How can internet whales are well aware that innocent-seeming U.S. companionships aren’t actually shell vehicles for malevolent foreign actors to buy ads to interfere with ballots? The short answer is they can’t, and that described wondering from a congressional probe today into Facebook, Twitter and Google being used to influence the 2016 presidential election.
The hearing encountered Facebook’s general counsel Colin Stretch dodge whether Facebook supports the brand-new Honest Ads bill, instead touting the self-regulation it’s implementing. Google’s Richard Salgado affirmed that the company encounters itself as a engineering platform , not a media company or newspaper.
And Senator Ted Cruz pressed Facebook about whether it was politically neutral, and if it sways discourse “in ways consistent with the political vistums of your employees, ” which I’ve memo tilts Democrat judging by rampant hearten by hires for Democratic talking degrees during Barack Obama’s townhall at Facebook HQ in 2011.
Losing the shell game
Perhaps the most revealing time of the hearing came when one member of the human rights commission interrogating the companies’ spokesperson requested 😛 TAGEND
“How do you deal with the problem of a legitimate and lawful but phony American shell corporation, one that announces itself say’ America for Puppies and Prosperity, ’ that has a sag carton as its address, and a $50 million checkin its check book that it’s exploiting to spend to manipulate poll upshots? ”
Twitter’s general counsel Sean Edgett acknowledged “I think that’s a problem. We’re continuing to look into’ how do you get to know your client’ . . . and believe that we’ll have to figure out a good process to understand who those purchasers actually are that are signing the contracts with Twitter to pas ads.”
The committee pressed further about Twitter’s shortcoming here. “You admit that if you draw it all the way back to an American corporation, let’s call it’ America for Puppies and Prosperity’ and it’s actually a eggshell corporation, you don’t actually know who’s behind it? ” the committee asked. “It could be Vladimir Putin, it could be a big strong American special interest, it could be the North Koreans or the Iranians. You need to be able to probe the gloom of the shell corporation, redress? ”
Edgett responded “Yeah, we’re working on the best approach to getting to know the clients and getting to know who’s behind the entities that are signing up for advertising.”
Later, Senator John Kennedy laid into the tech agents, saying “Sometimes your supremacy scares me.” He went on to ream Facebook’s general counsel Colin Stretch “for having 5 million advertisers, ” which Kennedy said he thought was a quantity impossible to police. “You don’t have the ability to know who every one of those advertisers is, do you? ” Kennedy expected. Stretch admitted Facebook didn’t, and it would likely be cost-prohibitive to drill down further into their identities.
Herein lies one of the toughest ongoing challenges for Twitter, Facebook and Google. They must either erect barriers to advertising that could deter innocent businesses and cost too much to administer and maintain, or they have to largely take advertisers at face value.
Facebook has written that it plans to “require more exhaustive documentation from advertisers who want to run U.S. federal election-related ads. Potential advertisers will have to confirm the business or make-up they represent before they can buy ads.” But if those identified enterprises are merely eggshell companionships, that regulation doesn’t do much good.
In the hearing’s second discussion, when asked to comment on shell business, Alliance For Securing Democracy fellow Clint Watts said, “I’m actually amazed that the Russians constructed the mistake of buying ads directly through the Internet Research Agency, ” rather than through a eggshell companionship. He called this a mistake by the Kremlin, expressing future ballot intervention could be even tougher to marks. And when asked if he guessed the tech whales can currently link who their advertisers truly are, Watts bluntly said “No.”
This issue of advertiser identity and how deep tech pulpits are required to investigate it could emerge as key to whether these companies are allowed to self-regulate or whether the administration has step in.