Instant messaging: not so innocent and not so personal

With Facebook, Google and advertising under intense scrutiny for their role in growing numbers of electoral processes, there is mounting evidence that third parties interested in interfering in how we vote are focusing their efforts on instant messaging, supposedly a more personal medium, and certainly one that is more difficult to control.

As its name suggests, conceived as a way for one or two people to have short conversations, instant messaging has evolved into a tool used by relatively large groups and used to share all types of information. After the Facebook Messenger’s use to spread racial hatred against the Rohingya Muslim minority in Myanmar in 2017, Facebook has decided to introduce options that allow users to report harassment, hate speech or suicide, in an attempt to exert a greater level of control over a tool that while not strictly speaking a social network, has clearly exceeded the limits of what it was originally intended for.

Recent media coverage has pointed to the central role WhatsApp seems to be playing in the election campaign in India: large numbers of highly popular groups, parties tasking members with influencing the vote of certain target groups, and spreading messages that, because in principle they are private channels, can bypass electoral campaigning rules. What’s more, these conversations are encrypted, meaning individuals would have to report them to the authorities.

Instant messaging groups are now widely accepted as forums to comment on news of all kinds. But of course, these channels can be used for social engineering, and what’s more, are even more difficult to control than traditional social networks. These groups, in which personal contact exists between some members, typically reflect or exaggerate the beliefs of their participants, allowing parties interested in manipulating electoral processes to introduce themselves relatively easily, spreading false news or inflammatory messages and testing out all kinds of social engineering techniques. It is fairly simple in a social network for the network manager to evaluate the diffusion or scope of campaign material, on an instant messaging network it is near impossible.

The solution to this is not, I fear, greater control of channels that, in the case of instant messaging, seems almost impossible. A longer-term solution will be required, almost a generational one, through education, to help establish practices such as verifying sources, filtering, contrasting, and identifying manipulation: only societies that adequately prepare themselves against these types of mass poisoning in the era of social media that are seen by many as a golden opportunity.

After a US election used as the stage for techniques rehearsed in polls around the world, instant messaging is now being premiered: in India some people say they are being subjected to political messages 24/7, ranging from crude propaganda to fake opinion polls, the credibility of which is boosted by association with relatives or friends, making it hard for people to disassociate themselves from the group. For the moment, there seems to be little we can do to prevent this process from spiraling out of control.

The only solution is to continue informing people, to issue more warnings, and to make it clear we should never see a single channel as an infallible source of knowledge and should always be wary of information that seems to uphold our beliefs: after all, manipulating somebody who is practically looking to be manipulated is the easiest thing in the world.

(En espa?ol, aquí)