Skip to main content

tv   Washington Journal Nancy Scola  CSPAN  September 6, 2018 11:22am-11:37am EDT

11:22 am
caucus. but that doesn't mean that we will just oppose something because we considered the source of it. we're here for the people. thank you. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2018] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit] >> the house comes in for legislative business at noon eastern. before that, we'll take you to the weekly briefing with house speaker paul d. ryan. expected in about 10 minutes or so. we'll have live coverage here on c-span. right now a conversation on foreign meddling in social media. >> "washington journal" continues. host: this is nancy scola, the technology reporter for politico. there is a picture of two people appearing at these hearings --
11:23 am
tell viewers about who was on capitol hill and why they were there? guest: sheryl sandberg, the chief operating officer of race book testified on election security and the use of platforms by foreign adversaries in the u.s. election process. she was joined by the ceo of twitter, jack dorsey. jack then travel to the other side of capitol hill to the house for the energy and commerce committee where he testified so low on the idea that twitter may be biased. host: what is the significance that you had the ceos of these platforms to talk about these issues? guest: it has been a long time coming. the companies are in the spotlight for they didn't do enough in the election by russia. in their own definition they were slow to take action in that. a lot of their testimony was acknowledging they were slow to
11:24 am
act. so it is significant to have them with push and pull. jack dorsey's first testimony and he has been the ceo for quite some time. so to have him up there answering questions was significant. google was also invited. the decline to send a representative. which lawmakers did not enjoy. host: what did they resolve to do because of that? is a rolling process by their own admission. one of the things they have done is to hire humans and work on technology to determine fraudulent accounts. i have figured out ways to
11:25 am
detect signs that accounts are not coming from people they want to have on the platform and thwarting them when they try to register to use the platform. they put a lot of attention into that. and they have also done more for transparency. one of the complaints was that ads would be placed on the sites pay for theng who add. those are additional steps they've taken. they have resisted the idea of having regulation around that sort of transparency but they are eager to take those steps voluntarily. so they don't have to be regulated. what is their thinking on that currently? guest: we are in a push and pull phase that washington goes through. police yourself or we will step in. and we are seeing conservatives theyepublicans say that
11:26 am
will not take a hands-off approach. host: calling in to join us on of discussion on the ceos facebook and twitter. if you would like to ask a ,uestion, it is (202) 748-8000 democrats. (202) 748-8001, republicans. (202) 748-8002, independent voters. you could also post a comment on our facebook page. interference piece done, jack dorsey went to the house to talk about another issue? guest: there has been a complaint raised by conservatives with the the last month which has ramped up in recent weeks because trump has embraced the issue. an idea that social media platforms are making decisions about what content to allow and what advertisements to allow.
11:27 am
that they are biased against conservatives. there is a debate about whether there -- about whether this is intentional or not intentional. in some ways, companies operate in a black box. they wanted to bring folks into testify. response?what was the adamant that the company is not intentionally biased. that the i got -- that the ideology and no way relates to the platform. as theyacknowledge that process huge quantities of tweets and advertisements every day that some of the decisions they might make might have the using the platform. one of the examples that has come up recently is the idea that there was a search function on twitter that when you typed in members of congress' name, some of them didn't auto
11:28 am
populate. to more dramatically affect by conservatives. and jack dorsey testified that they had been experiment in with using a new signal to determine how to break people in the function. it was based on the quality of the followers of the users. unintentionally discriminate against conservative voices. he testified that when things are brought to our attention, with the unintentional effects, they addressed quickly. companies are pretty on that they don't want to lose the conservative users. so they are pretty adamant that intentionally.s host: did they sway critics on the panel? guest: i think so. it was only jack dorsey testified alone. i think he handled himself well.
11:29 am
and members seemed pretty responsive to him personally. think he has proven that he has no intention of discriminating godless of what personal ideology would be -- informationng regardless of what his personal ideology would be. some said that it would not spare -- that it was not fair for him to be there without other platforms. the committee argued that twitter has become such a platform -- the first argument is that we are open to having all the companies
11:30 am
guest: shadowing is a term, an umbrella term for the idea some of the decisions made about how the platform, interactive features of the platform, just to take a step back, there is so much content on twitter they can't throw everything at everyone. they do make decisions how to rank and promote content. their argument is in making some of those decisions, that search functionality feature, that it makes it harder to find accounts, shadow banning includes that. also the idea if you click on a hash tag, a key word that appears on twitter, that groups conversations on a common theme, in some cases that appears in that conversation. their argument is we have to manage that content in some wafmente conservatives in particular embrace this idea of shadow banning, we don't know you can't -- i can't know you are not seeing my tweets. in some way i'm hidden on the
11:31 am
platform. ---202-p 48-8001. it was during that hearing where jack dorsey had exchange about these shadow accounts with the chairman, greg walden. here's a bit of that exchange. mr. walden: certain prominent serve serve users, including of sour colleagues, who have come to us, representative meadows, jordan, gaets, were not shown in the automatically populated dropdown searches on twitter, correct? out of the more than 300 million active twitter users, why did this only happen to certain accounts? in other words, what did the algorithm take into account that led to prominent conservatives, including members of the u.s. house of representatives, not being included in auto search suggestions? what cows causted that mr. dorsey: thank you for the question. we used signals. usually hundreds of signals to
11:32 am
determine and decide what to show, what to down rank, or potentially what to filter. in this particular case, as i mentioned in my opening, we were using a signal of the behavior of the people following accounts. we didn't believe upon further consideration, and also seeing the impact, which was about 600,000 accounts, pretty broad pace based, that was fair and we decided to correct t we decided it was not fair to use a signal for filtering in general. we decided to crack that within search as well -- correct that within search as well. it is important for us to, one, be able to experiment freely with the signals, and to have the freedom to be able to inject them and also to remove them, because that's the only way we're going to learn. we will make mistakes along the way, and the way we want to be judged is making sure that we
11:33 am
recognize those and that we crack them. host: not only talk about his response but his style in approaching the legislators and how that compares and contrast with miss sandberg. guest: very deliberate. very thoughtful. i mentioned before we got on air he had come by the "politico" world headquarters in rosalyn, virginia, for an interview and sat down with our editorial team before his testimony. the response seems to me he approaches -- he's certainly thought about these issues. so he presents himself in that way. he speaks very deliberately. i think there's been some commentary, fair or not about his appearance. he has a fairly described as scraggly beard. i don't know what a viewer on twitter should look like, but it's not that. and he said yes, i agree with you. but as i mentioned i think he handled himself in way that was very much him but also in way that was appropriately from the members of congress point of view deferential and respectful. host: quite a different world
11:34 am
for them. they probably have staffers that handle particularly pieces of legislation or what happens on capitol hill directly. guest: in the past it has been a little bit -- it's interesting the ways the different tech companies approach washington. some have their headquarters in california.
11:35 am
11:36 am
speaker ryan: i don't know how any were around in the 1960's. that's the last time the number of americans filing for unemployment benefits was this low. 49 years ago. it this is the best job market we have had in decades. and here's something else that's very encouraging. workers in what are traditionally considered lower-wage jobs, the bank tellers, maintenance workers, they are seeing some of the gg


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on