[grc] Fwd: When algorithms come for journalists

[Spencer Graves]

Hello, All:


	  The discussion of Google's practices on this GRC list seems vaguely 
related to Google taking down an online database of "more than 2,500 
tweets by former President Donald Trump attacking the media", which 
Freedom of the Press Foundation and U.S. Press Freedom Tracker 
<https://pressfreedomtracker.us/> had used to monitor this.  This action 
was taken without warning with no recourse offered.  Luckily, these 
organizations knew people in Google, who were able to get the database 
restored.


	  HOWEVER, people doing investigative journalism need to be aware that 
anything they maintain on Google Drive could be deleted without warning. 
  I'm not aware of this happening often enough that to discourage me 
from using Google Drive.  However, if I had a major database like that, 
I'd want to develop procedures for making private backup copies on 
regular intervals, so I wouldn't suffer greatly if Big Brother tried to 
take me down.


	  Comments?
	  Spencer Graves
	  Volunteer journalist, KKFI.org, Kansas City Community Radio


-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	When algorithms come for journalists
Date: 	Mon, 22 Feb 2021 15:52:51 +0000
From: 	Freedom of the Press Foundation <newsletter at mg.freedom.press>
To: 	spencer.graves at effectivedefense.org



	
Freedom of the Press Foundation

Dear friend of press freedom,

This week, we’ve dedicated an entire issue to a discussion of how opaque 
decisions by tech giants can have profound effects on journalists using 
their platforms. If you enjoy reading this newsletter, please forward it 
to friends and family. If someone has forwarded you this newsletter, 
please subscribe <https://freedom.press/crm/subscribe/>.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Journalists — especially those without institutional newsroom support — 
rely on tools from major tech companies like Google and YouTube for 
newsgathering, production and distribution as a matter of course. As 
these information giants publicly wrestle with controversial content 
moderation decisions that dominate headlines and Congressional hearings, 
their decisions also run the risk of stifling routine reporting. When 
content is removed or an algorithm tweaked behind closed doors, news 
organizations and journalists are often left without any sort of 
transparency into the process or a clear path to appeals.

In the last month, Freedom of the Press Foundation and the U.S. Press 
Freedom Tracker <https://pressfreedomtracker.us/> experienced this 
first-hand, with the temporary takedown from Google Docs of an online 
database we've used to track more than 2,500 tweets by former President 
Donald Trump attacking the media. We've used this public spreadsheet for 
data analysis 
<https://freedom.press/news/trump-crisis-mode-tweets-his-2000th-attack-press/> 
over the years, and provided it to readers and other journalists to do 
their own exploration of Trump’s anti-media tweets and their effect on 
press freedom.

Two weeks ago, the database was taken down by Google and replaced with a 
notice claiming an unspecified “terms of service” violation.

Neither Freedom of the Press Foundation nor Stephanie Sugars, our 
reporter whose personal account "owns" the document, were notified of 
its removal, and no recourse was offered.

“When I discovered the spreadsheet had been flagged, I was at a complete 
loss for how to contest the decision. Even the directive from Google's 
Help screen was useless, as it said to request a review when the 
document was already open. I couldn't open the document at all, and when 
I tried it disappeared from my Drive,” according to Sugars.

Still, we were lucky. Some of our colleagues know employees at Google, 
and our allies know even more. After many people made private inquiries 
on our behalf, the document was restored without explanation a day after 
we discovered it was down. Obviously, that course of action is not 
available to most.

We still have no idea why the Trump tweet database was taken down.

Even a temporary suspension can have serious drawbacks for reporters or 
outlets that are providing timely reporting or live broadcasts. Since 
the beginning of 2021, for example, the progressive news outlet Status 
Coup has seen both widespread adoption of its live-streaming footage 
<https://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2021/01/10/officer-crushed-capitol-riot-video-jon-farina-sot-vpx.cnn> 
and an increase in restrictions from YouTube, where it broadcasts. As it 
was covering a pro-gun rally in Virginia last month, its feed was 
abruptly cut for violating the service's firearms policy 
<https://twitter.com/JordanChariton/status/1351231373873446914>. Similar 
to allies stepping in in our Trump tweet database situation, 
high-profile criticism of Silicon Valley 
<https://taibbi.substack.com/p/meet-the-censored-status-coup> appeared 
to lead to the stream’s restoration.

That option is not available to most. Should local journalists have to 
rely on higher-profile journalists to draw attention to their case?

And despite that reversal, Status Coup continues to face problems. Even 
though their channel was restored, Status Coup has made the editorial 
decision not to "go live" as it covers certain controversial events. 
Critical footage it shot from the Capitol Riots, which was later 
licensed by CNN and other networks 
<https://www.forbes.com/sites/rachelsandler/2021/02/04/youtube-is-taking-down-raw-footage-from-the-capitol-riot-as-it-tries-to-crack-down-on-misinformation/?sh=6a17eb244c10> 
and seen by millions of people, was taken down by YouTube, and much of 
it has not been restored. In the weeks since, some of the same raw 
footage was also removed from Google Drive, again citing unspecified 
Terms of Service violations, according to the outlet’s co-founder Jordan 
Chariton.

Chariton also described the difficulty of planning reporting trips or 
assignments when the resulting stories are shaded with total 
uncertainty. “As a journalist you want to sink or swim on your judgment, 
what stories you choose, the way you report, building relationships with 
sources,” he said, but Status Coup’s experience thus far “shows that you 
can be tenacious, work seven days a week, break big stories, and Google 
and the rest of them could choose to bury you, choose to take your 
footage down.”

Google’s domination of search means it can have profound effects on 
distribution even for outlets that don’t expressly rely on products like 
YouTube. U.S. Right to Know <https://usrtk.org/>, a non-profit newsroom 
that engages in investigative journalism on public health issues, has 
provided Freedom of the Press Foundation with evidence of a sudden and 
dramatic drop-off in incoming traffic from Google search results after 
the search engine released a “core update” to its ranking algorithm 
<https://searchengineland.com/google-december-2020-core-update-rolling-out-344333>.

U.S. Right to Know’s Google referral traffic dropped off a cliff in the 
beginning of December, right when the algorithm change was announced. 
Was there some action that U.S. Right to Know took that triggered this? 
What can it do to rectify the situation? Its editors have no idea.

U.S. Right to Know has also previously attracted strong negative 
attention from the subjects of its reporting — Monsanto set up an 
"intelligence center" to monitor and discredit the organization 
<https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/aug/07/monsanto-fusion-center-journalists-roundup-neil-young> 
and other journalists. In the absence of meaningful transparency or an 
appeal process, it's difficult to rule out the idea that such a 
motivated company could possibly have played a role.

This is only one example of many over the years where an algorithm 
change has killed a news outlet’s traffic overnight. The New York Times 
wrote in 2017 how legitimate left-leaning independent news outlets 
<https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/26/technology/google-search-bias-claims.html> 
were getting decimated by Google’s attempt to eliminate “fake news.” 
Outlets large and small have long complained Facebook constantly wreaks 
havoc 
<https://digiday.com/media/promised-facebook-traffic-news-publishers-declines-post-news-free-change/> 
on their traffic — and in turn, their revenue — if they decide to 
de-emphasize certain subjects or news in users’ newsfeeds. Newsrooms are 
stuck trying to read the tea leaves in vague announcements for how to 
respond.

To be clear, companies like Google, Facebook and Twitter have their own 
First Amendment right to make decisions about what content they host and 
how they present that content. Efforts to diminish the liability 
protection afforded to tech platforms and websites of all stripes are 
misguided at best — and would unequivocally hurt the cause of free speech.

But that doesn’t mean the companies that operate dominant tech platforms 
shaping our social information intake shouldn’t be held accountable when 
their opaque decisions harm independent reporting and journalism.

Tech companies are so dominant that it’s impossible to make or 
distribute news without them for many journalists. Given the importance 
of a strong and independent press, it’s time these companies prioritize 
and allocate the resources that protect journalists from unexplained, 
random or otherwise punitive abuses of their power.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

The role of journalism in our democracy matters now more than ever. If 
you care about the future of an independent media, please consider 
donating to Freedom of the Press Foundation today 
<https://freedom.press/donate>, and enable our work protecting press 
freedom.

Keep fighting,
Parker Higgins
Advocacy Director

Want to stop getting these emails? Click here to unsubscribe. 
<https://freedom.press/crm/unsubscribe/yQB1Vb-tFB9Eer2iNtE~GuANTG_9~-sxNSvGf2gw/>