At this stage of failed Brexit and the takeover by force of the US Capitol, no one questions the impact of monopoly service platforms on the outcome of any election other than that of the president of our community of neighbors. It is no use knowing that these services were not originally designed to harm democracy, but rather to fulfill the technological dreams of a generation born from the cold. The raw truth is that the search for the benefit of their shareholders, their scale, their multi-jurisdictional nature, and their power in individual knowledge make them a very powerful tool for understanding the soul of a country and, consequently, for manipulating it.
While in Spain we have been campaigning since the return of summer, in the US they do not leave one to enter the next. Now it’s our turn Midterms or renewal elections by half of the Congress and the Senate that take place two years after the presidential election. The American system ofcheck and balance”, of balance between the three powers of the state, makes the president, the executive in the model of separation of powers, very dependent on the majorities in the legislative chambers. Something that should happen here if it weren’t for the fact that the separation of powers is merely nominal and we have a partitocracy and not a democracy. But that will be for another day. The mid-term elections are not only a referendum on the president (who usually loses them) but also mark the remainder of his term. In fact, when an American president loses, through his party, control of the chambers (losing the Senate is enough), he sees his chances of putting out his internal reform program diminished and he concentrates on something in which he has more power of what would be desirable: foreign policy. For this reason alone, we mortals subject to runaway inflation on the other side of the Atlantic should be concerned about the outcome of these elections. But also because the technological services that we receive in exchange for our data are regulated in the US and what happens there will have an impact here in real time.
A recurring issue is the control of content by the platforms and the impact this has on the freedom of expression of each of its users. This is a debate on which I spoke but to which we always return because it is existential: if Meta, Google or Twitter are held responsible for the content of what their users publish, as an editor, they would have serious problems to continue operating. If they are not done, and my opinion is that they are because they moderate and decide what is published and what is not, we will continue to be mired in alternative truths and facts, destabilization flag campaigns, and harassment and demolition based on abusive behavior that we would not allow, for the sake of freedom of expression, not even in the always mentioned bar on the corner, the benchmark for the behavior of the average Spaniard. And this is existential for all of us as a society that wants to continue living in a civilized way. As the solution to the problem would mean, de facto, the death of these platforms, everyone, regulators, service providers, states, are looking for schizoid solutions that do not please anyone and that consist, in general, of moderating a little but everyone’s disgust.
With a view to the Midterms we have once again faced this debate that ranges from the so-called “algorithmic bias” of Google’s email filters to the moderation measures of social networks. The members of the Republican Party (GOP), the one that has entered a drift of subjectivation of the truth typical of a program of Bear Jimenez, they have been complaining in recent years that Google censors them (not much seems to me, I would say). And not only in searches, but in Gmail filters. This algorithmic bias was pointed out in March 2020 study which would have shown that the Conservatives’ fundraising emails went straight to the folder of spam. In recent months, Senate Republicans have had Internet fundraising problems, falling behind the Democrats, limiting their chances, or so they claim, of regaining control of Congress. Although Google questioned the methodology of the study, it initiated a pilot programwhich is now fully operational, which allows emails from approved federal campaigns to bypass the filters of spam.
In August, TikTok unveiled its strategy to fight disinformation, which included the banning of paid political content by influencers, after Facebook Y Twitter They will also outline a series of measures to prepare for the November elections after facing a barrage of criticism for fueling the spread of false information during the previous elections. Among the measures, TikTok has included an Elections Center to “connect people” with “reliable information” about voting in more than 45 languages. This strategy was published just three days after the New York Times will inform that, due to its algorithm, virality and number of users, the platform has the potential to become an “incubator” for false information. Some also fear that TikTok’s video and audio content is more difficult to moderate than text from other platforms.
The Bipartisan Policy Center reporta Washington-based think tank made up of former workers on these platforms, believes these measures are insufficient and should be extended beyond the three months leading up to the election.
But there is another twist to this whole muddy picture. The threat that the US Senate will be controlled by the GOP and, therefore, be more hostile to Silicon Valley companies, which, as we have said, they accuse of censorship, is a reality that makes one wonder if the larger technology companies that many countries have an interest in the electoral result. Blake Masters, one of those Trumpian candidates who live in the reality of alternative facts, is running for Arizona asking for the total “repeal” of Section 230, the rule that establishes the irresponsibility of the content of platforms such as Meta or Google. The mere possibility of losing this protection would mean an avalanche of lawsuits around the world that, most likely, would force them to close or “submerge”, a proposal that Zuckerberg put on the table before opting for the metaverse as an escape route from the regulators. Trump already threatened to repeal Section 230 and it was the first time we saw zuck in a suit and tie at the White House. But this time the proposal is gaining momentum helped by the financing of Peter Thiel -for whom the candidate worked according to his own biography-, founder of PayPal, a dark, radical character, with a lot of bad drool and who is behind Palantir, one of the data analytics companies most reminiscent of the bad guy with a cat from the James Bond movies.
The victory of this type of candidate is also a question of existence for American democracy and, perhaps, for ours. In this battle between who has to die, whether the platforms and their intoxication business or the states of law, I am afraid to make a bet.
You can follow THE COUNTRY TECHNOLOGY in Facebook Y Twitter or sign up here to receive our weekly newsletter.
Subscribe to continue reading
read without limits
#Midterms #social #networks