Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

More than 100 groups demand social media platforms do more to fight election disinformation

online disinformation
tommy/Getty Images

Two days after Elon Musk said he would lift Twitter’s permanent ban on Donald Trump if his acquisition goes through, more than 100 organizations called on social media companies to combat disinformation during the 2022 midterm elections.

In a letter sent to the CEOs of the biggest social media companies on Thursday, the leaders of civil rights and democracy reform groups requested the platforms take a series of steps, including “introducing friction to reduce the spread and amplification of disinformation, consistent enforcement of robust civic integrity policies; and greater transparency into business models that allow disinformation to spread.”

The letter – whose signatories include Common Cause, Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, Campaign Legal Center, the League of Women Voters and the NAACP – praised the companies for instituting plans to combat disinformation while demanding the platforms do more and do it consistently.


Meanwhile, Democratic Sen. Michael Bennet intends to offer a bill Thursday to establish a federal commission to regulate tech companies. According to The Washington Post, the bill would give the government authority to review platforms’ algorithms and to create rules governing content moderation.

“We need an agency with expertise to have a thoughtful approach here,” Bennet told the Post.

But for now, the companies receiving the letter (Facebook, Google, TikTok, Snap, YouTube, Twitter and Instagram) make their own rules. And in the wake of the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol insurrection fueled by unfounded claims that Joe Biden stole the presidential election from Donald Trump, the groups behind the letter fear further damage to democratic institutions.

“Disinformation related to the 2020 election has not gone away but has only continued to proliferate. In fact, according to recent polls, more than 40 percent of Americans still do not believe President Biden legitimately won the 2020 presidential election. Further, fewer Americans have confidence in elections today than they did in the immediate aftermath of the January 6th insurrection,” they wrote.

The letter lays out eight steps the companies can take to stop the spread of disinformation:

  • Limit the opportunities for users to interact with election disinformation, going beyond the warning labels that have been introduced.
  • Devote more resources to blocking disinformation that targets people who do not speak English.
  • Consistently enforce “civic integrity policies” during election and non-election years.
  • Apply those policies to live content.
  • Prioritize efforts to stop the spread of unfounded voter fraud claims, known as the “Big Lie.”
  • Increase fact-checking of election content, including political advertisements and statements from public officials.
  • Allow outside researchers and watchdogs access to social media data.
  • Increase transparency of internal policies, political ads and algorithms.

“The last presidential election, and the lies that continued to flourish in its wake on social media, demonstrated the dire threat that election disinformation poses to our democracy,” said Yosef Getachew, director of the media and democracy program for Common Cause. “Social media companies must learn from what was unleashed on their platforms in 2020 and helped foster the lies that led a violent, racist mob to storm the Capitol on January 6th. The companies must take concrete steps to prepare their platforms for the coming onslaught of disinformation in the midterm elections. These social media giants must implement meaningful reforms to prevent and reduce the spread of election disinformation while safeguarding our democracy and protecting public safety.”

Read More

Fox News’ Selective Silence: How Trump’s Worst Moments Vanish From Coverage
Why Fox News’ settlement with Dominion Voting Systems is good news for all media outlets
Getty Images

Fox News’ Selective Silence: How Trump’s Worst Moments Vanish From Coverage

Last week, the ultraconservative news outlet, NewsMax, reached a $73 million settlement with the voting machine company, Dominion, in essence, admitting that they lied in their reporting about the use of their voting machines to “rig” or distort the 2020 presidential election. Not exactly shocking news, since five years later, there is no credible evidence to suggest any malfeasance regarding the 2020 election. To viewers of conservative media, such as Fox News, this might have shaken a fully embraced conspiracy theory. Except it didn’t, because those viewers haven’t seen it.

Many people have a hard time understanding why Trump enjoys so much support, given his outrageous statements and damaging public policy pursuits. Part of the answer is due to Fox News’ apparent censoring of stories that might be deemed negative to Trump. During the past five years, I’ve tracked dozens of examples of news stories that cast Donald Trump in a negative light, including statements by Trump himself, which would make a rational person cringe. Yet, Fox News has methodically censored these stories, only conveying rosy news that draws its top ratings.

Keep ReadingShow less
U.S. Flag / artificial intelligence / technology / congress / ai

The age of AI warrants asking if the means still further the ends—specifically, individual liberty and collective prosperity.

Getty Images, Douglas Rissing

Liberty and the General Welfare in the Age of AI

If the means justify the ends, we’d still be operating under the Articles of Confederation. The Founders understood that the means—the governmental structure itself—must always serve the ends of liberty and prosperity. When the means no longer served those ends, they experimented with yet another design for their government—they did expect it to be the last.

The age of AI warrants asking if the means still further the ends—specifically, individual liberty and collective prosperity. Both of those goals were top of mind for early Americans. They demanded the Bill of Rights to protect the former, and they identified the latter—namely, the general welfare—as the animating purpose for the government. Both of those goals are being challenged by constitutional doctrines that do not align with AI development or even undermine it. A full review of those doctrines could fill a book (and perhaps one day it will). For now, however, I’m just going to raise two.

Keep ReadingShow less
An illustration of AI chat boxes.

An illustration of AI chat boxes.

Getty Images, Andriy Onufriyenko

In Defense of ‘AI Mark’

Earlier this week, a member of the UK Parliament—Mark Sewards—released an AI tool (named “AI Mark”) to assist with constituent inquiries. The public response was rapid and rage-filled. Some people demanded that the member of Parliament (MP) forfeit part of his salary—he's doing less work, right? Others called for his resignation—they didn't vote for AI; they voted for him! Many more simply questioned his thinking—why on earth did he think outsourcing such sensitive tasks to AI would be greeted with applause?

He's not the only elected official under fire for AI use. The Prime Minister of Sweden, Ulf Kristersson, recently admitted to using AI to study various proposals before casting votes. Swedes, like the Brits, have bombarded Kristersson with howls of outrage.

Keep ReadingShow less
shallow focus photography of computer codes
Shahadat Rahman on Unsplash

When Rules Can Be Code, They Should Be!

Ninety years ago this month, the Federal Register Act was signed into law in a bid to shine a light on the rules driving President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal—using the best tools of the time to make government more transparent and accountable. But what began as a bold step toward clarity has since collapsed under its own weight: over 100,000 pages, a million rules, and a public lost in a regulatory haystack. Today, the Trump administration’s sweeping push to cut red tape—including using AI to hunt obsolete rules—raises a deeper challenge: how do we prevent bureaucracy from rebuilding itself?

What’s needed is a new approach: rewriting the rule book itself as machine-executable code that can be analyzed, implemented, or streamlined at scale. Businesses could simply download and execute the latest regulations on their systems, with no need for costly legal analysis and compliance work. Individuals could use apps or online tools to quickly figure out how rules affect them.

Keep ReadingShow less