Testifying before the Senate Intelligence Committee today, Facebook General Counsel Colin Stretch was hazed by Democratic senators, incredulous of the volume of paid Russian ads in the 2016 campaign. Facebook estimated originally that some 10 million Americans were exposed to countless numbers of Russia posts during the 2016 election. With Russia hysteria raging on Capitol Hill, Senate Intelligence Committee Democrats read Facebook the riot act for grossly underestimating what looks now like about 150 million Americans exposed to Russian-generated content on Facebook. Whatever the number, Democrats in Congress conclude that exposure on Facebook influenced ordinary users, skewing the 2016 election away from former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. Stretch revised his estimate of 2016 content exposure to about 150 million viewers.
Whether Congress admits it or not, Facebook is a global company with an international reach, accepting ads from any country seeking exposure. Not only did American consumers get exposed to Facebook content in 2016 but global users too were exposed to foreign-generated content. Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) acted incredulous over foreign actors purchasing content on Facebook. Franken assumes that whatever the disinformation purchased by the Russians, Facebook’s U.S. consumers fell for it hook, line and sinker. “I don’t think you get it,” Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) told Facebook’s General Counsel Stretch. “What we’re talking about is the beginning of cyber warfare,” said Feinstein, referring to the sheer volume of Russian content found Facebook, Google and Twitter. Feinstein knows that propaganda wars have been going on since time immemorial.
Feinstein and other members of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees don’t ask how much U.S.-generated content appears on Russian, Chinese or other foreign websites. No, Feinstein blasts Facebook counsel Stretch for taking ads and allowing Russian content on Facebook. Facebook readers know that anything appearing on the social networking site is not credentialed news but endless amounts of unverified content. Feinstein wants to continue former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s narrative that Facebook, Google and Twitter poisoned the minds to young American voters. Whether that’s true or not, it’s not the job of social networking sites to vet information because of its alleged influence peddling. Whatever one reads on any news or social networking site, it’s up to the reader to figure out the veracity of content posted on Facebook, Google, Twitter or other global networking sites.
Feinstein cited examples of Russian cyber warfare suggesting that Hillary was despised by the military or fake content that “miners were for Trump.” Whatever unverified opinions wind up on Facebook, Google or Twitter, it’s unrealistic to think that Internet companies have a duty-to-warn news consumers. If that were true, the Federal Communication Commission {FCC] should post warning labels on the content disseminated by major news networks. Publishing it’s definitive study on media bias May 19, Harvard Kennedy School of Government Shorenstein Center showed that 93% of mainstream news was biased against President Donald Trump. Feinstein and Franken, by the same logic applied to Facebook, should be petitioning the FCC to post content warnings on major news sites. First Amendment rights protect any individual—foreign or domestic—to express opinions.
Calling Twitter a “threat to American democracy, Sen. Mark Warner (D-Vg.), called the tech sector “deeply disappointing” and “inadequate on almost every level,” referring to unverified content morphing into pernicious propaganda on social networking sites. “We’re blown off by the leadership of your companies,” Warner told Google executives. Warner, like Feinstein and Franken, buys the media’s narrative that social networking sites turned voters away from Hillary in 2016. Warner, Feinstein and Franken blame social networking sites for selling ads or disseminating unverified opinion, something permitted under the First Amendment. Instead of Stretch apologizing for letting any group, including the Russians, buy ads and post unverified opinion, he should remind Congress how credentialed news organizations routinely expose the public to pernicious propaganda.
Instead of letting U.S. senators take their ire out on social networking sites, they should take a harder look with the FCC at how credentialed news organizations have been hijacked by political parties. “All of what the Russians did last year,” said Sen. Angus King (I-Maine), “has basically been a free pass,” assuming that there’s verified proof of what Russian or any other foreign actors did to U.S. voters. Judging by Hillary winning nearly 3 million more popular votes than President Donald Trump, it’s inconceivable that the House and Senate can say with certainty that Russia affected the 2016 election. Russian actors on Facebook, Google or Twitter couldn’t possibly target only voters in battleground states like, Florida, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. Facebook CEO Mark Zukerberg was right saying it was “crazy” that Facebook influenced the 2016 election.
