As mentioned in one of the videos from this week, technological advancement is not the root cause of misinformation, and misinformation has been around before the internet and will exist through its many iterations. However, this is not to say that contemporary social platforms don’t play a major role in housing and propagating misinformation. In this video, two graphics were shown to illustrate the difference between more traditional conceptualizations of misinformation and how we can think of misinformation moving through a complex set of systems, which are optimized for value.
The flow chart on the right hand side notes that there are three key actors who determine the value of information as it moves through these various systems. Value determination by the three actors above can lead to a variety of narratives surrounding the information Misinformation spreads through user interaction and exchange, but platforms do have a role to play in mitigating its spread and working preemptively to label false or misleading information.
This is no easy feat. For my discussion board last week, I looked at how Twitter uses labeling and ‘pre-bunking’ to combat the flow of misinformation through its platform channels. While Twitter’s labeling of misinformation is currently limited in scope, some research has pointed to users feeling uncomfortable with tech platforms determining what information is true and what is false. Other research has shown that “soft moderation” through labeling does not drastically alter user engagement with false information either way.
In the video, Dr. Roschke highlighted how we have often asked users to “bear the burden” of combating misinformation online, when we can rather look to major systems like government to work toward creating and sustaining helpful information that deters people from engaging with and spreading misinformation to begin with. I think this is probably the most crucial way for combating misinformation, but it’s also incredibly volatile and can be polarizing in our current political and social landscape.
I’m reminded of when the Department of Homeland Security established a Disinformation Governance Board and quickly terminated it following a slew of online pushback and vitriol. After the board was announced, Twitter was trending with “Ministry of Truth,” a reference to George Orwell’s “1984,” which has been weaponized as a catch-all for questioning government actions in modern times. Following this, a satire account calling itself the U.S. Ministry of Truth sprung up, posting false information and problematic content generally.
While I think that government holds the most power for curbing the spread of misinformation, it’s incredibly difficult to accomplish today when our culture is seeping with political polarization.
Kommentare