As the midterms approach, Facebook has stepped up its efforts to assure a wary Washington, D.C. that it can protect elections.
Why it matters: Outreach that Facebook detailed to Axios is part of a broader push by the company to convince policymakers, the media and the public that it won’t allow a recurrence of the kind of election meddling that occurred in 2016 and is still under investigation today.
Details:
The issue of election security was on the agenda at four events the social giant held at its downtown Washington office over the past two months for the association of Senate press secretaries, Congressional staff members, political operatives and outside groups.
The social giant is working with officials outside Washington, as well. Announcing new policies on content aimed at suppressing voter turnout this month, it said it had “set up dedicated reporting channels for state election authorities.”
The big picture: The behind-the-scenes action mirrors a more public push to present the company as prepared for the coming elections. Reporters were invited this week to tour the company’s election “war room” at its Menlo Park, Calif., headquarters and executives have spoken publicly about the effort.
The bottom line: The California social network has told its critics it can handle attempts to subvert the midterms. The ultimate proof, however, will be in the coming weeks, on Election Night and afterwards, when experts say there’s a risk of misinformation campaigns aimed at undermining the results.
A hostile actor could cause just as much chaos after the midterm elections by making it look like someone had meddled with votes as by actually doing so, security experts say.
Why it matters: Actually hacking votes takes a lot of work. Making it look like you did is a lot easier — and potentially just as effective at upending public confidence in the results.
How it works:
“You could imagine a period of time of chaos after the midterms in which people would be worried as to whether there was a hack because someone is claiming there was a hack, even if there wasn’t,” said Laura Rosenberger, a former National Security Council official who is now the director of the Alliance for Securing Democracy.
The big picture: Experts say that a major goal of election meddling campaigns is to erode trust in democracy rather than to actively shift vote tallies or choose winners and losers.
What they’re saying: Lawmakers who have grappled with the 2016 misinformation campaign indicated they thought it was credible that bad actors could try to convince the public that election results were illegitimate. Some, though, were still wrapping their heads around the possibility.
Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.), who also serves on the panel, said concerns about what could happen after the midterms were an important reason federal officials should bolster states' ability to audit their vote counts.
The bottom line: The potential for someone to sow doubt after the midterms — possibly through some combination of misinformation and attacks on election systems — means that the pressure won’t let up on government officials and Silicon Valley companies responsible for policing election meddling.
Facebook said Monday it has banned from its platform a broad variety of false statements about voting in the United States ahead of the midterm elections.
Why it matters: The social network has long held that it should not be the arbiter of truth on its platform. Yet as the midterms approach, Facebook is under extraordinary pressure, with executives trying to avoid a repeat of the misinformation campaigns that mired the 2016 election.
Details: Facebook started banning "misrepresentations about how to vote, such as claims that you can vote by text message, and statements about whether a vote will be counted. (e.g. 'If you voted in the primary, your vote in the general election won’t count')" last month, Public Policy Manager Jessica Leinwand wrote in a blog post.
