California's War On 'Bots' Could Be A Steep Uphill Climb

from the disinformation-nation dept

While California's new net neutrality law grabbed the lion's share of press headlines, the state last week also passed legislation attempting to fix an equally complicated problem: bots. The rise of bots has played a major role in not only helping companies and politicians covertly advertise products or positions, but they've also played a starring role in Russia's disinformation efforts. That in turn has fueled what's often not-entirely-productive paranoia, as users online accuse those they disagree with of being bots, instead of, say, just genuinely terrible but real human beings.

Last Sunday, California Governor Jerry Brown signed SB1001, a bill that requires companies or individuals to label any bots clearly as bots. The bill explains the legislation this way:

"This bill would, with certain exceptions, make it unlawful for any person to use a bot to communicate or interact with another person in California online with the intent to mislead the other person about its artificial identity for the purpose of knowingly deceiving the person about the content of the communication in order to incentivize a purchase or sale of goods or services in a commercial transaction or to influence a vote in an election. The bill would define various terms for these purposes. The bill would make these provisions operative on July 1, 2019."

While this is well intentioned, you can see how enforcement could prove to be a bit of a problem. Most of the scientific analysis of what constitutes a bot hasn't been particularly solid. Hamilton 68, for example, widely cited in the media as a definitive and scientific way to measure Russian bot influence online, has been widely derided as little more than educated guesswork at best.

That's not to say that "bots" aren't a problem. A disclosure from Twitter back in June noted that the company had "identified and challenged" more than 9.9 million accounts each week last May for being "potentially spammy or automated accounts." Those numbers were up dramatically from the 6.4 million per week in December 2017, and the 3.2 million million per week in September. Initially, fear of hampering ad impression metrics likely hindered many companies' interest in addressing this problem, but the exposure of Russia's online gamesmanship seems to have shifted that thinking dramatically.

California's efforts on this front were born from genuine annoyance at the problem. State Senator Robert M. Hertzberg, the bill's author, ran into the problem face first when numerous fake Facebook and Twitter accounts began berating him for a bail reform bill he proposed earlier this year. In a report in the New York Times last July, he found himself inundated with bogus attacks by bots, who did everything they could do to scuttle his proposal (note how he didn't clarify how he differentiated between bots or just terrible people).

I spoke briefly about California's new legislation with the EFF's Jeremy Gillula, who was quick to highlight the enforcement and free speech problems inherent in California's attempt to fix a problem we don't fully understand:

"Enforcement is definitely going to be difficult. Governments aren't in a good position to be able to tell whether or not an account on social media is a bot or not. And we wouldn't want them to be--that would require that they know or are able to easily find out where, when, and how every post to social media was made. That would destroy any possibility of anonymous speech online."

Gillula told me that the original bill proposed by Hertzberg was much worse, in that it would have made chatbots like Olivia Taters illegal simply because it's not clearly labeled as a bot. The EFF also successfully encouraged Hertzberg's office to eliminate a proposal that would have forced all websites to have functions letting users report bots. Again, because of the problems stated above (a culture of paranoia and difficulty differentiating bots from ordinary human jackasses), the end result could have been potentially catastrophic for speech online:

"We've seen this sort of takedown/labeling regime abused time and again in the past. For example, Twitter and Facebook users can already report posts they think violate the platforms’ community standards. Online platforms also have to deal with complaints under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, or DMCA, a federal law meant to protect copyright online, which forces platforms to take down content. In both cases, malicious users have figured out how to abuse these reporting systems so that they can get speech they don’t like erased from the Internet. The targets victims of such abuse have been Muslim civil rights leaders, pro-democracy activists in Vietnam, pro-science accounts targeted by anti-vaccination groups, and Black Lives Matter activists, whose posts have been censored due to efforts by white supremacists."

One one hand, you can see how bringing a little more transparency to who is running bots and what their motivations are could be helpful. But actually identifying bots and removing them is currently more art than science. In the interim, it's probably a good idea to avoid creating solutions that, in time, could create even bigger problems (like an entirely new takedown system open to abuse) than the one you're trying to fix.

Filed Under: bots, california, labelling, misrepresentation

Media, Politics & The Death Of Intellectual Honesty

from the what-just-happened dept

Yeah, so I get that it's political silly season, and people like to throw around all kinds of arguments of "bias" -- especially towards the media. I've been on the receiving end of those accusations, but for the most part, I think claims of media bias are silly and over-hyped. What's true, though, is that it's all too easy to be sloppy in reporting and to try to hype up a nothing story into a something story. Here's a story where no one comes out of it looking very good and the end result is a complete mess. It starts with Newsweek reporter Kurt Eichenwald. Last night I saw a marginally interesting story by Eichenwald about how a Russian government connected news website, Sputnik, misread an email leaked via Wikileaks from Hillary Clinton pal Sidney Blumenthal to campaign chief John Podesta. The email contained a link and full text to a much earlier Eichnwald story about Benghazi and Clinton. The Sputnik story incorrectly stated that the text in the email was by Blumenthal, and not by Eichenwald. It took one sentence out of this longer article, and falsely claimed that Blumenthal was admitting that the mess in Benghazi was "preventable." As Eichenwald notes, this is wrong:

Those words sounded really, really familiar. Really familiar. Like, so familiar they struck me as something I wrote. Because they were something I wrote.

The Russians were quoting two sentences from a 10,000-word piece I wrote for Newsweek, which Blumenthal had emailed to Podesta. There was no mistaking that Blumenthal was citing Newsweek—the magazine’s name and citations for photographs appeared throughout the attached article.

Okay. So that's actually kind of interesting. This Russian source was so eager to get a story out of the leaked emails that it misrepresented them -- either by accident or on purpose. That's marginally interesting, and certainly a fun thing to report on. What happened next is where things really go off the rails. While Sputnik pulled down its story once Eichenwald pointed out the error, a few hours later, Donald Trump mentioned the story at a rally as if it were true:

At a rally in Wilkes Barre, Pennsylvania, Trump spoke while holding a document in his hand. He told the assembled crowd that it was an email from Blumenthal, whom he called “sleazy Sidney.”

“This just came out a little while ago,’’ Trump said. “I have to tell you this.” And then he read the words from my article.  

“He’s now admitting they could have done something about Benghazi,’’ Trump said, dropping the document to the floor. “This just came out a little while ago.”

Okay. So we've still got a story here, and the story is this: holy shit, Donald Trump is willing to take very, very unreliable sources and broadcast them as fact. But that's not the story that Eichenwald started pushing. He went on something of a Twitter rampage making a bunch of claims that were not supported at all by the story, claiming variably that (1) the leaked emails were doctored (2) that Wikileaks was responsible for this (3) that the Russians and Wikileaks are in cahoots and (4) that Trump and the Russians are in cahoots. Now, any of these might actually be true. But none of them are actually supported by any actual evidence. Eichenwald just makes the logical leaps from what's written above, assuming that only the Russians could have given Trump that news -- ignoring that the story on Sputnik was getting passed around on social media (again: real story: Trump relies on unreliable sources for news). Here are just a few of Eichenwald's many, many tweets promoting his own article (and note how most have tons of retweets): Note that he insists that the only way Trump could have gotten this is from the Russians. But that's clearly not true. The Sputnik story was up and lots of people saw it, and it was discussed on Twitter and elsewhere. It makes perfect sense that someone who saw it either works for the Trump campaign or knew someone there and sent it over. Again: that's the real story: Trump relies on sketchy sources found online.

This morning lots of people were pointing out the problems with Eichenwald's exaggerations about his story, including the Washington Post, NY Magazine and Glenn Greenwald at the Intercept. Greenwald's account highlights that many Hillary Clinton supporters keep saying that the Podesta leaks include faked emails, but no one has pointed out a single one.

Eichenwald, for his part, keeps insisting that the original Sputnik report involved a "manipulated" email, which implies that the email was faked or doctored. This is flat out wrong. The email was misrepresented. It's entirely possible that it was misrepresented on purpose to make Clinton look bad. But misrepresented is different than doctored. Here, let me prove it to you: Eichenwald misrepresented who could have possibly seen the Sputnik piece. He did not doctor that information.

I don't think -- as some are claiming -- that this is evidence of "media bias" on Eichenwald's part. I honestly think that he's guilty of the same thing that probably happened with Sputnik. He saw what seemed to be a really great story, and oversold it. Sputnik did the same. Both look bad.

And, honestly, almost everyone comes out of this looking bad. Eichenwald and Newsweek oversold a story. Various Clinton supporters look bad for buying the claims in the story without reading them or checking them carefully. Trump, of course, looks bad for relying on a Russian government site for unreliable news. And, basically, everyone looks at this story and sees from it what they want. Trump supporters can see more examples of media bias. Clinton supporters believe there's more support for the idea that Russia is supporting Trump. Wikileaks haters get more ammo claiming that the site is working with the Russians and/or that it's releasing fake emails (though it does not appear to be doing so). Again: many of these things may actually be true, but this story only supports the single claim of Trump relying on bad info.

But this is the state of things today. 2016 can't end fast enough. Hopefully 2017 is better.

Filed Under: benghazi, donald trump, hillary clinton, john podesta, kurt eichenwald, media bias, misrepresentation, politics, russia, sidney blumenthal
Companies: wikileaks

Wikitravel And Wikimedia Are In A Legal Battle... But Not Over Creative Commons

from the misrepresentation-may-be-an-issue dept

Late last week, a bunch of folks passed along an interesting blog post by David Gerard about a legal dispute between the company Internet Brands and the Wikimedia Foundation (the folks behind Wikipedia). By Gerard's account, Internet Brands -- a company that runs a bunch of content sites, including Wikitravel.org, which it bought in 2006 -- was suing some volunteer admins of the site for "forking" the content on that site and taking up with the Wikimedia Foundation to create a new travel wiki there. As noted, Wikitravel content has a CC-by-SA license (Creative Commons ShareAlike). In response to all of this, the Wikimedia Foundation took it upon itself to proactively file for declaratory judgment that creating a "fork" of Wikitravel is not breaking the law (confusing matters just slightly -- a bunch of former Wikitravel admins had already forked the content and created a separate site in 2006 called Wikivoyage, which is merging into this new travel wiki under the Wikimedia Foundation).

Now, let me be clear: I think that suing your volunteer admins is unbelievably stupid and shortsighted. It pretty much guarantees that it's going to be difficult to attract such help in the future. Similarly, some of Internet Brands' actions in trying to stop this new travel site seem at least somewhat questionable. But... in looking over the details of the initial lawsuit, it seems that Gerard and the Wikimedia Foundation (who I almost always agree with) are not telling the full story, and are being slightly misleading.

The actual lawsuit against the volunteer admins (and again, it's stupid to sue those admins) isn't because of the "forking." In fact, Internet Brands makes it clear in its own filing that the content is CC-by-SA and can be copied with attribution. Instead, the concerns are over how the admins presented themselves and their relationship to Wikitravel in convincing others to move over to the new project. Specifically, Internet Brands suggests that these admins implied that they were speaking for Wikitravel and the entire community there, by saying that the community was moving over to the new operation.

For example, on August 18, 2012, Holliday improperly and wrongfully emailed at least several hundred of Wikitravel members, purporting to be from Wikitravel and informing members that the Wikitravel Website was "migrating" to the Wikimedia Foundation.

This is Internet Brand's version of things, but you can see how their complaint might be a bit more legitimate if Holliday really suggested that it was Wikitravel itself that was "migrating." Of course, the text of the actual email (at least the text shown in the filing) suggests that Holliday didn't go quite that far -- though he was at least somewhat vague.

Specifically, Holliday's email contained the Subject Line, "Important information about Wikitravel!" and its body stated, "This email is being sent to you on behalf of the Wikitravel administrators since you have put some real time and effort into working on Wikitravel. We wanted to make sure you are up to date and in the loop concerning big changes to the community that will affect the future of your work! As you may already have heard, Wikitravel's community is looking to migrate to the Wikimedia Foundation."

That's not quite as clear-cut as IB stated in the preceding paragraph. He doesn't claim to necessarily be "from Wikitravel." He notes that he's writing on behalf of "Wikitravel administrators," which is slightly different, since many of the administrators are volunteers, not employees or representatives of the site. That's part of what makes this tricky. Separately, he doesn't directly say that the entire Wikitravel website is migrating... but rather that the "Wikitravel community" is "looking to migrate." It's a subtle difference, and one could read the email in multiple ways. However, even in the interpretation that favors Holliday the most, you can certainly argue that he was unnecessarily vague, and at least implies that he's speaking for the site and the community as a whole, when he's really just speaking on behalf of some admins and some portion of the community.

Finally, IB also complains that even with the CC-by-SA license, the new site failed to provide proper attribution. This is always a bit tricky too, because people disagree over what constitutes proper attribution. But for all the people jumping immediately to Wikimedia's side in this dispute, it's worth noting that on this point, if you're a Creative Commons supporter, you might be interested in IB's argument, because if they're right here, it could provide ammo to others who seek to enforce any CC "attribution" license in situations where people don't attribute.

Nothing in the lawsuit really, directly, appears to be about the fact that these guys were creating a "fork" -- despite Wikimedia's claim about the legal fight. Now, you could argue that this is the true intention of the lawsuit -- that it's designed to intimidate these admins and try to throw a wrench into this competitive effort. But, at least on its face, the actual legal filings seem to have a bit more merit than Wikimedia's initial claims suggest. In the end, I (once again) think that Internet Brands is making a tactical (if not legal) mistake in suing, because it will likely tarnish the brand and may make it difficult to attract new admins. And, conceptually, I'm all for Wikimedia Foundation setting up a fork of Wikitravel and trying to do more, and create value that brings the community from Wikitravel over to the new site.

But the lawsuit is about these specific activities, in which the filing makes a reasonable argument that a few admins implied they spoke for Wikitravel (or for the wider community) when that was not necessarily the case. Either way, it'll be interesting to see what happens, but I hope that people read the details before automatically assuming the spin that's been making the rounds is entirely accurate. The claims that these admins are being sued for forking Creative Commons content appear to be simply incorrect.

Similarly, in my read of Wikimedia's lawsuit seeking default judgment, it seems like they may be going a bit too far. The filing tries to argue that Internet Brands is seeking to prevent the use of the content itself, but the actual filing does no such thing. Thus, it's possible that Wikimedia Foundation may run into some problems, if the court doesn't believe that an actual "controversy" is being presented here. For what it's worth, courts don't always look kindly at declaratory judgment cases if there's no real controversy, as they see them as a waste of time. While there is perhaps the germ of a controversy here, I could definitely see the court reading Wikimedia's filing and Internet Brands' actual lawsuits, and realizing that what Wikimedia describes is wholly different than what IB actually said in its lawsuit, and then just dumping the case.

Filed Under: creative commons, forking, misrepresentation, share alike, trademark, travel, wikis, wikitravel
Companies: internet brands, wikimedia foundation

Another Day, And Another Smackdown For Righthaven: Told To Pay Up For Misleading The Court

from the on-the-ropes dept

Yes, another day and another judicial smackdown for Righthaven. In the case before Judge Roger Hunt, where he dismissed Righthaven for its sham copyright assignment claims and threatened sanctions against the company, it appears that Judge Hunt was not convinced by Righthaven's grovelling, that it was all the fault of former in-house attorneys, who failed to disclose that Stephens Media had a 50% stake in the outcome of any of these lawsuits.

Hunt has gone forward with the sanctions, telling Righthaven to pay $5,000 for misleading the court. It seems that defendants in the 200+ other lawsuits now have reasons to ask for similar sanctions against Righthaven as well. In fact, part of this ruling was to get this information attached to every other Righthaven case:

Besides the $5,000, Hunt ordered Righthaven to disclose its original lawsuit contract with Stephens Media in active lawsuits over R-J material. He also ordered that a transcript of today�s hearing, in which he made several negative comments about Righthaven�s conduct, be posted on Righthaven court dockets.

Separately, Judge Hunt publicly bolstered the chances of the attempts to file racketeering charges against Righthaven, under the theory that the company was involved in the unauthorized practice of law:

�In the court�s view, the arrangement between Righthaven and Stephens Media is nothing more, nor less, than a law firm � which incidentally I don�t think is licensed to practice law in this state � with a contingent fee agreement masquerading as a company.�

The judge also blasted the arguement from Righthaven that forgetting to disclose Stephens' Media's interest in the cases was a mere oversight, by specifically calling out Righthaven CEO Steve Gibson:

Hunt noted it was Righthaven�s CEO, Las Vegas attorney Steven Gibson, who drew up the lawsuit contract between Righthaven and Stephens Media. Defense attorneys have said it was Gibson who signed off on some of the false disclosures and that Gibson is behind the entire Righthaven litigation campaign.

I wonder if Steve Gibson is still trying to peddle his line about how the judges think that Righthaven is "genuine," and that all these rulings are really about giving guidance to Righthaven copycats.

Filed Under: copyright, misrepresentation, nevada, roger hunt
Companies: righthaven, stephens media