Imperial Valley Press

State worked with social companies to remove election misinforma­tion

- BY FREDDY BREWSTER

SACRAMENTO -- One post on YouTube claimed a voter registered to vote under a fake name. A tweet alleged thousands of 2020 ballots were tossed out. Another tweet claimed a voter used an alias to vote in person.

These are just a few of two dozen social media posts deemed to be misinforma­tion and removed from online platforms this year at the request of a newly formed cybersecur­ity team within the California Secretary of State’s office.

The Office of Election Cybersecur­ity in the California Secretary of State’s office monitored and tracked social media posts, decided if they were misinforma­tion, stored the posts in an internal database coded by threat level, and on 31 different occasions requested posts be removed. In 24 cases, the social media companies agreed and either took down the posts or flagged them as misinforma­tion, according to Jenna Dresner, senior public informatio­n officer for the Office of Election Cybersecur­ity.

“We don’t take down posts, that is not our role to play,” Dresner said. “We alert potential sources of misinforma­tion to the social media companies and we let them make that call based on community standards they created.”

Even with the new cybersecur­ity efforts, misinforma­tion still was a primary cause of frustratio­n for California’s registrars of voters. A Cal Matters’ survey of 54 of California’s 58 counties found that registrars dealt with everything from false or misleading informatio­n coming from the White House to all sorts of prepostero­us claims posted to the internet.

As the state works with social media companies to quell speech it considers misinforma­tion, First Amendment advocates and privacy experts say they are concerned about increased censorship of online discourse and the implicatio­ns of a database that stores posts indefinite­ly.

Protecting election integrity

The goal of the Office of Election Cybersecur­ity is to coordinate with county election officials to protect the integrity of the election process. Its duties also include monitoring and counteract­ing false or misleading online informatio­n regarding the electoral process and its integrity.

The office was establishe­d in 2018 because of foreign meddling in the 2016 election. With the passage of Assembly Bill 3075, the California Legislatur­e establishe­d the Office of Election Cybersecur­ity with an annual budget of $2 million.

One of the first things the Office of Election Cybersecur­ity did was launch a 2018 voter education awareness campaign called VoteSure that encouraged voters to be on the lookout for misinforma­tion. Initial monitoring was sparse — the office mostly followed hashtags and tracked narratives via a complaint database. Dresner centralize­d the monitoring when she joined the office in July, and created a formal tracking system.

In 2018, state officials also started developing relationsh­ips with federal intelligen­ce agencies and reaching out to social media companies. The Office of Election Cybersecur­ity worked to fully understand what happened in the 2016 election and the extent of foreign interferen­ce, Dresner said. One of the federal agencies it began working with was the Cybersecur­ity and Infrastruc­ture Security Agency — also a new agency formed in 2018, but with a multi-billion dollar budget and a national purview.

During the 2020 election, the office worked closely with CISA, the Stanford Internet Observator­y and other groups to measure the extent of misinforma­tion facing California­ns and Americans alike. Renée Diresta, research manager at the Stanford Internet Observator­y, said that unlike the 2016 election, during which Americans saw disinforma­tion generated and spread by foreign state actors, misinforma­tion and conspiracy theories were largely generated domestical­ly.

“Besides the incident with Iran that pushed the Proud Boys emails, most of the other actions taken by state actors appear to have been broadly attributab­le because they were put out by their [state-owned] media,” Diresta said.

She saw foreign state media outlets take American social media posts and livestream­s, repurpose them and then amplify them on foreign state media outlets to give a perception of widespread chaos.

“Presenting us as a nation in chaos that can’t get its election straight weakens the perception of the U.S. in the world abroad, which serves their broader interests,” Diresta said. “So even if they have no particular political candidate that they wanted to get behind, putting out that the American election is in chaos is beneficial to them.”

Diresta has been studying the effects of misinforma­tion for five years and calls this period of cyberattac­ks a “warm war” — something that is a few steps beyond previous Cold War tactics between the U.S. and former Soviet Union, but stops short of open armed conflict.

“An informatio­n war is not the same thing as a war, but you can find a dynamic that is taking shape of all different factions fighting each other on the internet to try and gain attention to move policy or to move politician­s,” Diresta said. “The introducti­on of foreign actors into that space, took it up to a level that we hadn’t seen before.”

Unintentio­nal spread of inaccuraci­es

Those new levels of conflict are behind California’s decision to ramp up cybersecur­ity efforts to surveil the online posts of California­ns.

Dresner is one of two people in the Office of Election Cybersecur­ity, which reports to Paula Valle, chief communicat­ions officer for the Secretary of State’s office.

Dresner defines misinforma­tion as “inaccurate informatio­n unintentio­nally spread.”

That might include posts that either break a platform’s community standards policy or posts that violate California election laws.

“If someone is offering to get paid to vote on a certain behalf, that would be an example,” she said.

“Every sort of misinforma­tion requires a different tactic (of response) and it is a sort of ongoing process to determine what that is,” Dresner said. “There is no clear threshold, it is a fine line between opinion and misinforma­tion.”

 ?? ADOBE STOCK PHOTO ?? Even with new cybersecur­ity efforts on the state’s part, misinforma­tion still was a primary cause of frustratio­n for California’s registrars of voters.
ADOBE STOCK PHOTO Even with new cybersecur­ity efforts on the state’s part, misinforma­tion still was a primary cause of frustratio­n for California’s registrars of voters.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States