Posted Monday, February 28th, 2011 by Jake Laperruque
Fear The Sockpuppets
Growing up in the dawn of the Internet Age, as children we were often told, “don’t trust strangers online,” and frightened with stories of abductors posing as digital friends. But, while we have always been vigilant of an individual with a misleading online identity, right now we face a new threat with strong ramifications for democracy and discourse – the manipulation of not one online persona, but of the digital populace as a whole.
Last week, I described how Web 2.0 technologies –specifically Twitter – can be manipulated to create a faux story and how current election law is likely unable to do anything to stop abuse by a campaign trying to perpetrate such an act. Today, I’d like to discuss how the Internet could be manipulated to create a faux reaction.
The source of this threat is sockpuppets. Sockpuppets – in general – are online identities designed to present a deceptive portrayal. While individuals have employed sockpuppets since the earliest days of the Internet (the boogieman online abductor is the most infamous example), the issue at hand is use of sockpuppets in an unprecedented manner, one that is organized, systematic, and widespread. This possibility was described by the Daily Kos last week. They commented on leaked emails by tech security company, HBGary which describe software that develops sockpuppets en masse. Essentially, the software allows a small group of individuals to pose as an extremely large group of people online.
The impact of this is profound. And while politicians may not yet have learned to master the sockpuppet trick, this software gives them frightening power. Using it, campaigns can corrupt our discourse by overrunning, blogs, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube with hundreds – even thousands – of fake personas. These armies of sockpuppets can create an illusion of public perception and, with mainstream media increasingly looking to these forums as the basis of their coverage, this manufactured “public opinion” can quickly be transformed through an echo chamber to become reality.
Two legal issues confine our ability to react to this threat. The first is election law. As I described last week, the social media sites at issue here provide a platform of free online media and thus, are not subject to election law as is paid media. This gives campaigns anonymity to act, and no legal obligation to disclose their activities. The fact that this – unlike an individual faux Twitter account – involves complex and likely expensive software does provide a wrinkle that might allow us to apply election law, but hiring a new media consultant who possesses it seems to be an easy enough loophole to use the technology without disclosing one’s activities to the public.
Free speech is the other legal factor that burdens our ability to react to sockpuppets. Anonymity can, on one hand, be an essential feature to preserving free speech; news sources serve as a clear-cut example of this. However, this form of concealment seems to be subverting free speech more than actually serving it. At a time when weighing free speech against state interests, – notably in the context of Internet and secrecy – has become a major issue in America, this technology possibly brings us to a point of drawing a line in the sand. And with social media now serving as a tool of reform and revolution, the potential impact is enormous.
The role of the Internet, and how it affects the democratic process, is a question that will continue to arouse debate and discussion. The Internet appears inherently democratic because of its egalitarianism; it empowers us by providing an unlimited ability to communicate and acquire knowledge, putting all people on an equal ground. However, as sockpuppets show, any powerful force for democracy can become a force for consolidating power, and this is a lesson me must always be vigilant of.
Images by Tim Murtaugh and U.S. Air Force.
2 Comments
Post a comment
This is certainly an interesting technological development, but I want to push back against two points.
First: “The impact of this is profound.” I think you mean the impact of this MIGHT be profound. It might also be quite trivial. It seems totally plausible to me that once everyone is aware of mass sock-puppeting software, people will pay much less attention to Twitter and the comments sections of political blogs. I know some people who already pay little to no attention to those forms of media. Unless one can point to some particular instance of this technology distorting public perception, I think it’s a bit hasty to call the impact “profound.”
Second: you say it might be time to draw “a line in the sand.” What does that mean? What would be the form of the legislation we should implement to combat such sock-puppeting software? Can you make a convincing argument that the harm you’re trying to prevent is really worse than the restrictive measures you advocate imposing? I’m not saying it’s impossible, but my skepticism usually gets the better of me when someone claims to have found new limits to what the First Amendment should cover.
Hi Graham,
First off, thank you for your comments. I really appreciate people taking time to read and think about my posts, and it’s great to start a dialogue on this issue.
In response to your first point, you are entirely correct that I am anticipating the impact that this software will have; it’s a new technology, so we don’t know when and to what degree it will be used. However, the fact that once it does go into use we will continue to be unaware of it is application is one reason I find it so disturbing, and why I believe we need to address it now.
On the impact that social media is having, however, I tend to disagree. The CNN link I provided is just one example of what has become a frequent trend traditional media basing its reporting on various social media, especially as a means to describe public opinion. Perception of public opinion can have a real impact on policy – for example, gauging reasons for election results leads to agenda setting for the next term, and the CNN link in the article demonstrates how social media is already affecting that – and I worry that manipulation will definitely have a real world impact.
As for your second point, I agree its important to be heedful of any new restriction of First Amendment rights, but I don’t think that a policy reaction to mass sockpuppetry– to answer your question, I would support legislation banning the use of this software – is a new limitation, but rather an extension of existing principles to a new technology. Our law has numerous restrictions on false representation, and specifically in the context of campaigns – which is the focus of my argument – we have explicit requirements of disclosure in the BCRA’s Stand By Your Ad provision. I believe this restriction on the software – which would still allow individuals to preserve online anonymity, but block a program which based on HBGary’s own emails seems to lack any legitimate purpose – is consistent with our existing principles of free speech.
However, even if this were a new free speech limitation, I think it would still be the best means of preserving autonomy and liberty in our society. Courts have always looked to free speech as an extremely important value, but ultimately something that is meant to contribute to social welfare and be balanced against other factors. This is why we have the concept of “don’t yell fire in the theater.” The Court’s Citizens United decision frustrated me because this application seems so relevant to elections where free speech is an essential means to achieve equal representation and preserve the democratic process. When manipulation of speech undermines its purpose in elections – to give everyone autonomy, and an equal opportunity to impact the process – I think regulations are appropriate, whether with regard to campaign finance, disclosure of advertisements, or a new technology like sockpuppets.
Thanks again for your response,
Jake