Bashing Facebook Is Not The Answer To Curbing Russian Influence Operations

Scapegoating Facebook is an easy way to explain the relative success of Russia's influence operations during the U.S. election in 2016. However it distracts from more fundamental questions on how election meddling should be confronted.

By Jamie Collier & Monica Kaminska

With Facebook revealing the true extent of Russia’s information operations during the U.S. election on their platform, journalists have not held back in casting social media firms as the pantomime villain in recent election interference sagas. At the core of recent criticism is the assertion that social media firms are now serious political influencers, and crucially ones that are incapable of self-policing themselves with further regulation necessary.

Although social media platforms could always improve at preventing foreign governments from interfering in elections, the recent furor distracts from more fundamental questions on how election meddling should be confronted. Crucially, further clamping down on Facebook and Twitter is not the elixir to recent election interferences that many hope for.

The role of social media in influencing elections should not be discounted. As these platforms become increasingly prevalent, their influence on our thought processes and emotions will only increase. Yet, multiple factors affect elections, ranging from the state of the economy to healthcare provision. This makes it difficult to assess the true political impact of social media strategies and their influence on voting behavior. A number of actors compete for voters’ attention including official campaigns, political action committees, the tabloid press and far-leaning ideological websites. Russian activity therefore operates in a highly congested space, and its impact is likely to get crowded out by more influential groups. For example, tabloids  possess a significant following of news-hungry potential voters, already sympathetic to a particular political stance. Likewise, official candidate campaigns have access to detailed data on prospective voters and millions of dollars to spend on digital advertising. The Trump campaign reportedly spent $90 million on Facebook, making Russia’s $100,000 ad buy look like pocket change.

Russia may be able to promote causes that coincide with Russian interests. Yet influencing those who are not already on board is increasingly difficult online given the echo chambers that exist on social media. Facebook users interact predominantly with like-minded friends, they subscribe to news outlets that coincide with their own worldview. This means there is a limited pool of swing voters that could be converted to the extremes to suit Russian interests.

Many have made the case that Russia’s real aim is not to convince others, but to exploit existing divisions within societies. Even then, it remains unclear whether social media campaigns are really that effective. Passive forms of online participation often fail to materialize into more active forms of political mobilization. Only four protesters turned up to an anti-refugee rally in Idaho organized by a Russian-backed Facebook group despite significantly higher numbers saying they were ‘interested’ online. Previous research also suggests that content on social networks is most influential when shared among close friends—strong ties trump obscure foreign-government backed campaigns.

Placing Russian-backed political social media advertising on a pedestal implies that Moscow’s approach is somehow novel. It is not. Russia, much like the United States, has used political propaganda for decades. One of the Soviet Union’s most famous campaigns was “active measures” launched during the Cold War against the election of Ronald Reagan. More recently, Russia has had a hand in political subversion in Ukraine, the Baltic States and Georgia. But while political Facebook ads might be a case of old wine in new bottles, Russian actors have been engaging in a wide range of other cyber intrusions, and it is these that merit more public attention.

If tech companies and policymakers want to address Russian election meddling, they should see Russian cyber operations as a spectrum of activity, from the relatively soft forms of interference conducted via social media, through to hacking, and even the compromise of election infrastructure (a particular concern for states that allow online voting). Instead of narrowly focusing on social media manipulation, they should focus on Russian efforts to dox and launder internal campaign emails through sites like Wikileaks. The operation against the Democratic National Committee was remarkably disruptive and effective, and similar events occurred in 2015 at the German Bundestag and Emmanuel Macron’s campaign in France earlier this year. It is these operations that have the greatest potential to directly influence an election result and damage confidence in democratic institutions, while simultaneously providing material for future influence efforts.

Bashing Facebook and Twitter do nothing to nullify the plausible deniability of election interference that Russia and influence peddlers thrive on. It is up to political campaigns, not social media platforms, to develop effective public relations strategies to counter the effects of doxing through WikiLeaks and improve their woeful cybersecurity. Likewise, governments and the media need to candidly talk about the way in which news outlets report on foreign government-backed leaks, a hugely contentious issue. Clamping down on social media firms represents an easy fix by comparison—one that does not require substantial change or compromise from within governments and political parties.

While Silicon Valley will play its part in preventing future political interference, the real change must take place in Washington DC.

About The Authors: 

Jamie Collier is a cybersecurity DPhil candidate and a research affiliate with the Cyber Studies Programme at the University of Oxford. Monica Kaminska is a DPhil candidate and previously worked on the Computational Propaganda Project at the Oxford Internet Institute.

 

 

« Wikileaks Release Details Of Mass Surveillance In Russia
N.Korea's Cyber Threats To S.Korea »

CyberSecurity Jobsite
Perimeter 81

Directory of Suppliers

ZenGRC

ZenGRC

ZenGRC - the first, easy-to-use, enterprise-grade information security solution for compliance and risk management - offers businesses efficient control tracking, testing, and enforcement.

FT Cyber Resilience Summit: Europe

FT Cyber Resilience Summit: Europe

27 November 2024 | In-Person & Digital | 22 Bishopsgate, London. Business leaders, Innovators & Experts address evolving cybersecurity risks.

Resecurity, Inc.

Resecurity, Inc.

Resecurity is a cybersecurity company that delivers a unified platform for endpoint protection, risk management, and cyber threat intelligence.

Practice Labs

Practice Labs

Practice Labs is an IT competency hub, where live-lab environments give access to real equipment for hands-on practice of essential cybersecurity skills.

MIRACL

MIRACL

MIRACL provides the world’s only single step Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA) which can replace passwords on 100% of mobiles, desktops or even Smart TVs.

DriveLock

DriveLock

Our security solution is designed to prevent external attacks, which are evermore sophisticated as well as monitor, document and even prevent internal incidents.

Brainwave GRC

Brainwave GRC

Brainwave GRC is a leading European software provider focused on Identity Analytics and intelligence to strengthen IT security and compliance.

Advantech

Advantech

Advantech is a leader in providing trusted innovative embedded and automation products and solutions. Activities include IoT security.

CUIng.org

CUIng.org

The CUIng initiative was launched to tackle the problem of criminal exploitation of information hiding techniques.

Galois

Galois

Galois specializes in the research and development of new technologies that solve the most difficult problems in computer science.

Chainalysis

Chainalysis

Chainalysis provides blockchain analysis software to prevent, detect and investigate cryptocurrency money laundering, fraud and compliance violations.

Austrian Institute of Technology (AIT)

Austrian Institute of Technology (AIT)

AIT is Austria's largest research and technology organisation and a specialist in the key infrastructure issues of the future including data science and cybersecurity.

Humming Heads

Humming Heads

Humming Heads offers a complete solution to fight the advanced threats that target a company's endpoints and servers.

NeuVector

NeuVector

NeuVector, the leader in Full Lifecycle Container Security, delivers uncompromising end-to-end security from DevOps vulnerability protection to complete protection in production.

Microland

Microland

Microland’s delivery of digital is all about making technology do more and intrude less for global enterprises. Our services include Cloud & Data Center, Networks, Cybersecurity and more.

Octiga

Octiga

Octiga is an office 365 cloud security provider. It offers Office 365 monitoring, incident response and recovery tools.

Future Planet Capital

Future Planet Capital

Future Planet is the impact-led, global venture capital firm built to invest in high growth potential companies from the world's top research centres.

Microminder Cyber Security

Microminder Cyber Security

Microminder Cyber Security are innovators, advisors, strategists committed to solving your cyber security challenges.

APIsentry

APIsentry

APIsentry is a leading provider of comprehensive API security solutions, specializing in protecting organizations from a wide range of cyber threats targeting their Application Programming Interfaces.

Vultara

Vultara

Vultara provides web-based product security risk management tools for electronics manufacturers.

Cyber Defense International (CDI)

Cyber Defense International (CDI)

At CDI, we utilize decades of experience in designing and building large-scale cybersecurity programs, creating tailored solutions and services that protect businesses from cyber threats.