In 2018, Mark Zuckerberg’s statement with Recode regarding holocaust denial on Facebook was not taken well; The Meta-Media-Mogul later clarified his position (via email), as in the title above, he “didn’t intend to defend” the misinformation being spread on his platform. Today, we’ll look at a couple of platforms’ attempts to curb what he called “deeply offensive.” For YouTube and Instagram’s misinformation policy analysis, I am Peyton Schismenos.
YouTube is massive,
and so too should their efforts towards avoiding propagating misinformation attempts. YouTube’s 4 R’s, remove, raise, reduce, and reward, are their foundational axis (and beneficial), but their conspiracy narrative snipping efforts are meant to target specific keywords that are often used in conspiratorial contexts. What this keyword net does is filter videos containing content that draws attention to previously debunked ideas or theories, changing their place in the algorithm. For example, if someone makes a video that talks about the moon landing by the United States in 1969 and claims it was a fake event, staged by the government for some nefarious purpose, the content is removed or placed so low in the recommended feed that it cannot be found by people not specifically linked to the content. Effectively, the “shadow banning” that certain creators complained of in the years just prior to the pandemic is in effect openly by the media platform with the intent to combat misinformation.
The algorithm will (with luck) push up in the feed more authoritative content, which boasts expertise on the topic and clarity on the issues provided. The algorithm then pushes down videos that feature false information as fact or promote hate content. Disabling the share button, disallowing link creation and embedding/reproduction of the content on other websites is a concepts thrown around but often met with questions of consumer freedom to utilize the content fairly. YouTube also fights to balance between access to disagreement and harm reduction; Publishers are leveraging the controversial nature of political speech to force YouTube to allow consumers political posturing leeway. The result, certain videos are caustic but allowed to exist without being classified as misinformation. The platform considers a window to notify viewers before the beginning of these borderline videos, the interstitial already exists for certain graphic and age-restricted content, so content bereft of context may benefit from this, too.
The question of context extends to the idea of hyper-localized misinformation, like Japan’s earthquake conspiracies. Their efforts are not as strong in languages outside English, where their policies are not in the native language of the heads of the units, so still persistent are murky assumptions and presumptive content that creates content not exactly beyond the line as violative but still ruinous to clarity and truthful ethical practice. One way YouTube is attempting to combat this and other types of misinformation by omission or lack of context is by enabling certain individuals to comment and effectively make notes on the content.
Despite its efforts, the company allows fake news on the platform, like the climate hoax conspiracies, and even approves disinformation ads on foreign (to the U.S.) elections, making the platform money off of misinformation despite their written policy made to prevent monetization of harmful and false information. I have experienced the algorithm, the dreaded beast, that gives you exactly what you’re looking for. Your watch history is just teaching the computer what you like, depending on how much you watch the given content. The platform ought to create a series about media literacy, partnering with users with proven histories and vetted content. These could play every 5-15 YouTube shorts, effectively reminding the users that what’s in their media diet can affect them and their consumption needs to be active and conscious. It could also be in the feed or at the beginning of every YouTube creator’s profile creation process, requiring them to complete a checklist to find useful information and links, and discern false information before they’re given certain privileges, like monetization, link-sharing capabilities, or other such activities. Another method is to just manually check the videos that go over a threshold of views and get reported for misinformation more than once. Finally, if someone clicks share on the video that has been marked as mis/disinformation, make an interstitial that reminds the user to investigate the information themselves, linking to videos that teach the SIFT method and lateral reading. It’s all about engaging responsibly; if it’s a fact, check it!
Instagram is under Meta,
so anything on the broad agenda for Mega-corp (or Meta-corp) addresses both Facebook and Instagram as entities. How does Instagram combat misinformation? They start with their users, putting the responsibility squarely on their shoulders to flag false content at the get-go. Once a post gets reported, the post is queued to be reviewed by a third-party IFCN-certified fact checker team employed/contracted by Meta. Some examples of false information that get filtered out of the platform through this process are posts that promote clearly false COVID-19 misinformation. The rest of the misinformation on the platform is not removed necessarily; it just receives a lower priority on the feed. The main idea is that some of this false information also violates their community guidelines.
The website claims that violating community guidelines can lead to disabled accounts, so logically, it follows that egregious instances of misinformation should do the same to your profile. This does not occur in any explicit way, though. Instead, the platform labels reported content with a false information warning. This label links to the rating from the fact-checker, along with the information that led to the conclusion they came to. Instagram claims they allow each individual user the freedom to choose what to trust, check, and propagate.
Outside sources share Instagram’s program instituted to prevent bullying and misinformation, a warning that similar/identical posts have been labeled as such. This check/interstitial gives a final moment to reflect before posting. Finally, Instagram allows users to hide false or controversial information via their settings and profile. These changes afford themselves a break in criticism by stating ostensibly that they have all the tools available to the creators and they’re doing all they can. This is Meta’s playbook; they understand the problems before they are even asked to hold themselves accountable, yet they do little before they are made to. Meta has a remarkable amount of internal study being conducted at any given time. They have found that their impression-based hierarchy is toxic to impressionable youths, basing their value on a similar scale. The platform has not announced any meaningful changes to the way they’re structured or monetized to prevent these outcomes, but it does claim its policies will undermine attempts at misinformation. The official policy of Meta on misinformation is like YouTube’s; two of the tenets are even shared. Meta does however have a series of media literacy initiatives and videos, which fill some gaps I spoke about regarding YouTube’s efforts. I think the discernment of different countries’ programming will help Meta fight misinformation conceptually, but the impetus being on an individual is challenging for the elderly and those not trained to seek out such content. It is a catch-22 to require people who don’t know how to find information to find information to learn how to find information. If profiles being created were made to complete a literacy course before being able to share content, there would be far fewer instances of well-meaning “if-true” misinformation floating around. If you’re on Instagram, remember to take everything with a grain of salt, and a couple Wikipedia tests.
Leave a Reply