October 7, 2021
Author and professor Jennifer Mercieca — an expert in how American political discourse relates to citizenship and democracy — summed up in the tweet above how many of us felt watching the newest set of allegations against Facebook unfold over the past several days. While a lot of the details were not necessarily new, hearing from an internal whistleblower who came armed with a trove of documents outline so clearly her argument that the company has put profit over any kind of social good felt like a new gut punch.
Frances Haugen, the former Facebook employee who became a whistleblower, described how she believes the platform harms our democracy (and emerging democracies around the world) in an interview with 60 Minutes:
“When we live in an information environment that is full of angry, hateful, polarizing content it erodes our civic trust, it erodes our faith in each other, it erodes our ability to want to care for each other. The version of Facebook that exists today is tearing our societies apart and causing ethnic violence around the world.”
She outlined a number of other issue areas where she believes Facebook harms society, but for our purposes, her allegations about the impact of the platform’s algorithms on election integrity and confidence are of special importance.
I have written quite a bit in this blog about how every cybersecurity tool in the world cannot protect us if people are willing consumers and promoters of election-related disinformation and misinformation online. While none of us are naive that this new whistleblower’s allegations will miraculously change the way Facebook operates — or how users will engage with it — as CNN media reporter Brian Stelter noted after this week’s Congressional hearing with Haugen:
“The result was a substantive, focused hearing tackling important issues like algorithmic rankings and tech’s impact on different facets of society. Will this lead to both parties coming together on potential legislation to rein Facebook and other tech giants in? That remains to be seen. But it was refreshing to watch a hearing in which these serious issues were discussed with the seriousness they deserve.”
One of the policy options floated by Haugen and others is the creation of a new federal agency tasked with regulating tech companies. This isn’t a new idea — many experts have argued for some time that our existing regulatory structure is unable to combat the multitude of challenges emanating from these platforms. But it’s a notion that gains more traction with every passing day that sees new allegations of wrongdoing.
While Congress and other policymakers debate whether and how to better regulate these tech companies, the Biden administration is moving forward with a global effort to fight cyber crime and ransomware. The National Security Council will bring together 30 countries later this month “to accelerate our cooperation in combatting cybercrime, improving law enforcement collaboration, stemming the illicit use of cryptocurrency, and engaging on these issues diplomatically.”
The Biden administration is essentially trying to form a coalition of countries to fight transnational cyber crime through, in large part, law enforcement means, including by focusing on the cryptocurrency methods these criminal outfits frequently use in their attacks. The focus on the financial support networks that enable cybercriminals is an important tactic that can help bleed these groups of resources, one that has seen success in the past in counter-terrorism and anti-organized crime efforts.
Meanwhile, across the pond, the British government this week announced additional details about its anti-cyber crime efforts, to include the construction of a new digital warfare center that will be capable of launching offensive cyber attacks against hostile foreign actors, according to Defence Secretary Ben Wallace. The National Cyber Force headquarters, which the British government is investing heavily in, will be focused on what Secretary Wallace has called “a new domain in battle.” He said:
“Some foreign states are waging cyber warfare on us every single day. And we have a right under international law and among ourselves to defend ourselves. We will defend ourselves from cyber warfare if that warfare is dangerous, corrupting, or damaging.”
This new headquarters will join the vaunted British GCHQ, the UK’s version of the U.S. National Security Agency, which has long been a leader in signals intelligence. GCHQ will help run the new Cyber Force Headquarters alongside the Defence Ministry and MI6, the UK’s foreign intelligence service. A whole of government — or at least whole of national security apparatus — effort is what’s required to stop attacks and punish those responsible, but also to take the fight offensively to hostile actors.
These government efforts and the allegations against Facebook are two sides of one coin. While democracies around the world dedicate enormous resources to stopping bad cyber actors with intelligence, law enforcement, and diplomatic tools, tech companies are making huge profits in many cases from the very divisiveness and misinformation that these bad actors feed on.
As long as the latter is true — as long as companies like Facebook do not appear to take seriously these threats to our democracies that thrive on their platforms — every government effort will feel like a game of whack-a-mole. Governments can and will have success in individual cases, to be sure, but the overall threat will continue to metastasize.
Whether Mark Zukerberg and other tech leaders understand that remains to be seen.
Marie Harf
International Elections Analyst, USC Election Cybersecurity Initiative
Marie Harf is a strategist who has focused her career on promoting American foreign policy to domestic audiences. She has held senior positions at the State Department and the Central Intelligence Agency, worked on political campaigns for President Barack Obama and Congressman Seth Moulton, and served as a cable news commentator. Marie has also been an Instructor at the University of Pennsylvania and a Fellow at Georgetown University’s Institute of Politics and Public Service.