Black Lives Matter Fights Disinformation to Keep the Movement Strong

[SummerMadness]

Black Lives Matter Fights Disinformation to Keep the Movement Strong

On May 25, 2020, George Floyd died under the knee of Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin and protests erupted worldwide. Support for Black Lives Matter — the movement that actually began as a hashtag in 2013 — surged. To this day, posts on social media continue to call for racial justice and an end to police brutality.

But also online are posts riddled with disinformation, including those specifically targeting BLM. Activists charge that those disparaging posts are part of an overall effort to undermine the movement and its message.

One post, for example, falsely claims the government has identified it as a terrorist group. Another that circulated widely claimed that BLM activists had badly beaten a group of elderly white people. That post was debunked by fact checkers who found the photos were of South Africans and had been online for years. It was removed, however Jorden Giger, an organizer with Black Lives Matter in South Bend, Ind., says there's still plenty of disinformation online designed to create confusion and distrust.

Giger says that's why BLM launched an effort to stop disinformation and urges people to submit details about suspicious posts or stories to the Black Lives Matter website.

WinBlack/Pa'lante, a nonpartisan group created after the 2016 presidential election, also monitors disinformation aimed at people of color. Hundreds of organizers across the country formed a digital war room during last year's election. They tracked bots that automatically send out scripted disinformation, often from Russia or other foreign governments trying to sow discord in the U.S. They tracked what are known as digital blackface accounts that steal images to masquerade as Black people and spread disinformation. Ashley Bryant, one of the co-leaders of WinBlack/Pa'lante, says they also found conspiracy theories about Black Lives Matter.

"That went from George Floyd not being dead to, you know, George Soros funding protests and the full out attacks on BLM where there's foreign actors, there's fake accounts pretending to be Antifa — all to actually just build this violent narrative around BLM," she says.

As with an civil rights movement, there is always a disinformation campaign launched against movement that advocates for social change. Considering what is happening in Belarus with Roman Protasevich or Russia with Alexei Navalny, muzzling movements by claiming they are violent is nothing new. Although the previous administration ignored cyber disinformation campaigns, it's good to see there are steps being taken to fight disinformation.

OP Topic: What do you believe the future is for tech companies and social media platforms as it relates to fighting disinformation?

 

[SummerMadness]

More recent articles on disinformation:
Russia is still the biggest player in disinformation, Facebook says

A Facebook report released Wednesday says that Russia is still the largest producer of disinformation, a notable finding just five years after Russian operatives launched a far-reaching campaign to infiltrate social media during the 2016 presidential election campaign.

Facebook says it has uncovered disinformation campaigns in more than 50 countries since 2017, when it began the cat-and-mouse game of cracking down on political actors seeking to manipulate public debate on its platform. The report, which summarizes 150 disinformation operations the company says it has disrupted in that period, highlights how such coordinated efforts have become more sophisticated and costly to run in recent years — even as these operators struggle to influence large numbers of people as they once did.

 

[LaSorcia]

MOD HAT ON


Please stay on topic and avoid flaming and calling out.

MOD HAT OFF

 

[ReesePiece23]

I believe that the 'tightening up' of social media is entirely necessary. Though I consider myself slightly left of centre and tend to abhor rules, I understand - that in some cases, they're entirely necessary. CF for example makes it mandatory to provide links; I'd prepare go one step further by requesting official -or at the very least, credible ones. Because you can't argue with facts. I mean, you can to a point, but not to extreme levels.

I'm not technical at all, so I don't know how this could work. But whenever a combination of key words are typed in, some sort of pop up could flag the user and request that they add an approved resource. YES, it would mean a LOT of hard work on the part of the media companies, but if they care as much as they want us to believe, then put your money where your mouth is and prove that you're not just pandering.

I've mentioned before how I often feel offended on behalf of black individuals for how patronising these PR stunts can be. For example Spotify with it's celebration of "black artists" - erm, sorry guys, but... Little Richard? Chuck Berry? The men who in my opinion paved the way for The Beatles? Even Lennon said that. Many times. And that's without getting into Hendrix, Fats Domino... The great Alexander O'Neal (and he was great), Billy Ocean... I mean, really, I could go on for a year. So jog on Spotify.

As far as today's social media goes, I feel as if it's inevitable that a National Insurance number will be required on sign up. It's a slight breech of our freedom, but I say it'll be completely worth it. At the moment the internet is like the old wild west. You can type the most criminal things and get away with it - and it's not just a case of sticks and stones anymore. I've walked through London enough times to see how much power the internet has now. I've seen real terrorists - believe me, it's not a word you want to throw around lightly.

 

[GOD Shines Forth!]

As far as today's social media goes, I feel as if it's inevitable that a National Insurance number will be required on sign up. It's a slight breech of our freedom, but I say it'll be completely worth it.

No thank you.

 

[ReesePiece23]

No thank you.

Admittedly, it'd make me use social media less. But then, that's more free time for bible study, financial study and an ultimately richer life all round.

It's not really a lot different from JFK airport having my fingerprints and eye scans. I had to do that the very first time I entered the "land of the free."

 

[GOD Shines Forth!]

Admittedly, it'd make me use social media less. But then, that's more free time for bible study, financial study and an ultimately richer life all round.

What concerns me is the term "make me". You can choose those now, Today, on your own.

 

[ReesePiece23]

What concerns me is the term "make me". You can choose those now, Today, on your own.

No, you're right. I think that may well have been a subconscious foreshadowing on my part.

I don't 'freudiantly' slip often, but when I do...

 

[98cwitr]

OP Topic: What do you believe the future is for tech companies and social media platforms as it relates to fighting disinformation?

Who gets to decide what is true or false?

 

[SummerMadness]

I think there must be a balance that can be struck between what is required by law, but I've always felt that this is something that did not require action from government. However, I think it's clear that tech companies are not doing enough, so some government intervention may be needed.

I really though online profiles backed by a person's name and face would keep people honest, but I failed to recognize that some people do not care about spreading disinformation, they're simply looking for the next big thing to peddle to the masses.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I believe that the 'tightening up' of social media is entirely necessary. Though I consider myself slightly left of centre and tend to abhor rules, I understand - that in some cases, they're entirely necessary. CF for example makes it mandatory to provide links; I'd prepare go one step further by requesting official -or at the very least, credible ones. Because you can't argue with facts. I mean, you can to a point, but not to extreme levels.

I'm not technical at all, so I don't know how this could work. But whenever a combination of key words are typed in, some sort of pop up could flag the user and request that they add an approved resource. YES, it would mean a LOT of hard work on the part of the media companies, but if they care as much as they want us to believe, then put your money where your mouth is and prove that you're not just pandering.

I've mentioned before how I often feel offended on behalf of black individuals for how patronising these PR stunts can be. For example Spotify with it's celebration of "black artists" - erm, sorry guys, but... Little Richard? Chuck Berry? The men who in my opinion paved the way for The Beatles? Even Lennon said that. Many times. And that's without getting into Hendrix, Fats Domino... The great Alexander O'Neal (and he was great), Billy Ocean... I mean, really, I could go on for a year. So jog on Spotify.

As far as today's social media goes, I feel as if it's inevitable that a National Insurance number will be required on sign up. It's a slight breech of our freedom, but I say it'll be completely worth it. At the moment the internet is like the old wild west. You can type the most criminal things and get away with it - and it's not just a case of sticks and stones anymore. I've walked through London enough times to see how much power the internet has now. I've seen real terrorists - believe me, it's not a word you want to throw around lightly.

National insurance number?

 

[civilwarbuff]

Who gets to decide what is true or false?

Oh, that's easy. If you agree with it then it is true; if you disagree with it then it is false........wait, aren't they already doing that?

 

[SummerMadness]

Who gets to decide what is true or false?

I think that's a real dilemma, but some disinformation is clearly blatant. Many of the stories propagate by Russian bots, for example, are clearly false stories without basis in fact.

 

[civilwarbuff]

I really though online profiles backed by a person's name and face would keep people honest, but I failed to recognize that some people do not care about spreading disinformation, they're simply looking for the next big thing to peddle to the masses.

And how would it be guaranteed the names and faces match up?.........Papers please?..............

 

[SummerMadness]

Europe Wants Social Media Giants to Do More to Stop Disinformation

The European Commission wants to hold Facebook, Google, TikTok and Twitter accountable for disinformation shared on their platforms. Under proposed rules released Wednesday, the European Commission is requesting that the tech companies do more to properly address disinformation online and show proof they've taken action.

The guidance issued Wednesday urges platforms and players in online advertising to block accounts sharing disinformation and ban those that regularly post debunked content. The commission also wants social media sites to improve transparency of political ads, including by properly labeling paid-for content and allowing users to see who is providing those ads.

"Threats posed by disinformation online are fast evolving and we need to step up our collective action to empower citizens and protect the democratic information space," Věra Jourová, the European Commission's vice president for values and transparency, said in a statement.

The commission's proposals issued Wednesday are meant to strengthen its Code of Practice on Disinformation, a voluntary pact signed by the world's largest social media companies in 2018. The signatories at the time included Facebook, Google, Twitter and Mozilla as well as trade associations representing online platforms, the advertising industry and advertisers.

 

[SummerMadness]

And how would it be guaranteed the names and faces match up?.........Papers please?..............

Do you not understand the post? You obviously missed the context. And aside, it is quite ironic when you consider voter suppression methods advocated by the GOP.

 

[civilwarbuff]

You obviously missed the context.

No, I didn't. Take some time to understand my question......and all the potential abuse of providing such access to personal information that it entails.........

 

[ReesePiece23]

National insurance number?

I think it's the same as Social Security.

I'm not saying that it's the ideal option - in fact, I'm even rethinking how helpful it would actually be. The 1920s prohibition is coming to mind...

A Freudian slip AND a U-turn, all within a single thread. Maybe I should be a politician.

 

[SummerMadness]

No, I didn't. Take some time to understand my question......and all the potential abuse of providing such access to personal information that it entails.........

Take the time to understand that I did not advocate for that, I was talking about social media platforms like Facebook where people used their real names and faces, yet still do not care about spreading disinformation. You failed to understand my original post, it's okay.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Take the time to understand that I did not advocate for that, I was talking about social media platforms like Facebook where people used their real names and faces, yet still do not care about spreading disinformation. You failed to understand my original post, it's okay.

And you did not comprehend the ramifications of people providing personal information to verify their ID so they can have access to social media......JIC you believe social media doesn't abuse the information they possess now.....it's OK.