Posted on Jul 27, 2023
Meta's Threads needs a policy for election disinformation, voting groups say
5.02K
54
21
6
6
0
https://www.npr.org/2023/07/27/ [login to see] /metas-threads-needs-a-policy-for-election-disinformation-voting-groups-say
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.
Vote.org, one of the largest get-out-the-vote organizations in the country, sent a letter to Meta asking that it "release a robust plan to ensure the platform has strong election policies in place from the start." The letter was co-signed by 11 other voting rights groups, including End Citizens United, RepresentUs and Public Citizen.
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.
Vote.org, one of the largest get-out-the-vote organizations in the country, sent a letter to Meta asking that it "release a robust plan to ensure the platform has strong election policies in place from the start." The letter was co-signed by 11 other voting rights groups, including End Citizens United, RepresentUs and Public Citizen.
Meta's Threads needs a policy for election disinformation, voting groups say
Posted from npr.org
Social Media
Facebook
Voting
Elections
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 2
The problem with 'misinformation' is many times comes down to 'the eye of the beholder' and groups labeling information as 'misinformation' is largely a situation of "we need to make sure you aren't inclined to believe something we say you shouldn't believe". While some believe it to be a grave threat and a danger to our democracy, others believe it is a term used to silence those sharing opinions that differ from the “arbiters of truth”.
I feel a statement from Allsides.com couldn’t sum it up clearer - “Is a partisan view of a polarizing subject misinformation? In a polarized political and media landscape, accusations of misinformation are often applied to any position or perspective that one group finds objectionable or concerning. What constitutes “misinformation” or "disinformation" for one group may simply represent another group’s honest estimation of the truth.”
Who decides for everyone and becomes the “arbiter of truth”? Would progressives have no problem with a conservative group deciding what 'misinformation' is? Likewise if the roles were reversed - how would conservatives feel if a progressive group defined it? In both cases very few would opt to have a group with a 'differing viewpoint' be the judge of what is correct and what is incorrect.
Does this mean that there isn't an issue? Absolutely not. There is a tremendous amount of biased information that is distributed daily. While biased information in itself is not ‘misinformation’, it absolutely can become that when all information that detracts from the partisan view is removed or presented as untrue. Additionally, there is a lot of "made-up news" that has no basis in fact for the information. In other words, pure garbage. However, if that garbage fits your preconceived notion of what's true, it's not 'misinformation' to you.
As most know, I’m a free speech advocate and my default view to censorship is to avoid it unless absolutely necessary. That’s why I like sites like https://allsides.com/ or https://ground.news/ which both try to present the news from differing opinions (*GASP* You mean .. read an opinion that differs from mine!?) so you can judge for yourself what is true and what is not.
Now using their approach as a "misinformation policy" is something I would completely endorse without reservation, ESPECIALLY when it comes to partisan issues, instead of someone determining that I’m not smart enough to tell the difference between ‘spin’ and facts.
I feel a statement from Allsides.com couldn’t sum it up clearer - “Is a partisan view of a polarizing subject misinformation? In a polarized political and media landscape, accusations of misinformation are often applied to any position or perspective that one group finds objectionable or concerning. What constitutes “misinformation” or "disinformation" for one group may simply represent another group’s honest estimation of the truth.”
Who decides for everyone and becomes the “arbiter of truth”? Would progressives have no problem with a conservative group deciding what 'misinformation' is? Likewise if the roles were reversed - how would conservatives feel if a progressive group defined it? In both cases very few would opt to have a group with a 'differing viewpoint' be the judge of what is correct and what is incorrect.
Does this mean that there isn't an issue? Absolutely not. There is a tremendous amount of biased information that is distributed daily. While biased information in itself is not ‘misinformation’, it absolutely can become that when all information that detracts from the partisan view is removed or presented as untrue. Additionally, there is a lot of "made-up news" that has no basis in fact for the information. In other words, pure garbage. However, if that garbage fits your preconceived notion of what's true, it's not 'misinformation' to you.
As most know, I’m a free speech advocate and my default view to censorship is to avoid it unless absolutely necessary. That’s why I like sites like https://allsides.com/ or https://ground.news/ which both try to present the news from differing opinions (*GASP* You mean .. read an opinion that differs from mine!?) so you can judge for yourself what is true and what is not.
Now using their approach as a "misinformation policy" is something I would completely endorse without reservation, ESPECIALLY when it comes to partisan issues, instead of someone determining that I’m not smart enough to tell the difference between ‘spin’ and facts.
AllSides | Balanced news via media bias ratings for an unbiased news perspective
See issues and political news with news bias revealed. Non-partisan, crowd-sourced technology shows all sides so you can decide.
(19)
(0)
CPT Lawrence Cable
SPC (Join to see) - Even that 1% has radically changed. The tech industry and changes in the rules of the stock market, think derivatives and leverage, changed the face of Wall Street from Wall Street Republicans to a decidedly liberal management (and I would also say entitled). The financial industry switched parties in 2008 and hasn't looked back. Think Zuckerberg, Gates and Soros.
Just for fun, go to Open Secrets and look at where the money comes from for Candidates and Parties.
Oh, and a lot of the growth in the Financial industry is your 401K money.
Just for fun, go to Open Secrets and look at where the money comes from for Candidates and Parties.
Oh, and a lot of the growth in the Financial industry is your 401K money.
(0)
(0)
Amn Dale Preisach
CPT Lawrence Cable they'll subvert the " Need" for Social Security with the 401 k . That way, it will be reliant on the Market for the " Health " of the account. Congress won't have to vote to privatize Social Security... the 401k will have done that.
Business 401 k's are just the Beta test for the trade off.
Business 401 k's are just the Beta test for the trade off.
(0)
(0)
CPT Lawrence Cable
Amn Dale Preisach - I don't see the 401K as a replacement for Social Security. What it was is a replacement for defined pension plans. The effect of pumping that much money into the system wasn't considered. Add to it the private pension funds like teachers or public worker unions that wanted big returns and you had the recipe for a disaster. Everyone thought they can trade stocks and securities back and forth and the profit is real money.
Oddly enough, a lot of the justification to "liberalize" the rules for banks and stocks came out of Europe, which especially in the pre-EU days was the Wild, Wild West of the Financia World. Not a lot better today.
Oddly enough, a lot of the justification to "liberalize" the rules for banks and stocks came out of Europe, which especially in the pre-EU days was the Wild, Wild West of the Financia World. Not a lot better today.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
In 2021 the Biden White House pressured Book to remove material that was found to be unflattering etc. This appears to be a violation of the 1st Amendment. I am always leery of people advocating censorship.if you have a question about voting you can call election headquarters. https://www.foxnews.com/media/smoking-gun-documents-prove-facebook-censored-americans-behalf-white-house-jim-jordan-says
'Smoking-gun documents' prove Facebook censored Americans on behalf of White House, Jim Jordan...
Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, on Thursday shared what he called “smoking-gun documents" proving Facebook censored Americans on behalf of the Biden administration.
(1)
(0)
COL Randall C.
PO3 Justin Bowen, your comments were removed for vulgarity.
Keep it respectful. As a reminder, you can advocate for your position forcefully and demean the other's position as much as you like. However, personal attacks and vulgarity are not allowed.
If you need a refresher of what the primary Community Standards for discourse between RP Members, you can read them at https://rallypoint.my.site.com/Support/s/article/enforcement-of-rallypoint-community-standards-2020-03-13-10-21-35 and https://rallypoint.my.site.com/Support/s/article/rallypoint-answers-and-discussion-conduct-2020-03-13-10-21-35
Keep it respectful. As a reminder, you can advocate for your position forcefully and demean the other's position as much as you like. However, personal attacks and vulgarity are not allowed.
If you need a refresher of what the primary Community Standards for discourse between RP Members, you can read them at https://rallypoint.my.site.com/Support/s/article/enforcement-of-rallypoint-community-standards-2020-03-13-10-21-35 and https://rallypoint.my.site.com/Support/s/article/rallypoint-answers-and-discussion-conduct-2020-03-13-10-21-35
(1)
(0)
SPC (Join to see)
COL Randall C. - Randall, it seems really sad that you have to keep repeating yourself and removing comments because they violate Community Standards. I've not been a member of R.P. for very long, but it seems that you are having to intervene in what's being said more and more. Is this true?
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google