Well, this is interesting. Here are two different big investigative stories about the government's efforts to fight online lies:
Truth Cops: Leaked Documents Outline DHS’s Plans to Police Disinformation
and
How the Biden Administration Caved to Republicans on Fighting Election Disinformation
The first is by Ken Klippenstein and Lee Fang of The Intercept. The second is by Andrea Bernstein and Ilya Marritz of ProPublica. Both address the same topic, but they come to precisely opposite conclusions. For example, here is The Intercept:
Behind closed doors, and through pressure on private platforms, the U.S. government has used its power to try to shape online discourse....There is also a formalized process for government officials to directly flag content on Facebook or Instagram and request that it be throttled or suppressed through a special Facebook portal that requires a government or law enforcement email to use.
....The extent to which the DHS initiatives affect Americans’ daily social feeds is unclear. During the 2020 election, the government flagged numerous posts as suspicious, many of which were then taken down, documents cited in the Missouri attorney general’s lawsuit disclosed. And a 2021 report by the Election Integrity Partnership at Stanford University found that of nearly 4,800 flagged items, technology platforms took action on 35 percent — either removing, labeling, or soft-blocking speech, meaning the users were only able to view content after bypassing a warning screen.
Now compare that to ProPublica:
In early 2022, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, or CISA, which is part of DHS, was in talks to deploy a federally funded nonprofit to protect election workers from harassment and violence.
....At that time, DHS was establishing the Disinformation Governance Board....Just hours after word leaked of its formation, right-wing media influencer Jack Posobiec issued a series of tweets slamming the board. Soon, Republican lawmakers like Rep. Andrew Clyde, R-Ga., were calling the board a “Ministry of Truth”....About 70% of Fox News’ one-hour segments over the next week contained a reference to the board, according to a report by Advance Democracy, a nonprofit media research group.
....That’s when the word went out to DHS staffers that work on “sensitive” topics like disinformation should be put on hold.
These two outlets—both of which have a reputation for being skeptical of government—are reporting on different parts of the same elephant. One concludes that federal authorities are trying to control social media. The other concludes that right-wingers are spreading egregious lies through social media while the government is trying to get the truth out and protect election workers.
In this case, it's The Intercept that's been conned. Its story is almost completely lacking in any substance and contains no examples of the government trying to force its views on social media. The government merely flags things they think are dangerous lies and social media outlets are then free to investigate and take action as they see fit. This is not anything unusual.
ProPublica, by contrast, has the story right: the MAGA wing of the Republican Party has a well-known history of relying on disinformation and becoming outraged whenever anyone fights back. They scream "censorship" to cover up the fact that their existence depends on a steady stream of lies. If social media does anything to fight those lies, the MAGAnauts lose their greatest source of power.
Should we be careful about what kinds of information efforts the government engages in? Indeed we should, given their deserved reputation for being, um, less than fully truthful. But the fact remains that there's nothing even remotely unusual about what they're doing here. From the FBI's most wanted list to the Surgeon General's campaign against cigarettes, the federal government produces a flood of information on a routine basis—much of which involves judgment calls rather than simple facts and figures. Its election disinformation efforts should be judged not by the mere fact of their existence, but by whether they are being tolerably fairminded in what they go after. So far, the evidence suggests they are.
Not the first time. Nor the last. The Intercept is, as we recall, Glenn Greenwald's vanity project.
they actually kicked greenwald out a couple years ago i believe, because he was such a lying, horrible asshole.
In a sharply worded statement, the Intercept’s editor-in-chief, Betsy Reed, said that the charge that the Intercept was censoring its staff was “preposterous” and that Greenwald’s main problem had been a desire to have his work published unedited.
“Glenn Greenwald’s decision to resign from the Intercept stems from a fundamental disagreement over the role of editors in the production of journalism and the nature of censorship,” Reed wrote. “Glenn demands the absolute right to determine what he will publish. He believes that anyone who disagrees with him is corrupt, and anyone who presumes to edit his words is a censor.”
“The narrative he presents about his departure is teeming with distortions and inaccuracies – all of them designed to make him appear a victim, rather than a grown person throwing a tantrum,” she added.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/oct/29/journalist-glenn-greenwald-resigns-the-intercept
Fake news, all of it…
i don't know that the intercept is getting conned or being misleading in their article. i only read your excerpt, but although i may disagree with their spin, they do make it pretty clear there is a formal process for the government to flag information they deem false and the platforms can choose how to respond. And seemingly most of they time they do nothing.
Either there's a couple of typos in this article, or I need to work on my reading comprehension. I think the names "Intercept" and "ProPublica" have been swapped from what they should be in the 3rd to last and 2nd to last paragraphs.
To what extent were articles that were flagged by the government *and* action was taken by social media to moderate the content, also flagged by other readers and/or bots maintained by social media?
Good thread here from Kate Starbird, who is a member of the CISA advisory committee, in response.
https://twitter.com/katestarbird/status/1587215930366500864
It's usually a pretty strong bet that when you see the byline "Lee Fang" what follows will be distorted bullshit.
ProPublica is wrong to say information about the Disinformation Governance Board "leaked". Mayorkas described it in evidence to a public hearing of a Senate committee. Trump Republicans never mention that a similar body was established by the Trump administration prior to the 2020 election.
I'm reluctantly coming around to the view that internet apps should be made accountable for anything defamatory published on their platforms. Alternatively, they should be required to verify the identities of any users before allowing them to post, and to disclose those identities in response to subpoenas, thereby allowing users to be sued or prosecuted when appropriate.
I have an alternate suggestion. In cases of defamatory material, we should require platforms to identify the source of the defamatory material, or else hold them liable for it. Ultimately, it's the people who are spreading lies who are the problem, right? Make it easier to go after them.
Also, make it easier to prosecute them. It probably wouldn't have to be a lot easier even, to clean up a lot of stuff.
Its election disinformation efforts may currently be tolerably fairminded in what they go after, but that does not have to hold true in the future. This is one of those cases where you shouldn't provide government any power you wouldn't want in the hands of your worst enemies.
Imagine such a thing corrupted by Trump to put forward his "Truth". Some may dismiss such a concern of course - until the next Trump wins the presidential election and then it may be too late.
So, I remain skeptical, not because of how they are behaving now, but how they could behave in the future.
This kind of argument is always a bit silly. "No, we can't allow police to arrest criminals because what would happen if they began to arrest non-criminals?" This is a reason to have controls over what government agencies can do, but not one to say that they shouldn't be able to act.
But it is doubly so when the argument is: this is too dangerous because if we allow it now then might attempt to do . (As kenalovell notes above, "a similar body was established by the Trump administration prior to the 2020 election.")
Apologies, some formatting messed up the previous post.
The second paragraph should be:
But it is doubly so when the argument is: this is too dangerous because if we allow it now then [some bad people] might attempt in the future to do [this thing that they have ALREADY DONE]. (As kenalovell notes above, "a similar body was established by the Trump administration prior to the 2020 election.")
Pingback: The Intercept Helps Protect Rudy Giuliani's Lies about Ruby Freeman - emptywheel