in ways that could potentially be very damaging. I wanted to touch on how much the misinformation spreads on social media sites. Onis having an effect conventional broadcast and media in terms of the fact that it is , almost teaching people not to trust anybody. So where do you go for your truth, and what do the real bona fide journalists do to combat this . This was raised with us by Mark Thompson at the New York Times in particular. The most concerning thing of all is that we have created our culture of doubt around any information, where it comes from in the public. Said by politicians who points the finger and scream fake news and we need to define , our terms and be very disciplined about that. Referring to journalism as the enemy of the people is very damaging. It creates an echo chamber and a copycat effect in some areas of traditional media. We need to be very careful when we are talking about traditional media. The word media is a very plural word and there are very many and very distinct differences. In the united states, i would make a distinction between talk tv and talk radio and certain other media, where in talk radio , television, the volume is particularly loud, and where these kinds of false reports drive kind of an opinion focused discussion that has the effect of confusing vast numbers of viewers and listeners. As to the distinction between opinion and information and what is correct and what is not, we have seen a further bifurcation along ideological lines of trust in media and just in the last year, its getting worse. And so the real concern that we all should have, and that you should have as Public Officials is how do we reach an informal and how wemed public make sure that we have the basic information they need to participate in the democratic process where they are called upon to decide things and to elect you, and to make those decisions based on information in fact, not just propaganda. A twitterconverse, storm was caused. Something i said in parliament was misrepresented and put out there. It got so many hits, so they didnt investigate what actually happened. But they saw the story because of the hits that it had on social media. And they are reiterating it. It is hard, especially in the world of realtime news, to ignore something that is happening playing out in real time in front of you. Even it if it is wrong. Or you have to correct the record. And you have a very distorted kind of feel. They need to tell people very explicitly what that tweet was and the controversy around it. Increasinglyn difficult thing to do in the rush to be first and fast. And loud. We have to be careful not to cause another problem. This must be a danger as well, across the world. Whatever we do in europe, with the best of intentions, it may be a blueprint for all parts of the world, where there when there are not protections around free speech. In a very different way in another context. We have to be very careful about that. If you want implication by the mainstream media, they are seeing debunking as a form of engagement. They may resuscitate now, and what many, disinformation agents are trying to do is cause confusion. Getting anyout country to say, we cant trust anyone. My fear is that we are getting there pretty quickly. If we can focus on a particular claim or rumor, it is about the much wider ecosystem. A very quick couple of questions. When you got your subject access request returned, with the data accurate . Was the data accurate . The information about the election returns in my district were fully complete. Model waslitical subjective. There are aspects of this that is very accurate, disturbingly accurate, but impossible to understand. Int of the legal challenge the ico complaint, it is important to understand how this political model is generated so i can understand how it might be used to target me. This data is being collected because of our online activity. Is there an assumption it will be a fair reflection . Could it be generated by our actions online . The company says it uses commercial behavior data to link it to our voter file. That is why it becomes so important to understand sourcing. The websites we visit, the products we buy, the Television Shows we watch, they can be used to determine the likelihood of participating in elections, the view is we care about most. See how their User Behavior affects their political life. , theseinteresting thing platforms said they wouldnt user information use user information to shadow anyone. How can we track these to twitter accoutnnts or whatever . Companies can purchase data from commercial data brokers, ad tech companies, and use algorithms to rein a five and reconnect that data to user reidentify and reconnect user voter profiles. The researchers at the university of cambridge who developed modeling methodologies and techniques used facebook applications to gather data from users who signed up for their application. That collected facebook likes and used tit to predict personality, political sexuality, whether their parents got divorced, whether they smoked or drank or did drugs. We have some understanding of how these techniques are used, but we are looking for more transparency to figure out how. That concludes the panel. Very much. Very informative. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] doug millsn q a, talk about the photos he took covering president trump. Believe, despite his constant comments about fake news and the media, i feel he enjoys having us around. Helps tried his message and the news of the day, and he is constantly driving the message. Having us around allows them to do that. Announcer q a. Sunday night at eight eastern on cspan. Landmark cases returns with a look at 12 new Supreme Court cases. Historians and experts join us to discuss personal stories behind these significant spring courts decisions Supreme Court decisions. By our a guide written veteran Supreme Court journalists. Costs 8. 95, plus shipping and handling

© 2025 Vimarsana

comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.