I don't care about Russian or French trolls but I care a lot about Facebook and very much hope it will be banned entirely in the EU some day. It's very unlikely but one can hope.
Why? Rather than hoping for regulation on data use and other negative social media effects which should fix issues with social media companies including Facebook; why hope for a downfall of a particular company.
It is not like the thing that replaces FB in case of a ban will be any better.
Source? I see this claim made in a few places, but I can't find any evidence beyond "Facebook was created the same day LifeLog was shut down" (February 4, 2004).
Not that I'm a fan of Facebook's data collection, but claiming it's a CIA operation is a substantial claim that would require substantial evidence beyond that date being shared, which very easily could be a coincidence. (Also, if it were really planned as a secret successor, why would they publicly do it on the same date?)
I'm pretty skeptical Zuckerberg was in contact with the CIA when he started Facebook in his dorm room if that's the only piece of evidence.
According to ABC news the CIA and other intelligence agencies sponsor these social media apps so what makes you think they are in competition with anyone?
No company has ever treated me worse as a paying customer than Facebook but there are plenty of more objective reasons, too. They are enforcing a Kafkaesque set of rules they apparently do not comprehend themselves, and they are interpreting and enforcing them selectively. For example, Steve Bannon was not banned from Facebook after he suggested "jokingly" that Dr. Anthony Fauci and Christopher Wray should be beheaded. However, when someone made a clearly satirical Facebook page "Behead Zuckerberg" it was quickly eliminated, even though it was meticulously screened for policy violations.
This is just one example that made headlines, there are thousands of similar examples. Facebook also influences the distribution of posts based on political indicators. For example, there is evidence that the dissemination of posts about Assange's extradition trials were blocked. There is also plenty of evidence of algorithmic discrimination, and examples of ads functionality and targeting that shouldn't even exist. For example, you could target ads to 13 year old girls in a specific town that have specific interests. I'd say that's a bit creepy. Last but not least, Facebook provides a fake customer service that seems to be intentionally designed to waste time, and there have been recent discussions of claims of fraudulent payment transactions - people were apparently charged for non-existent services on their ads accounts.
> "While we've seen influence operations target the same regions in the past, this was the first time our team found two campaigns — from France and Russia — actively engage with one another, including by befriending, commenting and criticizing the opposing side for being fake,"
This version of cyberwar is rubbish.
But yes, it's good that Facebook is also willing to call out Western governments for their covert influence operations, even if that accelerates the hammer being brought down on it. There is no good reason for French military units to be interfering in former colonies in North Africa; let it go.
> There is no good reason for French military units to be interfering in former colonies in North Africa; let it go.
While I absolutely agree, I think it's a bit hypocritical to target only France. The US and the UK do the same thing but somehow aren't banned by Facebook.
The UK even announced a few days ago that they were using a psyops unit to counter vaccination conspiracy theories. The same unit that was previously targeting the Islamic State.
I don't know exactly how they operate but I'm pretty sure they run a large network of social media bots to influence people online.
Disclosure : I'm French so that might color my reaction a bit :)
I'm sure every significant nation does it. It's just a matter of the objective and mode of moderation.
>Facebook said the alleged French accounts "posted primarily in French and Arabic about news and current events including France's policies in Francophone Africa, the security situation in various African countries, claims of potential Russian interference in the election in the Central African Republic (CAR), supportive commentary about French military, and criticism of Russia's involvement in CAR."
>Elections are due to take place in CAR later this month.
One post in French read, "The Russian imperialists are a gangrene on Mali! Watch out for the tsarist lobotomy!"
>The alleged Russian accounts, in turn, criticized the French.
Here it seems like it might have been a mix of an earnest attempt to counter Russian disinformation and perhaps some spreading of their own propaganda to influence an election.
> There is no good reason for French military units to be interfering in former colonies in North Africa; let it go.
Don't former colonial nations have some measure of responsibility over some of the outcomes in former colonial regions? Certainly staving off the worst case scenarios such as Islamic Fundamentalist groups seems somewhat prudent.
> There is no good reason for French military units to be interfering in former colonies in North Africa; let it go.
The French intervention was after both the UN security council (though France is part of it) and, more importantly, Malian authorities asked France for help [0]. "Let it go" in this context means refusing to help someone asking for help when they are on the verge of being overrun by Islamists.
>There is no good reason for French military units to be interfering in former colonies in North Africa
There are some huge problems with French interventions, but saying there is never a good reason is a bit hyperbolic. For instance, in the case of Mali, assistance was specifically requested by the government as they were losing control of the country. France intervened only once the ECOWAS mission failed and the rebels were prompted to attack.
Facebook said it tied about 100 Facebook and Instagram accounts and pages to the alleged operation tied to people linked to the French military. The pages had about 5,000 followers on Facebook, the company said.
Two separate networks of Russian pages, both allegedly linked to a Russian troll group, were also removed. Those pages had about 6 million followers, Facebook said.
It’s not immediately clear from the article whether those Russian troll groups were the specific ones active alongside and with the French one in CAR, Niger etc, but some perspective is in order nonetheless.
>This are signs of a company that thinks that is above the law.
I don't think this is the case at all. These regulations aren't exactly law that has been around for a while. It's actively being created and lobbied for right now. Obviously Facebook is going to respond to it.
This is what large companies do. The propagandistic terms known as public relations and reputation management. I just hope people won't think this is over once Facebook is dealt with.
>smear campaigns
France was also running a smear campaign in a foreign country. Just like Russia. Just like the US. Just like tons of countries. I don't think anyone should be doing it but you've got governments and quasi-governments (corporations) engaging in this behavior of steering public opinion. Neither of them are righteous.
Its interesting to see some European nations stepping up their game in cyber warfare and disinformation. Usually you hear about the USA, Russia, China, sometimes the UK, but rarely any of the other European nations.
France is a primary actor in the EU seeking to regulate Facebook. It appears the company is now publicly calling out the country's shady activities on their own platform -- clever, and no doubt a good bargaining chip.
Facebook may only be popular among the older generation but platforms like Instagram and Whatsapp are the main social media and chat services used even among the younger generation at least in western europe.
So I would say Facebook as a company is important in europe and by no means a small player.
37 comments
[ 2.1 ms ] story [ 103 ms ] threadIt is not like the thing that replaces FB in case of a ban will be any better.
Not that I'm a fan of Facebook's data collection, but claiming it's a CIA operation is a substantial claim that would require substantial evidence beyond that date being shared, which very easily could be a coincidence. (Also, if it were really planned as a secret successor, why would they publicly do it on the same date?)
I'm pretty skeptical Zuckerberg was in contact with the CIA when he started Facebook in his dorm room if that's the only piece of evidence.
This is just one example that made headlines, there are thousands of similar examples. Facebook also influences the distribution of posts based on political indicators. For example, there is evidence that the dissemination of posts about Assange's extradition trials were blocked. There is also plenty of evidence of algorithmic discrimination, and examples of ads functionality and targeting that shouldn't even exist. For example, you could target ads to 13 year old girls in a specific town that have specific interests. I'd say that's a bit creepy. Last but not least, Facebook provides a fake customer service that seems to be intentionally designed to waste time, and there have been recent discussions of claims of fraudulent payment transactions - people were apparently charged for non-existent services on their ads accounts.
This version of cyberwar is rubbish.
But yes, it's good that Facebook is also willing to call out Western governments for their covert influence operations, even if that accelerates the hammer being brought down on it. There is no good reason for French military units to be interfering in former colonies in North Africa; let it go.
While I absolutely agree, I think it's a bit hypocritical to target only France. The US and the UK do the same thing but somehow aren't banned by Facebook.
The UK even announced a few days ago that they were using a psyops unit to counter vaccination conspiracy theories. The same unit that was previously targeting the Islamic State.
I don't know exactly how they operate but I'm pretty sure they run a large network of social media bots to influence people online.
Disclosure : I'm French so that might color my reaction a bit :)
>Facebook said the alleged French accounts "posted primarily in French and Arabic about news and current events including France's policies in Francophone Africa, the security situation in various African countries, claims of potential Russian interference in the election in the Central African Republic (CAR), supportive commentary about French military, and criticism of Russia's involvement in CAR."
>Elections are due to take place in CAR later this month. One post in French read, "The Russian imperialists are a gangrene on Mali! Watch out for the tsarist lobotomy!"
>The alleged Russian accounts, in turn, criticized the French.
Here it seems like it might have been a mix of an earnest attempt to counter Russian disinformation and perhaps some spreading of their own propaganda to influence an election.
Don't former colonial nations have some measure of responsibility over some of the outcomes in former colonial regions? Certainly staving off the worst case scenarios such as Islamic Fundamentalist groups seems somewhat prudent.
The French intervention was after both the UN security council (though France is part of it) and, more importantly, Malian authorities asked France for help [0]. "Let it go" in this context means refusing to help someone asking for help when they are on the verge of being overrun by Islamists.
[0] https://www.france24.com/en/20130111-mali-asks-france-milita...
Also, the article talks about anti-Russian messaging? Not anti-Islamist?
There are some huge problems with French interventions, but saying there is never a good reason is a bit hyperbolic. For instance, in the case of Mali, assistance was specifically requested by the government as they were losing control of the country. France intervened only once the ECOWAS mission failed and the rebels were prompted to attack.
The UK would do similar things if the Kenyan government asked for help.
Steve Jobs was once asked by a reporter if President Obama should intervene in Syria. He said "Do something, you're fucked. Do nothing, you're fucked"
Two separate networks of Russian pages, both allegedly linked to a Russian troll group, were also removed. Those pages had about 6 million followers, Facebook said.
It’s not immediately clear from the article whether those Russian troll groups were the specific ones active alongside and with the French one in CAR, Niger etc, but some perspective is in order nonetheless.
It seems a personal initiative more than an state backed one. But Facebook will run with the false equivalency.
Facebook is trying to fight back regulations with missinformation and smear campaigns. This are signs of a company that thinks that is above the law.
I don't think this is the case at all. These regulations aren't exactly law that has been around for a while. It's actively being created and lobbied for right now. Obviously Facebook is going to respond to it.
>smear campaigns
France was also running a smear campaign in a foreign country. Just like Russia. Just like the US. Just like tons of countries. I don't think anyone should be doing it but you've got governments and quasi-governments (corporations) engaging in this behavior of steering public opinion. Neither of them are righteous.
Then again EU privacy initiatives are from German / Danish politicians