(Friday PO) Meta's Threads needs a policy for election disinformation, voting groups say

[GuideToACrazyWorld]

The new social media site Threads is less than a month old and it has already amassed tens of millions of users. Facebook parent Meta launched the Twitter-rival earlier this month and it's quickly become a place where people can follow celebrities, news organizations and politicians.

This has some voting rights groups worried. That's because Threads is yet to outline a plan to curb election disinformation on the site.

"If you have that many people, you have a great responsibility to the people that are on the platform," said Andrea Hailey, CEO of Vote.org. "What we're asking for here is a real plan, knowing that we're only a few months out from presidential primaries, and that very soon the presidential election will be on our doorstep."

The voting rights groups say they have cause for concern. During the past few elections, disinformation involving voter registration, polling places and political candidates was rampant on social media. In 2018, the Cambridge Analytica scandal exposed how that company used Facebook to target and manipulate swing voters. And in 2020, mentions of "stolen election" and "voter fraud" skyrocketed after President Joe Biden won the presidency.
Sponsor Message

"Misinformation, like social media itself, has gotten considerably more sophisticated," said Bond Benton, communications associate professor who studies misinformation at Montclair State University. "There are ways that you can manipulate and game the system to get misinformation seen by a lot of people very rapidly. And if you're not investing to prevent and curtail that, it's going to find its way through."
Is Threads really a 'Twitter killer'? Here's what we know so far
Technology
Is Threads really a 'Twitter killer'? Here's what we know so far

Meta has election disinformation policies for Facebook and Instagram, but it hasn't published any specifically for Threads. A company spokesman told NPR that Facebook's rules apply to Threads. So, for example, people can't post false claims about voter registration. He also said Meta is looking at additional ways to address misinformation in future updates to the Threads app.

The voting rights groups say Threads needs a stand-alone policy. Otherwise, it's unclear how the rules will be implemented and enforced. They say this is especially urgent given reports that Meta has made staff cuts to its teams that work on election disinformation.

Meta has been explicit that it doesn't want Threads to be like Twitter, where people's feeds have been dominated with news and politics. Days after the Threads launch, Meta executive Adam Mosseri posted on the site saying the company wasn't going to do anything to encourage politics and news.

But with the 2024 election cycle already ramping up and the first Republican primary debate just weeks away, Vote.org's Hailey said Threads won't be able to escape politics.

"As we see large growth week over week, they're likely to be in a position to have an effect on elections," Hailey said. "So, you just want to make sure that information up there is accurate."

Vote.org and the other voting rights groups say they want Meta to provide information on how it plans to allocate resources, create rules and policies, and ensure people receive accurate information about elections on Threads.
Sponsor Message

Hailey said the group has yet to get a response from the company.

[GuideToACrazyWorld]

"Controlling disinformation" almost always devolves into "The Ministry of Truth." I'd much rather have a internet full of bad information then an internet full of controlled information. Disinformation is one of the pains of freedom.

[Tarmaque]

Our whole system of allowing anonymous internet has completely flipped the idea of free speech on its head. When everyone is anonymous, then there are no consequences for lying or promotion of false agendas. Lies then run rampant through communities who want to believe those lies, when those lies support their preconceived notions. People within those communities have a vested interest in disseminating those lies because the more people who believe them the safer they feel in accepting those lies. This is true of both sides of the political spectrum.

Even worse, our current system of social media has allowed a sort of self-sorting community to appear in our culture, where any dissenting voice is exiled from the community. Again, no matter what side of the political or social spectrum they're on. We are being pigeonholed into increasingly cloistered boxes of single viewpoints.

Then the anonymity of the system allows people to manipulate the viewpoints without consequence, because nobody knows who they are. If your uncle tells you that Joe-Bob's wife gave birth to a rabbit fetus, it's no longer possible to walk over to Joe-Bob's house and check on the story. Instead you post the story your uncle told you on FaceCrook and it gets picked up by people all over the country. Or even world. And all sorts of people start believing it because people, in general, are pretty stupid.

A wide-open system of free speech is a downward escalator to the lowest common denominator of intelligence. But there's the rub. Who gets to decide? And how do you get people with the brain cells of a banana slug to choose the correct option out of the available information?

Some attempts have been made to create communities where purveyors of truths get rated by the community on how factual they are. This worked great for a while, until the banana slugs found out they could hop to a different community and get the truths they wanted instead of the facts they needed. Now we have a world run by people who've chosen the truths they want and blame any fact that contradicts that on someone else instead of accepting reality.

The reality is, I probably shouldn't have eaten all those lentils and the fact is I have tremendous and noisy gas. But my truth is it doesn't stink.

[GuideToACrazyWorld]

Our whole system of allowing anonymous internet has completely flipped the idea of free speech on its head. When everyone is anonymous, then there are no consequences for lying or promotion of false agendas.

I doubt Voltair would find this anything new. The internet certainly made anonymous posting easier, but the enlightenment was fueled by great thinkers publishing anonymous leaflets. And yes, the same thing has been happening in the conspiracy world as long as printing has been available. Two sides of the coin. I think the issue with the internet is it made it easy for everyone, no matter how disconnected from reality, to find people who will legitimize their insanity.

Even worse, our current system of social media has allowed a sort of self-sorting community to appear in our culture, where any dissenting voice is exiled from the community. Again, no matter what side of the political or social spectrum they're on. We are being pigeonholed into increasingly cloistered boxes of single viewpoints.

I think this bothers me the most. I see conversations on the internet as a chance to learn from people who disagree with me. John B. is a great example of this, he shifted my economic thinking significantly in the time I knew him. It's just so hard to find people who will have those kinds of conversations without resorting to name calling or straw manning. Because those groups not only validate the worst of each other but they also create a foolish caricature of the opposition.

A wide-open system of free speech is a downward escalator to the lowest common denominator of intelligence. But there's the rub. Who gets to decide? And how do you get people with the brain cells of a banana slug to choose the correct option out of the available information?

That's the scary thing about freedom in general. No matter how much we believe in it it's easy to find people who we don't feel deserves it. But if we aren't willing to extend freedom to those we don't think deserve if, then we really do not deserve.

[Tarmaque]

That's the scary thing about freedom in general.

Everyone should be free to do whatever they want as long as they do what I say.

[GuideToACrazyWorld]

Everyone should be free to do whatever they want as long as they do what I say.

My son would disagree with you. In his mind we should all do what he says.

[Tarmaque]

My son would disagree with you. In his mind we should all do what he says.

Yeah, well, that's just like his opinion, man.

[Slip Shod]

"Controlling disinformation" almost always devolves into "The Ministry of Truth." I'd much rather have a internet full of bad information then an internet full of controlled information. Disinformation is one of the pains of freedom.

What kind of systems flourish under a 'Ministry of Truth' ?.. dictatorships, communism, big brother government - central control, power in the hands of the few.
Let the chips fall where they may, let freedom ring. I think an earlier comment referred to people with brains cells of a snail, such a lack of faith in most people. Freedom offers choices and as cream floats to the top so too the people (and when I refer to the people I'm referring to the vast majority with common sense) will opt for the best and the edges of society will simply be rejected.
The problem now is my side versus your side - me win or you win that's how they're taking it.
Get over it, screw one side winning all the time. In a democracy sometimes your side loses accept it. Next go around the vote may change
NOBODY WINS ALL THE TIME

[Z is for Zangie]

While I understand what you are all saying...my concern is things like disinformation that puts people in physical harm, like lies about medicines etc. I don't know why we can't stop that kind of disinformation that endangers people. Opinions are something else, people can have whatever they want. But promoting conspiracy theories that put people's lives in danger, just should be wrong, and should be prevented.

I just can't be cavalier about harming people in this way, it is illegal to do it in other ways. And while I am a big proponent of free speech, there are often consequences for it ( and it isn't totally without exceptions), and in these cases there should be. I wouldn't like people coming here and promoting false things that endanger other people.

I don't think the free for all idea is wise or right.

[Slip Shod]

Z, in the end we're each responsible for our own health and choices. I want to see all the choices, all the information. I do not want others presuming what is the truth or what is misinformation. We keep going around in circles Z. I respect your choices to do as you will - I want ALL cards on the table

[Z is for Zangie]

Z, in the end we're each responsible for our own health and choices. I want to see all the choices, all the information. I do not want others presuming what is the truth or what is misinformation. We keep going around in circles Z. I respect your choices to do as you will - I want ALL cards on the table

Facts are not interpreted, there are very obvious facts that are twisted or lied about to make money or harm people. This is also a fact.
You do not believe in facts, you believe what you want to be true and you rely in unreputable people to believe.
This is not critical thinking which is the point. I read all kinds of things and I know lies and conspiracy theories when I see them. Because I do read all views.

People who are not as smart or able to make these decisions do need protecting, We are NOT all responsible for our health, and if you are going to make a decisions base it on what is actually factual and proven. Not someone opinions and misleading facts and agendas.

You could just stop responding to me when you try to convince me that not actually believing facts is a good thing. This happens when you believe what you ( general you)want to be true rather than the actual truth nor that you don't realize there are grifters with an agenda that has nothing to do with facts, but, money and influence.

Unlike you, I care about the people being misled and harmed, like all the conservatives who have died ( way more than the liberals) because they believed the vaccine was bad. It is not. Neither is chemo, both saved my life.I care about people being hurt by unscrupulous people and I do not feel bad about that. It is a good thing.

Judging all people by one's own self is foolish, everyone isn't the same. things that harm people with lying or grifting should not be allowed to...period.

I care more about other people, I can decide on my own with actual facts and reading and my intelligence, they can not.

[Z is for Zangie]

@Slip Shod

PS: In my experience with everything you have posted on here, you always choose the least likely suspect stuff coming from the least reliable and truthful people.

[Slip Shod]

@Z
I'll leave it right there and thank you for your considerations.
My bottom line is I don't want anything interpreted, chosen, withheld or disseminated for me.
Free to make wrong choices, mistakes or play the fool in others eyes.
We will probably never see things eye to eye, but still I respect you & wish for your best

[GuideToACrazyWorld]

What kind of systems flourish under a 'Ministry of Truth' ?.. dictatorships, communism, big brother government - central control, power in the hands of the few.

The government in 1984 wasn't really communist. More of a police state fascism. Your main choice remains true though, It is an controlling truth leads to oppression.

[GuideToACrazyWorld]

While I understand what you are all saying...my concern is things like disinformation that puts people in physical harm, like lies about medicines etc. I don't know why we can't stop that kind of disinformation that endangers people. Opinions are something else, people can have whatever they want. But promoting conspiracy theories that put people's lives in danger, just should be wrong, and should be prevented.

I get it. But that is a great example of who controls the lies. During covid we had one side calling it a flue, and the other acting like it was Ebola. Neither was a sensible reaction. There were so many lies all over place about COVID. We can debate which side caused more harm but it was a mess. I remember at one point in survey 90% of republicans thought that less then 1% died from COVID, 90% of democrats thought the death rate was near 80%. The truth was it played our around 5% pretty much for the duration. But if we gave either side control of the narrative we would have had one sided lies.

I just can't be cavalier about harming people in this way, it is illegal to do it in other ways. And while I am a big proponent of free speech, there are often consequences for it ( and it isn't totally without exceptions), and in these cases there should be. I wouldn't like people coming here and promoting false things that endanger other people.

I'm not being cavalier. I'm comparing it to the alternative and to me the alternative if much more dangerous.

Think about this as well. How can we find the truth on complex issues if people aren't allowed to debate the intricacies of the issues? Yes, this means we will get hyperbole and out right lies, but by being able to examine the totality of the evidence we can arrive at the truth. If we instead allow someone to be control what can be said in the name of truth, their opinion (or even their lies) will quickly become truth.

I don't think the free for all idea is wise or right.

I don't know if I would call it right. Like I said it's better then the alternative.

There is an old saying, "Capitalism is the worst political system ever invented except for everything else."