Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Government Social Networks United States

Critics Call White House Social Media Bias Survey A 'Data Collection Ploy' (sfgate.com) 199

An anonymous reader quotes the Washington Post: Venky Ganesan, a partner at technology investor Menlo Ventures, told The Washington Post that the White House's new survey about bias on social media is "pure kabuki theatre" and an attempt to curry political points with conservatives. He said the Trump administration's repeated accusations that tech companies censor conservative voices are unfounded because even though most Silicon Valley executives are liberal or libertarian, they wouldn't let politics get in the way of their primary goal: making money...

The Internet Association, a trade association representing Facebook, Google and other tech companies, also pushed back on President Trump's repeated accusations that their products are biased against conservatives. The association says the platforms are open and enable the speech of all Americans -- including the president himself. "That's why the president uses Twitter so much," said Michael Beckerman, the Internet Association's chief executive. "He actually used Twitter for this particular announcement, which is perhaps ironic."

The article adds that the Trump administration "declined to tell The Washington Post what it planned to do with the data it's amassing." But on Twitter the New York Times technology columnist Kevin Roose argued that the survey "is just going to be used to assemble a voter file, which Trump will then pay Facebook millions of dollars to target with ads about how biased Facebook is."

Vice also believes it's a "craven data collection ploy" and "an elaborate way of getting people to subscribe to the White House's email list," adding "If this whole enterprise feels shady, that's because it is... The site isn't even hosted on a government server, but was created with Typeform, a Spain-based web tool that lets anyone set up simple surveys." Mashable also notes that the site "also just so happens to have an absolutely bonkers privacy policy" which includes allowing the White House to edit everything that's submitted.

Click here to read even more reactions.

Newsweek published these responses to the social media bias survey:
  • NBC reporter Ben Collins: "The propaganda war in 2020 won't happen on Facebook, but in the darkness of a RE:FWD:FWD email to grampa."

And the Washington Post published these reactions:

  • The EFF: "While we think companies have a moral responsibility to step up on this, seeing them regulated is not the answer."
  • Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon: "The White House move is a major escalation of the right-wing effort to pressure tech companies to leave vile content online, instead of doing the right thing and policing their platforms."
  • "In a letter to the White House, sent Thursday, the Electronic Privacy Information Center said there is no evidence that the government ever conducted and published a report on its data-collection activities, a mandatory inquiry called a Privacy Impact Assessment. Absent that, the Washington-based watchdog organization said the administration's social media campaign may be "unlawful.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Critics Call White House Social Media Bias Survey A 'Data Collection Ploy'

Comments Filter:
  • No surprise there (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 18, 2019 @09:41AM (#58613534)

    Trump likes 'em dumb

    They'll fall for this hook, line, and sinker. And be proud of it.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      You are being kind. Team Trump likes them inbred and/or living in mom's basement.

    • Okay, the AC got me to peak with the "surprise" subject. That's because I was so surprised the summary doesn't mention "push poll". Nor does the summary of the earlier story on Slashdot. Nor do the comments mention "push poll".

      It's really easy to prepare a poll or survey. It's extremely hard to prepare a survey that reveals any truth. If you want to assess the results of any survey, the first thing to check is who paid for it. A skilled pollster can deliver any results you want.

      However polls of this sort ar

  • by wyattstorch516 ( 2624273 ) on Saturday May 18, 2019 @09:42AM (#58613550)
    There is already an original post to this story. Why the need to create a new post only to regurgitate the views of the people opposed? Makes you wonder about the motivation of the people running this site.
  • by Anonymous Coward

    The problem is that anti-conservative bias is well-proven by now. You get people being banned for having right-wing views, yet groups like BLM and antifa - two actual terrorist groups promoting violence against law enforcement - are allowed to continue using these platforms. Twitter may let Trump use it, but they routinely blackhole conservative hashtags and the "events" that they promote via their "discovery" feature are heavily biased against conservatives. (For a recent example, see their mocking Ted Cru

    • by Anonymous Coward

      People donâ(TM)t get banned for being right-wing. They do get banned for hate speech.
      They should get banned for demonstrably proclaiming untrue statements as true facts but the will never happen.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by VicVegas ( 990077 )

      BLM and Antifa are terrorist groups? Coward, you need better sources of information. I'm more concerned with anti-progressive bias.

      • by Anonymous Coward

        They are both groups that actively commit acts of violence against others for political reasons. I'm not sure what other word you would use for that. Both of them are violent groups that actively incite violence against others as well as violence against law enforcement. What else would you call them?

        • Re: (Score:1, Troll)

          by VicVegas ( 990077 )

          Now, can you describe, in context, why these groups exist? Your descriptions of them lack the crucial reason of why they exist in the first place. Without that, your fevered words about them ring hollow.

          • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

            by ScentCone ( 795499 )

            Now, can you describe, in context, why these groups exist? Your descriptions of them lack the crucial reason of why they exist in the first place. Without that, your fevered words about them ring hollow.

            Why they exist? It's not complicated. They exist to further the political aims of the people who fund them and participate in their activities. Not that it matters. You seem to think that some leftist's distaste for the fact that, for example, businesses exist ... is a reasonable reason to smash up some business owner's store front for likes on Facebook. Or that someone who hates people people because they're Jewish makes it OK to put on their black Antifa costumes and then beat people bloody in order to p

          • by malkavian ( 9512 )

            Because they state that there's a disproportionate amount of violence from police against blacks? While critically ignoring that there is a statistical p probability multiplier that per capita, a person with black skin is committing it?
            That's basically shouting that a symptom is unacceptable, while refusing to acknowledge that there's a root problem. Which they will under no circumstances allow to be discussed.
            There's definitely a signal that things are not good. But there's no real research allowed into

          • by Kohath ( 38547 )

            I can help with that.

            BLM exists because the police shoot and otherwise kill black people needlessly and usually get away with it. And black folks are tired of it and want the police to protect their lives.

            They made several key mistakes:

            - They made their movement political and chose a side. That's just telling half the country you don't care about them.
            - They made their movement about race rather than about right and wrong. Black are 12% of the population. They need to work with the other 88% if they wan

            • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

              I can help with that.

              BLM exists because the police shoot and otherwise kill black people needlessly and usually get away with it. And black folks are tired of it and want the police to protect their lives.

              Unfortunately, that statistics show [theconversation.com] that is not the case. Black or white, it is not a matter of skin color that gets you shot by police, it is your involvement in a violent crime. And that, overwhelmingly (based on their percent of the population) violent crimes are caused by black criminals [fbi.gov]. Maybe that is the reason that black and white police officers [psmag.com] shoot black criminals in equal rates - because, as a percent of the population at large, they have a much higher rate of violent crime.

              • by Kohath ( 38547 )

                Maybe that is the reason that black and white police officers [psmag.com] shoot black criminals in equal rates - because, as a percent of the population at large, they have a much higher rate of violent crime.

                Yeah, like I said, that's one of the problems with BLM. They made it about race. That's a poor choice for organizing a movement. All you get is race talk in response. And black folks aren't going to win when they're 12% of the population and when people can counter with stats about disproportionate black crime.

                Police killing anyone needlessly, including "criminals", is a problem. Even if police get it right most of the time, the other times are still a problem. We don't need the police to be a murder

                • So why is it racist to say "All Lives Matter", but not to say "Black Lives Matter"? Even the press holds to this message. Perhaps that does show the distinct bias in the press that the President complains about...
                  • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                    by Kohath ( 38547 )

                    So why is it racist to say "All Lives Matter", but not to say "Black Lives Matter"? Even the press holds to this message. Perhaps that does show the distinct bias in the press that the President complains about...

                    Because calling people "racist" is an all-purpose tactic for any and all situations. It meant something once, long ago. It doesn't any more. It's just anger formed into (now) meaningless words with zero thought behind them.

                    If BLM wants to focus on police killing black people, picking fights with anyone who wants to claim that other lives also matter is very stupid and counterproductive. They become just another group of virtue-signaling finger-pointers for regular people to ignore. It won't help the ne

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by RedK ( 112790 )

        Yes, Antifa is a labeled as Domestic terrorists :

        https://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/01/antifa-charlottesville-violence-fbi-242235 [politico.com]

        Because that's what you call people who use physical violence as a response to political speech while hiding their identity.

        Black Lives Matter is just an activist group who fails to look at the actual data and simply want to push anti-police rethoric. They are mostly harmless, except when they cause strife and divide between communities and the police, instead of creating bon

      • ANTIFA [newsweek.com] is a domestic terror organization, per the FBI. Their actions - violence, destruction of property, willful disregard for the safety of others, continued breaking of the law, actions taken to intimidate and threaten others - is clearly domestic terror.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 18, 2019 @10:11AM (#58613668)

      "There's no real question that there is bias against conservatives. It's quite real."

      Yeah, when your positions are not reality-based, you may find that reality seems biased against you.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Hey you should compare the number of mass shootings by BLM, Antifa, and your conservative peers, and then you'll discover why nobody wants you around.

      • by RedK ( 112790 )

        Err.. Compare the coverage the New Zealand shooter got (and the type of coverage misleadingly referring to him as a "right wing" person when his manifesto reads otherwise), compared to the recent Colorado STEM shooter, who even snopes has to use Breitbart to prove the media isn't "biased" :

        https://www.snopes.com/news/2019/05/13/colorado-school-shooter/ [snopes.com]

        Compare the New Zealand Mosque shooting of Muslims with Sri Lanka's bombing of "Easter Worshipper" (could be anyone really, just folk who worship this Easter

  • Twitter as well as Fox has been Trump's go-to propaganda outlet. ABC news won't post much bad about him. Trump is going to complain about anything he cannot control. Boycott Twitter, Fox News, Fox Anything, and ABC until they stop being Trump's tools. We are in this for the future of the world, people! Shut down Trump's dinner theater presidency, and get someone mentally stable in office!
    • by Lehk228 ( 705449 )
      30 minutes to Godwin's law.

      nice.
    • by Mashiki ( 184564 )

      Really? So why was it that Obama and the Obama administration illegally wiretapped reporters. I mean let's be realistic, for all the ebil fox bullshit people spout, they were right there filing on behalf of other media outlets when the Obama admin did that. If Trump did half the shit that the Obama administration did, you'd be waving pitchforks in the street and demanding impeachment. Let's not forget either, that the Obama administration and the DNC had direct pipelines to multiple media organizations

    • I'll take complaining about the media any day over Government investigations [variety.com] and labeling reporters as co-conspirators [factcheck.org] for doing their job. I won't even mention the use of the Espionage Act [politifact.com] more times than all previous administrations combined - in an effort to thwart the press. Nope, It's all Orange Man Bad, his language makes me feel unhappy, so he is Bad. We want a smiley, happy dictator to oppress us instead!
  • by Kohath ( 38547 ) on Saturday May 18, 2019 @10:12AM (#58613674)

    The purpose of a survey is to collect data.

    • by RedK ( 112790 )

      She's a journalist, give her a chance, she doesn't understand things like "Surveys are data collection", her skills are entirely about writing her state of mind in catchy prose that generates views, not understanding the world around her.

    • The purpose of a survey is to collect data. The accusation is instead of collecting data for it's stated purpose, it's being used to generate a mailing list for Donald Trump's re-election campaign.

      I'm not sure that's true, but it's a different issue.

      • by Kohath ( 38547 )

        ...it's being used to generate a mailing list for Donald Trump's re-election campaign.

        If we're going to make up conspiracy theories, let's make them less boring.

    • The purpose of a survey is to collect data.

      to answer a specific question.

      Not to build an ad campaign or donor list (well at least that wasn't supposed to be the purpose of this survey).

      • by RedK ( 112790 )

        The survey didn't actually state what its purpose is. The President is the Executive branch, so obviously the goal cannot be to Legislate. At most he can push Congress to address the issue. At least he can use it on the Campaign trail and make it a defining part of his re-election bid that he will push for the oft-called for "Internet Bill of Rights" (something even most Slashdot pundits would be for, if it were any other man pushing for it, but will suddenly oppose because it is Trump doing it).

        The surv

        • The survey didn't actually state what its purpose is. The President is the Executive branch, so obviously the goal cannot be to Legislate. At most he can push Congress to address the issue. At least he can use it on the Campaign trail and make it a defining part of his re-election bid that he will push for the oft-called for "Internet Bill of Rights" (something even most Slashdot pundits would be for, if it were any other man pushing for it, but will suddenly oppose because it is Trump doing it).

          The survey is entirely voluntary. Don't want to give them your info ? Then don't.

          That misses the two fundamental questions:
          1) Is the data going to be used for a different purpose than the participants expect?
          2) If so, then is the mismatch intentional?

          If the answer to those two questions is yes then it's a big ethical problem.

          • by RedK ( 112790 )

            That misses the two fundamental questions:
            1) Is the data going to be used for a different purpose than the participants expect?
            2) If so, then is the mismatch intentional?

            If the answer to those two questions is yes then it's a big ethical problem.

            If the participant is making assumptions, that's on the participant. The stated goal is quite literally "Share your story with Trump". Literally. From the survey :

            SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS should advance FREEDOM OF SPEECH. Yet too many Americans have seen their accounts suspended, banned, or fraudulently reported for unclear âoeviolationsâ of user policies.

            No matter your views, if you suspect political bias caused such an action to be taken against you, share your story with President Trump.

            All you're doing is sharing your story. The form makes it clear that other than subscribing you to updates from the Trump Campaign, there is nothing else around this. As such, you're free to not submit your information.

            If you "expect" anything else than Trump using this in speeches or to maybe at most push for Congress to act (which literally

  • None of the critics are proposing a single alternative to gathering information on if bias is occurring or not, as any good scientist with a hypothesis would test. It's what you'd expect from those who benefit from not criticizing the platform they are part of.

    Social media is known to protect sexism and violence. An example of this is Clementine Ford, a sexist Australian woman who has tweeted hateful statements against men to goad them into reacting to then turn around and portray herself as a victim (
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by skam240 ( 789197 )

      I'd suggest you're wearing you ideology very much on your sleave right now. You've got links to a couple of anecdotes to demonize the other side, then drop "conservatives are being censored in mass" with no data, and then you drop 'terrorism!" for a good scare to cement your case a bit but then follow that with a link to an article about the challenges social media companies are facing combating terrorist groups on their sites. In other words, a link to an article that only deflates the points you seem to b

      • by RedK ( 112790 )

        then drop "conservatives are being censored in mass" with no data

        Ironic considering you're literally responding to a post under an article about someone being criticized for attempting to gather said data. "You have no data!", "Fine let's get data.", "NEFARIOUS INTENT! NEFARIOUS INTENT!". This is all getting too predictable.

  • by physicsphairy ( 720718 ) on Saturday May 18, 2019 @10:38AM (#58613806)

    Did I really just read a slashdot story that just a list of sound bites?

    "The propaganda war in 2020 won't happen on Facebook, but in the darkness of a RE:FWD:FWD email to grampa."

    – hardhitting news EditorDavid feels you need to know to stay informed

    How about instead of a gossip column of "X believes," "Y said," instead presenting facts and analysis.

    • by jwymanm ( 627857 )
      Because news has become 20% facts and analysis and 80% opinion. Every single sentence that every article is written on any news site has insults or arguments or accusations or little innuendo jabs (often just the tone). It's been happening now for over 2 years and I almost think that writers / editors have no idea how to separate their tone and opinions from news reports anymore. Sometimes on a blue moon you'll read something that argues both sides and is mostly (but still not entirely) neutral. It's all to
  • by Anonymous Coward

    Conservatives whine and cry about the private property rights of business owners when the subject is making cakes for gay weddings.

    Then they whine and cry when business owners exercise those very same private property rights on their social media platforms.

    You can't have it both ways, snowflakes.

    The truth, of course, is that the usual conservative views about limited government and fiscal responsibility are not being silenced. Racism and bigotry are being silenced. Are the conservatives finally admitting th

    • Well, if you believe that, then... Liberals believe its ok to force a baker to make a gay wedding cake(IDK how he plans on doing that, didn't even know they liked sex..) and its not ok to force an online service to serve people who they disagree with. See why thats a bad argument. Because both sides went bat shit crazy on both issues..

  • Wait! (Score:2, Troll)

    by jnaujok ( 804613 )
    Let me get this straight...

    "A survey... is a data collection ploy"?

    Next you'll tell me that books are an "information storage medium ploy"?

    What amazing reporting.
  • getting people to subscribe to the White House's email list

    So sign up for a throw-away e-mail account on a Russian server. Subscribe to the White House mailing list using that address. Sit back and watch the SHTF.

  • the GOP and neocons in the USA are authoritarian rightwing religious nuts and normal people dont want them turning the USA in to a theocratic authoritarian police state which it has been dangerously sliding towards since 9/11, i highly recommend everyone vote against trump in the next POTUS election
    • I wouldn't put the equals sign between GOP and the Neocons. Neocons are a very sleazy crowd with no allegiance to a specific party, although they did enjoy an alliance with republicans from circa GWB's time. This is why many of them have joined the "never-Trump" movement (e.g. Bill Kristol) or even jumped the GOP ship (Max Boot). Most of the Republican Trump-critics or "never-trumpers" are neocons. Why?

      Trump may have said many many stupid things, but there was ONE good thing that he pledged during his elect

  • DUH!

    Anyone responding to this survey site is going to begin receiving endless come-ons for campaign donations. You could see this a mile away.

  • ... kill file feature. I'd be busy this afternoon setting one up.

The opossum is a very sophisticated animal. It doesn't even get up until 5 or 6 PM.

Working...