Latest news with #disinformation
Fast Company
13 hours ago
- Politics
- Fast Company
Why defunding research on misinformation and disinformation isn't what Americans want
Research on misinformation and disinformation has become the latest casualty of the Trump administration's restructuring of federal research priorities. Following President Donald Trump's executive order on ' ending federal censorship,' the National Science Foundation canceled hundreds of grants that supported research on misinformation and disinformation. Misinformation refers to misleading narratives shared by people unaware that content is false. Disinformation is deliberately generated and shared misleading content, when the sharer knows the narrative is suspect. The overwhelming majority of Americans —95%—believe misinformation's misleading narratives are a problem. Americans also believe that consumers, the government and social media companies need to do something about it. Defunding research on misinformation and disinformation is, thus, the opposite of what Americans want. Without research, the ability to combat misleading narratives will be impaired. The attack on misleading narrative research Trump's executive order claims that the Biden administration used research on misleading narratives to limit social media companies' free speech. The Supreme Court had already rejected this claim in a 2024 case. Still, Trump and GOP politicians continue to demand disinformation researchers defend themselves, including in the March 2025 ' censorship industrial complex' hearings, which explored alleged government censorship under the Biden administration. The U.S. State Department, additionally, is soliciting all communications between government offices and disinformation researchers for evidence of censorship. Trump's executive order to 'restore free speech,' the hearings and the State Department decision all imply that those conducting misleading narrative research are enemies of the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech. These actions have already led to significant problems— death threats and harassment included—for disinformation researchers, particularly women. So let's tackle what research on misinformation and disinformation is and isn't. Misleading content Misinformation and disinformation researchers examine the sources of misleading content. They also study the spread of that content. And they investigate ways to reduce its harmful impacts. For instance, as a social psychologist who studies disinformation and misinformation, I examine the nature of misleading content. I study and then share information about the manipulation tactics used by people who spread disinformation to influence others. My aim is to better inform the public about how to protect themselves from deception. Sharing this information is free speech, not barring free speech. Yet, some think this research leads to censorship when platforms choose to use the knowledge to label or remove suspect content or ban its primary spreaders. That's what U.S. Rep. Jim Jordan argued in launching investigations in 2023 into disinformation research. It is important to note, however, that the constitutional definition of censorship establishes that only the government—not citizens or businesses—can be censors. So private companies have the right to make their own decisions about the content they put on their platforms. Trump's own platform, Truth Social, bans certain material such as 'sexual content and explicit language,' but also anything moderators deem as trying to ' trick, defraud, or mislead us and other users.' Yet, 75% of the conspiracy theories shared on the platform come from Trump's account. Further, both Trump and Elon Musk, self-proclaimed free-speech advocates, have been accused of squelching content on their platforms that is critical of them. Musk claimed the suppression of accounts on X was a result of the site's algorithm reducing 'the reach of a user if they're frequently blocked or muted by other, credible users.' Truth Social representatives claim accounts were banned due to 'bot mitigation' procedures, and authentic accounts may be reinstated if their classification as inauthentic was invalid. Is it censorship? The ' censorship industrial complex ' hearings held by the House Foreign Affairs South and Central Asia Subcommittee were based on the premise that not only was misleading narrative research part of the alleged 'censorship industrial complex,' but that it was focused on conservative voices. But there isn't evidence to support this assertion. When research does show that conservative authors have posts labeled or removed, or that their accounts are suspended at higher rates than liberal content, it also reveals that it is because conservative posts are significantly more likely to share misinformation than liberal posts. This was found in a recent study of X users. Researchers tracked whose posts got tagged as false or misleading more in 'community notes'—X's alternative and Meta's proposed alternative to fact checking —and it was conservative posts, because they were more likely to include false content than liberal posts. Furthermore, an April 2025 study shows conservatives are more susceptible to misleading content and more likely to be targeted by it than liberals. Misleading America Those accusing misleading narrative researchers of censorship misrepresent the nature and intent of the research and researchers. And they are using disinformation tactics to do so. Here's how. The misleading information about censorship and bias has been repeated so much through the media and from political leaders, as evident in Trump's executive order, that many Republicans believe it's true. This repetition produces what psychologists call the illusory truth effect, where as few as three repetitions convince the human mind something is true. Researchers have also identified a tactic known as ' accusation in a mirror.' That's when someone falsely accuses one's perceived opponents of conducting, plotting or desiring to commit the same transgressions that one plans to commit or is already committing. So censorship accusations from an administration that is removing books from libraries, erasing history from monuments and websites, and deleting data archives constitute 'accusations in a mirror.' Other tactics include ' accusation by anecdote.' When strong evidence is in short supply, people who spread disinformation point repeatedly to individual stories (sometimes completely fabricated) that are exceptions to, and not representative of, the larger reality. Facts on fact-checking Similar anecdotal attacks are used to try to dismiss fact-checkers, whose conclusions can identify and discredit disinformation, leading to its tagging or removal from social media. This is done by highlighting an incident where fact-checkers 'got it wrong.' These attacks on fact-checking come despite the fact that many of those most controversial decisions were made by platforms, not fact-checkers. fact-checkers are rated the most effective. When Republicans do report distrust of fact-checkers, it's because they perceive the fact-checkers are biased. Yet research shows little bias in choice of who is fact-checked, just that prominent and prolific speakers get checked more. When shown fact-checking results of specific posts, even conservatives often agree the right decision was made.
Times of Oman
16 hours ago
- Politics
- Times of Oman
ONA participates in Asia-Pacific News Agencies meeting in Russia
St. Petersburg: Oman News Agency (ONA) took part in the General Assembly meeting of the Organization of Asia-Pacific News Agencies (OANA), held on Thursday in St. Petersburg, Russia, under the theme 'News Agencies and the Challenges of the Modern World." The event, attended by over 40 government and private news agencies, coincided with the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum, a two-day event hosted under the patronage of President Vladimir Putin of the Russian Federation. In his opening address, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov emphasised the critical role of news agencies in delivering credible journalism and countering misinformation, particularly amid today's rapidly evolving global developments. Melissa Fleming, UN Under-Secretary-General for Global Communications, highlighted the importance of protecting journalists in conflict zones, especially in armed conflicts, given their vital role in reporting facts and exposing the humanitarian suffering of war victims. The OANA General Assembly addressed key topics, including the risks of disinformation and its impact on news credibility—particularly with the rise of artificial intelligence technologies—as well as the experiences of international agencies transitioning from traditional broadcasting to digital platforms in an era of accelerating media innovation. The meeting also included votes on the Executive Council composition for 2025–2028, the formation of the Technical and Ethical Committee for the same term, and the OANA Presidential Board for 2028–2031. Additionally, the assembly announced election results for the new OANA President and Secretary-General, presented awards, and approved reports from the Executive and Technical Councils, along with the appointment of vice presidents.
Fox News
2 days ago
- Politics
- Fox News
Universities abandon Jewish students amid dangerous tide of social media disinformation
Disinformation isn't just an online nuisance anymore - it's a direct threat to truth, democracy, and safety on American University campuses. Today's students get most of their news from TikTok, Instagram, and other social media platforms. Spaces where accuracy often takes a backseat to clicks and engagement. Users are often rewarded the more provocative they are. Making matters worse, major platforms like Meta and X (formerly Twitter) are rolling back their fact-checking and content moderation policies. Since January 2025, Meta has scrapped its fact-checking system in favor of so-called "community framing." Similar to moves already seen on X. According to the Institute for National Security Studies, nearly 60% of people rely on social media for their information, and that number is even higher among students. Resulting in a generation increasingly unable to separate fact from fiction. And that's no accident. Bad actors - from hostile foreign governments to radical social activists - are flooding these platforms with propaganda, conspiracy theories, and hate. Nowhere is this more visible than in the spike of antisemitic disinformation circulating online and at universities. The consequences are deeply troubling: an increasing number of Jewish students feel unsafe on campus, while many others struggle with confusion and lack the tools to navigate an overwhelming flood of false information. Universities should be a beacon of open debate, but this is being twisted into a toxic environment where Jewish students are harassed, vilified, and made to feel unsafe. My own research demonstrated that more than half of students admit to believing something later proven false. Many could not tell the difference between a real news story and a fake one. More than half struggled to distinguish between legitimate news and deliberately fabricated stories when presented with fake social media posts during workshops. Leading to a staggering 87% to 94% of students across different groups expressing strong support for mandatory training to help them recognize and combat disinformation. In three separate U.K. surveys, students reported a dramatic surge in antisemitic disinformation following the October 7th attacks - at rates of 88%, 84%, and 72%, respectively. This problem does not stop at U.K. institutions. Similar scenes have erupted on U.S. campuses. That's a wake-up call. Universities can't afford to ignore this crisis any longer. While they can't control TikTok or Meta, they can ensure their own house is in order. It starts with preparing students with media literacy and disinformation. Not another lecture - real, practical courses taught by experts in tech, journalism, and cybersecurity. These programs should be non-negotiable. Because as today's students become tomorrow's professors this won't be enough. Universities will also need clear rules against knowingly spreading lies, especially when those lies are used to spread hate or incite hostility - and these rules should apply to Professors too. This isn't about stifling debate - it's about protecting students and upholding basic standards of truth. The United States is on the front line of this crisis. American universities, once champions of rigorous debate and intellectual freedom, are now grappling with a tidal wave of disinformation that is undermining both education and student safety. Antisemitic conspiracy theories, fake videos, and distorted narratives are spreading like wildfire across campuses, often with little to no pushback from administrators. Jewish students report being harassed, doxxed, and isolated for speaking out. In some cases, they're targeted by peers who have consumed so much disinformation online including narratives that paint Jewish people as global conspirators. These aren't just fringe opinions anymore; they're becoming normalized in lecture halls and student unions. The response from many institutions has been tepid at best. Some university leaders hide behind vague commitments to free expression while refusing to confront the coordinated spread of disinformation. This isn't a free speech issue. It's a failure of leadership. America's higher education system must wake up to the reality that unchecked disinformation is not just corrosive; it's dangerous and fragmenting cohesion on campus. Too many schools are failing to respond when Jewish students are targeted by disinformation-fueled hate. My research found in some cases; students rate their university's response to antisemitic incidents as low as 1.7 out of 5. That's shameful. The consequences won't stop at campus gates. Disinformation tears the fabric of democracy. It fuels division, extremism, and violence. And once it takes root in our education system, it's much harder to undo.
News24
2 days ago
- Business
- News24
Elon Musk's X Corp sues to block New York social media transparency law
• Elon Musk's X Corp has filed a federal lawsuit against a New York state law 'Stop Hiding Hate Act' that requires social media companies to submit semi-annual reports on how they moderate hate speech and disinformation. • X argues the law violates the First Amendment by forcing platforms to disclose sensitive moderation practices. • The law targets companies with over $100 million in annual revenue, imposes $15 000 daily fines for violations. Elon Musk's X Corp has filed a lawsuit challenging a New York state law that requires social media companies to report how they moderate hate speech and disinformation. The complaint, filed in a federal court in Manhattan, seeks to halt the law, which X argues violates the First Amendment by forcing platforms to disclose sensitive information about their content moderation practices. "Today, @X filed a First Amendment lawsuit against a New York law, NY S895B," X's Global Government Affairs team posted Tuesday, adding that it had successfully challenged a similar law in California. "X is the only platform fighting for its users by challenging the law, and we are confident we will prevail in this case as well," the company said. The New York law requires social media companies with more than $100 million in annual revenue to submit semi-annual reports detailing how they define and moderate hate speech, racism, extremism, disinformation and harassment. Companies face fines of $15 000 per day for violations, which can be sought by the attorney general's office. X says the law is "an impermissible attempt by the State to inject itself into the content-moderation editorial process" and seeks to pressure platforms into restricting constitutionally protected speech. The lawsuit comes after X successfully challenged a nearly identical California law last year, according to the filing. New York's law is "a carbon copy" of the California provisions that were struck down, the filing adds. X claims New York lawmakers refused to discuss changes to the bill after the California ruling, with sponsors saying they declined to meet because of content on X promoted by owner Musk that "threatens the foundations of our democracy." READ | Musk's X sues to block California anti-hate speech law The company argues this indicated "viewpoint discriminatory motives" behind the law's passage. Senator Brad Hoylman-Sigal and Assembly member Grace Lee - who introduced the law - said in a statement that their act "does not infringe upon the First Amendment rights of social media companies, nor does it conflict with federal law". "Instead, the Stop Hiding Hate Act requires narrowly tailored disclosures by social media companies to allow consumers to better decide which social media platforms they utilise," they added. "The fact that Elon Musk would go to these lengths to avoid disclosing straightforward information to New Yorkers as required by our statute illustrates exactly why we need the Stop Hiding Hate Act."
Fox News
2 days ago
- Politics
- Fox News
Gavin Newsom launches Substack to fight 'disinformation'
California Gov. Gavin Newsom already had a podcast. Now he has a Substack, too. Newsom launched his own site Tuesday on the popular spot for independent journalists, calling it a way to "break through "the noise." "We have to flood the zone and continue to cut through the right-wing disinformation machine," he wrote in the post that was accompanied by a video of the governor speaking. "There's so much mis and disinformation out there, there's so much noise, I don't need to tell you that," Newsom said. "The question is, how do we break through all of that noise and engage in real conversations? And that's why I'm launching on Substack. I hope you'll follow me so we can continue to engage in a two-way conversation at this critical moment in our history." Newsom kicked off his new project by sharing his Fox News Digital op-ed on Tuesday titled, "Trump is trying to destroy our democracy. Do not let him." He also posted an interview with Democratic strategist and TikToker Aaron Parnas. He told Parnas that joining new media platforms like Substack was "foundational and fundamental" to Democratic strategy and outreach going forward and that his party must get more "aggressive" with their messaging. Newsom launched his own podcast in March, "This is Gavin Newsom," where he's conversed with liberal allies but also pro-Trump figures like Charlie Kirk and Newt Gingrich. The likely 2028 Democratic presidential candidate already has a high profile, but he's held the spotlight even more in recent weeks as California became the epicenter of the Trump administration's illegal immigration crackdown. Newsom has spoken out harshly against President Donald Trump's deployment of the National Guard and Marines to Los Angeles to quell unrest generated by anti-ICE protests. "With this act, President Trump has betrayed our soldiers, the American people, and our core traditions; soldiers are being ordered to patrol the very same American communities they swore to protect in wars overseas. The deployment of federal soldiers in L.A. doesn't protect our communities – it traumatizes them," he wrote. Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta filed a lawsuit accusing Trump of overstepping his bounds by illegally deploying the National Guard to quell the unrest. Last week, a federal judge sided with California in his ruling and directed Trump to return control of National Guard troops to Newsom's command. EXCLUSIVE: NEW 'GAVIN NEWSOM FILES' REVEAL CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR'S 'EXTREME' AGENDA"Defendants are temporarily ENJOINED from deploying members of the California National Guard in Los Angeles," U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer wrote in his ruling. "Defendants are DIRECTED to return control of the California National Guard to Governor Newsom." White House spokesperson Anna Kelly blasted the ruling as an "abuse of power" that "puts our brave federal officials in danger" and said the Trump administration would appeal the decision. A federal appeals court stayed the ruling and will hear arguments Tuesday to review whether Trump can keep using California's National Guard to protect immigration enforcement officials and quell protests.
