How Social Media Influences Elections

With Facebook becoming a key electoral battleground, researchers are studying how automated accounts are used to alter political debate online

One of the most powerful players in the British election is also one of the most, opaque. With a short time to go until voters go to the polls, there are two things every election expert agrees on: what happens on social media, and Facebook in particular, will have an enormous effect on how the country votes; and no one has any clue how to measure what’s actually happening there.

“Many of us wish we could study Facebook,” said Prof Philip Howard, of the University of Oxford’s Internet Institute, “but we can’t, because they really don’t share anything.” Howard is leading a team of researchers studying “computational propaganda” at the university, attempting to shine a light on the ways automated accounts are used to alter debate online.

“I think that there have been several democratic exercises in the last year that have gone off the rails because of large amounts of misinformation in the public sphere,” Howard said. “Brexit and its outcome, and the Trump election and its outcome, are what I think of as ‘mistakes’, in that there were such significant amounts of misinformation out in the public sphere.

“Not all of that comes from automation. It also comes from the news culture, bubbles of education, and people’s ability to do critical thinking when they read the news. But the proximate cause of misinformation is Facebook serving junk news to large numbers of users.”

Emily Taylor, chief executive of Oxford Information Labs and editor of the Journal of Cyber Policy, agreed, calling Facebook’s effect on democratic society “insidious”. 

Taylor expressed similar reservations about fake news being spread on social media, (a term Howard eschews due to its political connotations, preferring to describe such sources as “false”, “junk” or simply “bad”), but she added there was a “deeper, scarier, more insidious problem: we now exist in these curated environments, where we never see anything outside our own bubble … and we don’t realise how curated they are.”

A 2015 study suggested that more than 60% of Facebook users are entirely unaware of any curation on Facebook at all, believing instead that every single story from their friends and followed pages appeared in their news feed.

In reality, the vast majority of content any given user subscribes to will never appear in front of them. Instead, Facebook shows an algorithmic selection, based on a number of factors: most importantly whether anyone has paid Facebook to promote the post, but also how you have interacted with similar posts in the past (by liking, commenting or sharing them) and how much other people have done the same.

It is that last point that has Taylor worried about automation on social media sites. Advertising is a black hole of its own, but at least it has to be vaguely open: all social media sites mark sponsored posts as such, and political parties are required to report advertising spend at a national and local level.

No such regulation applies to automation. “You see a post with 25,000 retweets or shares that comes into your timeline,” Taylor said, “and you don’t know how many of them are human.” She sees the automation as part of a broad spectrum of social media optimisation techniques, which parties use to ensure that their message rides the wave of the algorithmic curation on to as many timelines as possible. It is similar, though much younger and less documented, to search engine optimisation, the art of ensuring a particular web page shows up high on Google’s results pages.

Academics such as Taylor and Howard are trying to study how such techniques are applied, and whether they really can swing elections. But their efforts are hurt by the fact that the largest social media network in the world – Facebook – is almost totally opaque to outsiders.

If Howard’s group were examining Facebook rather than Twitter, they “would only be able to crawl the public pages”, he said. That would miss the vast majority of activity that goes on the social network, on private timelines, closed groups, and through the effect of the algorithmic curation on individual feeds. 

Even so, he says, those public pages can be relevant. “In some of our other countries studied, we think we’ve found fake Facebook groups. So there are fake users, but the way we think they were used – with Trump in particular – is that they were used, created, hired, rented, to join fake fan groups that were full of not-real people.

“Those fake groups may have eventually attracted real fans,” he said, who were emboldened to declare their support for the candidate by the artificially created perception of a swell in support for him. “There’s all these Trump fans in your neighbourhood, that you didn’t really know … so we think that’s the mechanism. And then we think some of those public pages got shut down, went private, or just because so full of real people that the fake problem went away. We don’t know, this is the theory.”

Facebook does allow some researchers access to information that would answer Howard’s questions, it just employs them first. The company publishes a moderate stream of research carried out by its own data scientists, occasionally in conjunction with partner institutions. By and large, such research paints a rosy view of the organisation, though occasionally the company badly misjudges how a particular study will be received by the public.

In 2014, for instance, the social network published research showing that two years earlier it had deliberately increased the amount of “negative” content on the timelines of 150,000 people, to see if it would make them sad. The study into “emotional contagion” sparked outrage, and may have cooled Facebook’s views on publishing research full stop.

As a result of their lack of access to Facebook, Howard and his team have turned to Twitter. Even there, the company’s limits hit hard – they can see just 1% of posts on the site each day, meaning they have to carefully select what terms they monitor to avoid being too broad. In the US election, they hit the cap a few times, missing crucial hours of data as conversation hit a fever pitch.

Similar limitations exist throughout the study. The team had to use a broad definition of “automated posting” (they count any account that makes more than 50 tweets a day with political hashtags), because Twitter would not share its own definition. And they had to limit their examination of political postings to tweets that contain one of about 50 hashtags, such as #ge17, not only to avoid hitting the 1% limit, but also to only scoop up tweets actively engaged in political debate.

The result, Howard said, was “vaguely analogous” to the conversation on Facebook: while it may not be the same, it is likely that debates that are most automated on Twitter are also most automated on Facebook, and in largely the same direction.

But the limitations have one huge advantage: unlike nearly every other academic in the world, and the vast majority of civil institutions responsible for regulating the fairness of elections, the Oxford Internet Institute aims to publish its findings before the election, updated on a regular basis. 

It is too early to say what results they will get, though Howard has pulled one finding from the preliminary data: judging by their own metrics, there do not seem to be significant amounts of bots posting Russian content, such as links to Sputnik or Russia Today.

Even there, though, he wishes for a small amount of extra cooperation. “We’ve stopped working with geolocation,” he said, referring to the process of trying to work out from where a particular tweet was sent, “but Twitter has the IP addresses of every user.” Sharing that, even in aggregate, anonymised form, could shine a tiny light on a side of democratic politics shrouded in darkness. These days, on the Internet, no one knows you’re a bot.

Guardian:

You Might Also Read:

Russian Hackers Sow Disinformation Via Leaks:

Cambodia’s Cyber War Room:

On Facebook, Fake US Election News Was More Popular Than Real News:

 

 

 

 

« Guidance For Connected Vehicle Security
What Makes A Cyber Criminal? »

Infosecurity Europe
CyberSecurity Jobsite
Perimeter 81

Directory of Suppliers

DigitalStakeout

DigitalStakeout

DigitalStakeout enables cyber security professionals to reduce cyber risk to their organization with proactive security solutions, providing immediate improvement in security posture and ROI.

ManageEngine

ManageEngine

As the IT management division of Zoho Corporation, ManageEngine prioritizes flexible solutions that work for all businesses, regardless of size or budget.

LockLizard

LockLizard

Locklizard provides PDF DRM software that protects PDF documents from unauthorized access and misuse. Share and sell documents securely - prevent document leakage, sharing and piracy.

CYRIN

CYRIN

CYRIN® Cyber Range. Real Tools, Real Attacks, Real Scenarios. See why leading educational institutions and companies in the U.S. have begun to adopt the CYRIN® system.

North Infosec Testing (North IT)

North Infosec Testing (North IT)

North IT (North Infosec Testing) are an award-winning provider of web, software, and application penetration testing.

Egress Software Technologies

Egress Software Technologies

Egress Software Technologies is a leading provider of data security services designed to protect shared information throughout its lifecycle.

QTS

QTS

QTS Realty Trust, Inc. is a leading provider of secure, compliant data center, hybrid cloud and managed services.

Information Security Forum (ISF)

Information Security Forum (ISF)

The ISF is a leading authority on information security and risk management.

Second Nature Security (2NS)

Second Nature Security (2NS)

2NS provide vulnerability assessment, penetration testing, security audit, application and network security and secure software development processes.

ODVA

ODVA

ODVA is a global trade and standards development organization whose members comprise the world’s leading industrial automation companies.

Crosscheck Networks

Crosscheck Networks

Crosscheck products allow you to test your APIs across different protocols and message formats with functional automation, performance, and security testing capabilities.

Volexity

Volexity

Volexity is a leading provider of threat intelligence and incident suppression services and solutions.

Partnership for Conflict, Crime and Security Research (PaCCS)

Partnership for Conflict, Crime and Security Research (PaCCS)

PaCCS delivers high quality and cutting edge research to improve our understanding of current and future global security challenges in areas including cybersecurity.

HALOCK Security Labs

HALOCK Security Labs

HALOCK is an information security consultancy providing both strategic and technical security offerings.

Advantage

Advantage

Advantage exists to provide peace of mind in an evolving technology reliant world. We were created by visionaries who for nearly 4-decades have been passionate about providing world-class solutions.

Brightsolid

Brightsolid

Brightsolid are experts in Hybrid Cloud. We design, build and manage secure, scalable cloud environments that meet customers’ business ambitions.

Digital Edge

Digital Edge

Digital Edge provides unparalleled Managed Cloud Solutions, as well as superior Information Technology Support Services.

ThrottleNet

ThrottleNet

ThrottleNet provides world-class managed IT services and cybersecurity to organizations in St. Louis and throughout Missouri.

Nukke

Nukke

Nukke offers advanced cybersecurity software and tailored solutions for your business.

Secuvy

Secuvy

Secuvy leads in data security, privacy, compliance, and governance, offering a unified platform for proactive data discovery, management, protection, and enhanced data value.

Boo Consulting

Boo Consulting

Boo Consulting is a trusted privacy and risk consultancy firm. We are driven to help you find an appropriate solution that will suit your budget and requirements.