Computers and the Internet

Subterms

    More stories

    • 163 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Are You Being Flooded With Political Text Messages? We Want to See Them.

      by

      Candidates and advocacy groups are inundating voters’ phones with political text messages. Tell us about your experiences.In the lead-up to the midterm elections, campaigns are inundating millions of people with political text messages. It’s easy to see why.Text messages are much cheaper for political campaigns than TV ads or online ads. Software enables campaigns to quickly create and send bulk messages directly to voters’ phones. Another bonus: Many people who ignore campaign emails actually open and read phone messages.New rules put in place this year by mobile phone carriers were supposed to reduce the flood of unsolicited political text messages. But many people find they are being bombarded more and more with campaign messages they never signed up for.If you are being spammed with political robotexts, I’d like to hear from you.I’m a technology reporter at The New York Times who investigates the societal impacts, and unexpected consequences, of tech trends like campaign texting. The potential benefits for voters seem clear: Political text messages can provide useful information.But the drawbacks this election cycle go beyond voter annoyance and frustration. Political text messages are increasingly a vector for stoking political polarization and spreading disinformation.We’d like to hear about your experiences and see some of the messages you’ve received.We may use your contact information to follow up with you. If we publish your submission, we will not include your name without first contacting you and obtaining your permission.Tell us about your political text messages. More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Why Am I Seeing That Political Ad? Check Your ‘Trump Resistance’ Score.

      by

      To help campaigns target ads, voter-profiling firms score millions of Americans on issues like guns, vaccines and QAnon.In the lead-up to the 2020 presidential election, a voter analytics firm called PredictWise came up with a novel approach to help Democratic campaigns target persuadable Republicans: “Covid concern” scores.To create the scores, the company first analyzed an immense data set showing the cellphone locations of tens of millions of Americans during the initial lockdown months of the pandemic. Then it ranked people based on their travel patterns.Republicans whose phone locations showed that they left home a lot received high “Covid-19 decree violation” scores, while those who mainly stayed home received low scores, according to a PredictWise report. In follow-up surveys of some voters, researchers found that stay-at-home Republicans were almost as concerned about the pandemic as Democrats.The firm said it had used the data to help Democrats in several swing states target more than 350,000 “Covid-concerned” Republicans with Covid-related campaign ads. In Arizona, PredictWise reported, the scores helped Democrats “open up just over 40,000 persuasion targets” for Mark Kelly, who was running for Senate. (Senator Kelly’s office did not respond to emails and calls requesting comment.)Voter-profiling systems like the Covid-19 scores may be invisible to most people. But they provide a glimpse into a vast voter data-mining ecosystem in the United States involving dozens of political consulting, analytics, media, marketing and advertising software companies.In the run-up to the midterm elections next month, campaigns are tapping a host of different scores and using them to create castes of their most desirable voters. There are “gun owner,” “pro-choice” and “Trump 2024” scores, which cover everyday politics. There are also voter rankings on hot-button issues — a “racial resentment” score, for example, and a “trans athletes should not participate” score. There’s even a “U.F.O.s distrust government” score.Campaign and media consultants say such political-issue scores make it easier for candidates to surgically target messages to, and mobilize, the most receptive voters.“We’re seeing not only U.S. congressional races, but State Senate races that are diving into this, and consultants using it to help them find those perfect targets,” said Paul Westcott, a marketing executive at L2, a leading voter database firm. He added that even some county campaigns were using scoring models to target voters on local ballot measures.But the same nano-targeting that may help mobilize some people to vote could also disenfranchise others as well as exacerbate political polarization, political researchers say.What is voter scoring?Consumers are subject to a host of predictive scoring systems — hidden rankings based on factors like their demographic profile, socioeconomic status, online activities and offline interests.The State of the 2022 Midterm ElectionsBoth parties are making their final pitches ahead of the Nov. 8 election.Where the Election Stands: As Republicans appear to be gaining an edge with swing voters in the final weeks of the contest for control of Congress, here’s a look at the state of the races for the House and Senate.Biden’s Low Profile: President Biden’s decision not to attend big campaign rallies reflects a low approval rating that makes him unwelcome in some congressional districts and states.Losing Ground: With inflation concerns front and center, the state of democracy in the United States is not shaping up to be the driver of votes that many on the left hoped it would be.In Minnesota: The race for attorney general in the light-blue state offers a pure test of which issue is likely to be more politically decisive: abortion rights or crime.Retailers and other services often use “customer lifetime value” scores to try to predict how much money individual clients might spend over time. Universities use “retention” scores to identify students at risk of dropping out.Voter scores work similarly. They are intended to predict the likelihood that an individual agrees or disagrees with a particular party or political stance, like a belief in gun control. They are also used to predict a person’s likelihood of voting.Ad tech firms often use the scores to help political campaigns narrowly target audiences on streaming video services, podcasts, websites and apps. Candidates, political party committees and advocacy groups also use the scores to help create lists of specific voters to call, text or canvas in person.But researchers and privacy experts say that the scores are speculative and invasive, and that they could cause harm if they leaked to hackers or employers.The process can involve classifying more than 150 million voters — using ratings like “gay marriage” scores or “non-Christian” scores — on personal beliefs they might have assumed were private. The scoring systems can also enable campaigns to quietly aim different, and perhaps contradictory, messages at different voters with little public accountability or oversight.“In a democracy, we would like to know what promises are being made so that candidates can be held to account,” says Erika Franklin Fowler, a government professor at Wesleyan University who studies political advertising. “That’s harder to do if they’re saying different things to different people.”How are voter scores calculated?To calculate the scores, voter-profiling firms typically use commercially available dossiers thick with data on the election participation, demographics and consumer habits of millions of adults in the United States.The files contain public information, obtained from state voter registration databases, like a person’s name, date of birth and address, as well as the election years in which the person has voted. They may also include a phone number, political party registration and race or ethnicity.The voter profiles are often enhanced with commercially available details on consumers like: net worth, education level, occupation, home value, number of children in one’s household, gun ownership, pet ownership, political donations and hobbies or habits such as cooking, woodworking, gambling or smoking. Such details can be purchased from data aggregators that acquire information from customers’ loyalty-card records and other sources.Next, profiling firms survey a representative sample of voters, scoring respondents according to their stances on issues like marijuana legalization. Firms then use machine learning to identity common characteristics across the dossiers — like low-income households, say, or a preference for low-fat foods — that correlate with voters’ stances.The characteristics enable profiling firms to find “look-alike” voters in their files. Then they often calculate scores on issues like climate change for all the voters in their files.What do voter scores look like?Voter-profiling companies each have their own proprietary ranking systems. But they typically do not allow voters to see their scores.One prominent conservative firm, i360, offers a number of scores, including a “Marriage Model” that ranks voters on a scale of 0.0 to 1.0. Scores near a full point indicate voters with a high likelihood of supporting “laws that preserve traditional marriage.”HaystaqDNA, a predictive analytics firm that worked with Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign, has posted an extensive catalog with dozens of proprietary scores on taxes, Covid and other issues. These include a “QAnon Believer” score, ranking people based on whether they believe a “deep state” within the federal government operated child-trafficking rings.TargetSmart, a prominent progressive firm, developed a “Trump Resistance” model, which gives voters scores between 0 and 100 based on their likelihood of opposing Donald Trump. In a statement Tom Bonier, TargetSmart’s chief executive, said the company used public and commercially available data to help campaigns reach voters on “the issues they care most about.” The firm did not respond to questions about its voter scores.Despite the marketing of these scores, people’s voting histories and political party affiliations remain the best predictors of their voter behavior, political researchers say.“There’s a lot of hype in this space,” says Katherine Haenschen, an assistant professor of political science at Northeastern University who studies how digital communications affect voter turnout. “The most likely predictor is what the person has done in the past.”In an election circular in 1840, Abraham Lincoln and other leaders of the Whig Party instructed county committees to target undecided “doubtful voters” for special persuasion efforts.Where did voter targeting start?Trying to target and sway voters is an electioneering practice that dates at least as far back as 1840. That was the year Abraham Lincoln helped write a campaign circular for the Whig Party that laid out a plan for identifying and mobilizing individual voters.The Lincoln directive, which ran in newspapers, instructed local party committees to “make a perfect list of all the voters” in their districts and ascertain “with certainty for whom they will vote.” It also treated undecided voters differently, instructing party committees to “keep a CONSTANT WATCH on the DOUBTFUL VOTERS” and try to “enlighten and influence them.”The advent of computer modeling helped automate voter targeting, making it more efficient.In the 1960s, a market researcher in Los Angeles, Vincent Barabba, developed a computer program to help political campaigns decide which neighborhoods to target. The system overlaid voting precinct maps with details on individuals’ voting histories along with U.S. census data on household economics, ethnic makeup and family composition.In 1966, political consultants used the system to help Ronald Reagan’s campaign for governor of California identify neighborhoods with potential swing voters, like middle-aged, white, male union members, and target them with ads.Critics worried about the technology’s potential to influence voters, deriding it as a “sinister new development dreamt up by manipulative social scientists,” according to “Selling Ronald Reagan,” a book on the Hollywood actor’s political transformation.By the early 2000s, campaigns had moved on to more advanced targeting methods.For the re-election campaign of President George W. Bush in 2004, Republican consultants classified American voters into discrete buckets, like “Flag and Family Republicans” and “Religious Democrats.” Then they used the segmentation to target Republicans and swing voters living in towns that typically voted Democrat, said Michael Meyers, the president of TargetPoint Consulting, who worked on the Bush campaign.In 2008, the Obama presidential campaign widely used individualized voter scores. Republicans soon beefed up their own voter-profiling and targeting operations.A decade later, when Cambridge Analytica — a voter-profiling firm that covertly data-mined and scored millions of Facebook users — became front-page news, many national political campaigns were already using voter scores. Now, even local candidates use them.This spring, the Government Accountability Office issued a report warning that the practice of consumer scoring lacked transparency and could cause harm. Although the report did not specifically examine voter scores, it urged Congress to consider enacting consumer protections around scoring. More

    • 213 Shares139 Views

      in Elections

      En Brasil, un solo hombre puede decidir lo que se dice en internet para combatir las mentiras

      by

      Las autoridades brasileñas han otorgado al jefe de elecciones un amplio poder para ordenar la retirada de contenidos digitales en un intento de combatir la creciente desinformación antes de las elecciones de este mes.RÍO DE JANEIRO —Las autoridades brasileñas, que se enfrentan a un torrente de desinformación en línea antes de las elecciones presidenciales del país, concedieron al jefe de elecciones de la nación el poder unilateral para ordenar a las empresas tecnológicas que retiren muchos mensajes y videos de la red, una de las medidas más agresivas adoptadas por cualquier país para combatir la información falsa.En virtud de las normas aprobadas el jueves, el jefe de las elecciones puede ordenar la remoción inmediata de los contenidos que considere que han violado las órdenes de retirada anteriores. Las redes sociales deben cumplir esas exigencias en un plazo de dos horas o se enfrentan a la posible suspensión de sus servicios en Brasil.La medida es la culminación de una estrategia cada vez más enérgica por parte de las autoridades electorales de Brasil para reprimir los ataques divisivos, engañosos y falsos que han inundado la carrera presidencial del país en los últimos días, incluidas las afirmaciones de que los candidatos son satanistas, caníbales y pedófilos.Pero al permitir que una sola persona decida lo que se puede decir en internet en el período previo a las elecciones, que se celebrarán el 30 de octubre, Brasil se ha convertido en un caso de prueba en un debate mundial cada vez más intenso sobre los límites de la lucha contra las “noticias falsas”.La decisión provocó indignación entre los partidarios del presidente de derecha Jair Bolsonaro, así como la preocupación de muchos expertos en derecho digital y derechos civiles, que dijeron que representaba una expansión de poder potencialmente peligrosa y autoritaria que podría ser abusada a fin de censurar puntos de vista legítimos e influir en la contienda presidencial.El presidente Jair Bolsonaro en un acto de campaña en São Paulo el jueves.Fernando Bizerra/EPA, vía ShutterstockEl jefe de las elecciones, Alexandre de Moraes, también es juez del Tribunal Supremo de Brasil, lo que lo ha colocado en el centro de otra lucha sobre la creciente autoridad del tribunal.Como juez de la corte, ha ordenado investigaciones sobre Bolsonaro y ha encarcelado a algunos de los partidarios del presidente, acusados de lo que Moraes dijo que eran ataques a las instituciones democráticas de la nación.Moraes ha sido quizás el contrapeso más eficaz a Bolsonaro, que durante años ha atacado a la prensa, los tribunales y los sistemas electorales del país. Pero en el proceso, el juez ha suscitado la preocupación de que sus esfuerzos por proteger la democracia del país la hayan erosionado.“Es un acto de malabarismo muy complicado”, dijo Philip Friedrich, analista de elecciones y tecnología en Freedom House, un grupo estadounidense que promueve la expansión de la democracia. “Se trata de proteger la integridad de las instituciones democráticas de Brasil y el derecho de la gente a la libertad de expresión, y al mismo tiempo mantener a la gente segura en línea”.Carlos Affonso Souza, profesor de derecho de la Universidad Estatal de Río de Janeiro, dijo que el fallo del jueves “podría ir demasiado lejos, dependiendo de cómo” Moraes ejerza su poder.Aun así, la medida fue aplaudida por muchos en Brasil, que la consideran como una herramienta necesaria para combatir una avalancha de denuncias falsas de los partidarios de Bolsonaro que no ha hecho más que ganar velocidad en los últimos días.Las nuevas reglas fueron aprobadas por unanimidad por los siete jueces federales que integran el tribunal electoral de Brasil. Cuando propuso las reglas en una sesión del tribunal el jueves, Moraes dijo que las denuncias por desinformación habían aumentado casi 17 veces en comparación con las elecciones pasadas.“Ha habido una proliferación no solamente de noticias falsas, sino de la agresividad de estas noticias, de este discurso de odio, que todos sabemos que no conduce a nada más que a una erosión de la democracia”, dijo. “Por eso precisamente necesitamos una vía más rápida”.Otra jueza, Cármen Lúcia, dijo durante la audiencia que estaba preocupada por las implicaciones de las medidas recientes del tribunal electoral para combatir la desinformación. “El regreso de la censura no puede permitirse bajo ningún argumento en Brasil”, dijo.En una entrevista con un pódcast el jueves, Bolsonaro dijo que las autoridades electorales estaban moviendo a Brasil hacia un “estado dictatorial” y que “después de las elecciones, dependiendo de quién gane, vamos a poner fin a esto”.El año pasado, Bolsonaro pidió al Senado de Brasil que llevara a juicio político y destituyera a Moraes, pero fue rechazado.Bolsonaro se enfrenta el 30 de octubre al expresidente de izquierda Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva en una votación que se considera la más importante de Brasil en décadas y una prueba clave para una de las mayores democracias del mundo.Según las nuevas normas de internet, los poderes ampliados del jefe de las elecciones están en vigor durante las campañas electorales. Los poderes caducarán después de la votación presidencial, pero volverán a entrar en vigor en campañas futuras.El expresidente Lula da Silva hacía campaña en Río de Janeiro el jueves.Ricardo Moraes/ReutersEl tribunal electoral ya ha prohibido las publicaciones que han calificado a Bolsonaro de pedófilo, una afirmación que se aceleró en los últimos días tras la aparición de un vídeo en el que el presidente dice que hubo “una atraccion mutua” entre él y dos adolescentes. El tribunal también ha ordenado retirar contenidos que digan que Da Silva es corrupto. Da Silva cumplió condena en prisión por cargos de corrupción, que posteriormente fueron anulados.Los partidarios de ambos bandos han difundido mentiras, pero el volumen de información engañosa de la derecha ha superado con creces al de la izquierda, dijo Tai Nalon, directora de Aos Fatos, una organización brasileña de verificación que ha seguido de cerca las afirmaciones falsas de la campaña.Los partidarios de Bolsonaro han difundido la mentira de que Da Silva planea cerrar las iglesias si es elegido, lo que llevó al expresidente a lanzar una carta pública insistiendo en que no lo haría. El viernes, muchos miembros de la derecha comenzaron a publicar imágenes en las que se afirmaba falsamente que estaban siendo censurados directamente por los funcionarios electorales.Bolsonaro también ha atacado las máquinas de votación electrónica de Brasil al afirmar que están plagadas de fraude, a pesar de la falta de pruebas, y sus partidarios han difundido teorías de la conspiración infundadas que afirman que la izquierda está planeando robar las elecciones.Da Silva aventajaba a Bolsonaro en cinco puntos porcentuales tras la primera vuelta, pero en los últimos días los sondeos sugieren que la diferencia se está reduciendo.La desinformación también empañó las elecciones presidenciales de 2018 que ganó Bolsonaro, lo que llevó a los funcionarios electorales a adoptar una postura más agresiva durante esta campaña.Esta semana, el tribunal electoral restringió a uno de los mayores medios de Brasil para que no describiera a Da Silva como corrupto, y bloqueó a un destacado canal de YouTube de derecha por publicar un documental sobre un intento de asesinato contra Bolsonaro en 2018. Bolsonaro y sus partidarios han acusado al tribunal de tratar de favorecer a Da Silva.Preparando las máquinas de votación electrónica en Brasilia el miércoles.Evaristo Sa/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesA pesar de los esfuerzos del tribunal electoral por intervenir, han proliferado los contenidos falsos y engañosos, lo que ilustra la lucha a la que se enfrentan los funcionarios y las empresas tecnológicas para frenar la desinformación que se propaga más rápido de lo que pueden actuar y que se comparte cada vez más fuera de su alcance.Por ejemplo, gran parte de la desinformación en Brasil se comparte en WhatsApp, la aplicación más popular del país. Como WhatsApp encripta los mensajes, la empresa y los funcionarios no pueden ver los mensajes que los usuarios comparten entre sí, lo que complica su capacidad para combatir la información falsa.WhatsApp ha modificado su aplicación para frenar la propagación, por ejemplo, al poner límites al tamaño de los grupos y al número de veces que se puede reenviar un mensaje, pero la desinformación sigue siendo un problema, según los investigadores.Google y Meta, propietaria de WhatsApp, Facebook e Instagram, declinaron comentar. La campaña de Da Silva no respondió a las solicitudes de comentarios.Según las nuevas normas, si una empresa tecnológica se niega repetidamente a cumplir las órdenes de Moraes, este puede “suspender el acceso a los servicios” de la plataforma en Brasil por hasta 24 horas.A principios de este año, De Moraes dijo que planeaba bloquear Telegram, el servicio de mensajería con millones de usuarios en Brasil, después de que la empresa no siguiera sus órdenes de eliminar la cuenta de un destacado partidario de Bolsonaro acusado de difundir desinformación. (Moraes actuaba entonces en calidad de juez del Supremo Tribunal). Moraes revocó esa prohibición varios días después, después de que Telegram aceptara cambios.Affonso Souza, el profesor de derecho en Río de Janeiro, dijo que dado el plazo de dos horas para cumplir con las órdenes de Moraes —y solo una hora en la víspera de las elecciones— Moraes podría intentar bloquear una plataforma en los últimos días de la campaña. “Eso definitivamente agregaría combustible al fuego para los partidarios de Bolsonaro”, dijo.André Spigariol More

    • 125 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Brazilian Official Granted Power to Order Removal of Misinformation Online

      by

      Brazilian authorities granted the country’s elections chief broad power to order the takedown of online content in a bid to combat soaring misinformation ahead of this month’s election.RIO DE JANEIRO — Brazilian authorities, grappling with a torrent of online misinformation ahead of the country’s presidential election, granted the nation’s elections chief unilateral power to order tech companies to remove many online posts and videos — one of the most aggressive actions taken by any country to combat false information.Under the rules passed on Thursday, the elections chief can order the immediate removal of content that he believes has violated previous orders. Social networks must comply with the election chief’s takedown orders within two hours or face potential suspension of their services in Brazil.The move culminates an increasingly assertive strategy by election officials in Brazil to crack down on the misinformation that has flooded the country’s presidential race in recent days, including claims that candidates are Satanists, cannibals and pedophiles.But by allowing a single person to decide what can be said online in the run-up to the high-stakes election, which will be held on Oct. 30, Brazil has made itself a test case in a swelling debate over how far to go in fighting “fake news.”The decision drew outcry from supporters of right-wing President Jair Bolsonaro, as well as concern from many internet-law and civil-rights experts, who said it represented a potentially dangerous, authoritarian expansion of power, one that could be abused to censor legitimate viewpoints and swing the presidential contest.The elections chief, Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes, is already at the center of a separate fight over the increasing authority of Brazil’s highest court. He has ordered investigations into Mr. Bolsonaro and jailed some of his supporters for what Mr. Moraes said were attacks on the nation’s democratic institutions.“It’s a risky move,” Carlos Affonso Souza, a professor at Rio de Janeiro State University, said of Thursday’s decision. “I think it could go too far depending on how he exercises these rights.”Still, the move was cheered by others in Brazil, including many on the left, who see it as a necessary tool to fight an avalanche of false claims from Mr. Bolsonaro’s supporters that has only accelerated in recent days.During Thursday’s vote on the rules, Mr. Moraes said complaints about misinformation had increased nearly 17-fold compared with past elections.“There has been proliferation of not only false news, but of the aggressiveness of this news, this hate speech, which we all know leads to nothing but an erosion of democracy,” he said. “This is precisely why we need a faster way.”Mr. Bolsonaro faces off on Oct. 30 against the leftist former President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva in a vote that is widely regarded as Brazil’s most important in decades.Under the new rules, which were passed unanimously by the seven federal judges who make up Brazil’s electoral court, the elections chief’s expanded powers are effective during election campaigns. The powers will lapse after the presidential vote, but will take effect again in future campaigns.The rules allow Mr. Moraes to order social networks to immediately take down content that he determines has violated previous decisions by the broader electoral court.The electoral court has already banned posts that call Mr. Bolsonaro a pedophile, a claim that accelerated in recent days after video emerged of the president saying “there was a spark” between him and two teenage girls. The court has also ordered the takedown of content that says Mr. da Silva is corrupt. Mr. da Silva served time in prison on corruption charges, which were later nullified.André Spigariol contributed reporting from Brasília. More

    • 100 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Reader Mailbag: Answering Questions About Not Answering Phones

      by

      A lot of you had ideas on how we might do a little better in reaching people for our surveys.Ryan CarlWe’re already in the field with our penultimate wave of New York Times/Siena polls — this time focused on four or five key House races — so let’s go to the mail and answer readers’ questions about our surveys.This week, our inbox was full of replies to our recent note on the grim reality of telephone polling: Less than 1 percent of dials yield a response. A lot of you had ideas on how we might do a little better.Maybe the most frequent suggestion was some version of this:I think some of us who no longer answer calls from unknown phone numbers might answer if the call identified itself as from a polling firm. — Deb MMy mom also suggested this last weekend. It would certainly make the poll cheaper. But as I told her, I think this might be a mistake. We want a representative sample. I don’t think the way we want to increase our response rates is by further attracting the kinds of politically engaged folks who would be excited to take a political poll. We already have many highly engaged voters as is.Another question came from someone who is no stranger to survey research:Why doesn’t The Times move to an online probability sample? — Cliff Zukin, a former president of the American Association for Public Opinion ResearchBefore I answer, I just want to flag a key word in this question: probability. A “probability sample” is one in which every person has a known probability of being selected for the survey. To take an example: If we randomly dial telephone numbers, everyone with a telephone number (basically everyone) has a chance of participating; thus, it’s a probability sample.Many online polls, however, are not probability samples — think Morning Consult or YouGov. These polls survey only people who previously signed up to participate in an online panel. It is very challenging to craft a representative survey with the idiosyncratic folks who decide to join an online panel after clicking on a random banner ad.The State of the 2022 Midterm ElectionsBoth parties are making their final pitches ahead of the Nov. 8 election.Where the Election Stands: As Republicans appear to be gaining an edge with swing voters in the final weeks of the contest for control of Congress, here’s a look at the state of the races for the House and Senate.Biden’s Low Profile: President Biden’s decision not to attend big campaign rallies reflects a low approval rating that makes him unwelcome in some congressional districts and states.What Young Voters Think: Twelve Americans under 30, all living in swing states, told The Times about their political priorities, ranging from the highly personal to the universal.In Minnesota: The race for attorney general in the light-blue state offers a pure test of which issue is likely to be more politically decisive: abortion rights or crime.An online probability sample, on the other hand, would have the rigor of a telephone poll. The most common way to pull it off is to mail people an invitation to participate in a poll online. In many cases, the respondents are recruited to join a longer-term panel, where the pollster can contact them over and over. A lot of firms now use these kinds of online probability samples: Pew Research, Associated Press/NORC, Ipsos/KnowledgePanel and now CNN with SSRS, to name just a few.If we stipulate for a moment that this would be cheaper — and it may not be, by the way — there’s an argument this could work for The Times in certain cases. But there’s one big limitation for us: It’s hard to conduct an online probability sample by state or district, and most of our polls are state or district polls.We couldn’t build a large enough panel in all the states (let alone districts) where we might want to conduct a survey. Without a panel that we can recontact on-demand, we’re stuck with a one-off mail-to-web poll in which we mail people letters inviting them to participate in an online poll. It can take a long time.The last CNN/SSRS mail-to-web poll, for instance, was fielded over the course of 32 days — from Sept. 3 to Oct. 5 — and released on Oct. 13. They probably wrapped up the questionnaire well before Sept. 3, given the need to print and mail questionnaires. I’m glad CNN is trying this, but personally the result felt stale to me.That said, I do think there’s room for something like this to be part of our portfolio. It might be useful far from an election. Or if the data is of especially high quality, perhaps it can be used to calibrate cheaper surveys.To that point, here’s an idea: cold, hard cash:By your own account you have to pay a substantial amount of money for one completed phone interview. Two hours of salary and miscellaneous expenses. Why not pay the interviewee for his or her time and trouble? For $20 or so, a reasonable number of people would talk to you. — Tom HillThat’s a good thought. In fact, it’s such a good thought that we’re trying this in a large mail-based study of a key battleground state, right now! More on this in a few weeks. More

    • 100 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Ahead of Midterms, Disinformation Is Even More Intractable

      by

      On the morning of July 8, former President Donald J. Trump took to Truth Social, a social media platform he founded with people close to him, to claim that he had in fact won the 2020 presidential vote in Wisconsin, despite all evidence to the contrary.Barely 8,000 people shared that missive on Truth Social, a far cry from the hundreds of thousands of responses his posts on Facebook and Twitter had regularly generated before those services suspended his megaphones after the deadly riot on Capitol Hill on Jan. 6, 2021.And yet Mr. Trump’s baseless claim pulsed through the public consciousness anyway. It jumped from his app to other social media platforms — not to mention podcasts, talk radio or television.Within 48 hours of Mr. Trump’s post, more than one million people saw his claim on at least dozen other sites. It appeared on Facebook and Twitter, from which he has been banished, but also YouTube, Gab, Parler and Telegram, according to an analysis by The New York Times.The spread of Mr. Trump’s claim illustrates how, ahead of this year’s midterm elections, disinformation has metastasized since experts began raising alarms about the threat. Despite years of efforts by the media, by academics and even by social media companies themselves to address the problem, it is arguably more pervasive and widespread today.“I think the problem is worse than it’s ever been, frankly,” said Nina Jankowicz, an expert on disinformation who briefly led an advisory board within the Department of Homeland Security dedicated to combating misinformation. The creation of the panel set off a furor, prompting her to resign and the group to be dismantled.Not long ago, the fight against disinformation focused on the major social media platforms, like Facebook and Twitter. When pressed, they often removed troubling content, including misinformation and intentional disinformation about the Covid-19 pandemic.Today, however, there are dozens of new platforms, including some that pride themselves on not moderating — censoring, as they put it — untrue statements in the name of free speech.Other figures followed Mr. Trump in migrating to these new platforms after being “censored” by Facebook, YouTube or Twitter. They included Michael Flynn, the retired general who served briefly as Mr. Trump’s first national security adviser; L. Lin Wood, a pro-Trump lawyer; Naomi Wolf, a feminist author and vaccine skeptic; and assorted adherents of QAnon and the Oath Keepers, the far-right militia.At least 69 million people have joined platforms, like Parler, Gab, Truth Social, Gettr and Rumble, that advertise themselves as conservative alternatives to Big Tech, according to statements by the companies. Though many of those users are ostracized from larger platforms, they continue to spread their views, which often appear in screen shots posted on the sites that barred them.The State of the 2022 Midterm ElectionsBoth parties are making their final pitches ahead of the Nov. 8 election.Where the Election Stands: As Republicans appear to be gaining an edge with swing voters in the final weeks of the contest for control of Congress, here’s a look at the state of the races for the House and Senate.Biden’s Low Profile: President Biden’s decision not to attend big campaign rallies reflects a low approval rating that makes him unwelcome in some congressional districts and states.What Young Voters Think: Twelve Americans under 30, all living in swing states, told The Times about their political priorities, ranging from the highly personal to the universal.Debates Dwindle: Direct political engagement with voters is waning as candidates surround themselves with their supporters. Nowhere is the trend clearer than on the shrinking debate stage.“Nothing on the internet exists in a silo,” said Jared Holt, a senior manager on hate and extremism research at the Institute for Strategic Dialogue. “Whatever happens in alt platforms like Gab or Telegram or Truth makes its way back to Facebook and Twitter and others.”Users have migrated to apps like Truth Social after being “censored” by Facebook, YouTube or Twitter.Leon Neal/Getty ImagesThe diffusion of the people who spread disinformation has radicalized political discourse, said Nora Benavidez, senior counsel at Free Press, an advocacy group for digital rights and accountability.“Our language and our ecosystems are becoming more caustic online,” she said. The shifts in the disinformation landscape are becoming clear with the new cycle of American elections. In 2016, Russia’s covert campaign to spread false and divisive posts seemed like an aberration in the American political system. Today disinformation, from enemies, foreign and domestic, has become a feature of it.The baseless idea that President Biden was not legitimately elected has gone mainstream among Republican Party members, driving state and county officials to impose new restrictions on casting ballots, often based on mere conspiracy theories percolating in right-wing media.Voters must now sift through not only an ever-growing torrent of lies and falsehoods about candidates and their policies, but also information on when and where to vote. Officials appointed or elected in the name of fighting voter fraud have put themselves in the position to refuse to certify outcomes that are not to their liking.The purveyors of disinformation have also become increasingly sophisticated at sidestepping the major platforms’ rules, while the use of video to spread false claims on YouTube, TikTok and Instagram has made them harder for automated systems to track than text.TikTok, which is owned by the Chinese tech giant ByteDance, has become a primary battleground in today’s fight against disinformation. A report last month by NewsGuard, an organization that tracks the problem online, showed that nearly 20 percent of videos presented as search results on TikTok contained false or misleading information on topics such as school shootings and Russia’s war in Ukraine.Katie Harbath in Facebook’s “war room,” where election-related content was monitored on the platform, in 2018.Jeff Chiu/Associated Press“People who do this know how to exploit the loopholes,” said Katie Harbath, a former director of public policy at Facebook who now leads Anchor Change, a strategic consultancy.With the midterm elections only weeks away, the major platforms have all pledged to block, label or marginalize anything that violates company policies, including disinformation, hate speech or calls to violence.Still, the cottage industry of experts dedicated to countering disinformation — think tanks, universities and nongovernment organizations — say the industry is not doing enough. The Stern Center for Business and Human Rights at New York University warned last month, for example, that the major platforms continued to amplify “election denialism” in ways that undermined trust in the democratic system.Another challenge is the proliferation of alternative platforms for those falsehoods and even more extreme views.Many of those new platforms have flourished in the wake of Mr. Trump’s defeat in 2020, though they have not yet reached the size or reach of Facebook and Twitter. They portray Big Tech as beholden to the government, the deep state or the liberal elite.Parler, a social network founded in 2018, was one of the fastest-growing sites — until Apple’s and Google’s app stores kicked it off after the deadly riot on Jan. 6, which was fueled by disinformation and calls for violence online. It has since returned to both stores and begun to rebuild its audience by appealing to those who feel their voices have been silenced.“We believe at Parler that it is up to the individual to decide what he or she thinks is the truth,” Amy Peikoff, the platform’s chief policy officer, said in an interview.She argued that the problem with disinformation or conspiracy theories stemmed from the algorithms that platforms use to keep people glued online — not from the unfettered debate that sites like Parler foster.On Monday, Parler announced that Kanye West had agreed in principle to purchase the platform, a deal that the rapper and fashion designer, now known as Ye, cast in political terms.“In a world where conservative opinions are considered to be controversial, we have to make sure we have the right to freely express ourselves,” he said, according to the company’s statement.Parler’s competitors now are BitChute, Gab, Gettr, Rumble, Telegram and Truth Social, with each offering itself as sanctuary from the moderating policies of the major platforms on everything from politics to health policy.A new survey by the Pew Research Center found that 15 percent of prominent accounts on those seven platforms had previously been banished from others like Twitter and Facebook.Apps like Gettr market themselves as alternatives to Big Tech.Elijah Nouvelage/Getty ImagesNearly two-thirds of the users of those platforms said they had found a community of people who share their views, according to the survey. A majority are Republicans or lean Republican.A result of this atomization of social media sources is to reinforce the partisan information bubbles within which millions of Americans live.At least 6 percent of Americans now regularly get news from at least one of these relatively new sites, which often “highlight non-mainstream world views and sometimes offensive language,” according to Pew. One in 10 posts on these platforms that mentioned L.G.B.T.Q. issues involved derisive allegations, the survey found.These new sites are still marginal compared with the bigger platforms; Mr. Trump, for example, has four million followers on Truth Social, compared with 88 million when Twitter kicked him off in 2021.Even so, Mr. Trump has increasingly resumed posting with the vigor he once showed on Twitter. The F.B.I. raid on Mar-a-Lago thrust his latest pronouncements into the eye of the political storm once again.For the major platforms, the financial incentive to attract users — and their clicks — remains powerful and could undo the steps they took in 2021. There is also an ideological component. The emotionally laced appeal to individual liberty in part drove Elon Musk’s bid to buy Twitter, which appears to have been revived after months of legal maneuvering.Nick Clegg, the president of global affairs at Meta, Facebook’s parent company, even suggested recently that the platform might reinstate Mr. Trump’s account in 2023 — ahead of what could be another presidential run. Facebook had previously said it would do so only “if the risk to public safety has receded.”Nick Clegg, Meta’s president for global affairs.Patrick T. Fallon/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesA study of Truth Social by Media Matters for America, a left-leaning media monitoring group, examined how the platform had become a home for some of the most fringe conspiracy theories. Mr. Trump, who began posting on the platform in April, has increasingly amplified content from QAnon, the online conspiracy theory.He has shared posts from QAnon accounts more than 130 times. QAnon believers promote a vast and complex falsehood that centers on Mr. Trump as a leader battling a cabal of Democratic Party pedophiles. Echoes of such views reverberated through Republican election campaigns across the country during this year’s primaries.Ms. Jankowicz, the disinformation expert, said the nation’s social and political divisions had churned the waves of disinformation.The controversies over how best to respond to the Covid-19 pandemic deepened distrust of government and medical experts, especially among conservatives. Mr. Trump’s refusal to accept the outcome of the 2020 election led to, but did not end with, the Capitol Hill violence.“They should have brought us together,” Ms. Jankowicz said, referring to the pandemic and the riots. “I thought perhaps they could be kind of this convening power, but they were not.” More