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

Entertainment Can Improve How Democrats and Republicans See Each Other

Since the development of American mass media culture in the mid-20th century, numerous examples of entertainment media have tried to improve attitudes towards those who have traditionally held little power.

Getty Images, skynesher

Entertainment Can Improve How Democrats and Republicans See Each Other

Entertainment has been used for decades to improve attitudes toward other groups, both in the U.S. and abroad. One can think of movies like Guess Who's Coming to Dinner, helping change attitudes toward Black Americans, or TV shows like Rosanne, helping humanize the White working class. Efforts internationally show that media can sometimes improve attitudes toward two groups concurrently.

Substantial research shows that Americans now hold overly negative views of those across the political spectrum. Let's now learn from decades of experience using entertainment to improve attitudes of those in other groups—but also from counter-examples that have reinforced stereotypes and whose techniques should generally be avoided—in order to improve attitudes toward fellow Americans across politics. This entertainment can allow Americans across the political spectrum to have more accurate views of each other while realizing that successful cross-ideological friendships and collaborations are possible.

Keep ReadingShow less
Congress Must Not Undermine State Efforts To Regulate AI Harms to Children
Congress Must Not Undermine State Efforts To Regulate AI Harms to Children
Getty Images, Dmytro Betsenko

Congress Must Not Undermine State Efforts To Regulate AI Harms to Children

A cornerstone of conservative philosophy is that policy decisions should generally be left to the states. Apparently, this does not apply when the topic is artificial intelligence (AI).

In the name of promoting innovation, and at the urging of the tech industry, Congress quietly included in a 1,000-page bill a single sentence that has the power to undermine efforts to protect against the dangers of unfettered AI development. The sentence imposes a ten-year ban on state regulation of AI, including prohibiting the enforcement of laws already on the books. This brazen approach crossed the line even for conservative U.S. Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, who remarked, “We have no idea what AI will be capable of in the next 10 years, and giving it free rein and tying states' hands is potentially dangerous.” She’s right. And it is especially dangerous for children.

Keep ReadingShow less
Microphones, podcast set up, podcast studio.

Many people inside and outside of the podcasting world are working to use the medium as a way to promote democracy and civic engagement.

Getty Images, Sergey Mironov

Ben Rhodes on How Podcasts Can Strengthen Democracy

After the 2024 election was deemed the “podcast election,” many people inside and outside of the podcasting world were left wondering how to capitalize on the medium as a way to promote democracy and civic engagement to audiences who are either burned out by or distrustful of traditional or mainstream news sources.

The Democracy Group podcast network has been working through this question since its founding in 2020—long before presidential candidates appeared on some of the most popular podcasts to appeal to specific demographics. Our members recently met in Washington, D.C., for our first convening to learn from each other and from high-profile podcasters like Jessica Tarlov, host of Raging Moderates, and Ben Rhodes, host of Pod Save the World.

Keep ReadingShow less
True Confessions of an AI Flip Flopper
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

True Confessions of an AI Flip Flopper

A few years ago, I would have agreed with the argument that the most important AI regulatory issue is mitigating the low probability of catastrophic risks. Today, I’d think nearly the opposite. My primary concern is that we will fail to realize the already feasible and significant benefits of AI. What changed and why do I think my own evolution matters?

Discussion of my personal path from a more “safety” oriented perspective to one that some would label as an “accelerationist” view isn’t important because I, Kevin Frazier, have altered my views. The point of walking through my pivot is instead valuable because it may help those unsure of how to think about these critical issues navigate a complex and, increasingly, heated debate. By sharing my own change in thought, I hope others will feel welcomed to do two things: first, reject unproductive, static labels that are misaligned with a dynamic technology; and, second, adjust their own views in light of the wide variety of shifting variables at play when it comes to AI regulation. More generally, I believe that calling myself out for a so-called “flip-flop” may give others more leeway to do so without feeling like they’ve committed some wrong.

Keep ReadingShow less