Facebook CEO Presents Plans for Mass Censorship at Senate Hearing
By Andre Damon
11 April 2018
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg used his appearance Tuesday before the Senate Judiciary and Commerce Committees to outline a plan for mass censorship on the world’s largest social media platform.
Zuckerberg explained how every single statement made by the company’s 2.2 billion users is analyzed and vetted by artificial intelligence systems, then reviewed by an army of some 20,000 censors. If the company finds a statement to be “sensational” or “divisive,” the user will be flagged as a “bad actor,” and either have their posts blocked, be reported to the government, or both.
Mark Zuckerberg testifying before Congress
Since the 2016 election, Zuckerberg said, the company had undergone a transformation. “We are going through a broader philosophical shift in how we approach our responsibility as a company,” Zuckerberg said.
It is “not enough to build tools” and let users do what they want with them, Zuckerberg said. “We need to make sure they are used for good” by “policing” the Facebook “ecosystem.”
The ability to “police” all the content on Facebook was impossible until the rise of artificial intelligence, Zuckerberg said. “From the beginning of the company in 2004, we didn’t have AI technology that could look at content people were sharing.” But the rapid development of artificial intelligence now allows Facebook to screen and understand every single post and message on its platform.
“By the end of this year we’ll have more than 20,000 people working on security and content review,” Zuckerberg said. “So when content gets flagged to us we have those people look at it.”
He bragged that Facebook’s artificial intelligence tools now succeed in flagging 99 percent of “terrorist propaganda” before users ever see it. By “rolling out AI tools,” Facebook can “proactively police and enforce” all content, Zuckerberg said.
These AI tools will be used to identify accounts that spread “fake news,” and they have helped the company “proactively remove tens of thousands of accounts before they could contribute significant harm.”
To drive home the company’s integration into the military/intelligence/police apparatus, Zuckerberg declared that Facebook is actively involved in an “arms race” with Russia.
Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy demanded that Zuckerberg do more to combat “divisive” Facebook accounts and pages, not just those operated by Russia. The Senator had a staffer hold up a sign with examples of such “divisive” pages, asking why they were allowed to continue operating.
Zuckerberg’s appearance came after he announced on Friday that the company would require all “large” Facebook pages and all pages that run political and issue ads to verify their identities. He clarified what this would mean in his appearance Tuesday, saying he would require anyone operating “large” pages to have a “valid government identity,” and to “verify their location” by receiving a confirmation code by mail.
Asked by Republican Senator John Cornyn whether Facebook took responsibility for its users’ statements, Zuckerberg declared, “we’re responsible for the content.” He added that its artificial intelligence tools would be able to tell whether a post was “you know…something bad.”
The vast and sweeping dangers to democratic rights posed by Facebook’s censorship measures were ignored by all of the Democratic Congressmen, who universally cheered the crackdown by the social media giant. The same went for nearly all the Republicans, with the exception of Senator Ted Cruz, who sought to burnish his credentials with the extreme right by criticizing Facebook’s censorship of far-right political organizations.
Cruz accused Facebook and other technology giants of engaging “in a pervasive pattern of bias and political censorship” against the far right, in order to promote what he called “left-wing” political views. Cruz asked Zuckerberg whether he knew the “political orientation “of Facebook’s “content evaluators.”
Zuckerberg replied with the standard line worked out between the Democrats, leading Republicans, and the intelligence agencies. “There are a number of things that we would all agree are clearly bad. Foreign interference in our elections, terrorism… that…is clearly bad activity that we want to get down.”
In fact, the real target of the mass censorship regime implemented by the technology giants is left-wing political opposition, most importantly workers’ use of Facebook to organize strikes and protests. Over the past two months, numerous stories in major US newspapers warned that teachers throughout the country were using Facebook groups to organize strikes independently of the unions…
She’s an artist and more of a casual observer of the Internet, but she was so enthusiastic that she immediately said she wanted to share it with the parents group at her kids’ school. I was surprised (like, why with parents?) but she explained they are having problems with children sharing extreme pornographic videos from the Internet and that she feels like the conversations they are having among parents and teachers about what to do – and of what is wrong with the Internet generally – are happening in relative ignorance of what the greater issues are.
The last year in particular has felt like a tipping point where many of the issues that used to be discussed among experts and activists of the Internet have finally landed in the mainstream arena. At least more of the people I talk to in my life are feeling it’s their civic duty to better understand what’s going on. Perhaps you’ve noticed the same?
I would say that’s a good thing for the prospect of creating change, but also risky in that many of our opinions are now shaped by news headlines about things that are going wrong. If we don’t also examine the big picture, we could end up fearful and paralyzed, like animals staring into the headlights of an oncoming car (eek! a self-driving one?) or we could end up over-correcting by supporting shortsighted regulations with unintended consequences.
The Internet Health Report, which launches today, is a call to action for more people to engage in questioning what’s wrong and proposing solutions that can make the entire ecosystem healthier for everyone.
It’s about collectively tracking the evolution of the Internet over time by whatever means possible, and identifying the people and ideas that are changing things for the better.
There’s so much goodness we tend to take for granted.
We call it an “open source” report because it is the result of countless conversations, online comments, emails, drafts and edits of hundreds of people over the last year. For me personally (as editor) the process has been cathartic. I really worry about the Internet and the effects it has on our societies, our discourse and politics. Certainly as a parent, but as a citizen of the world in general: I worry about surveillance, about online harassment, about the extreme commercialization of every inch of the greatest global public resource created by humans. I worry about over-regulation, as well as about lack of regulation — and of people losing faith in the very thing that has created such vast opportunity for greater global understanding, education and the open exchange of ideas and information.
Giving up is really not an option. We need to keep expanding on a positive, long term vision for the Internet that is centered on humanity, and is mindful of the countless different ways the Internet is experienced (or not experienced) in different parts of the world. That’s part of what the Internet Health Report is for. Whenever and wherever we can, we need to keep asking whether the Internet is getting healthier, and do whatever we can when it’s not.
The Internet Health Report is about the human experience of the Internet. It is an independent, open source compilation of data, research and stories that show how the Internet is evolving across five issues.
Working with researchers, digital rights activists, Mozilla fellows and our community, we tell a collaborative story of how the Internet is – and isn’t – healthy from a human perspective.
The Report draws on a wide body of existing research on issues ranging from privacy to connectivity, to online harassment and the economics of online platforms.
Our aim is to connect the dots and look for patterns between these often siloed issues – to look at the human experience of the Internet as a whole.
By doing this, we want to encourage a broader understanding of how the problems facing the global Internet relate to one another, and to shine a light on what people are doing to make the ecosystem healthier.
We, as humans, can change the Internet for the better. This report is a resource and call to action for everyone who is ready, in big ways and small, to take on this challenge.
The “components” of this report can be read in any order. At the end of each, we encourage you to share a reaction and engage with everyone about ideas.
A prototype of this report was published in January 2017 and was followed by an open, public discussion about metrics, several meetings with allies, and the establishment of a smaller “Report Coalition” to support content creation. Read project updates in our blog.
What’s it like to be a forward facing feminist in the sciences in academia?
Here’s a brief story about my experiences of the last six years at NYU, Hogeschool Kunst de Utrecht and Goldsmiths, University of London.
For five years I worked at NYU Tandon School of Engineering. During that time, the department and school changed quite a bit. My boss, Carl Skelton, quit in a political upheaval and a friend, Luke Dubios took his job. The school changed names three times. An entirely new Games department arose (now NYU Game Center) and we moved into a multi-million dollar state of the art facility named Magnet (the Media and Games Network). NYU however, is horribly cheap. It pays many of the staff ridiculously low salaries. Originally, I was recruited to teach web development but at the time did not have a Masters degree. While I was there, I managed to accomplish that. The entire time I was working there I was an adjunct. It was willingly at first as I kept my six figure senior job in advertising and then unwillingly as I later developed a stronger and stronger desire to do research in HCI and Games.
During this time as much as NYU changed, I changed. My interest in games grew and blossomed. I opened a games studio called Dozen Eyes and founded an organization to teach women to program games for free, Code Liberation Foundation, which enjoys a good deal of popularly, international acclaim and has reached thousands of women. My research interests expanded and with them I helped my former student, Caroline Sinders, start a conference called Facets. It promotes cross pollination between STEM and art and features under represented voices.
This whole time my friend Luke never did anything but fund and support me. He did something very, very rare I have come to find out. He listened to what I had to say, empowered me to make change and funded me in the process. As a result of his attitude towards women, people of all abilities and people of color in tech, our department at NYU is now home to Different Games, Code Liberation, Facets, The Ability Lab and a score of other top tier research projects promoting diversity and ability. Additionally, he accepted every single woman I referred and gave them full funding. These women have gone on to be exceptional and include Nina Freeman and Catt Small.
Luke did this because he wanted change and I was a useful vector through which that change could unfold. He also supported a whole host of talented activists and change creators who were also teaching such as Sarah Schoemann, Laine Nooney, Beth Rosenberg and Holly Cohen.
Every time someone like me came to him with an idea from a population that needed support he stepped back and he listened. Then he found a way to write a check and gave us space using NYU’s resources even though he could not hire us. Luke Dubois runs NYU Integrated Digital Media at NYU Tandon like Bernie Sanders interacts with Black Lives Matter. He radically supports and empowers change from diverse populations. He’s using Magnet like Robin Hood and he’s proving to NYU he can make money and support positive change concurrently — that in fact, these two things go hand in hand.
While at Magnet I enjoyed a position of being a beloved instructor. As it turned out, I surprised myself and found I had a gift for teaching programming. Eventually though when I wanted to go full time, there were no open positions. In fact, they have not done a single full time hire for a lecturer since I quit my advertising job. Even though I was popular, well liked, nationally recognized in my field and a recruiting tool for the school, it looked like if I wanted to continue up the food chain I’d need a PhD. This was not something Luke could help me with. NYU didn’t have a PhD in games, creative computing, HCI or anything even remotely approaching my field. As a result, I started looking for new opportunities.
To my shock and surprise, it turned out I was supremely hirable. The climate changed while I was at NYU. My skills, which include professional rebel rousing, hacking, DIY engineering, game development, HCI, design and creative programming, all at a senior level, were now meaningful as an onslaught of programs have begun to incorporate these skills into more traditional Computer Science departments to keep up with trends. Also, I’ve got a host of publications in fields like Digital Media Curation, Machine Learning, HCI and Smart Cities from projects I’ve generated during the last years from a nice array of respectable conferences. Somehow along the way I also co-authored a book and wrote about machine learning for games and creative performance while contributing to some open source projects like Open Frameworks. You bookend this with the my silicon valley experience and somehow I look like a legitimate computer scientist, although that was never all together my aim. It’s just that life stacks up on one over time I guess and who you are unfurls. I always thought I was an artist. Meanwhile, I became an accidental scientist.
Getting a permanent academic posting that would support my PhD as well was relatively easy and I did it not once but twice. The first time around I was the only woman the department, which had been around for 25 years, hired to teach programming. It was not an easy job. I loved my students but I’d never been on an all male team and suddenly, I went from a city where I’d knew everyone to a city where I knew no one. Also, my boss was not like Luke. He had little interest in really empowering social change and was happy to just do his job without being a vanguard. I get that. Not everyone can spend the weekend in William Burroughs’ house archiving his library or making visualizations out of bullets in New Orleans galleries. Not everyone can be Luke Dubois. I got the feeling he would never empower me to grow and I’d simply be biding my time until something new emerged in my life. Additionally, there was a solid bro club in our games department and there was never going to be a way around it for me. I’d always be an outsider – the token female face that they trotted out for investors and on recruiting day.
Then an opportunity opened up at Goldsmiths, University of London in the department where my friend and long time collaborator Rebecca Fiebrinkwas working. Additionally, a few years back I’d met Mick Grierson and, like Luke we were the same age and like minded rebels never content with how things might be. Mick, like Luke, is tireless. A researcher in computer science with a nearly endless array of interests and publications, he also somehow is an accidental scientist who started off as and remains an artist. I thought to myself, “Here’s someone that can push me to the next phase of my life.” I applied and in some twist of amazingly odd fate got a highly competitive job.
Originally they offered to me, maybe even accidentally, a games job, which I flat out refused as we’d discussed a job in Physical Computing. The idea was I did not want to teach games. Post gamergate, I’m exceptionally disillusioned with what is obvious sexism all over the field. While I make games, I sure as heck do not want to teach them in an all male games department, which is what was going on with Goldsmiths’ IGGI program when I applied. I refuse to be a token women game dev again. I have no interest in taking a less than leadership role in an all male department. The only way to change and break up that kind of boys club is from the top down. There’s no bottom up fix as I learned at my last job. Goldsmiths heard me and gave me the physical computing job and I moved to London.
That said, there has been interest from the department in supporting a UK version of Code Liberation. To do it, I have to have students who can help me teach and develop the organization here. Ideally, I like to train women to teach and mentor other women who have an interest in cultivating our field into a better, healthier environment. As a result, I referred two exceptionally talented and accomplished young women to our games PhD program who had the right make up to be CLF members. It’s not something I’d suggest for just anyone. They were both rejected. I guess I should not be surprised. Their experience looks nothing like what a man in games might expect. It’s variegated, diverse and non-linear. It has to be.
Additionally, the lab they said would be mine has been contentious. What I am facing is that Goldsmiths really wants change but they might be afraid to hand the reins over to a powerful, punk rock 40 something genX (American) woman who looks them in the eye and says, “Trust me on this one. I know what I am doing.” To be fair, I’m not exactly a soft, gentle soul. I’m highly energetic, passionate and dedicated activist. I am sometimes brash if I feel strongly something is horribly unfair. I’ve got a relentless drive. Things that would break most people seem to be like fuel to me. I guess that’s because if I took what I was given, I’d be still living in poverty, partially disabled and under educated in a trailer in the south. I’ve heard this trait called resilience as of late. It’s one I have in spades.
We will see how it goes at Goldsmiths for me. The story is yet unwritten and unfolding. We’ll see how risk adverse they are. Given they hired Mick, who seems every bit as adventurous as myself and maybe even then some, I can only think it will eventually, after the bumps, I’ll settle in nicely. We’re even trying to set up an exchange program with NYU and Luke. I have hope.
So here’s my point.
Are you an ally and do you want change? Are you in an academic or corporate space in a position of power? Then do this. Listen. Take risks on people like myself who don’t come from your background or from privilege.
When we tell you how we want to help our communities, don’t intercede, mediate or try and control us. Simply empower us. You don’t know what’s best even though your privilege and position might lead you to think you do. If you need a case in point, see how successful Luke’s department at NYU is becoming as a result of this strategy.
Change isn’t demur. Change isn’t soft. Change does not make you comfortable with yourself.
Change does not come in a package you will recognize as familiar.
Change points out your bullshit.
Change makes something new.
Change is scary.
In the end though, if you’re open to it, change will make you healthier and stronger.
Take the risk.
This posting is dedicated to Greg Deocampo who asked me to write it.
Phoenix Perry teaching for The Code Liberation Foundation at NYU Game Center
Dearest Buzzfeed Readers Discussing Privilege,
First off, if you’ve had access to take this quiz everyone’s discussing on privilege, let me get something out of the way immediately. You have a fantastic level of privilege compared to others around the globe. At this point, we are splitting hairs on the scale of karmic luck. Not that all suffering isn’t important or real, but please take a second to notice that you’ve had time to do this quiz, money to have net access and friends that are smart enough to think about these issues. Pause now and reflect on that.
So where am I? I scored a whole thirty one points.
This places me firmly in the not privileged camp. However, I would like to reveal the stupefying levels of privilege I live with everyday. Biographically, here are the facts. I grew up in a poor family in the south. From twelve onward, I was raised by only my uneducated mother who worked as a maid to care for her two children. Dealing with my father’s sudden death, she was suffering from mental illness and doing the very best she could with a very poor tool set. We had government assistance. Around 15, I began to realize I was attracted to women as well as men. After about 16, I started actively dating both genders and also stopped even pretending to be a Christian woman. For three years of my life, from 19–22, I was engaged to a trans woman, and for the record I’d like to state that living in the deep south with her was one of the most terrifying experiences of my adult life. Many times I questioned if we were going to just die as victims of a hate crime. Men used to say to my face I needed to be raped so I would understand I should be straight. Their logic was proof to me how sorely I needed out of that situation.
Then suddenly, everything changed. I was hired in Silicon Valley as a developer. A few factors made what happened to me possible. The first factor is intelligence. I’m not just smart, I’m a genius in the way western culture values mental ability. This pulled me out from others with my background. Teachers treated me better. I got a superior education, into a better college, an even better graduate school and now I am about to join one of the best universities on earth as faculty. As a result, I am highly technically skilled and my whole adult life has been spent somewhere within the spectrum of the digital economy. When I started that job in the valley, I suddenly started making more money than every single member of my family combined.
As it turned out, my luck didn’t hold. At 24, I managed to become partially disabled. It took around eight years but I’ve recovered. I could go into the details but another trait I have far more than most people is resilience. All of the horrible things I had to overcome in my youth led to the development of this far more important skill. Soon I was back on track and rising again. Luck made things like drinks with the head of a department at NYU turn into a MS degree. Luck again began changing my life.
Discussing how programming is a political act at Indie Develop in Utrecht, NL 2015
Since leaving the south, I feel like everyday has been a gift. Currently, I live in a three bedroom modern home which is resoundingly beautiful in The Netherlands with the love of my life and our cat. As a bisexual woman, I live with CIS privilege unless I out myself. I have the time, energy and support to work with organisations to help other women learn to program. I do this because of the economic advantages programming gives a person. If luck is a lady, she’s with me now.
It’s time we discuss the harder stuff to talk about.
We need to talk about what we value in culture.
We need to talk about luck.
We need to discuss genetics.
Most importantly, we need need to discuss access to social mobility.
Looking at access will show a far deeper moral abyss than the one that privilege shows. In a world where access is narrowing and the gap between the rich and the poor is growing, please note how social mobility is shifting.
If you’re reading this you currently have access to the tools that empower social change.
Right now, you have access to education, communication and most importantly each other.