facebook-plans-to-bury-users-who-regularly-share-misinformation

Facebook plans to bury users who regularly share misinformation

In Facebook’s protracted efforts to be remembered as something other than the largest misinformation megaphone in history, it’s employed a number of strategies, from spinning its own misleading PR narratives to actual UI changes. Today, it announced a new tactic: not only will posts with misinformation in them be made less visible, but so will the individual users who share them.

For several years, the social giant has plugged away at fact-checking partnerships meant to disincentivize the spread of viral misinformation, using the results of those checks to label offending posts rather than removing them. In some cases, it’s taken small steps toward hiding things that are found to be false or polarizing — ending recommendations for political groups, for instance, during the 2020 election. Users, however, were free to post whatever they wanted with no consequences to speak of. No longer!

Image: Facebook

“Starting today, we will reduce the distribution of all posts in News Feed from an individual’s Facebook account if they repeatedly share content that has been rated by one of our fact-checking partners,” the company wrote in a press release. While demonstrably false posts are already demoted in the News Feed rankings, users who share misinformation regularly will now see all of their content pushed down the dashboard’s endless scroll.

It remains to be seen exactly what the tangible impact of this expanded enforcement will be. While individual Facebook users were previously immune to this sort of scrutiny, Instagram users were not. Nevertheless, vaccine misinformation has proliferated on the photo-sharing app. No matter how sophisticated its systems, as I’ve argued before, Facebook is simply too large to monitor.

new-trailers:-the-green-knight,-wish-dragon,-venom-2,-and-more

New Trailers: The Green Knight, Wish Dragon, Venom 2, and more

So since The Handmaid’s Tale isn’t dark enough (honestly give us something, show writers), I also started watching Mare of Easttown (HBO Max) and over the weekend watched The Woman in the Window (fine, gritty anti-heroines are my thing, I guess). Mare is so far reminding me a lot of Broadchurch, another not-very-uplifting but great show, and Kate Winslet is going all-in on the accent and the look.

But wow what a disappointment The Woman in the Window was. It has an all-star cast (Amy Adams, Julianne Moore, Gary Oldman, Brian Tyree Henry, Jennifer Jason Leigh, Anthony Mackie) and a screenplay by Pulitzer Prize winner Tracy Letts, based on AJ Finn’s 2018 novel (which BY THE WAY, read the bonkers backstory about that guy). It follows the mostly successful (but sort of irritating) trend of movies based on books about unreliable female narrators who get caught up in criminal activity (Gone Girl, and The Girl on the Train). It even has the bones of the Hitchcock classic Rear Window.

Maybe it’s just one of those books that doesn’t translate well to the screen, or maybe the reshoots undid too much, but the movie felt like it just couldn’t figure out what it wanted to be; a thriller, a mystery, a story about devastating loss, or something else. And why underuse that great supporting cast?! Unfortunately, I think it was too predictable, and not helped by weird pacing and a twist at the end that was more annoying than surprising.

On to this week’s trailers:

The Green Knight

Dev Patel stars as Sir Gawain, one of the Knights of the Round Table from King Arthur lore. The film is based on the poem Sir Gawain and the Green Knight but the movie version looks a bit more sinister than I remember. What we see in the trailer hews pretty faithfully to the Middle English poem: The Green Knight challenges Gawain to strike him, provided Gawain will let the Green Knight strike him back in a year and a day. Gawain beheads the Green Knight, who picks up his head and saunters away. See you in a year, buddy! The Green Knight is in theaters July 30th.

Wish Dragon

I needed something a little cute and funny because this week’s lineup seems kinda gruesome otherwise. The Wish Dragon is an Aladdin-like tale of a magical being who can grant three wishes, but instead of being bound in a lamp, he’s trapped in a teapot. He’s freed by a young man named Din, who’s searching for his childhood friend Lina. John Cho, Constance Wu, and Jimmy Wong star in The Wish Dragon, which was released in theaters in China earlier this year, and will debut on Netflix June 11th.

Venom 2: Let There Be Carnage

Tom Hardy returns as Eddie Brock and he seems to have come to an understanding of sorts with the Venom symbiote, who cooks him an absolutely disgusting-looking breakfast and has to be reminded not to eat people. This is another of the many films whose release was delayed by the pandemic. Venom 2 is slated to be in theaters September 24th.

The Forever Purge

At some point doesn’t the purge run out of people to purge if it is “forever”? It’s quite convenient that most of the baddies wear scary masks so you can easily identify them, I guess? This is the fifth Purge film, and may be the final one (in which case the “forever” makes more sense). It picks up after The Purge: Election Year and stars Ana de la Reguera, Josh Lucas, Tenoch Huerta, Leven Rambin, Will Patton, and Cassidy Freeman. The Forever Purge will be in theaters July 2nd

facebook-is-reportedly-continuing-a-ban-on-anti-coup-groups-in-myanmar

Facebook is reportedly continuing a ban on anti-coup groups in Myanmar

Facebook has reportedly upheld a ban on many organizations in Myanmar that have joined forces to resist the military coup that occurred back in February, according to Rest of World. The bans were put in place back in 2019, when organizations like the Arakan Army, and many of its allies, were classified as terrorist organizations by the democratically-elected government.

Things have changed in Myanmar since then. After the military coup and government takeover by the Tatmadaw (carried out after an election which the military claims was fraudulent), the political situation has become extremely complex. There is, however, one thing that is seemingly clear: the Arakan Army is no longer classified as a terrorist organization, either by the current military-led government, or by the elected government currently in exile. Yet, according to Rest of World, the Arakan Army is still not allowed on Facebook.

The AA isn’t the only group that’s found itself unable to communicate through Facebook. There are apparently many ethnic armed organizations (EAOs) active in the country, some of which have banded together as a resistance to the coup government, which has been violently cracking down on pro-democracy protestors. Many of their Facebook pages were also restricted back in 2019, under orders of the democratically elected government, which has since been overthrown.

According to Rest of World, the ban of EAOs was controversial before the coup as well: some argue that it prevented the spread of information about human rights violations, like the genocide against the Rohingya Muslims carried out by the Tatmadaw. Now, EAOs and journalists in the country argue that Facebook’s bans prevent them from showing what’s happening in the struggle against the current military government. The director of a human rights organization told Rest of World that the bans are “like trying to close the people’s eyes and ears.”

Facebook also banned pages associated with the Tatmadaw following the coup, but human rights activist Thinzar Shunlei Yi tells Rest of World that the company has still failed to react to the political changes that have occurred in Myanmar since then, and called on the company to create an official oversight board for the country.

the-amazon-union-vote-is-being-appealed,-and-the-hearing-begins-today

The Amazon union vote is being appealed, and the hearing begins today

A new phase of the historic union vote by Amazon warehouse workers in Bessemer, Alabama begins today. The news kicks off with an appeals hearing where the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union (RWDSU) will contest the results of the election.

“Things are not over,” says Veena Dubal, a law professor at the University of California, Hastings. “We all need to be continuing to pay attention to this part.”

Earlier this year, after a months-long union busting campaign, workers voted 1,798 to 738 against forming a union. The decision was hailed as a crushing blow to the labor movement. But experts say the election was always going to be hotly contested. Even if RWDSU won, Amazon would almost certainly have fought the results, and the process would still have ended up in an appeal.

That wasn’t clear from the media coverage, which treated the election as the apex of the labor movement. “I think that it’s fair to say that very few people in labor actually thought that this was going to be a win,” Dubal says.

Witness testimony begins Monday, with RWDSU presenting evidence on each of its 23 objections. These range from Amazon installing a ballot collection box at the warehouse (allegedly giving the illusion that it controlled the vote) to threatening workers with pay cuts.

If RWDSU is successful, there would likely be another election, Bloomberg reports. But regardless of the outcome, Dubal says the campaign has already succeeded in spreading awareness. “The role that the Bessemer drive played was in part an attention getting campaign and a way to get America to look at the conditions in these warehouses,” she says. “It was still a very, very important drive, representing a cultural shift in people thinking about and talking about Amazon.”

The campaign also laid bare Amazon’s union busting tactics — typical for many companies — like bombarding workers with anti-union messages and requiring them to attend captive audience meetings. “Amazon has left no stone unturned in its efforts to gaslight its own employees,” RWDSU president Stuart Appelbaum said in a statement, which The Verge previously reported. “We won’t let Amazon’s lies, deception and illegal activities go unchallenged.”

Many of the tactics Amazon used are legal under current labor law. While the National Labor Relations Act is supposed to protect workers’ rights to organize, companies rarely face significant consequences for union busting.

That could change if the Protecting the Right to Organize Act (also known as the PRO Act) passes. The legislation would ban companies from holding captive audiences and it would establish fines for those that violate workers’ rights.

Dubal says that’s partly why the appeal hearing matters. “It’s imperative that we continue to pay attention to this,” she says. “It’s a learning moment. We are learning what is legal and illegal. We’re learning what companies do to suppress organizing. This needs to be public knowledge so that we understand why a law like the PRO Act is so important.”

facebook-temporarily-hid-posts-calling-for-india’s-prime-minister-to-resign

Facebook temporarily hid posts calling for India’s prime minister to resign

When Facebook users tried to view a hashtag calling for the resignation of Indian prime minister Narendra Modi on Wednesday, they instead saw a message saying that Facebook was temporarily hiding the posts in order to keep the community safe. Buzzfeed News reports that the posts were hidden for about three hours.

Facebook has now restored the posts and told The Verge it is “looking into what happened,” echoing a public statement from a member of its communications team.

The temporary suspension of the hashtag is likely to fuel concerns about the influence that Modi’s BJP party wields over Facebook operations and social media in general. Last weekend, Twitter hid tweets critical of various officials after receiving an emergency order from the government.

India is currently currently seeing another wave in COVID-19 cases, which has lead to critical medical supplies being in short supply. Many of the Facebook posts with the ResignModi hashtag include references to the coronavirus.

Facebook has blocked hashtags in the past — during the 2020 US election it blocked the “StopTheSteal” tag, showing users a similar message to the one seen in India today. The hashtag for “Qanon” is also blocked, as part of Facebook’s fight against the conspiracy-based social movement. Unlike the ResignModi hashtag, the StopTheSteal and Qanon tags are still blocked, with the message citing content that goes against community standards.

Facebook India has been a sore point for the company in recent months, with its controversial policy chief resigning last October. Critics pressured her to leave, claiming that, under her guidance, Facebook India had failed to moderate hate speech that led to anti-Muslim pogroms in Delhi. More broadly, there were concerns that her public alignment with the ruling BJP party had led to unfair application of Facebook policy.

california-governor-sees-an-end-to-oil-extraction-in-the-state

California Governor sees an end to oil extraction in the state

California Governor Gavin Newsom today set an aspirational 2045 deadline to stop all oil extraction in the state. He also said that he plans to ban hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking” for oil by 2024.

“As we move to swiftly decarbonize our transportation sector and create a healthier future for our children, I’ve made it clear I don’t see a role for fracking in that future and, similarly, believe that California needs to move beyond oil,” he said in a statement.

NEW: California is now the first state to declare an end to oil extraction in the country.

Today, we’re announcing that we will phase out all oil extraction — as part of a world-leading effort to achieve carbon neutrality — and ban fracking by 2024.

— Gavin Newsom (@GavinNewsom) April 23, 2021

Newsom directed the state’s Department of Conservation to quit issuing new permits for fracking. Halting all oil extraction, however, will be more difficult. For now, he’s asked the California Air Resources Board to “analyze pathways” that could put an end to digging up new oil by 2045.

The embattled governor, who could soon face a recall election, previously said he didn’t have the “authority” to ban fracking. State lawmakers tried to pass legislation banning fracking earlier this year but failed. Fracking is a controversial way of accessing hard-to-reach oil and gas reserves that poses threats to air and water quality. It only accounts for about two percent of oil production in the state, so Newsom will have to make good on his other commitment if he wants to have a big impact on the state’s oil production.

California is the world’s fifth-largest economy, so its environmental goals hold weight. “This is significant. If California was a country, it’d be the biggest oil producer ever to announce an end to oil extraction,” tweeted Jonathan Gaventa, a senior associate at the climate think tank E3G.

Some said Newsom still isn’t getting ambitious enough. “Phasing out drilling by 2045 is inadequate. That’s twenty-four wildfire seasons away, with exponentially worsening conditions every year,” the Los Angeles chapter of the environmental organization Sunrise Movement tweeted.

California has led the way on ambitious climate policy in the past. Last year, it became the first state to ban the future sale of new internal combustion vehicles. In 2018, former governor Jerry Brown set a target for the whole state to be carbon neutral by 2045, meaning it won’t put out more planet-heating carbon dioxide emissions than it can offset or capture.

us-institutes-new-russia-sanctions-in-response-to-solarwinds-hack

US institutes new Russia sanctions in response to SolarWinds hack

A White House order issued Thursday morning directs the US government to expel ten diplomats and place a range of new sanctions on Russian individuals and assets in response to the SolarWinds hack. The order also places significant new restrictions on Russia’s sovereign debt, which will make it more difficult for the country’s government to raise money and support its currency.

“Treasury will target Russian leaders, officials, intelligence services, and their proxies that attempt to interfere in the U.S. electoral process or subvert U.S. democracy,” said Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen. “This is the start of a new U.S. campaign against Russian malign behavior.”

Uncovered in December, the hack saw more than 250 federal agencies and businesses compromised by a state-sponsored actor, which exposed a network security company called SolarWinds. The US intelligence service believes with high confidence that the attack was carried out by Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service.

The sanctions also target 32 individuals believed to have participated in government efforts to influence the 2020 election, a troubling replay of the 2016 influence campaign that hacked members of the Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee. One of those individuals is named Alexei Gromov, a deputy chief of staff in the Russian president’s office, who allegedly led a Kremlin effort that “sought to exacerbate tensions in the United States by discrediting the 2020 U.S. election process,” according to a Treasury Department statement.

A number of private-sector cybersecurity firms in Russia were also sanctioned for their work supporting government efforts.

Since February, the Biden administration has been working to remediate the attack and change federal IT practices to protect against similar attacks in the future. In March, a White House spokesperson described the security failure as the result of “significant gaps in modernization and in technology of cybersecurity across the federal government.”

The sanctions mark a new low point in US relations with Russia, made worse by reports that the country funded prizes for Taliban killings of US soldiers, as well as President Vladimir Putin’s ongoing retaliation against domestic opposition leaders.

“The Biden administration has been clear that the United States desires a relationship with Russia that is stable and predictable,” the White House said in a statement. “We do not think that we need to continue on a negative trajectory. However, we have also been clear — publicly and privately — that we will defend our national interests and impose costs for Russian Government actions that seek to harm us.”

unionizing-amazon-warehouses-was-never-going-to-be-easy

Unionizing Amazon warehouses was never going to be easy

For more than a year, a group of workers in Bessemer, Alabama have campaigned to unionize their warehouse under the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union (RWDSU), hoping to force the retail giant to collectively bargain with its warehouse workers for the first time. On Friday, those hopes came to an abrupt end. In a unit-wide election, workers at the warehouse voted against unionization by a more than 2-1 margin, with 738 votes in favor to 1,798 against.

It’s a devastating loss for the RWDSU and the labor movement broadly. The union is still fighting the result — filing objections and arguing that Amazon’s campaign violated labor law — but those challenges are unlikely to change the result. After dreaming of a domino effect that could unionize Amazon warehouses across the country, organizers are now fighting to keep that dream alive.

But while the lopsided result was a surprise to many, it’s part of a long, frustrating history for American labor organizers. In simple terms, not very many American workers are unionized, and organizers are used to facing an uphill battle in unionizing new workplaces. Outside of government jobs, just 6.3 percent of US workers belong to a union, a number that has fallen slightly over the past 10 years. Southern industrial workers have been a particularly sort point for the labor movement, with similar drives losing out at a Volkswagen plant in Chattanooga in 2019 and a Nissan plant in Mississippi in 2017. Seen in that context, the Bessemer loss is less of a surprise victory for Amazon and more of a depressing return to the norm.

“It’s a blow to the labor movement, but it’s part of a pattern that’s been going on in corporate America for a long time,” says Professor Dan Cornfield, a labor sociologist at Vanderbilt University.

Another force working against organizers is US labor law, which gives employers broad leeway to promote an anti-union message in the workplace. Amazon had campaigned aggressively against the union in recent months, posting anti-RWDSU flyers in warehouse bathrooms and bombarding workers with targeted text messages. But while organizers saw those tactics as fighting dirty, they’re all within the bounds of current law.

“Our labor law is stacked against the people it’s meant to protect,” says Rebecca Kolins Givan, an Associate Professor at the Rutgers School of Management and Labor Relations. “It’s extremely hard for workers to organize a union and ridiculously easy for employers to bully them out of it.”

Tactics like the “captive audience” meeting — in which employers force workers to attend anti-union workshops as part of their job — are particularly controversial among labor activists. “Part of the problem is that the law gives the employer too much latitude to interfere,” says Benjamin Sachs, Kestnbaum Professor of Labor and Industry at Harvard Law School. “So the union can’t challenge a lot of what Amazon did, like captive audience meetings, because the law is that the employer has the right to do that.”

Some are also pointing to tactical missteps made in the campaign. Organizers minimized house calls with workers because of the pandemic, instead focusing on reaching workers outside the plant itself where Amazon had greater influence. There was also significant confusion over the unit itself, with organizers underestimating the number of eligible workers by thousands in the early stages of the campaign. While the 1,060-vote margin might seem daunting, it’s dwarfed by the thousands of in-unit workers who did not cast a ballot at all, whether because of indifference or intimidation.

For Cornfield, the most important force was the economics of the region. Like much of the country, Alabama’s unemployment rate spiked during the pandemic, going from 2.6 percent to 13.6 percent from March to April. It was a huge economic shock to the region, and may have put a dark cloud over the union effort.

“If an employer does behave aggressively and much of the workforce has experienced recession level unemployment,” Cornfield says, “that’s a lethal combination for workers who might otherwise see the merits of unionization.”

Now that the Bessemer fight is over, there’s a lot labor groups can do to level the playing field. There’s particular hope that, under Biden, the National Labor Relations Board will start to change the rules around captive audience meetings and other tactics. The PRO Act, currently awaiting a Senate vote, would go even further, establishing monetary penalties for executives who skirt labor laws, among other measures. But in the meantime, any future efforts to organize Amazon warehouses will face much longer odds.

“I know the outcome is not what a lot of people wanted to hear,” said Michael Foster, one of the leading RWDSU organizers in Bessemer, in a press conference on Friday. “But I believe this is the foundation for something great… by no means is this the end.”

youtube-has-removed-steven-crowder-from-its-partner-program-indefinitely

YouTube has removed Steven Crowder from its Partner Program indefinitely

Two weeks ago, after YouTube revealed its definition of hate speech was so narrow that it couldn’t remove a wildly racist tirade for being wildly racist, we wondered out loud what it would take for YouTube to stop promoting conservative commentator Steven Crowder as an official YouTube Partner and allowing him to profit from those tirades.

Today, we have a partial answer: YouTube has officially suspended Steven Crowder’s main channel from the YouTube Partner Program indefinitely, which includes removing his ability to run ads.

It’s also banning him from uploading videos for a full week after his latest infraction: a now-removed video that reportedly challenged the legitimacy of the vote in Nevada. YouTube has a policy against false claims that the election was stolen. Crowder has already announced his intent to upload videos to his other Crowder Bits channel, however.

Here’s YouTube’s statement (including links):

In order to monetize on YouTube, channels must comply with the YouTube Partner Program policies, which include our Community Guidelines, Google AdSense program policies, and Advertiser-Friendly Guidelines. Channels that repeatedly violate our policies are suspended from the partner program. In addition, we removed a video from Steven Crowder’s channel for violating our presidential election integrity policy and applied a strike, meaning uploads are suspended for one week.

While YouTube isn’t telling us which straw broke the camel’s back when it comes to the YouTube Partner Program (and his ability to run ads), the company did point us towards two specific guidelines around controversial issues and sensitive events and harmful and dangerous acts. I would have guessed that awful, racist tirades would have already broken the YouTube Partner Program’s hateful and derogatory content policy, but I guess I shouldn’t read too much into that.

It’s not the first time Crowder’s been removed from the YouTube Partner Program. Last time, it took him just over a year to come back.

the-nyt-cooking-facebook-group-was-half-baked,-so-the-times-is-throwing-it-out

The NYT Cooking Facebook group was half-baked, so the Times is throwing it out

The New York Times Cooking Facebook group will soon no longer bear the name of the publication: the Times has given up on controlling it and is taking its name off the group. According to a note posted in the group (which was then reposted to Twitter), control of the private 77,000-member Facebook group will be given over to members of the community who are interested.

The reactions from members of the group have been… something else, with one commenter saying the group was full of “Aunt Lydias” (a reference to the dystopian rule enforcers of The Handmaid’s Tale) and “hall monitors.” Another said they would delete the group, “freeing us all from this retched prison,” if given moderation powers.

In a post to the group by the Times announcing the change, the company explains that it had become clear the group was interested in “much more than recipes or The New York Times.” While it’s understandable that moderating a special-interest group can be difficult in the best of circumstances, according to journalist Erin Biba, there were only four moderators to supervise the nearly 80,000 users.

As for why the Times stepped away from the private group, it doesn’t seem like the decision was made in reaction to a specific incident. Times columnist Ben Smith reached out to the paper’s assistant managing editor, Sam Sifton, to ask why the Times was backing away from the group, and he responded that it is because the group was “a lot of people who want to post pictures of their dogs next to their soufflé.”

OK, I have reported this out. Per @SamSifton, there was no precipitating crisis, simply a realization that “it’s a lot of people who want to post pictures of their dogs next to their soufflé” and “not a place where we were going to March people toward NYT Cooking.” 1/

— Ben Smith (@benyt) March 18, 2021

The group has run into moderation issues before. It had a “no political views” rule, which a member broke around election season after a post advocating for a certain candidate. It seems that now, the group will have to decide for itself what it wants to be, separate from The New York Times.

facebook-says-it’ll-start-punishing-group-members-who-break-its-rules

Facebook says it’ll start punishing group members who break its rules

Facebook is trying to clean up its Groups experience and limit the reach of potentially problematic users and communities. The company announced multiple changes to groups today, including plans to put users who break rules on probation, further limit the reach of civic and political groups, and require more moderation in groups that have violated Facebook’s rules.

Group members who break Facebook’s rules will suffer various new consequences. Initially, people with repeat violations will be prevented from posting or commenting in any group for a certain period of time. A spokesperson tells The Verge this time could be either seven or 30 days, depending on the number of violations and the severity of them. They also won’t be able to invite other people to any groups or create new groups.

One of the biggest changes is around members who break rules. Groups that have numerous violations will soon come with a warning label, too. Whenever a user tries to join one of these groups, they’ll receive a disclaimer that the group has violated community standards, which might dissuade them from joining. Facebook will also limit invite notifications for these groups. For existing members, the company will reduce the distribution of the group’s content, meaning it’ll be shown lower in the News Feed. (It first piloted this functionality around the 2020 US presidential election, but it’s now making it a regular feature.)

Finally, these violating groups’ admins and moderators will have to temporarily approve all posts whenever the group has a substantial number of members who have violated policies or were part of other groups that were removed for breaking the rules. If these admins or moderators just approve everything, even content that breaks the rules, the entire group will be taken down.

As a broader update, Facebook started removing civic and political groups earlier this year, as well as newly created groups, from recommendations in the US. It’s now making that the standard worldwide.

Facebook has received much criticism for allowing extremist political groups, as well as groups that spread conspiracy theories or anti-vax rhetoric, to thrive on its platform. As one example, members of the group that plotted to kidnap Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer used Facebook groups to organize, according to an FBI affidavit. And in the past, even its attempts to limit the reach of political groups have failed, according to The Markup, which found that political recommendations still showed up for users. (A Facebook spokesperson says this error has now been corrected.)

The company continues to be in a game of whack-a-mole, where it attempts to squash the bad groups and members, only to see others sprout up. These new rules might dissuade some people from behaving badly or limit their time on the platform, but there’s always a chance that they just create a new account or skirt around the rules without breaking them.

YouTube has terminated five Myanmar military-run channels as political unrest continues

YouTube terminated five Myanmar military channels from its platform on Friday, Reuters reports. The removals include YouTube channels for the government-run Myanma Radio and Television (MRTV) network and the military-owned Myawaddy Media used to spread military propaganda in Myanmar.

YouTube’s action is the platform’s first major intervention following the military coup that was staged in February and the subsequent military crackdowns against protesters that have left at least 38 dead. “We have terminated a number of channels and removed several videos from YouTube in accordance with our community guidelines and applicable laws,” a YouTube spokesperson tells The Verge. Prior to the coup, the company also terminated 34 channels used as “influence operations” during Myanmar’s election in 2020, according to Reuters.

Facebook has also attempted to limit the military’s influence, banning all military pages on its platforms in February and cutting off the organization’s access to ads on the platform, The New York Times reports. In response, the military banned Facebook and has drastically limited access to all social networks by enacting regular internet curfews across the country since the coup began, according to NetBlocks. Facebook’s more active response to the military’s actions could be seen as a direct result of the criticism the social network received for its role in the genocidal violence that occurred in Myanmar in 2018.

YouTube’s bans surely haven’t addressed all pro-military propaganda on the platform, but they show a willingness to intervene as protests against the military junta continue.

far-right-news-and-misinformation-received-the-most-engagement-on-facebook-during-2020-us-election

Far-right news and misinformation received the most engagement on Facebook during 2020 US election

In the weeks before and after the 2020 US election, Facebook content from far-right sources of news and misinformation received more engagement than other sources elsewhere on the political spectrum, a new study from New York University has revealed.

The findings suggest that far-right pages have an advantage energizing followers on the world’s biggest social network. “My takeaway is that, one way or another, far-right misinformation sources are able to engage on Facebook with their audiences much, much more than any other category,” Laura Edelson, a researcher at NYU’s Cybersecurity for Democracy initiative who helped compile the report, told CNN. “That’s probably pretty dangerous on a system that uses engagement to determine what content to promote.”

Researchers looked at some 8.6 million public posts shared by 2,973 “news and information sources” from August 10th, 2020 to January 11th, 2021, categorizing the political slant and verisimilitude of their output based on evaluations by independent outlets like NewsGuard and Media Bias/Fact Check. The study measured how often Facebook users engaged with this content — sharing, commenting, or responding with reactions.

Data from NYU’s study shows far-right sources of news and misinformation outperforming other parts of the political spectrum.
Image: NYU Cybersecurity for Democracy

Their findings showed that far-right sources generated the highest average number of interactions per post, followed by far-left sources, then more centrist pages. Looking specifically at far-right sources, they found that pages spreading misinformation performed best. “Far-right sources designated as spreaders of misinformation had an average of 426 interactions per thousand followers per week, while non-misinformation sources had an average of 259 weekly interactions per thousand followers,” write the researchers.

Notably, the study showed that while spreading misinformation meant less engagement for sources on the far-left, left, center, and right wing of the political spectrum, it actually seemed to be an advantage for sources on the far-right. “Being a consistent spreader of far-right misinformation appears to confer a significant advantage,” said the authors.

The study is yet more evidence against the claim made by conservative politicians that Facebook is biased against right-wing sources. It also casts doubts on the efficacy of Facebook’s efforts to limit the spread of misinformation in the run-up to the US 2020 election.

The researchers behind the study note that their findings are limited, too. Although they were able to measure and compare engagement from different sources on Facebook, they couldn’t check how many people actually saw a piece of content or how long they spent reading it. Facebook simply doesn’t provide this data, leaving an incomplete picture.

“Such information would help researchers better analyze why far-right content is more engaging,” write the researchers. “Further research is needed to determine to what extent Facebook algorithms feed into this trend, for example, and to conduct analysis across other popular platforms, such as YouTube, Twitter, and TikTok. Without greater transparency and access to data, such research questions are out of reach.”

glitch-workers-sign-tech’s-first-collective-bargaining-agreement

Glitch workers sign tech’s first collective bargaining agreement

Glitch workers have signed a collective bargaining agreement with the company — a historic milestone for the tech industry. The contract, which was ratified overwhelmingly by union members, will last for 11 months. It’s the first agreement signed by white collar tech workers in the United States, according to a press release from the Communications Workers of America (CWA). The contract went into effect on February 28th.

The agreement — a legal contract between the union and the company — does not include higher wages, which weren’t a focus for union members. Union representatives say they might try to include these in a future contract, but for now they recognize that Glitch is a small startup operating during a pandemic with pay and benefits that are already generous.

The agreement does include significant working protections, as well as codifying the benefits that currently exist. Among other measures, the agreement ensures “just cause” protections for Glitch employees — meaning workers can only be fired or disciplined through a specific process. That’s particularly important in the United States, where most employment contracts are at-will.

It also establishes recall rights for employees laid off during the pandemic, a provision specifically aimed at 18 people Glitch laid off in May. Glitch must now offer those employees their jobs back if it plans to rehire for the positions, according to the agreement. At the time, the company said it had to “significantly cut operating costs” due to the pandemic. On Twitter, CEO Anil Dash emphasized that it was an economic decision, and not one that reflected the value of the employees.

“There’s a lot of fear that you can’t be nimble with a union in the tech industry, but this shows there are ways to do it,” says Sheridan Kates, a senior software engineer and bargaining committee representative. “We have an 11-month contract, we didn’t focus on wages and benefits. We didn’t want to hamstring Glitch. We wanted to see ourselves as partners with management and codify the things that are important to us as a union.”

The news comes nearly a year after Glitch workers voted to unionize with the Communications Workers of America Local 1101. After 90 percent of employees indicated their support, the union was voluntarily recognized by Glitch management.

It’s a stark contrast to companies like Amazon and Kickstarter, which have gone to great lengths to discourage employees from unionizing. In Alabama, Amazon has been running a brutal anti-union campaign for months as warehouse workers in Bessemer organize. In 2019, Kickstarter fired two highly visible union organizers.

Food service workers in the tech industry have been able to secure union contracts, however. In 2018, Facebook cafeteria workers ratified their first agreement, winning higher wages for contractors.

Kates says the company’s decision to voluntarily recognize the union changed how each side went into contract negotiations. “Having voluntary recognition helped us not have to go into this in an adversarial way,” she says. “We recognized that we were coming to the table from a place of wanting to do right by each other.”

It’s a point of view shared by Dash, who says voluntary recognition was a positive experience for both sides. “For us, it was very effective and we were very aligned,” Dash tells The Verge. “I’m really glad that’s the case and I’m glad that was our workers’ experience.”

News of the agreement comes amid a rush of organizing activity in the tech industry. In January, workers at Google formed a solidarity union in affiliation with CWA. The following month, Medium workers announced plans to unionize as well (the organization recently failed to win majority support in a third-party election and is momentarily pausing organizing activities).

The Kickstarter union, which won a hard-fought election in February 2020, is still negotiating its first contract.

rudy-giuliani-just-lost-his-youtube-privileges-for-two-weeks

Rudy Giuliani just lost his YouTube privileges for two weeks

YouTube has suspended Rudy Giuliani’s YouTube channel for the second time this year for making false claims of fraud in the 2020 US presidential election and has issued a strike against his channel. It’s Giulani’s second strike within 90 days, according to Bloomberg, meaning that Giuliani cannot upload videos for two weeks. In a statement, YouTube also cited Giulani’s promotion of nicotine, which is against the company’s rules.

“We have clear Community Guidelines that govern what videos may stay on YouTube, which we enforce consistently, regardless of speaker,” a YouTube spokesperson said in a statement to The Verge. “We removed content from the Rudy W. Giuliani channel for violating our sale of regulated goods policy, which prohibits content facilitating the use of nicotine, and our presidential election integrity policy. Additionally, in accordance with our long standing strikes system, we issued a strike against the Rudy W. Giuliani channel, which temporarily restricts uploading or live-streaming.”

In January, YouTube suspended Giuliani for a week for sharing 2020 election misinformation and temporarily suspended him from YouTube’s partner program, meaning he couldn’t earn ad revenue on his videos.

If Giuliani gets a third strike in the same 90-day period following the first, his channel will be permanently removed from YouTube, according to the company’s strikes policy.