Ideas Archive

Blog

Social Media Transparency is Key for Our Democracy

Paul Waters

August 11, 2020

According to the Pew Research Center, one in five Americans rely primarily on social media for their political news and information. This means a small handful of companies have enormous control over what a broad swath of America sees, reads, and hears. Now that the coronavirus has moved even more of our lives online, companies like Facebook, Google, and Twitter have more influence than ever before. And yet, we know remarkably little about how these social media platforms operate. We don’t know the answers to questions like:

How does information flow across these networks?
Who sees what and when?
How do algorithms drive media consumption?
How are political ads targeted?
Why does hate and abuse proliferate?

Without answers to questions like these, we can’t guard against digital voter suppression, coronavirus misinformation, and the rampant harassment of Black, Indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC) online. That means we won’t be able to move closer to the open and just democracy we need.

A pattern of resisting oversight

The platforms have strong incentives to remain opaque to public scrutiny. Platforms profit from running ads — some of which are deeply offensive — and by keeping their algorithms secret and hiding data on where ads run they avoid accountability — circumventing advertiser complaints, user protests, and congressional inquiries. Without reliable information on how these massive platforms operate and how their technologies function, there can be no real accountability.

When complaints are raised, the companies frequently deny or make changes behind the scenes. Even when platforms admit something has gone wrong, they claim to fix problems without explaining how, which makes it impossible to verify the effectiveness of the “fix.” Moreover, these fixes are often just small changes that only paper over fundamental problems, while leaving the larger structural flaws intact. This trend has been particularly harmful for BIPOC who already face significant barriers to participation in the public square.

Another way platforms avoid accountability is via legal mechanisms like non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) and intellectual property law, including trade secrets, patents, and copyright protections. This allows platforms to keep their algorithms secret, even when those algorithms dictate social outcomes protected under civil rights law.

Platforms have responded to pressure to release data in the past — but the results have fallen far short of what they promised. Following the 2016 election, both Twitter and Facebook announced projects intended to release vast amounts of new data about their operations to researchers. The idea was to provide a higher level of transparency and understanding about the role of these platforms in that election. However, in nearly every case, those transparency efforts languished because the platforms did not release the data they had committed they would provide. Facebook’s reticence to divulge data almost a year after announcing the partnership with the Social Science Research Council is just one example of this type of foot-dragging.

The platforms’ paltry transparency track record demonstrates their failure to self-regulate in the public interest and reinforces the need for active and engaged external watchdogs who can provide oversight.

How watchdog researchers and journalists have persisted despite the obstacles

Without meaningful access to data from the platforms, researchers and journalists have had to reverse engineer experiments that can test how platforms operate and develop elaborate efforts merely to collect their own data about platforms.

Tools like those developed by NYU’s Online Political Transparency Project have become essential. While Facebook created a clearinghouse that was promoted as a tool that would serve as a compendium of all the political ads being posted to the social media platform, NYU’s tool has helped researchers independently verify the accuracy and comprehensiveness of Facebook’s archive and spot issues and gaps. As we head into the 2020 election, researchers continue to push for data, as they raise the alarm about significant amounts of mis/disinformation spread through manipulative political groups, advertisers, and media websites.

Watchdog journalists are also hard at work. In 2016, the Wall Street Journal built a side-by-side Facebook feed to examine how liberals and conservatives experience news and information on the platform differently. Journalists with The Markup have been probing Google’s search and email algorithms. ProPublica has been tracking discriminatory advertising practices on Facebook.

Because of efforts like these, we have seen some movement. The recent House Judiciary Committee’s antitrust subcommittee hearing with CEOs from Apple, Facebook, Google and Amazon was evidence of a bipartisan desire to better understand how the human choices and technological code that shape these platforms also shape society. However, the harms these companies and others have caused are not limited to economics and market power alone.

How we’re taking action

At Democracy Fund, we are currently pushing for greater platform transparency and working to protect against the harms of digital voter suppression, coronavirus misinformation, and harassment of BIPOC by:

Funding independent efforts to generate data and research that provides insight regarding the platforms’ algorithms and decision making;
Supporting efforts to protect journalists and researchers in their work to uncover platform harms;
Demanding that platforms provide increased transparency on how their algorithms work and the processes they have in place to prevent human rights and civil rights abuses; and
Supporting advocates involved in campaigns that highlight harms and pressure the companies to change, such as Change the Terms and Stop Hate for Profit.

Demanding transparency and oversight have a strong historical precedent in American media. Having this level of transparency makes a huge difference for Americans — and for our democracy. Political ad files from radio and television broadcasters (which have been available to the public since the 1920s) have been invaluable to journalists reporting on the role of money in elections. They have fueled important research about how broadcasters work to meet community information needs.

The public interest policies in broadcasting have been key to communities of color who have used them to challenge broadcaster licenses at the Federal Communications Commission when they aren’t living up to their commitments. None of these systems are perfect, as many community advocates will tell you, but even this limited combination of transparency and media oversight doesn’t exist on social media platforms.

Tech platforms should make all their ads available in a public archive. They should be required to make continually-updated, timely information available in machine-readable formats via an API or similar means. They should consult public interest experts on standards for the information they disclose, including standardized names and formats, unique IDs, and other elements that make the data accessible for researchers.

Bottomline, we need new policy frameworks to enforce transparency, to give teeth to oversight, and to ensure social media can enable and enhance our democracy. Without it, the open and just democracy we all deserve is at real risk.

Back to Ideas

Blog

How Political Ad Transparency Can Help Fix Democracy’s Cybersecurity Problem

Nancy Watzman

August 7, 2020

Without sufficient transparency and accountability, online platforms have become hotbeds for disinformation that manipulates, maligns, and disenfranchises voters, especially people of color and women. The Online Political Ads Transparency Project is critical to Democracy Fund’s Digital Democracy Initiative’s goal of providing greater transparency and oversight to combat coordinated disinformation campaigns, minimize misinformation, and define and defend civil rights online.

There is nothing new about misinformation, dirty tricks, and voter suppression in the history of democracy. But as political campaigns – like much of the rest of public life – have moved online, so have tactics to subvert election outcomes. Political ads and messaging are micro-targeted at voters who have no idea who is paying to influence them or what their motives might be. Or, as Laura Edelson and Damon McCoy, researchers for the Online Political Ads Transparency Project at New York University’s Center for Cybersecurity, would put it, democracy has a cybersecurity problem.

In May 2018, Edelson and McCoy found a perfect opportunity to study this problem: they decided to look at Facebook’s newly public, searchable archive of political ads. Facebook had released this archive following criticism that it was profiting from political ads while not disclosing information about them to the public. Unlike TV and radio broadcasters, who are required to report political ad buys on television and radio to the Federal Communications Commission, online platforms like Facebook — to this day — are not legally required to do so. But while Facebook’s lack of transparency was technically legal, that doesn’t mean it was right. The democratic process is harmed when Americans don’t know who is attempting to influence them via political ads.

Diving into Facebook’s archive of political ads, Edelson and McCoy scraped information and used the resulting data to publish an analysis that showed that from May 2018 to July 2018, Donald Trump was the largest spender on the platform — a key insight into political influence on Facebook. Unfortunately, Facebook eventually shut down the NYU team’s ability to gather information by scraping — but this was only a temporary setback. Facing mounting pressure from the research community, Facebook soon after created a way for researchers to obtain these data programmatically, via an API interface. This made it simpler to do an ongoing analysis of the ad library corpus, versus a one-time scrape covering a limited time period.

In doing all of this work, the researchers’ goal was to push Facebook to adopt better transparency policies — by presenting them with the evidence of how inadequate their current policies were. But Edelson and McCoy were learning that was an even more difficult task than they had expected.

“When you are battling a traditional cybersecurity problem like spam” explains Edelson, “the honest actors – whether it’s a bank, an insurance company, or something else – have incentives to change their behavior, because their customers will reward them with increased profits. But in this case, online platforms may have a long-term interest in being good citizens, but their short term interest is in making money off of ads and targeted content, precisely the tools the bad actors are gaming. So it’s hard to get them to change.” In other words: social media platforms have competing motivations.

But the team did have one advantage: the power of public pressure. And they uncovered plenty of things that would worry the public. When they conducted a thorough cybersecurity analysis of how well Facebook was adhering to its own policies on political ad disclosure, they found numerous problems. More than half of the advertising pages they studied – representing $37 million of ad spending – lacked proper disclosure of which candidate or organization paid for the ads. Even when names of sponsors were disclosed, the information was sloppy and inconsistent.

They also identified “inauthentic communities” — clusters of pages that appeared to cater to different racial or geographic identity groups that do not adequately disclose how they are connected to each other.

Rather than going straight to the public with this information, Edelson and McCoy reached out to Facebook to share their findings, letting the company know that they planned to present their research publicly in May 2020 at the IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy. And it did have an impact: in response, Facebook made internal changes that addressed some of these issues.

This was a victory for the researchers, but the work continues and many obstacles and mysteries remain. Sometimes the Facebook API stops working. Sometimes researchers find ads that are clearly political, but are not included in the official ad library. And sometimes the reports that Facebook releases that aggregate ad data don’t match the raw data they’ve collected.

But despite the difficulties, Edelson and McCoy persist. “I’m proud of the fact we’ve moved Facebook on transparency,” says Edelson, “but there is always more work to do. Voters need to know who is targeting them and how — and how much they are spending — to help them make informed decisions when they fill out their ballots.”

In 2020, the researchers are continuing to work on projects aimed at making Facebook and other platforms safer for our democracy. They have launched AdObserver, a browser plugin that allows Facebook users a way to volunteer data on the ads they are seeing. This will yield valuable information on whether ads are missing from the Facebook Ad Library, as well as information on targeting that the social media platform does not make available. And they are creating a new tool that will help civil society organizations – who represent people who often are targeted by such ads – to quickly identify problematic ad campaigns. While there’s no doubt democracy still has a cybersecurity problem, the NYU researchers are working hard to protect it from threats.

Cover Photo: Laura Edelson and Damon McCoy of The Online Political Ads Transparency Project at New York University’s Center for Cybersecurity. Photo Credit: New York University.

Back to Ideas

Blog

Beyond the statement: How journalism funders can act in solidarity with marginalized communities

Anita Varma

July 23, 2020

“We stand in solidarity with Black communities. Black Lives Matter.”

Organizations, businesses, and groups across the United States sent this statement to millions of people via social media feeds and e-mail lists in early June 2020, in the wake of widespread protests for racial justice. Stating solidarity, however, doesn’t amount to much on its own.

Solidarity is a commitment to social justice that translates into collective action. This means statements need to be understood as distinct from statements attached to action. In the absence of action, declaring solidarity becomes a platitude for public relations. Talking the talk without walking the walk isn’t solidarity — it’s branding.

Funders can do more to support actions aligned with genuine solidarity in journalism.

What solidarity in journalism looks like

To assess news organizations using solidarity criteria, look at their coverage of marginalized communities. Are members of marginalized communities quoted? If so, are they quoted for their perspectives and thoughts, or solely for their feelings? Relegating marginalized people to speaking exclusively from the realm of emotion falls short of solidarity and may reinforce narratives of helpless victims who need saviors.

The Solidarity Journalism Initiative, which I lead at the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University, offers free training and resources to help journalists, editors, and journalism educators serve communities better by using techniques such as:

1) Ensuring that reporters always include those affected and subjected by issues, aligned with the ethos of “nothing about us without us.”

2) Placing community perspectives in dialogue with official perspectives to press for accuracy and to debunk false narratives that officials may prefer to advance.

3) Treating journalistic reporting as an endeavor to represent people’s lived experiences, rather than relying on official statements from authorities. Claims that ignore or attempt to invalidate people’s lived experiences — even if they come from officials — can therefore no longer be lionized as true.

Let’s be clear. Enacting solidarity in journalism does not mean:

1) Ignoring or expelling people in positions of institutional power from coverage.

2) Acting as an uncritical mouthpiece for social movements or nonprofits.

3) Replacing news reporting with opinion pieces.

My research on the role of solidarity in US journalism traces journalists’ motives for covering marginalized communities, and consistently finds that journalists understand their work as an opportunity to help people who live within dehumanizing structural conditions. Far from trumpeting neutrality or objectivity, journalists who cover marginalized communities tend to describe their work in terms of a moral obligation that compels them to focus on enduring social issues.

Industry leaders, on the other hand, display greater hesitation when faced with the prospect of acknowledging journalism’s longstanding role of solidarity. Ironically, unlike corporations that may do little to nothing aligned with solidarity and yet are quick to capitalize on the opportunity to issue a statement du jour, some prefer to position journalism’s role as reporting on acts of solidarity rather than admitting to enacting it as well.

The point of journalism in this country — and the main reason to preserve and protect it — is to serve the public interest, aligned with the country’s ideal of dignity for all.

The problem with such positioning is that it overlooks a long history of journalism urging people to care about (socially) distant others’ suffering. The purpose of journalism has never simply been a matter of reporters reciting events in the manner of a scribe or synthesizing knowledge with the purported detachment of a scientist. Instead, the point of journalism in this country — and the main reason to preserve and protect it — is to serve the public interest, aligned with the country’s ideal of dignity for all.

How journalism funders can help

Journalism funders can help by supporting organizations who practice solidarity techniques. To use solidarity techniques, journalists need (1) time, (2) training, and (3) encouragement from editors to enter communities they may be unfamiliar with in order to build relationships and expand their sourcing networks.

This is where journalism funders can step up. With intensified public discourse around racial justice, funders can play a critical role through their investments in journalism using a solidarity framework.

A few examples of news organizations that are already enacting solidarity in journalism through sourcing and local representation include: The Oaklandside, Broke in Philly, Pittsburgh Media Partnership, and MLK50: Justice Through Journalism. In each case, the organization or partnership reports the perspectives of people whose lived experiences are at stake in the story — who are often otherwise overlooked or sidelined in corporately-controlled local and national media outlets.

Who do you serve?

Across the country and world, thousands of protestors have continued to march to demand change. When police officers approach, many protestors begin to chant:

“Who do you protect? Who do you serve?”

Journalists, journalism funders, and journalism educators all need to ask ourselves these questions as well. And if we find ourselves dismayed or pained to realize our roles in upholding unjust systems, then let this be the moment when we move forward — together — to enact solidarity with communities who have been marginalized for far too long.

Anita Varma, PhD is the assistant director of Journalism & Media Ethics at the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University, where she leads the Solidarity Journalism initiative to help journalists implement solidarity in their reporting on marginalized communities. If you are a funder or journalist and would like to learn more about Solidarity Journalism, please contact avarma2@scu.edu. You can also follow her on Twitter.

Back to Ideas

Video

Dissatisfaction with American Democracy and Increasing Openness to Authoritarianism

Joe Goldman

July 6, 2020

While most Americans express belief in democratic values and preference for a democratic political system, a new report published by the Voter Study Group, “Democracy Maybe,” suggests that our democracy is increasingly vulnerable. Democracy Fund president, Joe Goldman, joins Hill TV to discuss shifting attitudes on American authoritarianism and democracy amid an economic recession, a global health crisis, social unrest and a polarizing election year.

Watch the video.

Back to Ideas

Blog

We need fair and accurate reporting on Muslim Americans. Here’s how funders can help.

Angelica Das

June 26, 2020

One of the many ways funders can support equitable journalism is by investing in fair, just, and accurate reporting on and representation of Muslim Americans. This week, a troubling story unfolded in Tennessee and in national news that demonstrates just how easily Muslim American communities can be targeted, misrepresented, and deeply harmed through lack of accountability.

Here’s what happened

On June 21, The Tennessean, the state’s flagship paper, printed a full-page ad from a religious cult in the Sunday edition, claiming that “Islam” would “detonate a nuclear device” in Nashville on July 18, 2020. Digital ads from this group also appeared online. This was not the first time the paper had printed an ad from this group.

Zulfat Suara, Board Member for the American Muslim Advisory Council (AMAC) and Nashville Councilwoman, and Samar Ali, Founding President of Millions of Conversations, both contacted The Tennessean to raise the alarm about how Muslim Americans, particularly in Tennessee, had become targets for hate groups. Both leaders received calls from the paper’s editor with apologies and a commitment to investigation. The paper also pledged that the advertising money would be donated to AMAC.

By mid-day, The Tennessean issued a public apology and published a story indicating they would investigate how the ad was published “in violation of the newspaper’s long-established standards, which “clearly forbid hate speech.” Leadership at both the paper and Gannett, which owns the paper, condemned the violation.

That afternoon, The New York Times published a story about the event. The Times article did not include references, quotes, interviews, or mentions of Tennessee residents outside of the paper itself. It did not include perspectives from Muslim Americans in Tennessee. AMAC and Millions of Conversations, both founded and based in Tennessee, were never contacted. Instead, sources included the newspaper’s editor, a white sports reporter who had tweeted his concern, the paper’s vice president of sales, as well as out-of-state experts. The paper also included a quote from the man who identified himself as the leader of the extremist group behind the ad (who wanted a refund).

The Times article did not include references, quotes, interviews, or mentions of Tennessee residents outside of the paper itself. It did not include perspectives from Muslim Americans in Tennessee.

The next day, on June 22, The Tennessean published an op-ed by Samar Ali: “Running this disinformation ad was more than a lapse in judgment. Disinformation is Hate’s primary tool in today’s environment as it continues to mislead communities as COVID-19 spreads rapidly around our country.”

Ali goes on to explain that Millions of Conversations exists to fight this kind of disinformation and encourage Americans “to engage with trustworthy information and challenge their preconceived ideas about other communities.”

The Tennessean also reported on June 22 that Gannett had fired an advertising manager responsible for publishing the ad. Three advertising staff had chances to review the ad before publication — none raised any concerns. The article included interviews with both AMAC and the group responsible for the ad.

The same day, the Times again ran a story about the firing and The Tennessean’s plans to administer diversity and inclusion training. The article repeated the extremist group’s request for a refund. And again, no Muslim Americans in Tennessee were quoted.

What are the implications for racial equity in journalism?

Muslim Americans were deeply harmed by the lack of oversight and accountability in The Tennessean’s advertising arm. At best, this ad perpetuated ugly stereotypes, and at worst, it put lives in danger by equating Islam with terrorism. A 2016 Institute for Social Policy and Understanding (ISPU) report shows evidence that as we draw closer to the November election, identity politics will increase attention on and targeting of Muslim people and communities.

A woman wearing a hijab presents information at an IPSU media training. — Photo: An IPSU media training in Chicago. Credit: IPSU.

Let’s be clear: The Tennessean took the appropriate steps. They publicly accepted responsibility, provided reparations, and made staffing changes.

The coverage in the Times, however, is a powerful indicator of how wide the gap is in understanding what it means to represent and include community voices. This national newsroom turned away from the people whose lives are impacted. It featured voices from individuals far removed from the story itself. It prioritized the voices of the perpetrators.

Trusted, responsible news must include the voices of people who have been left out of — and often harmed by — traditional news coverage. And we must do more than include more voices: We must shift power, leadership, and funding to historically marginalized groups in order for news to serve its purpose as a critical community resource. These are just some of the groups funders can support who we can count on to help us bridge the gap:

Millions of Conversations is a national nonprofit working to counteract harmful narratives about Muslim Americans, including the myth that Islam is in any way a threat. They are changing the story about what is a threat, in Ali’s words “COVID-19, systemic racism and polarization.” (Millions of Conversations is a Democracy Fund grantee.)

The American Muslim Advisory Council promotes civic engagement, community-building, and provides media training to support accurate reporting on and representation of Muslim Americans in Tennessee.

8.5 Million, a project by ReThink Media, is a robust database of sources and experts on Muslim, Arab, and South Asian issues with contact information for reporters. (ReThink Media is a former Democracy Fund grantee.)

The Institute for Social Policy and Understanding has a guide for journalists for how to cover Muslim Americans objectively and creatively. And in partnership with the Pulitzer Center, ISPU is hosting ongoing trainings (with support from Democracy Fund).

Funders can advance racial equity in journalism and support fair, just, and accurate reporting by investing in this work. Democracy Fund is proud to be part of the Racial Equity in Journalism Fund, which is currently supporting 16 grantees led by and serving communities of color. And there are many more organizations working to ensure journalism is more reflective of all communities, particularly those that have been historically stereotyped or harmed by media. We hope you will join us in supporting this crucial work.

Back to Ideas

Blog

Why Democracy Fund is Declaring Independence From Bipartisanship

Joe Goldman

June 16, 2020

For the past six years, Democracy Fund has distinguished itself as an organization that has sought common ground between the left and right. We have worked hard to engage ideologically diverse partners and have pursued strategies that could garner support from across the political spectrum. In doing so, we have sought to address the polarization and gridlock that have come to define our nation’s political system.

This bipartisan approach has enabled us to play a rare role in the democracy reform space. We supported the Presidential Commission on Election Administration, which was co-chaired by the lawyers to the Obama and Romney presidential campaigns. We worked to create space for more ideologically diverse groups to advocate for campaign finance reform. And, we bolstered conservatives who took lonely stands on behalf of the rule of law during the Mueller investigation.

We are proud of this work and remain committed to the belief that principled compromise and broad coalitions are important for creating lasting change. We know that there are people across the ideological spectrum who care deeply about our country and we benefit from being exposed to diverse points of view.

But it is time to be clear: we are unwilling to compromise on fundamental principles of a healthy democracy. There can be no compromise when a Black person’s life is taken by a police officer as a result of a racist culture and institution. There can be no compromise when our free press is attacked as the enemy of the people. There can be no compromise when children are separated from their parents at the border, or when Muslims are “banned” from entering the United States. There can be no compromise when a party puts its political interests before the interests of conducting free and fair elections. There can be no compromise when leaders ignore the rule of law. These are violations of the non-negotiable ideals of a just and open democracy.

As more political leaders have abandoned their commitment to core democratic principles, we have increasingly found it impossible to describe our work as “bipartisan” without compromising on who we are and what we believe. Simply put, a commitment to “bipartisanship” above all else is untenable when our political leaders openly embrace authoritarian politics and reject values like pluralism and the rule of law.

I am therefore sharing today that Democracy Fund will no longer use the term “bipartisan” to describe our organization. Rather, we are an independent, nonpartisan foundation that advocates for an open and just democracy. As an organization, we choose to anchor ourselves in our democratic principles rather than the space negotiated between the two political parties. I know this decision will disappoint some of our partners and energize others, but I believe it is what our principles require of us. Democracy Fund will champion the leaders who defend democracy and who challenge our political system to be more open and just.

Democracy Fund’s work must be driven by evidence, learning, and our core beliefs about what is essential to a healthy democracy. We have long held six beliefs:

In the dignity of every individual and in the equal protection of their rights under the law.
That voting is the cornerstone of our democracy.
That constitutional checks and balances and respect for the rule of law are critical to protect against abuses of power.
That a healthy democracy cannot exist without a participatory, vibrant public square, including an independent, free press.
That informed dialogue and principled compromise are essential to governing a large, diverse, and complex society like the United States.
That political leaders and elected officials bear an uncommon burden to act with integrity.

We proudly stand for these beliefs and will unabashedly defend them. Today, we are adding another democratic value to this list:

We believe a just and equitable political system must eliminate structural barriers to ensure historically excluded communities have meaningful influence in our democracy.

Americans must acknowledge that our political system has been intentionally designed to marginalize many — particularly Black and Brown people — since its founding. Built on land stolen from its original inhabitants with the labor of enslaved people, our nation initially and repeatedly denied a voice to all but a privileged few white men. At Democracy Fund, we believe that we must amplify the efforts of unjustly marginalized groups to be heard and be represented, just as we must stand against those who promote bigotry and hate.

In recent years, Democracy Fund has been working to create a more diverse, equitable democracy through efforts like becoming a founding partner of the Racial Equity in Journalism Fund, supporting communities targeted by hate, fostering a more representative Congress, and combating barriers to voting for historically disenfranchised communities. We remain committed to eliminating structural barriers not only in what we do, but by taking an inward look at how we do it.

While I am proud of the work that we and our grantees have done to contribute to a more equitable democracy, I know Democracy Fund has fallen short of what is needed. Our bipartisan positioning has too often been an excuse to not grapple with and address the deep injustice that is ingrained in our political institutions and system. Indeed, adding a core belief that explicitly elevates the need for equitable influence and power is a small step toward rectifying that failure, but it’s not enough. Moving forward, we are prioritizing a commitment to diversity, equity, inclusion, and justice in our work, including our philanthropic practices, and we invite you to hold us accountable as we do this work.

The challenges facing our democracy are urgent and complex, and I feel a deep sense of responsibility and service to the field — and to our mission of defending democracy and challenging our political system to be more open and just. While our political system is resilient and has endured through times of severe stress, the ongoing health of our republic depends on each of us standing against immediate threats to our democracy and engaging in the long struggle to ensure that our country lives up to its democratic ideals. Led by our principles, Democracy Fund aspires to be a better champion and ally to those in the fight.

Cover Photo: Participants in a Memorial Day Parade in Washington, DC. Photo by Roberto Galen.

Back to Ideas

Blog

It’s Time for an Internet That Supports Our Democracy

Paul Waters

June 15, 2020

Social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and Google play an essential role in our democracy. They provide a way for communities to organize and speak directly to politicians. They enable companies to find customers and allow customers, in turn, to pressure companies to live up to higher standards. And they allow news outlets to reach households and create venues for friends and family to discuss current events.

But, far too often, these same platforms provide cover to unlawful practices and malicious actors that harm people and weaken our democracy, because the algorithms they run on are designed and managed without any public oversight. These algorithms are weaponized by foreign governments to inflame hatred and suppress voter turnout. They’re used by hate groups to create online mobs that harass and intimidate people of color and women. And they allow conspiracy theories to go viral. This kind of discrimination and manipulation would be unacceptable for other basic services we rely on, like telecommunications, electricity, or voting systems.

These are just a few of the harms inflicted through social media, and they stem from one fatal flaw: platform companies like Facebook, Twitter, and Google are not accountable to the public. Their unchecked power also extends far beyond their own platforms, as they have acquired countless other companies like Instagram, WhatsApp, and YouTube and have spread their tracking software across the web.

It doesn’t have to be like this. At Democracy Fund, we believe that the digital tools and platforms we all rely on can support democratic systems and protect human rights, rather than undermining them. This belief is at the core of our Digital Democracy Initiative, which funds advocacy, research, and innovations that work towards three concrete goals:

Improve civil and human rights practices online
Strengthen public interest journalism
Reduce inauthentic and coordinated disinformation campaigns

For these goals to become a reality, we must see specific actions from policymakers to adopt a civil and human rights framework — a way of thinking that puts the needs of people first — focused on changing the terms of service to better support people of color online and serve community information needs.

To achieve these goals, Democracy Fund partners with civil rights groups, technologists, university researchers, and policy organizations working to improve our public square. Some use policy and litigation to protect people of color and hold platforms accountable to the public interest. Others, like Data for Black Lives, mobilize networks of grassroots activists to develop policies to protect users. And organizations like Free Press work to increase funding for news outlets, track and debunk misinformation, and strengthen and diversify news outlets. In particular, the Digital Democracy Initiative supports efforts led by or serving the people most frequently harmed online: people of color and women.

The 2016 US presidential election made clear the power of social media on our politics when the Russian-controlled Internet Research Agency flooded social media with fake groups and posts to divide, harass, and confuse the American public. But this was only the most high-profile case. For years, white supremacists and other hate groups have tested and developed tactics to disrupt our democracy, using the platforms’ tools for targeting individual users based on characteristics like race, gender, political affiliation, or economic status. All the while, social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and Google have expanded their reach into nearly every area of life with little to no oversight. Less obvious issues like algorithmic discrimination have led to civil rights violations, like real estate companies excluding people of color from seeing their online ads for housing. Journalists and academics need new tools and transparency laws to help them track and expose these hidden harms, just as they did with the great issues of prior generations, from segregation and Jim Crow to pesticides and big tobacco.

The pattern is now clear. Every few months, another problem with the platforms makes headlines. At first, the companies deny it or announce minor changes. Company leaders promise the public and Congress that they will do better. But once the headlines fade, little has changed.

We aim to keep the pressure on by supporting a wide range of efforts with diverse focus areas, leadership, and strategies. The platforms must enact strong policies that uphold democratic norms and prioritize quality information over misleading content and opaque systems. And in the meantime, users need tools to protect themselves and expose bad actors while navigating online spaces and discussions.

It’s time that we reclaim the digital tools and spaces that shape our democracy. Our elections, our lives, and our liberty depend on it.

If you’re interested in learning more about our work, contact Paul Waters, associate director, Public Square Program.

Back to Ideas

Report

Nationscape Insights Dashboard Launches in Partnership with USA Today

Democracy Fund

June 10, 2020

Now researchers, reporters, and armchair pundits have immediate access to America’s diverse views on 40 top policy issues.

Back to Ideas

Blog

NewsMatch 2019 Campaign for Nonprofit News Was Best Year Yet

Newsmatch

June 3, 2020

Results from the 2019 NewsMatch cycle, published for the first time today, show that it was the most successful to date, with an initial pool of $3.37 million in philanthropic funds leveraged into a $43.5 million payout — a nearly 1,200% return on philanthropic investments that infused much-needed cash into independent newsrooms just as the coronavirus disrupted business as usual.

Cover photo by Elizabeth Hambuchen for Mississippi Today.

Back to Ideas

Statement

Our commitment to being part of the solution

Joe Goldman

June 3, 2020

Democracy Fund stands in solidarity with our grantees, partners, and those across the nation who are outraged and grieving over the murders of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Ahmaud Arbery and so many other Black lives that have been lost or harmed by racism, white supremacy, and police brutality. That includes the victims of the COVID-19 pandemic, which has disproportionately affected communities of color.

At Democracy Fund, we believe that a healthy democracy requires that historically targeted communities have power and equal protection under the law. This means police brutality must end, and it means Black communities, social justice organizers, and allies across the country must be able to peaceably assemble to protest another attack on a Black man. These protests should be joined and amplified, not shut down nor met with police aggression. We have to center the experiences of Black people and other marginalized communities as we work to build a more equitable democracy. Many of us need to confront our own privilege to work in solidarity to actively dismantle racism.

Instead of helping us to forge a path forward, our nation’s leaders are threatening to deploy military force against fellow Americans, condoning attacks on journalists, and using social media to stoke division. This is a violation of the very principles of an open and just democracy, and further endangers our nation.

There is significant work to do to protect the lives of Black people to ensure they have power in our democracy. Philanthropy, including Democracy Fund, must do better at attacking the racism and injustice built into our society and institutions — including our own. We are committed to being a part of the solution.

Moving forward, we commit to four things:

Providing more dollars with fewer barriers to support Black-led organizations fighting for social justice and anti-racist policies;
Directing financial support to local newsrooms and Black reporters so that they can keep telling important stories, including those that shed light on injustice and racism;
Using our influence with other philanthropic organizations to improve funding strategies — including our own — that eliminate barriers for Black-led and -supporting organizations to receive resources; and
Working with foundations and donors across the country to find every resource possible to remove barriers and ensure that everyone is able to vote safely in November.

Black Lives Matter,
Joe Goldman