Anonymous ID: d7d301 June 14, 2024, 8:19 a.m. No.21021740   🗄️.is 🔗kun

The Stanford Internet Observatory is being dismantled

House Republicans attacked the lab’s reports on misinformation and election integrity — and now Stanford is pulling the plug

 

Casey Newton, Zoë Schiffer Jun 13, 2024 —

 

Thousands of top tech executives, journalists, academics and civil society workers read our reporting on — and analysis of — the day's biggest events at the intersection of technology and democracy.

 

After five years of pioneering research into the abuse of social platforms, the Stanford Internet Observatory is winding down. Its founding director,Alex Stamos, left his position in November. Renee DiResta, its research director, left last week after her contract was not renewed. One other staff member's contract expired this month, while others have been told to look for jobs elsewhere, sources say. (DeResta does exactly what Nina Janckowicz does)

 

Some members of the eight-person team might find other jobs at Stanford, and it’s possible that the university will retain the Stanford Internet Observatory branding, according to sources familiar with the matter. But the lab will not conduct research into the 2024 election or other elections in the future.

 

The shutdown comes amid a sustained and increasingly successful campaign among Republicans to discredit research institutions and discourage academics from investigating political speech and influence campaigns.

 

SIO and its researchers have been sued three times by conservative groups alleging that its researchers colluded illegally with the federal government to censor speech, forcing Stanford to spend millions of dollars to defend its staff and students.

 

In parallel, Republican House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan and his Orwellian “Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government” have subpoenaed documents at Stanford and other universities, selectively leaked fragments of them to friendly conservative outlets, and misrepresented their contents in public statements. (KEK boo hoo)

 

And in an actual weaponization of government, Jordan’s committee has included students — both undergraduates and graduates — in its subpoena requests, publishing their names and putting them at risk of threats or worse.

 

The remnants of SIO will be reconstituted under Jeff Hancock, the lab’s faculty sponsor. Hancock, a professor of communication, runs a separate program known as the Stanford Social Media Lab. SIO’s work on child safety will continue there, sources said.

 

Two of SIO’s major initiatives — the peer-reviewed Journal of Online Trust and Safety and its Trust and Safety Research Conference — will also continue. (The journal is funded through a separate grant from theOmidyar Network.)

 

But in quietly dismantling SIO, the university seems to have calculated that the lab had become more trouble than it is worth.

 

In a statement emailed after publication, Stanford strongly disputed the fact that SIO is being dismantled. "The important work of SIO continues under new leadership, including its critical work on child safety and other online harms, its publication of the Journal of Online Trust and Safety, the Trust and Safety Research Conference, and the Trust and Safety Teaching Consortium," a spokesperson wrote. "Stanford remains deeply concerned about efforts, including lawsuits and congressional investigations, that chill freedom of inquiry and undermine legitimate and much needed academic research – both at Stanford and across academia.

 

https://www.platformer.news/stanford-internet-observatory-shutdown-stamos-diresta-sio/

Anonymous ID: d7d301 June 15, 2024, 3:26 a.m. No.21025568   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>8014

https://ijr.com/study-suggests-big-tech-can-influence-flocks-of-undecided-voters-without-peoples-awareness/

 

Robert Epstein Study Suggests Big Tech Can Influence Flocks Of Undecided Voters ‘Without People’s Awareness’

June 14, 2024 at 11:18 am

 

A study has found that tech companies can influence the decisions of large numbers of undecided voters with search suggestions on search engines.

 

The study, conducted byDr. Robert Epsteinand several other affiliates of the American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology (AIBRT), sought to determine whether the suggestions that pop into the search bar when using engines like Google can influence the voting behavior of undecideds. Its findings suggest that the “search suggestion effect” (SSE) is real and powerful, so much so that search engine operators controlling search suggestions could have “the power to shift a large number of votes without people’s awareness,” Epstein told the Daily Caller News Foundation.

 

“We found that negative suggestions attract far more clicks than neutral or positive ones, consistent with extensive research on negativity bias, and that the differential suppression of negative search suggestions can turn a 50/50 split among undecided voters into more than a 90/10 split favoring the candidate for whom negative search suggestions were suppressed,” the study states.

 

“We conclude that differentially suppressing negative search suggestions can have adramatic impact on the opinions and voting preferences of undecided voters, potentially shifting a large number of votes without people knowing and without leaving a paper trail for authorities to trace.”

 

While Epstein’s research indicates that the SSE can be strong, Google — by far the most popular search engine in the U.S. — says that it does not manipulate its search engine for political purposes.

 

“We do not manipulate search results, modify our products or enforce our policies in any way to promote or disadvantage any political ideology, viewpoint or candidate,” a Google spokesperson said in a statement shared with the DCNF. “We have strict policies for autocomplete and do not allow predictions that can be interpreted as a position for or against any political figure or party.”

 

[WE KNOW THIS IS FALSE!!!]

 

Using the 2016 election as an example and making some assumptions, the combination of biased search suggestions and biased search results could have theoretically shifted about 1.5 million to 2 million voters to back Hillary Clinton, according to the study’s authors. The study controlled for all other influences to the greatest extent possible, meaning that the effect’s magnitude likely came out on the higher end than would be the case in real-life conditions, but the authors stress that the frequency with which people use search engines for political content means that the effect accumulates on voters over time in realistic conditions.

 

“When SSE is used in the real world, the magnitude of its impact will vary. What we have measured is likely the upper limit of that impact,” Epstein told the DCNF. “That said,in our experiments, we expose people to our manipulations just once, but in the real world, people are exposed to the same manipulations dozens or hundreds of times – especially in the months leading up to an election.Our ongoing research on the Multiple Exposure Effect (MEE) shows that the impact of these repeated exposures is additive, which makes manipulations like SSE especially dangerous.”

 

The researchers structured the study by conducting a series of five randomized, controlled, counterbalanced, double-blind experiments. Each of those experiments led up to the final test, which set up a simulated election for subjects — who were undecided and generally unfamiliar with the candidates — to engage with after exposure to manipulated search suggestions.

 

The results of the final experiment indicate that “a single negative search suggestion can impact opinions dramatically because it links to search results that might be strongly biased against the candidate in question,” the study states.