March 28, 2024

Mediator: Social Media Pollution, a Huge Problem in the Last Election, Could Be Worse in 2020

The Brennan Center has called for increased focus on disclosure of the costs that go into producing online political content devised to sway votes, regardless of whether money was spent to promote it.

Similarly, @ToTheXToTheY did not have to pay Twitter to influence voters. The account had an effect on the 2016 campaign because some very influential people drew attention to its wild claims.

It’s possible that the account was run by a Trump fan with social media chops. But even if it was part of a broader network created to swing the election, its activity would not necessarily fall under even the newly proposed election regulations.

Facebook asks its users to use their real names, but it doesn’t ask for proof of identity, which is how the Internet Research Agency managed to create its phony Americans.

Facebook says it’s getting better and faster at spotting fakes. Twitter says the same thing, but its job is more challenging, because it still allows people to have pseudonymous accounts.

There’s a logic to it. Any move to force users into the light would raise free speech issues here, while potentially harming dissidents looking for safe outlets in repressive countries.

And let’s not forget that certain vital documents, including the Federalist Papers and Common Sense, were written under a pen name or anonymously, and that the First Amendment protects anonymous speech.

But when it comes to elections, do voters have an equal right to transparency?

At the start of another campaign in which false, anonymous attacks are likely to be the norm, that question has gone unanswered.

Article source: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/19/business/media/social-media-presidential-campaign-2020.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Speak Your Mind