Marc Zuckerberg delivered a shockingly tone-deaf Georgetown speech in which he doubled down on Facebooks’s refusal to police false political ad content. He argued that political advertising should be an absolute free speech zone on his platform. His users would, he maintained, be able to judge themselves on the veracity of such ads. He refused to place himself in the role of determining what is truthful and what is not.
The speech is full of specious arguments and indicates that the founder of the company is entirely tone-deaf. He is out of touch with the rest of America and has no interest in aligning himself with popular opinion on the subject. The wonder is that political ads, as he himself concedes, form a tiny portion of Facebook’s revenue. Thus, he tries to argue that he takes this position solely out of principle, rather than out of mercenary motives.
That may be possible, but anyone who knows anything about political ads during election campaigns knows that it’s a veritable cash cow for TV, radio and newspapers. No doubt, Zuckerberg sees those hundreds of millions and imagines how he might take a cut of it. Just because he hasn’t devised the proper formula for doing so doesn’t mean he won’t try in the future.
Because Facebook has ceded its platform to politicians and their consultants willing to spew misinformation and dirty tricks in order to win elections, it’s instructive to review another election campaign in which such individuals violated Facebook’s rules and were actually suspended from the platform during the campaign.
This happened in the past two Israeli elections (in April and September), in which veteran GOP consultant John Mc Laughlin was Bibi’s campaign manager. Netanyahu’s campaign amassed reams of private data on users as part of its social media activities, and did so in a totally opaque manner. It also abused the platform by violating its rules concerning data harvesting and transparency. The campaign utilized Facebook’s chatbot feature by sending massive amounts of text messages to known and prospective Likud voters. Though it is lesser-known in the world of Facebook features, it played a critical role in mobilizing support for Netanyahu. Here’s is how Israeli social media analyst Anat Ben David described it:
Netanyahu’s campaign was far more sophisticated [than his rivals] in using Facebook’s advertising system. [It] also used a chatbot on Facebook Messenger, and eventually, on election day, the chatbot was used to target supporters, who were then asked to help the prime minister call other citizens and convince them to vote for him. When users agreed, they were served talking points. Then, the chatbot offered phone numbers of citizens and encouraged supporters to make more phone calls. Once in a few hours, the talking points were updated, and short videos featuring Netanyahu encouraged them to make even more phone calls. With each press of the interaction button, the bot would publish another phone number, and another one, and another.
During the campaign, many have engaged with the chatbot, which came to be fondly known as the ‘Bibi-Bot’. From the user’s end, the chatbot was perceived as cool and innovative. Many users, especially those who are less tech-savvy, were convinced that they were indeed chatting with the Prime Minister. Others enjoyed the fun interaction with the chatbot, which often displayed interactive games and humorous videos featuring the Prime Minister. But once in a while, the bot had also asked political questions, to which the users could answer by clicking on pre-prepared buttons. Such as the following:
Here is the script with the user’s replies included:
Bot: I’d love to ask you a simple question.
User: Sure!
Bot: Would you vote for me and the Likud in the upcoming election?
User (options offered): I am still unsure / Sure thing! I’ll vote Likud / I will not vote Likud
Bot: Thanks a lot! I’ll be in touch soon.
Three weeks before the April election, Facebook notified the campaign that its chatbox data-collection methods violated its rules and it asked them to stop. They did not stop.
Another advertising method McLaughlin’s social media team used was ads targeted at specific audiences. Though the ads themselves contained no information indicating this, Ben David was able to search through the company’s ad library to discover that many of the ads targeted an unexpected demographic:
…Throughout the campaign Netanyahu’s page ran several dozen sponsored ads, featuring a video in which Netanyahu encourages citizens to engage with him through Facebook Messenger. The ads’ text was identical: “What is the most important issue for you in the election? I invite you to write me a private message here on Facebook”. Facebook’s Ad Library features these ads. They are all slight variations of the same ad, but…do not disclose targeting information. Through collecting ‘why am I seeing this ad’ screenshots of these ads, we noticed they were targeted at different audiences, such as people interested in the left-leaning newspaper, Haaretz.
McLaughlin was able to target this set of FB users based on whether they had Liked the Haaretz FB page or Liked posts published on its page. Those targeted by the ads had no idea why they were seeing a message from Netanyahu, nor could they opt out of the ads unless they clicked through a number of screens to tell the algorithm that he or she didn’t like the ad.
Here is how Ben David portrayed the way in which such data harvesting reinforced the effectiveness of the chatbox:
…The Likud’s data collection tactics were taking advantage of everything Facebook has to offer in an efficient feedback loop between the advertising system and the chatbot. The idea is simple: take an initial list of citizens, target them by their political inclination through the advertising system (such as newspaper readership, or a “lookalike campaign”), and then, after you already know more about them through Facebook, learn even more about them by asking direct questions via the chatbot.
It sought to enlist them in an effort to recruit their Facebook Friends to support Netanyahu as well. In this way, tens, or hundreds of thousands of such messages were sent. Everyone who received such a message was entered into the Likud database, even though those who shared their Friend data did not know this.
Netanyahu’s social media staff were delighted with the powerful tool Facebook offered them:
[They] boast[ed] about the effectiveness of the chatbot…Netanyahu’s new media adviser said…: “It helped us map out the people we corresponded with. The mapping options are great. We took the primitive capabilities of SMS messages that everyone uses and turned them into a tool that is much smarter and targeted. The results were amazing […] By asking questions you can tell who is sure to vote for you, who is on your right and unsure if they will vote for you, and who is unlikely to vote for you. It’s like a polling system, just more sophisticated.” In a reply to the reporter’s question whether the bot had kept the data it had collected to be used later on, Luk said: “Yes. Listen, all according to Facebook’s rules, of course.” In another interview, the Likud’s campaign manager revealed their uncompromising tactic: “First win. Then do damage control”.
During the second election, which followed the April vote, Netanyahu’s social media campaign became even greedier in terms of its ambitions:
In a video posted on Netanyahu’s page…the Prime Minister encourages his supporters to build a dataset of a million Likud supporters. “You know we can’t trust the news media”, Netanyahu says in the video. “I need you to give us the names of as many Likud supporters [..] and I promise to personally visit those who will give us the most names”. The post’s text displayed a link [w]here supporters could type in information about their friends: name, address, cell phone number.
The “friends” did not know their personal information had been forwarded to the Likud server. The data itself, covering over two-million Israelis, was not registered with the government agency for privacy protection, as the law required. The database itself was not even stored in a secure manner, permitting easy access using a simple web browser. The ruling party of an Israeli state known as the Startup Nation not only doesn’t encrypt coveted voter data, but it violates Israeli privacy law in the process!
When the Haaretz reporter queried the Likud staff about the database, instead of admitting its mistake, the Party replied that the reporter had engaged in a criminal act and would be reported to the police. Remember, the database was directly accessible via a simple internet URL! The crime is what–using the internet?
The final strategy McLaughlin used employing the chatbot refined earlier methods:
…Only users identified as supporters were contacted: talking points were sent, but this time instead of phone numbers, the app provided names. “You next call is with Avi, please press the dial button”, the bot said. The user then pressed a button, which opened the dialing app on her phone, where the targeted phone number was already displayed. Four seconds later, the bot inquired: “Did they answer”?
If they didn’t answer, the bot asked the user if she was interested in making another phone call. The answer button said: “Cool, Mr Prime Minister!”, or “Sure, give me a number!”. If there was an answer, the bot then asked: “How did it go?” The possible answers were: “Excellent, they will convince others!”, “Great, they will vote for the Likud”, “Wrong number / Not supporting Netanyahu”. Then, the bot would offer to make another phone call, and the process could go on and on.
Exploiting Facebook to Weaponize Hate and Racism
In September, as the date of the second election approached, the chatbox began circulating campaign messages that crossed the line into racist incitement and other false claims:
I am calling you because on Tuesday [election day] you will be able to determine the future of our country. Prime Minister Netanyahu brings with him a right-wing policy of a Jewish state, security and a strong Israel. I’m donating my time because a dangerous left-wing government should not be established next week with Lapid, Odeh, Gantz and Liberman. A secular, weak, left government that trusts the Arabs who want to annihilate us all — women, children and men — and will allow a nuclear Iran to destroy us. We must not let that happen! So I ask you to be the Prime Minister’s messenger, to bring 3 friends and family next Tuesday and see to it that they vote Likud. Thanks, {first name}, I trust you!
That message finally crossed the line. Israeli media began reporting about the offensive script and asked Facebook what its view was. It refused to respond. Only after an Israeli Palestinian legal NGO filed a complaint with the Israeli election commission, and the Party leader of the Israeli-Palestinian Joint List demanded that Facebook act, it released this statement:
After careful review of the Likud campaign’s bot activities, we found a violation of our hate speech policy. We also found that the bot was misusing the platform in the period allowed to contact people. As a result, we temporarily suspended the bot for 24 hours. Should there be any additional violations, we will continue to take appropriate action.
In other words, the chatbot was flooding users with phone calls and messages and violating a limit Facebook placed on the feature (which until then, no one even knew existed). Within 24 hours the chatbot was reactivated. But it continued to violate Israeli election law.
Election regulations prohibit the circulation of polls within four days of election day. However, the Likud chatbot did exactly that only two days before the vote, falsely claiming that the “left-wing” bloc was winning:
As of now, according to our internal polls, we are losing the election.
The message was accompanied by an infographic in a form of a pie-chart, which claimed that the right-wing camp had only 56 seats, compared to 64 seats for the left camp, comprised of Lapid, Gantz “and the Arabs”.
At this point, Ben David and an Israeli lawyer decided to launch their own private suit against the campaign. They did this one day before the election. It brought at least some action: the attorney general declared the campaign’s chatbot activity was illegal and issued an injunction against it. But that didn’t stop Netanyahu who, despite the election, gave a radio interview referring to the Party’s internal polls.
Facebook also responded to the legal challenge arguing that it should not be forced to remove the chatbot because Israel media had already reported on the existence of the polls and removing the graphic would be fruitless. It also argued:
…The tight time-frame did not allow the company to weigh in on the complex and broader implications of the petition.
Another attempt to abscond from its responsibilities.
In the hours leading up to the election, Netanyahu and McLaughlin jointly appeared in an emergency appeal to Likud voters during which the PM claimed that Party polls showed election turnout for the left parties was 10% higher than for right-wing parties. Yet another violation of election law.
Finally, the chair of the election commission (who is also a Supreme Court justice) directed the campaign to stop all polling activity and Facebook to stop publishing anything related to Israeli election polls on their platform.
Twelve hours later, on election day, the chatbot still displayed the same poll messages and urged voters to provide private information about their friends. Facebook again appealed to the commission:
…Asking [it] to reconsider and annul the directive, as it is technically impossible to delete the message; and since Facebook, as a neutral platform, is not responsible for users’ content. Further, Facebook cannot guarantee the future publication of polls, as ordered by the directive. In the petition, Facebook’s lawyers also protest the unusual order, arguing that this is the first time the chairman imposes such an exceptional, extreme, and impractical duty on Facebook.
Within five hours, the chatbot had gone silent and the company issued this statement:
We’re working with elections officials around the world to help ensure the integrity of the elections. Our policy explicitly states that developers are required to obey all laws applicable in the country where their application is accessible. Therefore we’ve suspended the [Netanyahu] bot’s activity, in light of the violation of local law, until the closing of the polls” at 10 p.m. on Tuesday.
The company’s quick about-face indicates that despite its protestations to the contrary it’s perfectly able to police its platform and remove political advertising that is racist or fraudulent or violates election laws (in Israel’s case). It can do the same during U.S. elections, no matter what it may claim to the contrary.
Ben David further alludes to the model this offers other candidates (like Trump) in other countries (like the U.S.):
What would be the implications of this case on other countries?…For the first time, Judge Melcer’s directive on the polling message held Facebook responsible for hosting illegal propaganda. It remains to be seen how this precedent will affect Facebook’s policies and ties with other CECs in other countries with upcoming elections.
The Israeli academic also urges Facebook to ban the use of chatbots in all elections.
McLaughlin and Netanyahu Indicted for Election Law and Violations
This was the first time the social media platform ever suspended a head of state’s political campaign from its site during an election. As such, the event received a great deal of media coverage. But only one Israeli media outlet and no foreign ones reported that last month, Israeli authorities announced criminal indictments against McLaughlin and other campaign officials who directed the Netanyahu social media campaign. Punishment could bring six months in prison and a $7,500 fine. These are entirely inadequate, because no Israeli court will sentence a campaign consultant or prime minister to prison and the monetary fine is a joke.
McLaughlin has just been hired to run Trump’s New York state campaign. Thus, we can expect the same tactics in that race we’ve seen in the Israeli election. Trump has a long history of promoting disinformation and other skulduggery on social media platforms. He exploited both Cambridge Analytica and Russian social media troll farms to rig the election. Undoubtedly, his campaign will learn lessons from Netanyahu’s and adapt them to the U.S. political environment. 2016 may be a thing of the past. But the damage it has done has morphed into newer, more innovative forms.
On a related subject, it’s worth remembering that then-Mossad chief, Tamir Pardo, told a 2018 security conference that the Russians “ran Trump for president” and helped steal the election:
Pardo said they took a look at the political map in Washington, “and thought, which candidate would we like to have sitting in the White House? Who will help us achieve our goals? And they chose him. From that moment, they deployed a system [of bots] for the length of the elections, and ran him for president.”
When asked if there was a potential Israeli market in such election manipulation, Pardo answered, “not necessarily;” which is a convenient hedge. He should know that if there is a way to make serious money out of technology, there are Israeli entrepreneurs who will enter that space.
NSO Group’s example (Israel’s first cybersecurity ‘unicorn,’ meaning a $1-billion valuation), indicates that there is a huge market for cell phone hacking. Scores of governments and their intelligence agencies are eager both to catch criminals and target their political opponents. And they will pay good money for it.
Similarly, there are candidates around the world who don’t much care how they win an election. And there are consultants like McLaughlin and social media experts eager to take those fat paychecks for getting such people elected. As examples, an Israeli company, Frontstory, has already been implicated in election fraud in Canada’s last national election. Though the case didn’t specifically involve social media advertising, it did involve creating false advertising smearing New Democratic Party leader, Jagmeet Singh, published in a Canadian newspaper. Another Israeli company, Archimedes Group has been implicated for planting false social media content inciting tribal and racial violence during African elections. Contrary to Pardo’s assurance, there are many such Israeli companies willing to fill this space in a shady market in lies and racism.
Facebook must not be let off the hook in such matters. The average Facebook user has neither the skills nor the tools to understand the manipulation involved in such skullduggery. Facebook does and it has a responsibility, if it wishes to continue raking in billions in profits (including advertising dollars from political ads), to step up and make itself an honest, fair platform. If not, Elizabeth Warren’s plan to break it up becomes more appealing by the day, and may be one of the factors making her the next president. Its platform much be regulated like a public utility and undergo the same level of scrutiny and oversight TV, radio and utilities do.
Zuckerberg is right, Not his role to fact check political ads. AOC is a pain, an annoying and ignorant pain in the …