
Reddit hires first lobbyists - MoronInAHurry
http://thehill.com/policy/technology/353887-reddit-hires-first-lobbyists
======
liquidise
> _Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence
> Committee, has said that he worries the site is vulnerable to Russian
> political influence campaigns._

As a major proponent of uncensored speech on the internet, the implications of
these accusations worry me. Politicians, practically by definition, have a
conflict of interest in terms of moderating political speech.

The idea that these same politicians could be drafting law-based "solutions"
for such moderation leads me to draw hyperbolic comparisons to dystopian
novels.

~~~
gkoberger
Hmm, it's tough. I'm a proponent of uncensored speech, too, but Reddit was
really bad during the election. Both Trump (Russia) and Clinton (Correct the
Record) covered the site with hundreds of thousands of comments, most of which
were indistinguishable from regular comments. Not just political subreddits;
everywhere.

People are illogical; they follow what they read. If you read a comment that
says something about Clinton or Trump, and it has 3.2k upvotes, some part of
you somewhere is going to start to absorb that opinion. Rinse and repeat, ad
nauseam. Pretty soon they didn't need to pay for comments; people adopted and
repeated and believed the sentiments themselves.

That being said, I have no clue how to begin to fix this without clamping down
on the Internet and free speech, which I'm against. But it is a very real
problem.

~~~
liquidise
I think you raise a good point, which honestly begs the answer to a high-level
unsolved problem: can you guarantee a 1-1 relationship between a person and an
account online. Even better if that account can also be anonymous.

The implications to solving both could bring functional change to trolling and
bot traffic in open forum sites.

~~~
hire_charts
Even then, can you guarantee that the person behind the account isn't being
paid to say things they wouldn't otherwise say?

~~~
dabockster
Since we had Tom Wheeler successfully lead the FCC's net neutrality
regulations after being a cable lobbyist, we can't guarantee anything in that
regard.

------
tj-teej
"Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence
Committee, has said that he worries the site is vulnerable to Russian
political influence campaigns."

The "site" is vulnerable? Isn't the problem that Americans are vulnerable to
influence campaigns?

~~~
creaghpatr
I think they've just discovered that people and organizations from other
countries can post messages on reddit that pertain to US politics. And that
reddit does not protect US users from seeing these potentially unsafe opinions
during election periods.

~~~
craftyguy
Oh for fuck's sake. It's not like the candidates' rhetoric towards each other
is any more accurate. Since most people seem to be incapable of scrutinizing
information they receive, I guess we need politicians to save us by
legislating away the problem!

~~~
sp332
It's not about accuracy. It's about whose interests are being served. At least
if the R/D's lie to you it's still some kind of American.

~~~
craftyguy
So it's about being lied to to support someone gaining power vs being lied to
to fuck with the political system in the US?

How about the root of the actual problem: that the voting populous is trained
to absorb information without questioning its authenticity or accuracy. It's
more convenient to hear something you agree with and believe it is true, so
this is the general way that folks "become informed." Now this strategy of
"becoming informed" is biting us in the ass, and the plan is to play this
cat/mouse game with questionable sources of information rather than try to
tackle the actual problem?

~~~
sp332
No, it's really a separate issue. It's possible to influence an election even
without lying. It's just undemocratic and illegal for someone outside the
country to try to persuade people in the country to vote a certain way.

~~~
unpwn
How is it illegal for someone outside the US to comment on a US election
thread? Is it illegal for CNN to talk about Russian politics? Is it illegal
for Russian media to cover US politics? Why would it be legal for institutions
but not for individuals? How is any of that undemocratic?

~~~
sp332
The people who are not voting should not be involved in the vote. It's not
illegal for Russian media to cover American politics in Russia, but I think it
was illegal for them to buy a bunch of ads in America without disclosing their
Russian origin. [https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/twitter-
find...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/twitter-finds-
hundreds-of-accounts-tied-to-russian-
operatives/2017/09/28/6cf26f7e-a484-11e7-ade1-76d061d56efa_story.html)

~~~
unpwn
By your principles felons and minors shouldn't be able to discuss the politics
either... I completely disagree with that stance and find it undemocratic
myself. Also its not illegal for companies outside the US to buy adds in the
US (Assuming facebook/reddit is even considered the US)... And parties outside
the US have been making contributions to political campaigns in the US for
years so outside "interference" is nothing new...

~~~
sp332
Well I'm in favor of felons voting. And you're right, legal liability in this
case is on the Trump campaign and not the Russians.
[https://mobile.twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/9156859002140...](https://mobile.twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/915685900214063105)
Depending on the severity of the "meddling", America could impose sanctions on
Russia, and it certainly won't help the diplomatic atmosphere when discussing
current sanctions either.

------
ConAntonakos
I feel like such a novice, but what exactly do lobbyists do? Do they bombard
gov't officials with emails, show up in-person, convince people to follow
their clients' agendas, etc.? How will they be employed by Reddit? Why is
lobbying even a thing?

~~~
creaghpatr
They tend to serve as subject matter experts when it comes time for
legislation to be drafted. It's not practical to expect a 50/60-year old
Senator to be able to architect nuanced regulations of social media platforms
which didn't exist when he or she was in law school so they outsource the
details to lobbyists or similar organizations like think tanks.

~~~
jessriedel
Well, the senator also has a large staff for drafting legislation.

~~~
creaghpatr
True, it's an ongoing negotiation between lobbyist groups and the Senator's
own in-house experts.

------
frgtpsswrdlame
Call me cynical, and maybe some lobbying gets done on net neutrality but I
can't help but feel that NN is just a cover for avoiding responsibility for
election-related astroturfing.

------
eurticket
— The disclosure filings show that Reddit hired the Franklin Square Group back
in July to lobby on "Internet issues, including net neutrality and liability
protections for online platforms."

Who else has lobbied for the liability protections of online platforms? Kim
DotCom?

~~~
ocdtrekkie
Google is the chief lobbying party in this space[0]. You can see their recent
campaigning against the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act (SESTA), because it
makes it possible for state and local governments to sue or criminally charge
online platforms for their content, whereas currently only the federal
government can.

[0] Google Transparency Project[1] claims that Google has funded 34 different
groups opposing SESTA.
[http://www.googletransparencyproject.org/articles/google-
fun...](http://www.googletransparencyproject.org/articles/google-funds-dozens-
groups-fighting-sex-trafficking-bill)

[1] Google Transparency Project ironically is not transparent about their
donors, and has been occasionally questioned as to their motives and backing.

------
dv_dt
I sort of think it's a ridiculous prioritization of risks to talk about
policing social media comments and ads when the voting machinery is
ridiculously vulnerable to hacks.

------
rdtsc
There was a vacuum created in the area of manufacturing consent after the
election. Mass media had one job - they were supposed to elect a certain
candidate. And they failed. Google, Twitter, Facebook immediately noticed and
rushed to fill that void.

Remember this article [https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/15/technology/google-
will-ba...](https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/15/technology/google-will-ban-
websites-that-host-fake-news-from-using-its-ad-service.html) ? Right after
election both Facebook and Google came out saying they will protect us from
fake news. That's a good goal on the surface. We can certainly do without
lizard people conspiracies. However the timing wasn't accidental. They
basically announced they are the ones who will be willing to manufacturing
consent and do a better job than CNN and NYT and friend. Effectively saying
"Don't go to them, they failed you, spend your billions on us. We'll make sure
your version of truth is the real truth. If we have to ban and some accounts,
no big deal, we've got you covered
[https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/01/business/facebook-
china-g...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/01/business/facebook-china-guo-
wengui.html")

------
jarym
My first read of the headline was all wrong: Reddit fires first hobbyists.

~~~
s73ver_
Me too. Odd. I wonder if it had to do with the letters? The t and the h
nearby?

------
beepboopbeep
I can't tell if these comments are a proper cross section of HN or they've
simply crawled from the woodwork

~~~
wtf_is_up
What did you mean by this?

