
How Facebook Changed the Spy Game - nl
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/09/08/how-facebook-changed-the-spy-game-215587
======
IBM
A real solution to this, which may seem indirect to many, is more aggressive
antitrust enforcement. These internet giants have become the new (global)
public square at the expense of all the old world institutions for civic
discourse and if that were more fractured I suspect things would be better.
Certainly newspapers, magazines and other web publishers would have more
bargaining power (and they wouldn't have to ask for their own exemptions from
antitrust law [1]).

I'm becoming more and more convinced that lax antitrust enforcement since the
1980s is the source of many problems in America today: income inequality,
corporate profits at all time highs, capital expenditure seemingly no longer
being necessary in the economy to obtain those profits, lack of inflation
particularly in wages, and the "de-equitization" of America [2].

Concentration is a problem not just in pure economic terms in terms of higher
prices or less innovation but also as a threat to liberal democracy itself (as
I've gotten older I've started to take a more political economy approach to
things).

[1] [https://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/10/newspapers-bid-for-
antitrust...](https://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/10/newspapers-bid-for-antitrust-
exemption-to-tackle-google-and-facebook.html)

[2] [https://www.wsj.com/articles/americas-roster-of-public-
compa...](https://www.wsj.com/articles/americas-roster-of-public-companies-is-
shrinking-before-our-eyes-1483545879)

~~~
eponeponepon
Reading into your post, I think you're implying that the presence of a single
monolithic target in the Federal Union of Heresland for The Republic of
Adversaria to mess with represents a greater risk for carrying out the
business of democracy, and that a multitude of smaller social networks would
be harder to compromise.

I'm not sure how true this is though - inevitably those smaller organisations
have lesser resources and capacity to detect and resist such attacks, and
would in any case quite quickly balkanise themselves into clear demographics,
leaving it obvious to the adversary exactly which of these smaller, more
vulnerable organisations to target.

The solution in my mind is for these internet giants, regrettably, to get
bigger - to become /more/ global, and to be present everywhere. Fragmentation
of world society will not bring us progress - consolidation will.

~~~
johndubchak
If I understand your solution, it seems to suggest more global monopolistic
size and behavior for the "Internet Giants".

Do you mean to define "Internet Giants" as the social media platforms or the
infrastructure carrying these platforms and traffic?

Separating the social platform from the physical transport platform may change
how enforcement is carried out depending on who owns which part, i.e. physical
infrastructure being publicly owned vs private etc.

Without that type of change and distinction, I'm not sure how your solution is
a solution without better understanding it.

~~~
eponeponepon

      Do you mean to define "Internet Giants" as the social media platforms or the infrastructure carrying these platforms and traffic?
    

Well, both. But the distinction is getting less clear as time goes on. And for
Joe Public, the distinction doesn't even exist, of course.

------
mcherm
I feel like the article boils down to "the Russians have a big advantage
influencing the US because we allow free speech and they don't" with a strong
implication that we need to give law enforcement more tools to crack down on
free speech.

I vehemently reject any such notion. In the long term, the best counter to
speech is more speech.

~~~
sanxiyn
The article gave an example of FARA. Do you think FARA cracks down on free
speech?

~~~
mcherm
Depending on how it is used, my answer is "possibly".

Put yourself back in the days of Joseph McCarthy and the "red scare", but with
today's laws (and hopefully we seek an outcome that is MORE friendly to free
speech, not less). How would you feel about a law that required anyone
supporting communism to register as a foreign agent? Or more precisely, one
that allowed the government to arrest anyone who argued in favor of communism
(a right protected by free speech) and force them to prove they do not have
any ties to any foreign government at risk of imprisonment for 2 years.

I have little problem asking those actually employed by a foreign government
to register. But if you stretch the definitions far enough ("you were eligible
for a tax deduction, which counts as compensation so you are employed") then
it can be abused.

------
sanxiyn
I didn't know about FARA(Foreign Agent Registration Act), "that requires any
individual acting on behalf of foreign interests to register as a foreign
agent with the State Department", also "passed in 1938 to counter Germany’s
dissemination of Nazi propaganda in the United States". That's genius.

The article is calling for FARA update to the age of social media.

------
jackbravo
The linked piece about "The Agency" on the new york times also is a very
interesting read.

\- [https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/07/magazine/the-
agency.html?...](https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/07/magazine/the-
agency.html?mcubz=3)

------
Xoros
> Any solution that we create will require a balance between national security
> interests and constitutional rights

As I, as a European citizen, perfectly understand that FBI mission deals with
internal US, and so the OP option is an internal point of view, wouldn't it be
also wise to deal with it on an international way ?

Of course, with Putin and Trump, two strong virile personalities, dialog might
seem hard, even impossible.

But any way, instead of trying to deal with it internally, "forcing" (and I
honestly have no idea how it should be possible) American social media
companies to be more transparent could be a breath of fresh air in this
situation ?

Candid question.

~~~
IBM
That's already happening. Germany, for example, has enacted new legislation to
force social media companies to take down hate speech posts or face fines [1].

[1] [https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/30/business/germany-
facebook...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/30/business/germany-facebook-
google-twitter.html?mcubz=0)

