Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Report suggests plan for limiting election disinformation

Cartoon of people trying to shut out noise
Rudzhan Nagiev/Getty Images

Eight months after Inauguration Day, one-third of Americans told pollsters they still believed Donald Trump actually won the election and that Joe Biden stole it away from the incumbent. A new report offers a mix of government and corporate reforms to limit the spread and influence of such election disinformation.

The Common Cause Education Fund, an affiliate of the democracy reform advocacy group Common Cause, issued a report in late October reviewing the state of disinformation campaigns and a series of recommendations designed to stem the tide.

"Just as we came together last year, rising up to vote safely and securely in record numbers during a global pandemic, we must now rise up to stop election disinformation efforts in future elections," the researchers wrote.


The report groups its 14 recommendations in three categories: statutory reforms, executive and regulatory agency reforms, and corporate policy reforms for social media businesses.

"There is no single policy solution to the problem of election disinformation," according to the report. "We need strong voting rights laws, strong campaign finance laws, strong communications and privacy laws, strong media literacy laws, and strong corporate civic integrity policies."

While many of the solutions require some mix of legislative activity, increased civic education and media literacy, and grassroots advocacy, others are easier to achieve — particularly self-imposed corporate reforms, said Jesse Littlewood, vice president of campaigns for Common Cause. For example, he suggested it would not be complicated for social media platforms to consistently enforce their own standards.

"They're not taking any action on disinformation in the 2020 campaign," said Littlewood, referring to ongoing claims that the election was stolen, claims that would have been addressed last year. "When you let your enforcement lax, it allows false narratives to grow."

Littlewood also identified the need to spend more time on civic integrity.

"We learned a lot through the Facebook Papers about the disbanding of the civic team right after the 2020 election, and the historic underinvestment in content moderation particularly in civic integrity issues," he said.

The statutory recommendations focus on five areas:

  • Voter intimidation and false election speech, including state and federal legislation prohibiting the spread of election disinformation.
  • Campaign finance reforms, such as passing federal and state disclosure laws to expose "dark money" and strengthening the Federal Elections Commission.
  • Passing media literacy legislation at the state level.
  • Enacting state privacy laws that include civil rights protections.
  • Approving federal legislation to curb some online business practices, such as banning discriminatory algorithms, limiting and protecting the data collected online, and supporting local and watchdog journalism.

Some aspects of these proposals already exist in federal legislation that has stalled in Congress.

The regulatory recommendations fall into four buckets:

  • Demonstrating state and federal leadership through executive action to stop the spread of election disinformation.
  • Stepping up enforcement of state and federal laws that ban voter intimidation and other election interference efforts.
  • Empowering the Federal Trade Commission to step up its privacy protection work.
  • Use the FEC and state agencies to update and enforce disclosure requirements and rules against disinformation.

Finally, Common Cause suggests five areas of improvement for social media corporations:

  • Directing users to official state and local sources of information about voting and elections.
  • Maintaining and improving their self-imposed disinformation rules, throughout election and non-election years.
  • Developing technology, such as artificial intelligence and algorithms that limit the spread of disinformation.
  • Granting journalists and researchers more access to social media data.
  • Increasing investment in efforts to stop non-English disinformation.

Littlewood said access to the data is one of the most important recommendations, as it influences the potential to achieve others.

"It's going to be hard to make progress from a regulatory process if there isn't transparency," said Littlewood. "We're trending in the other direction now, which is really problematic.

"Without access to the data, it's very hard to understand what's happening. It's very difficult to come up with recommendations that balance the private interests of the platform and the public interest. That's got to be our starting point."

Read the full report.

Read More

Fear of AI Makes for Bad Policy
Getty Images

Fear of AI Makes for Bad Policy

Fear is the worst possible response to AI. Actions taken out of fear are rarely a good thing, especially when it comes to emerging technology. Empirically-driven scrutiny, on the other hand, is a savvy and necessary reaction to technologies like AI that introduce great benefits and harms. The difference is allowing emotions to drive policy rather than ongoing and rigorous evaluation.

A few reminders of tech policy gone wrong, due, at least in part, to fear, helps make this point clear. Fear is what has led the US to become a laggard in nuclear energy, while many of our allies and adversaries enjoy cheaper, more reliable energy. Fear is what explains opposition to autonomous vehicles in some communities, while human drivers are responsible for 120 deaths per day, as of 2022. Fear is what sustains delays in making drones more broadly available, even though many other countries are tackling issues like rural access to key medicine via drones.

Keep ReadingShow less
A child looking at a smartphone.

With autism rates doubling every decade, scientists are reexamining environmental and behavioral factors. Could the explosion of social media use since the 1990s be influencing neurodevelopment? A closer look at the data, the risks, and what research must uncover next.

Getty Images, Arindam Ghosh

The Increase in Autism and Social Media – Coincidence or Causal?

Autism has been in the headlines recently because of controversy over Robert F. Kennedy, Jr's statements. But forgetting about Kennedy, autism is headline-worthy because of the huge increase in its incidence over the past two decades and its potential impact on not just the individual children but the health and strength of our country.

In the 1990s, a new definition of autism—ASD (Autism Spectrum Disorder)—was universally adopted. Initially, the prevalence rate was pretty stable. In the year 2,000, with this broader definition and better diagnosis, the CDC estimated that one in 150 eight-year-olds in the U.S. had an autism spectrum disorder. (The reports always study eight-year-olds, so this data was for children born in 1992.)

Keep ReadingShow less
Tech, Tribalism, and the Erosion of Human Connection
Ai technology, Artificial Intelligence. man using technology smart robot AI, artificial intelligence by enter command prompt for generates something, Futuristic technology transformation.
Getty Images - stock photo

Tech, Tribalism, and the Erosion of Human Connection

One of the great gifts of the Enlightenment age was the centrality of reason and empiricism as instruments to unleash the astonishing potential of human capacity. Great Enlightenment thinkers recognized that human beings have the capacity to observe the universe and rely on logical thinking to solve problems.

Moreover, these were not just lofty ideals; Benjamin Franklin and Denis Diderot demonstrated that building our collective constitution of knowledge could greatly enhance human prosperity not only for the aristocratic class but for all participants in the social contract. Franklin’s “Poor Richard’s Almanac” and Diderot and d’Alembert’s “Encyclopédie” served as the Enlightenment’s machines de guerre, effectively providing broad access to practical knowledge, empowering individuals to build their own unique brand of prosperity.

Keep ReadingShow less
The limits of free speech protections in American broadcasting

FCC Chairman Brendan Carr testifies in Washington on May 21, 2025.

The limits of free speech protections in American broadcasting

The chairman of the Federal Communications Commission is displeased with a broadcast network. He makes his displeasure clear in public speeches, interviews and congressional testimony.

The network, afraid of the regulatory agency’s power to license their owned-and-operated stations, responds quickly. They change the content of their broadcasts. Network executives understand the FCC’s criticism is supported by the White House, and the chairman implicitly represents the president.

Keep ReadingShow less