By Hannah E. Meyers, Ilya Shapiro, Tim Rosenberger

Just as Ku Klux Klan members used white hoods to conceal their identities and terrorize their targets, modern activists are using keffiyehs, Guy Fawkes masks, balaclavas, and other inherently intimidating face coverings. Indeed, face-masking is pervasive among participants in demonstrations that are growing in frequency and disruptiveness. Most recently, the pro-Hamas “protests” that have proliferated across college campuses and city streets involve activists who cover their faces explicitly to make it impossible to determine who is engaged in violence, intimidation, and property destruction. Just as masks emboldened KKK activity a century ago, they are a central feature in the 360% surge in antisemitic incidents since Hamas’s attack on Israel last year.1 New York City experienced about 2,000 protests in the half-year following October 7—including incidents involving more than 10,000 participants illegally blocking bridges and major infrastructure.2 Cities across the country seem to be struggling to maintain order and check the growing number of attacks associated with these events on Jewish owned businesses and other institutions.  There is an obvious and simple answer to protesters’ growing aggressiveness, an answer that proved effective against their forebears in the KKK: denying intimidating and violent protesters the right to conceal their identities via face coverings. Hamas supporters, Antifa, Patriot Front, and others act boldly so long as they can remain anonymous. Stripped of this anonymity and the intimidating power of the keffiyeh and black bandanna, they will be far less likely to engage in criminal behavior.

New York: The Manhattan Institute, 2024. 5p.

By Hannah E. Meyers, Ilya Shapiro, Tim Rosenberger

 Just as Ku Klux Klan members used white hoods to conceal their identities and terrorize their targets, modern activists are using keffiyehs, Guy Fawkes masks, balaclavas, and other inherently intimidating face coverings. Indeed, face-masking is pervasive among participants in demonstrations that are growing in frequency and disruptiveness. Most recently, the pro-Hamas “protests” that have proliferated across college campuses and city streets involve activists who cover their faces explicitly to make it impossible to determine who is engaged in violence, intimidation, and property destruction. Just as masks emboldened KKK activity a century ago, they are a central feature in the 360% surge in antisemitic incidents since Hamas’s attack on Israel last year. New York City experienced about 2,000 protests in the half-year following October 7—including incidents involving more than 10,000 participants illegally blocking bridges and major infrastructure. Cities across the country seem to be struggling to maintain order and check the growing number of attacks associated with these events on Jewish-owned businesses and other institutions  There is an obvious and simple answer to protesters’ growing aggressiveness, an answer that proved effective against their forebears in the KKK: denying intimidating and violent protesters the right to conceal their identities via face coverings. Hamas supporters, Antifa, Patriot Front, and others act boldly so long as they can remain anonymous. Stripped of this anonymity and the intimidating power of the keffiyeh and black bandanna, they will be far less likely to engage in criminal behavior

New York: The Manhattan Institute, 2024. 5p.

By Kasey Stricklin and Megan K McBride

Social media bots—simply, automated programs on social media platforms—affect US national security, public discourse, and democracy. As the country continues to grapple with both foreign and domestic disinformation, the laws and platform policies governing the use of social media bots are incredibly important. As part of CNA’s study, Social Media Bots: Implications for Special Operations Forces, our literature review found that the landscape of such regulations is difficult to piece together, and applicable provisions and policies are disparately catalogued. This CNA primer helps to fill this gap by helping policy-makers and national security practitioners understand the laws and social media platform policies as they currently exist. We also consider the challenges and dilemmas faced by legislators, and social media platforms, as they attempt to craft relevant provisions to address social media bots and malign influence, and we conclude with a brief look at the consequences for breaking platform policies.

The Legal Framework: US policy-makers are constrained in their passage of bot-related laws by a number of factors. First, legislators must consider free speech rights granted by the First Amendment of the Constitution. Additionally, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA 230) hinders the ability of policy-makers to hold social media platforms legally responsible for any material posted on their site. Further, the slow speed of congressional action compared to technological advancement, and the barriers to obtaining reliable information on the social media bot threat, have proved difficult to overcome. There are no US federal laws governing social media automation, although members of Congress have introduced several relevant pieces of legislation over the last few years. While there is some congressional interest in crafting botrelated legislation, the political will to pass such provisions has yet to materialize.

In the international arena, the European Union has been a leader in efforts to counter disinformation; it introduced a nonbinding Code of Practice in October 2018, to which many of the most prominent social media companies signed on. As a result, the platforms committed themselves to self-regulation aimed at stamping out disinformation on their sites, which includes closing fake accounts and labeling bot communications. In May 2020, the European Commission reported that, though there were positive developments toward countering disinformation, there is still much room for improvement in labeling and removing bots. It is important to keep in mind, though, that the EU has a permanent bureaucracy to study problems and propose legally and non-legally binding legislation. In the US, legislation works differently, as a legislative champion with significant clout needs to emerge in order to push forward a proposal.

Platform Policies: The social media companies face their own dilemmas when thinking about the creation of effective bot regulations. Unlike policy-makers, platforms are beholden to shareholders; and higher platform engagement generally leads to higher share values. Because bots make up a large portion of monthly active users on some platforms, the companies may be reluctant to kick off these automated accounts. However, public pressure since the 2016 US election has created a greater financial incentive to ensure engagement is authentic. The companies also worry about regulating too extensively out of fear they will then be admitting they have an affirmative duty to moderate and thus lead to the revocation of their limited immunities under CDA 230. This tension is evident in the run-up to the US presidential elections, as the social media companies seek to ensure the truthfulness of candidates on their sites, they also risk one side of the political spectrum regarding them as politically biased and seeking to regulate them in response.

Instead of specifically focusing on bot activity, the platforms tend to address bot behavior through other policies on banned behavior. We broke out the policies relevant to bots into four categories: automation, fake accounts and misrepresentation, spam, and artificial amplification. Figure 1 depicts the way these policies often overlap in detailing prohibited bot behaviors. 

The consequences for breaking platform policies vary, with the sites often looking at the specific violation, the severity of the infraction, and the user’s history on the platform. While they may simply hand out a warning or restrict the post’s viewership, the sites also reserve the right to ban users or accounts, and can even go so far as to sue for violation of their terms.

The ever-evolving threats from disinformation and malicious bots will likely continue to cause consternation in the US government. However, experts are skeptical that Congress will find a legislative solution in the near future, despite enhanced attention to the problem. Therefore, the social media platforms are likely to shoulder much of the burden going forward, and it is an open question how and to what extent the platforms should police themselves. As they grapple with the prevalence of automated accounts operating on their sites, the platforms’ policies and enforcement provisions will continue to evolve to meet the threats of the day. However, it may ultimately be the attention of the press and American public, or the initiative of a regulatory agency like the Federal Trade Commission, that provides the needed impetus for change on these issues.

Arlington, VA: CNA, 2000. 40p.