2021年3月8日 星期一

On Tech: What went right in the 2020 election

It wasn't all a mess. Here's how the government and tech companies tamed foreign interference.

What went right in the 2020 election

Rad Mora

A lot went wrong after the 2020 election in the United States. But here's one thing that went right during it: A risk everyone worried about — foreign election interference — mostly failed.

That showed what is possible when government officials and technology companies are laser focused on a problem, effectively coordinate and learn from their past mistakes.

But the false narrative that the election was stolen, culminating in a mob attack on the U.S. Capitol, also pointed to the limits of those efforts. The Russians or the Chinese didn't delegitimize our election. We did it to ourselves.

Today, I want to explore the glass half-full view. The largely averted threat of foreign election meddling was a success that shouldn't be overlooked.

What went wrong the last time

Let me first remind you what happened around the 2016 election. Russian hackers pilfered documents from the Democratic National Committee and tried to muck around with state election infrastructure. Digital propagandists backed by the Russian government also fanned information on Facebook, Instagram, YouTube and elsewhere that sought to erode people's faith in voting or inflame social divisions.

Powerful American institutions — notably local, state and federal government officials as well as large internet companies — were slow to tackle the problem or had initially dismissed it. The effect of the hacking and trolling wasn't clear, but the worry was that foreign governments would regularly seek to disrupt U.S. elections and that it would contribute to Americans' lack of trust in our systems and with one another.

What happened in 2020

Some foreign governments, including Russia and Iran, tried to disrupt our elections again, but it mostly didn't work. The same U.S. institutions and digital defenses that failed four years earlier largely held strong this time.

ADVERTISEMENT

"The progress that was made between 2016 and 2020 was remarkable," said Camille François, chief innovation officer at Graphika, a firm that analyzes manipulation of social networks.

What changed in government and tech

One major shift after 2016 was that federal government officials and the state and local officials who run elections overcame initial mistrust to collaborate more effectively on voting threats. Matt Masterson, who until recently was a senior adviser on election security for the Department of Homeland Security, said coordination was the biggest change that helped shore up digital defenses in election management systems.

"This is as good as the federal government has worked on any issue in my experience," Masterson said.

ADVERTISEMENT

He also credited efforts in states, notably Georgia, that created paper trails of ballots that could be audited quickly and provide more visibility into the vote counting to help increase people's trust in the election process.

The tech companies, François said, shifted to acknowledge their blind spots. For the first time, online powers including Facebook wrote policies specifically tackling foreign government meddling and put people in charge of stopping it. They also made it harder for foreign trolls to use some of their 2016 tactics, such as buying online advertisements to circulate divisive messages widely.

Social media companies also started to publicly announce when they found campaigns by foreign governments that were used to mislead people online. François said that helped researchers and journalists better assess the techniques of foreign propagandists — and the shared knowledge helped internet companies stop trolling campaigns before they had a big impact.

Cooperation improved between government and tech companies, too. There were regular meetings between major internet companies and the federal officials responsible for election protection to share information. And internet companies began to tell the public when the U.S. government tipped them off about foreign interference on their websites.

ADVERTISEMENT

Both François and Masterson said that an "aha" moment was the response to Iran's effort to intimidate voters during the fall. National security officials said then that Iran had obtained some Americans' voter-registration data, most of which was publicly available, to send deceptive messages that threatened voters.

Because they were ready for threats like this, officials were able to make connections between voter intimidation in multiple states, identify the source of the menacing messages, inform election officials across the country and tell voters what was happening — all in about a day.

"That couldn't have happened in 2016, and it likely couldn't have happened in 2018," Masterson said. "That was what we had all trained for."

What's next

While internet companies and the U.S. government caught up to the kinds of interference they faced in 2016, they failed at confronting the even trickier challenge of a campaign led by the president himself to cast doubt on the election process despite no substantial evidence. And foreign cyber attacks and online propaganda efforts certainly haven't stopped.

But it could have been much worse. A lot went right in the election because powerful institutions took the risk of foreign hacking and trolling seriously and rose to the challenge. That's a hopeful lesson for future elections, the pandemic and other crises.

If you don't already get this newsletter in your inbox, please sign up here.

If you've found this newsletter helpful, please consider subscribing to The New York Times — with this special offer. Your support makes our work possible.

Before we go …

  • It's a weird time to become rich: My colleague Erin Griffith writes that a booming market in tech stocks and I.P.O.s has created a conundrum for newly wealthy technologists. Buying a Ferrari in the middle of a pandemic might be tacky and pointless, so instead they're paying for Snoop Dogg to lead cooking classes on Zoom or piling into luxury vans for road trips.
  • How online shopping affected these smaller businesses: Amy Haimerl spoke to owners of a grocery store in Michigan, a fitness studio and other smaller businesses about shifting their operations to online shops during the pandemic. For some of them, e-commerce helped them stay afloat, but for others it was more hassle than help.
  • Kids spending more time online is … complicated: Screen time "as a concept to track meticulously, to fret and panic about, to measure parents' worth in — is no longer considered a valid framework in a pandemic world," a Washington Post writer said.

Hugs to this

A train of duckies snake through an opening in half-frozen water.

We want to hear from you. Tell us what you think of this newsletter and what else you'd like us to explore. You can reach us at ontech@nytimes.com.

If you don't already get this newsletter in your inbox, please sign up here.

Need help? Review our newsletter help page or contact us for assistance.

You received this email because you signed up for On Tech with Shira Ovide from The New York Times.

To stop receiving these emails, unsubscribe or manage your email preferences.

Subscribe to The Times

Connect with us on:

facebooktwitterinstagram

Change Your EmailPrivacy PolicyContact UsCalifornia Notices

The New York Times Company. 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018

歡迎蒞臨:https://ofa588.com/

娛樂推薦:https://www.ofa86.com/

2021年3月6日 星期六

Hilaria Baldwin and the Strange Allure of Celebrity Fertility

Why we can't stop talking about her … whole thing.
A roundup of new guidance and stories from NYT Parenting.
Sonia Pulido

On Monday, an image broke brains across the Internet, appearing to violate the rules of space and time. Hilaria Baldwin, a fitness expert, podcast host and the wife of Alec Baldwin, posted a photo of herself with her six children, including a newborn, for her more than 900,000 Instagram followers. This sounds mundane, except that Ms. Baldwin gave birth to a different newborn in September, and as far as we know, it is not possible to gestate a full-term infant in six months. Furthermore, she told People Magazine in November that her family didn't have plans for another baby.

ADVERTISEMENT

At first, the couple declined to discuss the provenance of this additional child. (When Katie Rosman, a Times reporter, asked about it, Ms. Baldwin's publicist said, "Not sharing!") Then, reports began to surface that the couple used a surrogate for the new baby girl, which the Baldwins did not deny. On Thursday, Ms. Baldwin posted a photo of the two babies with a long caption that included the sentence, "We are living each day, bonding, and grateful for all of the very special angels who helped bring Lucía into the world," which appeared to confirm the surrogacy, but left room for more confusion.

Oh, and this comes just months after Ms. Baldwin was accused of perpetuating "a decade long grift where she impersonates a Spanish person."

If you've made it through those first few paragraphs, you may be asking yourself, "Why does anyone care about the fecundity of this famous couple?" I have asked myself that very question several times this week as I scanned Ms. Baldwin's Instagram posts, mesmerized by a video of her doing leg lifts while simultaneously entertaining one of her babies. The answer lies in America's cultural obsession with celebrity pregnancy, and the way that social media helps perpetuate unrealistic ideals of motherhood — that you can build your business, raise a passel of kids without breaking a sweat and have a "bikini body" immediately postpartum, too.

This "supermom" ideal began to emerge in celebrity media profiles during the 1980s, as part of a post-second wave feminist push to promote mothers in the work force, said Elizabeth Podnieks, a professor of English at Ryerson University in Canada, whose research focuses on motherhood in popular culture. "There was this sense that the celebrity mother was the perfect role model for contemporary women," she said. "They had these glamorous careers but were also these glamorous mothers." That there was an enormous amount of money and child care support undergirding this glamour went unspoken.

ADVERTISEMENT

The ideal went into overdrive in the early '00s, said Anne Helen Petersen, a celebrity gossip expert and the author of "Too Fat, Too Slutty, Too Loud: The Rise and Reign of the Unruly Woman." That's when tabloid magazines were competing for paparazzi photos of celebrities just living their lives, Ms. Petersen said, and the so-called "basketball" pregnancy was held up as the goal — that's when a woman's body looks otherwise unchanged by carrying a baby, save for a cute, easily adorned bump, like they swallowed a basketball.

In the early '10s, when social media became ubiquitous, stars "internalized that tabloid surveillance and took control of it themselves," Ms. Petersen said. In some ways, it was a smart move — after all, celebrity pregnancy is a big business now, and many of Ms. Baldwin's Instagram posts are sponsored content for various pregnancy and kid-related products.

But there is a dark side. "They can't escape from that lens once they turn it on themselves," Ms. Petersen said. This is something Ms. Baldwin has lamented. In an interview with The Times in December she said, "I am entitled to my privacy. People say, 'No, you're not entitled to your privacy because you married a famous person and you have Instagram.' Well, that's not really true."

Both Ms. Petersen and Dr. Podnieks find Ms. Baldwin's stated desire for privacy tough to square with her savvy use of social media. "When they post these images, they're promoting a number of things. It's not done innocently or naïvely," Dr. Podnieks said. In Ms. Baldwin's case, when she posts a photo of herself just months postpartum in lingerie, "she's promoting her capabilities as a fitness instructor," said Dr. Podnieks; she's implying that if you use her methods, you too can look like her.

ADVERTISEMENT

By welcoming a sixth baby during a pandemic year where there may be 300,000 fewer births in the United States because of financial and health fears of the average American, Ms. Baldwin is taking the "supermom" image to the extreme. Intellectually, we know that most aspects of her life are not accessible for almost anyone, despite the banal images she posts — the domestic tableaus of happy, dancing children and fitness moves. So why can't we look away?

"You could describe the audience's relationships with these accounts as a staring contest," said Kathryn Jezer-Morton, a doctoral candidate in sociology at Concordia University, who researches the internet and motherhood. "I'm going to stare at it 'til it blinks" — which is to say, I'm going to look at these images until I see a crack in the perfectly imperfect façade, a dose of reality in this world of bliss.

In the end, when consumers of celebrity culture think and talk about Ms. Baldwin, it's not even really about her — it's about us. "We use celebrity images to gauge our own responses to motherhood, our own behavioral practices," Dr. Podnieks said. "How we respond to her showcases our own ideologies." If we aspire to the mediated glamour of Ms. Baldwin's life, we follow her Instagram with admiration, possibly imagining ourselves with a smiling brood on a windswept beach in the Hamptons. If we think that she adds to the pressures on mothers to be physically and emotionally perfect, we will critique her.

At this point I should probably look away from this maternal Rorschach test, but I can't help myself from staring, judging, vacillating between those two poles of envy and aversion.

Thanks for reading! And please check out what else is new this week in the section below.

— Jessica Grose, columnist, NYT Parenting

THIS WEEK IN NYT PARENTING

Article Image

Sophie Chivet/Agence VU'

letters

Pandemic Moms: Long Days, Short Fuses

Readers discuss how mothers are struggling with the extra burdens, which have "intensified the anger and guilt that parenting can sometimes bring out in all of us."

Article Image

Marta Monteiro

Adolescence

How to Help a Teen Out of a Homework Hole

The more students fall behind in the pandemic, the less likely they are to feel that they can catch up.

By Lisa Damour

Article Image

James Estrin/The New York Times

In Their Own Words: Why Health Experts Say Elementary Schools Should Open

With proper safety measures, doctors and scientists said in a survey, the benefits outweigh the risks.

By Margot Sanger-Katz and Claire Cain Miller

Article Image

Elaine Cromie for The New York Times

Major Evangelical Adoption Agency Will Now Serve Gay Parents Nationwide

The decision comes as more cities and states require organizations to accept applications from L.G.B.T.Q. couples or risk losing government contracts.

By Ruth Graham

Article Image

Frida Mom

On TV, a Rare Realistic Look at Breastfeeding

A commercial from the parent products company Frida, to be broadcast during the Golden Globes, is part of a wider effort to show the struggles of the "fourth trimester."

By Tiffany Hsu

If you've found this newsletter helpful, please consider subscribing to The New York Times — with this special offer. Your support makes our work possible.

Tiny Victories

Parenting can be a grind. Let's celebrate the tiny victories.

On a school night, I gave my 7-year-old the OK to watch a movie while he ate dinner before bedtime at 8. Exhausted from a year of working from home while parenting, I sat down on the couch and fell asleep. When I came to at 9 p.m., I discovered my son had turned off the TV, ushered our puppy into her kennel and taken himself to bed. He even turned on his space heater and humidifier.

— Molly Messana, Ambler, Pa.

If you want a chance to get your Tiny Victory published, find us on Instagram @NYTparenting and use the hashtag #tinyvictories; email us; or enter your Tiny Victory at the bottom of this page. Include your full name and location. Tiny Victories may be edited for clarity and style. Your name, location and comments may be published, but your contact information will not. By submitting to us, you agree that you have read, understand and accept the Reader Submission Terms in relation to all of the content and other information you send to us.

Need help? Review our newsletter help page or contact us for assistance.

You received this email because you signed up for NYT Parenting from The New York Times.

To stop receiving these emails, unsubscribe or manage your email preferences.

Subscribe to The Times

Connect with us on:

facebooktwitterinstagram

Change Your EmailPrivacy PolicyContact UsCalifornia Notices

The New York Times Company. 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018

歡迎蒞臨:https://ofa588.com/

娛樂推薦:https://www.ofa86.com/