SOCIAL
New Report Shows That 74% of People Don’t Believe Tech Platforms Will Be Able to Stop Political Manipulation

In what will likely come as little surprise, a new study from Pew Research has shown that 74% of Americans have little to no confidence that tech companies, including Facebook, Twitter and Google, will be able to prevent the misuse of their platforms to influence the outcome of the 2020 presidential election.

As you can see here, trust levels are similar across the political divide this time around, in slight variance to the same survey in 2018.
As per Pew:
“Confidence in technology companies to prevent the misuse of their platforms is even lower than it was in the weeks before the 2018 midterm elections, when about two-thirds of adults had little confidence these companies would prevent election influence on their platforms.”
Again, that’s not a major surprise. Another survey published by Pew earlier this month also found that both Republicans and Democrats “register far more distrust than trust of social media sites as sources for political and election news”, with 59% of respondents specifically noting that they do not trust the news content they see on Facebook.
So people don’t trust the news they’re seeing on social platforms already. Given this, it makes sense that they also don’t have much faith in avoiding manipulation. And while each platform has implemented new measures to better protect users, and weed out “inauthentic” actions, the data would suggest that it’s not enough.
It’s worth noting too that this latest survey was conducted between January 6th and January 19th, 2020, and incorporates responses from 12,638 people.
But while users don’t currently have a lot of faith, they do believe that technology companies should do more to stop the spread of misinformation.

As you can see here, 78% of respondents agree that tech companies “have a responsibility to prevent the misuse of their platforms to influence the 2020 Presidential election”.
So, to recap, people don’t trust the news they’re seeing on digital platforms, and have little faith that the situation will improve – even though they feel that the providers have a responsibility to do so.
The bigger question then is “does that matter?”
I don’t mean that in a moralistic sense – of course it matters that people are potentially being manipulated. But I mean in terms of what impacts that will have – will people, for example, stop getting their news content from Facebook and other platforms as a result of this lack of trust, as noted in their responses?
Do you want to know the answer?
Historical evidence shows that people won’t stop using Facebook as a result of these trends. They probably should, right? If people believe that they may well be manipulated by social media news coverage, maybe it’d be better to get off of these apps, and stop getting their news coverage from them. But that won’t happen.
Case in point – in yet another Pew Research report, its researchers found that, in 2016, the year of the last Presidential election, 62% of Americans got at least some of their news content from social media. In 2018, after all the discussion around foreign interference and manipulation, amid all the coverage around social media misuse by political activists. After all that, guess what happened?

More people now get more of their news exposure through social media. So while it’s one thing for people to say ‘we don’t trust what we see’, it’s another thing to actually get them to take action on such, and actively stop using social channels to source news content.
Because that’s hard to do. More than just content, social platforms provide engagement, and the dopamine rush of likes and shares. That can be addictive – so while people don’t necessarily agree with what they’re seeing online, they do like to engage with it, they like to argue against it, to virtue signal in the comments. If you’re looking for the reason why we’re so divided along political lines these days, look to the engagement that people see in disagreement, the allure of the battle which few can resist.
Sure, I might dislike my uncle’s views on climate change, for example, which he regularly shares on Facebook. But you can bet that in quiet moments, I’m going to check in on his posts. Because it’s addictive, the anger and outrage, like poking a wound to feel that little twinge of pain. It solidifies you in your beliefs – and when you finally feel the need to respond and call him/her out, there’s a rush in that engagement.
It’s not surprising that people distrust Facebook as a news source in this sense. But they’re still going there for the fight. And I would argue that Facebook is okay with that, as opposed to feeling any significant need to play referee and quell disagreement.
So while this new survey doesn’t reveal any amazing insights, it is interesting to note what it suggests, in terms of broader behavioral trends, and what that means for civic discussion and engagement.
SOCIAL
Paris mayor to stop using ‘global sewer’ X

Hidalgo called Twitter a ‘vast global sewer’ – Copyright POOL/AFP Leon Neal
Paris Mayor Anne Hidalgo said on Monday she was quitting Elon Musk’s social media platform X, formerly known as Twitter, which she described as a “global sewer” and a tool to disrupt democracy.
“I’ve made the decision to leave X,” Hidalgo said in an op-ed in French newspaper Le Monde. “X has in recent years become a weapon of mass destruction of our democracies”, she wrote.
The 64-year-old Socialist, who unsuccessfully stood for the presidency in 2022, joined Twitter as it was then known in 2009 and has been a frequent user of the platform.
She accused X of promoting “misinformation”, “anti-Semitism and racism.”
“The list of abuses is endless”, she added. “This media has become a vast global sewer.”
Since Musk took over Twitter in 2022, a number of high-profile figures said they were leaving the popular social platform, but there has been no mass exodus.
Several politicians including EU industry chief Thierry Breton have announced that they are opening accounts on competing networks in addition to maintaining their presence on X.
The City of Paris account will remain on X, the mayor’s office told AFP.
By contrast, some organisations have taken the plunge, including the US public radio network NPR, or the German anti-discrimination agency.
Hidalgo has regularly faced personal attacks on social media including Twitter, as well as sometimes criticism over the lack of cleanliness and security in Paris.
In the latest furore, she has faced stinging attacks over an October trip to the French Pacific territories of New Caledonia and French Polynesia that was not publicised at the time and that she extended with a two-week personal vacation.
SOCIAL
Meta Highlights Key Platform Manipulation Trends in Latest ‘Adversarial Threat Report’

While talk of a possible U.S. ban of TikTok has been tempered of late, concerns still linger around the app, and the way that it could theoretically be used by the Chinese Government to implement varying forms of data tracking and messaging manipulation in Western regions.
The latter was highlighted again this week, when Meta released its latest “Adversarial Threat Report,” which includes an overview of Meta’s latest detections, as well as a broader summary of its efforts throughout the year.
And while the data shows that Russia and Iran remain the most common source regions for coordinated manipulation programs, China is third on that list, with Meta shutting down almost 5,000 Facebook profiles linked to a Chinese-based manipulation program in Q3 alone.
As explained by Meta:
“We removed 4,789 Facebook accounts for violating our policy against coordinated inauthentic behavior. This network originated in China and targeted the United States. The individuals behind this activity used basic fake accounts with profile pictures and names copied from elsewhere on the internet to post and befriend people from around the world. They posed as Americans to post the same content across different platforms. Some of these accounts used the same name and profile picture on Facebook and X (formerly Twitter). We removed this network before it was able to gain engagement from authentic communities on our apps.”
Meta says that this group aimed to sway discussion around both U.S. and China policy by both sharing news stories, and engaging with posts related to specific issues.
“They also posted links to news articles from mainstream US media and reshared Facebook posts by real people, likely in an attempt to appear more authentic. Some of the reshared content was political, while other covered topics like gaming, history, fashion models, and pets. Unusually, in mid-2023 a small portion of this network’s accounts changed names and profile pictures from posing as Americans to posing as being based in India when they suddenly began liking and commenting on posts by another China-origin network focused on India and Tibet.”
Meta further notes that it took down more Coordinated Inauthentic Behavior (CIB) groups from China than any other region in 2023, reflecting the rising trend of Chinese operators looking to infiltrate Western networks.
“The latest operations typically posted content related to China’s interests in different regions worldwide. For example, many of them praised China, some of them defended its record on human rights in Tibet and Xinjiang, others attacked critics of the Chinese government around the world, and posted about China’s strategic rivalry with the U.S. in Africa and Central Asia.”
Google, too, has repeatedly removed large clusters of YouTube accounts of Chinese origin that had been seeking to build audiences in the app, in order to then seed pro-China sentiment.
The largest coordinated group identified by Google is an operation known as “Dragonbridge” which has long been the biggest originator of manipulative efforts across its apps.
As you can see in this chart, Google removed more than 50,000 instances of Dragonbridge activity across YouTube, Blogger and AdSense in 2022 alone, underlining the persistent efforts of Chinese groups to sway Western audiences.
So these groups, whether they’re associated with the CCP or not, are already looking to infiltrate Western-based networks. Which underlines the potential threat of TikTok in the same respect, given that it’s controlled by a Chinese owner, and therefore likely more directly accessible to these operators.
That’s partly why TikTok is already banned on government-owned devices in most regions, and why cybersecurity experts continue to sound the alarm about the app, because if the above figures reflect the level of activity that non-Chinese platforms are already seeing, you can only imagine that, as TikTok’s influence grows, it too will be high on the list of distribution for the same material.
And we don’t have the same level of transparency into TikTok’s enforcement efforts, nor do we have a clear understanding of parent company ByteDance’s links to the CCP.
Which is why the threat of a possible TikTok ban remains, and will linger for some time yet, and could still spill over if there’s a shift in U.S./China relations.
One other point of note from Meta’s Adversarial Threat Report is its summary of AI usage for such activity, and how it’s changing over time.
X owner Elon Musk has repeatedly pointed to the rise of generative AI as a key vector for increased bot activity, because spammers will be able to create more complex, harder to detect bot accounts through such tools. That’s why X is pushing towards payment models as a means to counter bot profile mass production.
And while Meta does agree that AI tools will enable threat actors to create larger volumes of convincing content, it also says that it hasn’t seen evidence “that it will upend our industry’s efforts to counter covert influence operations” at this stage.
Meta also makes this interesting point:
“For sophisticated threat actors, content generation hasn’t been a primary challenge. They rather struggle with building and engaging authentic audiences they seek to influence. This is why we have focused on identifying adversarial behaviors and tactics used to drive engagement among real people. Disrupting these behaviors early helps to ensure that misleading AI content does not play a role in covert influence operations. Generative AI is also unlikely to change this dynamic.”
So it’s not just content that they need, but interesting, engaging material, and because generative AI is based on everything that’s come before, it’s not necessarily built to establish new trends, which would then help these bot accounts build an audience.
These are some interesting notes on the current threat landscape, and how coordinated groups are still looking to use digital platforms to spread their messaging. Which will likely never stop, but it is worth noting where these groups originate from, and what that means for related discussion.
You can read Meta’s Q3 “Adversarial Threat Report” here.
SOCIAL
US judge halts pending TikTok ban in Montana

TikTok use has continued to grow apace despite a growing number of countries banning the app from government devices. — © POOL/AFP Liam McBurney
A federal judge on Thursday temporarily blocked a ban on TikTok set to come into effect next year in Montana, saying the popular video sharing app was likely to win its pending legal challenge.
US District Court Judge Donald Molloy placed the injunction on the ban until the case, originally filed by TikTok in May, has been ruled on its merits.
Molloy deemed it likely TikTok and its users will win, since it appeared the Montana law not only violates free speech rights but runs counter to the fact that foreign policy matters are the exclusive domain of the federal government.
“The current record leaves little doubt that Montana’s legislature and attorney general were more interested in targeting China’s ostensible role in TikTok than they with protecting Montana consumers,” Molloy said in the ruling.
The app is owned by Chinese firm ByteDance and has been accused by a wide swathe of US politicians of being under Beijing’s tutelage, something the company furiously denies.
Montana’s law says the TikTok ban will become void if the app is acquired by a company incorporated in a country not designated by the United States as a foreign adversary.
TikTok had argued that the unprecedented ban violates constitutionally protected right to free speech.
The prohibition signed into law by Republican Governor Greg Gianforte is seen as a legal test for a national ban of the Chinese-owned platform, something lawmakers in Washington are increasingly calling for.
Montana’s ban would be the first to come into effect in the United States – Copyright AFP Kirill KUDRYAVTSEV
The ban would make it a violation each time “a user accesses TikTok, is offered the ability to access TikTok, or is offered the ability to download TikTok.”
Each violation is punishable by a $10,000 fine every day it takes place.
Under the law, Apple and Google will have to remove TikTok from their app stores.
State political leaders have “trampled on the free speech of hundreds of thousands of Montanans who use the app to express themselves, gather information, and run their small business in the name of anti-Chinese sentiment,” ACLU Montana policy director Keegan Medrano said after the bill was signed.
The law is yet another skirmish in duels between TikTok and many western governments, with the app already banned on government devices in the United States, Canada and several countries in Europe.
-
SEO7 days ago
Google Discusses Fixing 404 Errors From Inbound Links
-
SOCIAL4 days ago
Musk regrets controversial post but won’t bow to advertiser ‘blackmail’
-
SEARCHENGINES7 days ago
Google Search Console Was Down Today
-
SEO5 days ago
SEO Salary Survey 2023 [Industry Research]
-
SEO4 days ago
A Year Of AI Developments From OpenAI
-
PPC5 days ago
5 Quick Tips to Increase Referral Traffic
-
MARKETING6 days ago
How to Schedule Ad Customizers for Google RSAs [2024]
-
SOCIAL6 days ago
7 tips for creating great digital presence