A new study of user behavior on Facebook around the 2020 election is likely to bolster critics’ long-standing arguments that the company’s algorithms fuel the spread of misinformation over more trustworthy sources.
The forthcoming peer-reviewed study by researchers at New York University and the Université Grenoble Alpes in France has found that from August 2020 to January 2021, news publishers known for putting out misinformation got six times the amount of likes, shares, and interactions on the platform as did trustworthy news sources, such as CNN or the World Health Organization.
Ever since “fake news” on Facebook became a public concern following the 2016 presidential election, publishers who traffic in misinformation have been repeatedly shown to be able to gain major audiences on the platform. But the NYU study is one of the few comprehensive attempts to measure and isolate the misinformation effect across a wide group of publishers on Facebook, experts said, and its conclusions support the criticism that Facebook’s platform rewards publishers that put out misleading accounts.
The study “helps add to the growing body of evidence that, despite a variety of mitigation efforts, misinformation has found a comfortable home — and an engaged audience — on Facebook,” said Rebekah Tromble, director of the Institute for Data, Democracy and Politics at George Washington University, who reviewed the study’s findings.
In response, Facebook said that the report measured the number of people who engage with content, but that is not a measure of the number of people that actually view it (Facebook does not make the latter number, called impressions, publicly available to researchers).
“This report looks mostly at how people engage with content, which should not be confused with how many people actually see it on Facebook,” said Facebook spokesman Joe Osborne. “When you look at the content that gets the most reach across Facebook, it is not at all like what this study suggests.”
Category Archives: cheap speech
VIDEO from Fair Elections and Free Speech Center Event: Global Elections I: Israel, The Netherlands & Uganda – September 1, 2021
“Jan. 6 investigators demand records from social media companies”
The select committee investigating the Jan. 6 insurrection is seeking a massive tranche of records from social media companies,on whose platformsmany defendants charged in the Capitol attackplanned and coordinated their actions.
In a series of letters dated Aug. 26, the Democratic-controlled panel asked the companies, which include Facebook, Google, Twitter, Parler, 4chan, Twitch and TikTok, for all records and documents since April 1, 2020, relating to misinformation around the 2020 election, efforts to overturn the 2020 election, domestic violent extremists associated with efforts to overturn the election and foreign influence in the 2020 election.
“Facebook Said to Consider Forming an Election Commission”
Facebook has approached academics and policy experts about forming a commission to advise it on global election-related matters, said five people with knowledge of the discussions, a move that would allow the social network to shift some of its political decision-making to an advisory body.
The proposed commission could decide on matters such as the viability of political ads and what to do about election-related misinformation, said the people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the discussions were confidential. Facebook is expected to announce the commission this fall in preparation for the 2022 midterm elections, they said, though the effort is preliminary and could still fall apart.
Outsourcing election matters to a panel of experts could help Facebook sidestep criticism of bias by political groups, two of the people said. The company has been blasted in recent years by conservatives, who have accused Facebook of suppressing their voices, as well as by civil rights groups and Democrats for allowing political misinformation to fester and spread online. Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook’s chief executive, does not want to be seen as the sole decision maker on political content, two of the people said.
Congratulations on the New “Journal of Free Speech” for Its Inaugural Issue; Symposium on “Free Speech and Social Media Platform Regulation”
This is an absolutely outstanding start. Looking forward to diving into this symposium (I’ve read Eugene Volokh’s piece in here and will be responding to it in my upcoming “Cheap Speech” book):
Symposium: Free Speech and Social Media Platform Regulation
Jack M. Balkin, How to Regulate (and Not Regulate) Social Media 71
Ashutosh Bhagwat, Do Platforms Have Editorial Rights? 97
Adam Candeub, Reading Section 230 as Written 139
Adam Candeub & Eugene Volokh, Interpreting 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(2) 175
Eric Goldman & Jess Miers, Online Account Terminations/Content Removals and the Benefits of Internet Services Enforcing Their House Rules 191
Daphne Keller, Amplification and Its Discontents: Why Regulating the Reach of Online Content Is Hard 227
Kyle Langvardt, Can the First Amendment Scale? 273
Mark A. Lemley, The Contradictions of Platform Regulation 303
Alan Z. Rozenshtein, Silicon Valley’s Speech: Technology Giants and the Deregulatory First Amendment 337
Eugene Volokh, Treating Social Media Platforms Like Common Carriers? 377
Christopher S. Yoo, The First Amendment, Common Carriers, and Public Accommodations: Net Neutrality, Digital Platforms, and Privacy 463
September 1 Virtual Event: “FEFS | Global Elections I: Israel, The Netherlands & Uganda”
Register now for this event at UCI Law’s Fair Elections and Free Speech Center:
Wednesday, September 1 at 12:15pm to 1:15pm Virtual Event
Threats to the fairness of elections, and the open debate that democracies require, have not been limited to the United States. Already in 2021, several elections worldwide have shown the challenges to a fair ballot in the digital age. We will kick off our global discussion of these challenges, and the steps governments and social media companies should be taking, with a focus on elections in Israel, The Netherlands, and Uganda, examining examples of the prevalence of disinformation and the role of social media.
Speakers include:
Dr. Tehilla Shwartz Altshuler, Senior Fellow; Head, Democracy in the Information Age Program, The Israel Democracy Institute
Lillian Nalwoga, Programme Manager, Collaboration on International ICT Policy in East and Southern Africa (CIPESA)
Alice Stollmeyer, Founder & Executive Director, Defend Democracy
Co-sponsored by the Center on Globalization, Law, and Society
“Twitter blocked and labeled Donald Trump’s tweets on election fraud. They spread anyway.”
Twitter blocked and labeled some Donald Trump’s claims of election fraud in the run-up and aftermath of the 2020 presidential election.
The tweets spread on and off Twitter anyway.
That’s according to a new study from New York University researchers published Tuesday in Harvard Kennedy’s School Misinformation Review and shared exclusively with USA TODAY.
The study is raising new questions about the ability of social media companies to halt the flood of falsehoods on mainstream social media platforms during election cycles.
NYU researchers say Trump tweets with fact-check labels spread further on Twitter than those without. And when Twitter blocked engagement with the former president’s tweets, they leaped to Facebook, Instagram and Reddit where they were more popular than tweets that Twitter labeled or did not flag at all.
It’s not clear if Twitter intervened on social media posts that were more likely to spread or if it was the intervention itself that gave the tweets a boost, the researchers said.
“Partisan Polarization Is the Primary Psychological Motivation behind Political Fake News Sharing on Twitter”
Recent article of note in the American Political Science Review:
The rise of “fake news” is a major concern in contemporary Western democracies. Yet, research on the psychological motivations behind the spread of political fake news on social media is surprisingly limited. Are citizens who share fake news ignorant and lazy? Are they fueled by sinister motives, seeking to disrupt the social status quo? Or do they seek to attack partisan opponents in an increasingly polarized political environment? This article is the first to test these competing hypotheses based on a careful mapping of psychological profiles of over 2,300 American Twitter users linked to behavioral sharing data and sentiment analyses of more than 500,000 news story headlines. The findings contradict the ignorance perspective but provide some support for the disruption perspective and strong support for the partisan polarization perspective. Thus, individuals who report hating their political opponents are the most likely to share political fake news and selectively share content that is useful for derogating these opponents. Overall, our findings show that fake news sharing is fueled by the same psychological motivations that drive other forms of partisan behavior, including sharing partisan news from traditional and credible news sources.
Trump Sues Facebook, Google, and Twitter
Former U.S. President Donald Trump on Wednesday filed lawsuits against Twitter Inc (TWTR.N), Facebook Inc (FB.O), and Alphabet Inc’s Google (GOOGL.O), as well as their chief executives, alleging they unlawfully silence conservative viewpoints.
The lawsuits, filed in U.S. District Court in Miami, allege the California-based social media platforms violated the right to freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution…
The lawsuits ask a judge to invalidate Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a law that has been called the backbone of the internet because it provides websites with protections from liability over content posted by users. Trump and others who have attacked Section 230 say it has given big internet companies too much legal protection and allowed them to escape responsibility for their actions.
“Federal judge blocks Florida law that would penalize social media companies”
A federal judge on Wednesday blocked a Florida law that would penalize social media companies for blocking a politician’s posts, a blow to conservatives’ efforts to respond to Facebook and other websites’ suspension of former president Donald Trump.
The law was due to go into effect Thursday, but in issuing a preliminary injunction, U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle of the Northern District of Florida suggested that the law would be found unconstitutional.
“The plaintiffs are likely to prevail on the merits of their claim that these statutes violate the First Amendment,” Hinkle wrote. “There is nothing that could be severed and survive.”
The law laid out fines for tech companies that suspended political candidates in the run-up to an election.
Florida legislators approved the law after Facebook, Twitter and YouTube suspended Trump’s accounts for violating their policies following the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R), a potential 2024 presidential candidate and key Trump ally, touted the law as a stand against alleged censorship of conservatives when he signed it in May….
The judge wrote a blistering criticism of the Florida law, saying that it “compels providers to host speech that violates their standards.”
“Like prior First Amendment restrictions, this is an instance of burning the house to roast a pig,” he wrote.
He also said that remarks from the governor and other lawmakers made clear that the law was “viewpoint-based,” adding that there was “substantial factual support” showing the law was motivated by hostility toward the perceived liberal bias of large tech firms.
Hinkle also referred to the law as “riddled with imprecision and ambiguity” and said it “does not survive strict scrutiny.”
You can read the opinion here.
“What Happened When Trump Was Banned on Social Media”
The New York Times examined Mr. Trump’s nearly 1,600 social media posts from Sept. 1 to Jan. 8, the day Mr. Trump was banned from the platforms. We then tracked the social media engagement with the dozens of written statements he made on his personal website, campaign fund-raising site and in email blasts from Jan. 9 until May 5, which was the day that the Facebook Oversight Board, which reviews some content decisions by the company, said that the company acted appropriately in kicking him off the service.
Before the ban, the social media post with the median engagement generated 272,000 likes and shares. After the ban, that dropped to 36,000 likes and shares. Yet 11 of his 89 statements after the ban attracted as many likes or shares as the median post before the ban, if not more.
How does that happen?
Mr. Trump had long been his own best promoter on social media. The vast majority of people on Twitter and Facebook interacted directly with Mr. Trump’s posts, either liking or sharing them, The Times analysis found.
But after the ban, other popular social media accounts often picked up his messages and posted them themselves. (Last week, Mr. Trump shut down his blog, one of the places he made statements.)…
One topic from Mr. Trump that has not spread far: claims of widespread election fraud.
The Times analysis looked at the 10 most popular posts with election misinformation — judged by likes and shares — from Mr. Trump before the social media bans, and compared them with his 10 most popular written statements containing election misinformation after the ban. All the posts included falsehoods about the election — that the process had been “rigged,” for instance, or that there had been extensive voter fraud.
Before the ban, Mr. Trump’s posts garnered 22.1 million likes and shares; after the ban, his posts earned 1.3 million likes and shares across Twitter and Facebook.
Disinformation researchers say the difference points to the enormous power the social media companies have in curbing political misinformation, if they choose to wield it. Facebook and Twitter curb the spread of false statements about the November election, though Twitter has loosened its enforcement since March to dedicate more resources to fact-checking in other parts of the world.
Facebook’s Response to Oversight Board’s Calls to Examine Its Own Role in Creating the Conditions for January 6 Insurrection is Weak
Facebook’s Investigation of its Role Leading Up to Jan. 6
One of the most consequential recommendations the FOB made was for Facebook to “undertake a comprehensive review of its potential contribution to the narrative of electoral fraud and the exacerbated tensions that culminated in the violence in the United States on January 6, 2021.” BuzzFeed has reported that even before the FOB’s decision, Facebook had created such a report internally, but the FOB’s recommendation was specifically for an “open reflection.” Interestingly, the FOB’s recommendation became a focal point for public pressure: for example, Bob Bauer, who advised Biden’s presidential campaign and served as White House Counsel during the Obama administration, called on Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg to make “an unequivocal commitment to the complete and public review suggested by the Oversight Board.”
Unfortunately, neither Bauer’s plea nor the FOB’s recommendation worked to any substantial extent. Facebook did not commit itself to any further public reflection on the role it played in the election fraud narrative that sparked violence in the United States on January 6, 2021. It pointed to existing research partnerships with independent researchers, and did extend the amount of data it will provide them. Facebook also highlighted its previous enforcement actions against groups like QAnon. But it said “the responsibility for January 6, 2021, lies with the insurrectionists and those who encouraged them” and its only further commitment is to “continue to cooperate with law enforcement and US government investigations related to the events on January 6.” This is extremely disappointing. Of course the blame for Jan. 6 does not lie entirely, or perhaps even primarily, with Facebook. Other institutions also desperately need to hold themselves accountable. But the dramatic failure of other institutions does not mean that Facebook should not have seized this opportunity to do better and to add to the public record about what enabled the insurrection to happen.
“Facebook keeps touting its labels, but data suggests labels actually amplified Trump’s misinformation”
Facebook keeps touting its labels as a proactive response to misinformation spread on the platform, even though internal and external data shows the labels are ineffective and the platform’s application of them is inconsistent at best. In fact, Media Matters found that the average number of interactions per post on former President Donald Trump’s labeled posts is more than double that of his posts overall, and posts containing his misinformation are still spreading on the platform even though he is suspended from it for now.
In our latest study, Media Matters analyzed former President Trump’s 6,081 posts that he created between January 1, 2020, and January 6, 2021. Key findings include:
- Facebook labeled at least 506 Trump posts between January 1, 2020, and January 6, 2021. These posts earned over 205.8 million interactions, or an average of roughly 407,000 interactions per post. Comparatively, all of Trump’s posts during this time earned over 927 million interactions, or an average of roughly 152,000 interactions per post.
- Facebook labeled 147 of Trump’s 868 posts that cited right-wing media outlets. These 147 posts earned over 42 million interactions, or an average of roughly 291,000 interactions per post.
- Notably, 127 — or over 86% — of Trump’s labeled posts citing right-wing media were related to election integrity, five specifically mentioned “Stop the Steal,” and two were related to COVID-19. These posts earned more average interactions per post than Trump’s posts overall and Trump’s posts citing right-wing media.
- Even as Trump is suspended from Facebook, the platform is failing to consistently label his election misinformation. Facebook labeled at least two posts that promoted Trump’s May 13 statement, originally posted to his blog, as “false,” but dozens of other posts with images or text from the statement remain on Facebook.
“Biden allies urge Facebook to review spread of election fraud claims”
A nonprofit advocacy group with close ties to President Joe Biden on Wednesday joined calls for Facebook to review whether its actions contributed to the spread of unfounded election fraud claims leading up to the Jan. 6 siege on the Capitol.
Building Back Together, an outside coalition formed by top Biden allies and campaign advisers, urged Facebook in a letter reviewed by POLITICO to commit to an internal probe of the matter, something the company’s oversight board recommended last month.
Requirements vs. suggestions: The panel, which recently upheld Facebook’s decision to suspend former President Donald Trump, also called on the company to carry out “a comprehensive review of Facebook’s potential contribution to the narrative of electoral fraud and the exacerbated tensions that culminated in the violence in the United States on January 6.”
While the ruling on Trump’s suspension is binding, the board’s recommendations for changes to Facebook’s policies and for follow-up actions, such as the review, are not. Facebook is required to respond to the suggestions by Friday, though, and Biden’s allies are pressuring the tech giant to make good on the guidance ahead of the deadline.
“Chinese businessman with links to Steve Bannon is driving force for a sprawling disinformation network, researchers say”
A sprawling online network tied to Chinese businessman Guo Wengui has become a potent platform for disinformation in the United States, attacking the safety of coronavirus vaccines, promoting false election-fraud claims and spreading baseless QAnon conspiracies, according to research published Monday by the network analysis company Graphika.
The report, provided in advance to The Washington Post, details a network that Graphika says amplifies the views of Guo, a Chinese real estate developer whose association with former Trump White House adviser Stephen K. Bannon became a focus of news coverage last year after Bannon was arrested aboard Guo’s yacht on federal fraud charges.
Graphika said the network includes media websites such as GTV, for which Guo last year publicly said he was raising funds, along with thousands of social media accounts that Graphika said amplify content in a coordinated fashion. The network also includes more than a dozen local-action groups over which Guo has publicly claimed an oversight role, Graphika found.