Propaganda on social media is being used to manipulate public opinion about the world, a new set of studies from the University of Oxford has revealed.
From Taiwan, where a campaign against President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) involved thousands of heavily coordinated — but not fully automated — accounts sharing Chinese propaganda, to Russia, where about 45 percent of highly active Twitter accounts are bots, the studies show that social media are an international battleground for dirty politics.
The reports, part of the Oxford Internet Institute’s Computational Propaganda Research Project, cover nine nations. Also included were the US, China, Brazil, Canada, Germany, Poland and Ukraine. They found “the lies, the junk, the misinformation” of traditional propaganda are widespread online and “supported by Facebook or Twitter’s algorithms,” Oxford University Internet studies professor Philip Howard said.
Illustration: Constance Chou
At their simpler end, techniques used include automated accounts to “like,” share and post content on social networks. Such accounts can serve to game algorithms to push content onto curated social feeds. They can drown out real, reasoned debate between humans in favor of a social network populated by argument and sound bites and they can simply make online measures of support, such as the number of likes, look larger — crucial in creating the illusion of popularity.
The researchers found that in the US this took the form of what the project’s research director Samuel Woolley called “manufacturing consensus” — creating the illusion of popularity so that a political candidate can have a viability that they might not have had before.
“The illusion of online support for a candidate can spur actual support through a bandwagon effect. [US President Donald] Trump made Twitter center stage in this election and voters paid attention,” the US report said.
While the report finds some evidence of institutional support for the use of bots, even if only in an “experimental” fashion by party campaign managers, Woolley said that it is just as powerful coming from individuals.
“Bots massively multiply the ability of one person to attempt to manipulate people,” he said. “Picture your annoying friend on Facebook, who’s always picking political fights. If they had an army of 5,000 bots, that would be a lot worse, right?”
Russian propaganda on social media is well known in the West for its external-facing arm, including allegations of state involvement in the US and French presidential elections. However, the nation’s social media is also heavily infiltrated with digital propaganda domestically, the report on that country said.
It showed that Russia first developed its digital propaganda expertise for dealing with internal threats to stability and drowning out dissent to Russian President Vladimir Putin’s regime while providing the same illusion of overwhelming consensus that was used in the US election years later.
“Political competition in Putin’s Russia created the demand for online propaganda tools and market competition was allowed to to efficiently meet this demand and create tools that were later deployed in foreign operations,” wrote the report’s author, Sergey Sanovich.
“Russia is the case to look to to see how a particularly powerful authoritarian regime uses social media to control people,” Woolley added.
If Russia is the progenitor of many of the techniques seen worldwide, then Ukraine is the example of how the conflict might progress.
There, “we’re seeing how computational propaganda will be in five years, because the country is a testing ground for current Russian tactics,” Woolley said.
However, as a result, civic society organizations dedicated to tackling the problem are similarly advanced.
The report on the country’s efforts to tackle Russian misinformation highlighted the StopFake project, a collaborative effort to tackle fake stories “produced mainly by the Russian media.”
It also mentioned a Google Chrome extension that allowed automatic blocking of thousands of Russian Web sites and even a straightforward ban from the government aimed at certain Russian social networks, including VKontakte and Yandex, as part of the country’s sanctions against Russia.
The reports suggested an apparent disinterest from the social media firms in how their networks were being used.
For example, Facebook leaves most of its work against propaganda to external organizations such as Snopes.com and The Associated Press, which operate semi-autonomous fact-checking teams aimed at marking viral news stories as true or false while Twitter’s anti-bot systems are effective at fighting commercial activity on the site, but seem less able or willing to take down automated accounts engaging in political activity.
The researchers are presenting their findings to a group of “senior” representatives from the technology industry in Palo Alto, urging social networks to do more and fast.
“For the most part, they leave it to the user community to police themselves and flag accounts,” Howard said, adding that while social networks tend to comply only with the minimum legal requirements, occasionally they are ahead of public opinion — as happened when the company decided to ban adverts for payday loans.
“Of all the public policy issues, I don’t know why they landed on that one. They clearly can have an impact and between violent extremism and payday loans there’s a span of issues,” he said.
The researchers did find one country to be significantly different to the others.
In Germany, fear of online destabilization outpaced the actual arrival of automated political attacks and has led to the proposal and implementation of world-leading laws requiring social networks to take responsibility for what gets posted on their sites.
“Germany leads the way as a cautionary authority over computational propaganda, seeking to prevent online manipulation of opinion rather than addressing already present issues,” the report said.
However, “many of those measures lack legitimacy and suitable enforcement, and some are disproportionate responses considering their implications for freedom of expression,” it added.
US President Donald Trump created some consternation in Taiwan last week when he told a news conference that a successful trade deal with China would help with “unification.” Although the People’s Republic of China has never ruled Taiwan, Trump’s language struck a raw nerve in Taiwan given his open siding with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aggression seeking to “reunify” Ukraine and Russia. On earlier occasions, Trump has criticized Taiwan for “stealing” the US’ chip industry and for relying too much on the US for defense, ominously presaging a weakening of US support for Taiwan. However, further examination of Trump’s remarks in
As the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its People’s Liberation Army (PLA) reach the point of confidence that they can start and win a war to destroy the democratic culture on Taiwan, any future decision to do so may likely be directly affected by the CCP’s ability to promote wars on the Korean Peninsula, in Europe, or, as most recently, on the Indian subcontinent. It stands to reason that the Trump Administration’s success early on May 10 to convince India and Pakistan to deescalate their four-day conventional military conflict, assessed to be close to a nuclear weapons exchange, also served to
China on May 23, 1951, imposed the so-called “17-Point Agreement” to formally annex Tibet. In March, China in its 18th White Paper misleadingly said it laid “firm foundations for the region’s human rights cause.” The agreement is invalid in international law, because it was signed under threat. Ngapo Ngawang Jigme, head of the Tibetan delegation sent to China for peace negotiations, was not authorized to sign the agreement on behalf of the Tibetan government and the delegation was made to sign it under duress. After seven decades, Tibet remains intact and there is global outpouring of sympathy for Tibetans. This realization
After India’s punitive precision strikes targeting what New Delhi called nine terrorist sites inside Pakistan, reactions poured in from governments around the world. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) issued a statement on May 10, opposing terrorism and expressing concern about the growing tensions between India and Pakistan. The statement noticeably expressed support for the Indian government’s right to maintain its national security and act against terrorists. The ministry said that it “works closely with democratic partners worldwide in staunch opposition to international terrorism” and expressed “firm support for all legitimate and necessary actions taken by the government of India
RSS