How different social media deal with election disinformation

[Vanellus]

TikTok and Facebook fail to detect election disinformation in the US, while YouTube succeeds | Global Witness

"The investigation revealed starkly contrasting results for the social media giants in their ability to detect and act against election misinformation. TikTok fared the worst; the platform, which does not allow political ads, approved a full 90% of the ads containing outright false and misleading election misinformation.

Facebook was only partially effective in detecting and removing the problematic election ads. Only YouTube succeeded both in detecting the ads and suspending the channel carrying them, though this is in glaring contrast to the platform's record in Brazil, where similar ads were approved."

Global Witness send in ads with deliberate false information (such as the date of election) for approval. Those approved aren't published.

This varies between countries.

 

[disciple Clint]

TikTok and Facebook fail to detect election disinformation in the US, while YouTube succeeds | Global Witness

"The investigation revealed starkly contrasting results for the social media giants in their ability to detect and act against election misinformation. TikTok fared the worst; the platform, which does not allow political ads, approved a full 90% of the ads containing outright false and misleading election misinformation.

Facebook was only partially effective in detecting and removing the problematic election ads. Only YouTube succeeded both in detecting the ads and suspending the channel carrying them, though this is in glaring contrast to the platform's record in Brazil, where similar ads were approved."

Global Witness send in ads with deliberate false information (such as the date of election) for approval. Those approved aren't published.

This varies between countries.

I resent social media outlets controlling information, they should eliminate objectionable words but it should be up to the reader to discern what is truth and what is not. There is a serious problem with people wanting to control what others have to say or hear and as a result we unfortunately are losing the ability to exercise critical thinking. Let everyone have their say, sort it out and make your own conclusions we do not need to be parented by the elites we are adults.

 

[cow451]

I resent social media outlets controlling information, they should eliminate objectionable words but it should be up to the reader to discern what is truth and what is not. There is a serious problem with people wanting to control what others have to say or hear and as a result we unfortunately are losing the ability to exercise critical thinking. Let everyone have their say, sort it out and make your own conclusions we do not need to be parented by the elites we are adults.

CF controls information. Is that a problem for you?

 

[Vanellus]

The social media are publishers of information supplied. If I wrote (in theory, not practice) a letter to a newspaper denying the holocaust or saying that the earth is flat, or some other obvious untruth, then I wouldn't expect or want my letter published. Otherwise, you are arguing that lies are ok.

 

[disciple Clint]

CF controls information. Is that a problem for you?

Is CF a social media?

 

[Ana the Ist]

TikTok and Facebook fail to detect election disinformation in the US, while YouTube succeeds | Global Witness

"The investigation revealed starkly contrasting results for the social media giants in their ability to detect and act against election misinformation. TikTok fared the worst; the platform, which does not allow political ads, approved a full 90% of the ads containing outright false and misleading election misinformation.

You understand there's a legal loophole that allows for politicians to lie during campaigning essentially...right?

Facebook was only partially effective in detecting and removing the problematic election ads. Only YouTube succeeded both in detecting the ads and suspending the channel carrying them, though this is in glaring contrast to the platform's record in Brazil, where similar ads were approved."

Global Witness send in ads with deliberate false information (such as the date of election) for approval. Those approved aren't published.

This varies between countries.

Who is deciding what is disinformation? I mean, I know it's the government....did you?

 

[Nithavela]

Is CF a social media?

Yes.

 

[Vanellus]

You understand there's a legal loophole that allows for politicians to lie during campaigning essentially...right?
Who is deciding what is disinformation? I mean, I know it's the government....did you?

You approve of politicians lying then - right?

if you had read the OP and the link you will have read that Global Witness fed the different social media deliberate false information such as the wrong date for the election. So GW was including deliberate false information.

 

[cow451]

Is CF a social media?

you hadn't noticed all the other posters?
Definition of SOCIAL MEDIA

 

[Ana the Ist]

You approve of politicians lying then - right?

It appears necessary for the job.

They wouldn't be elected if they told the truth.

if you had read the OP and the link you will have read that Global Witness fed the different social media deliberate false information such as the wrong date for the election. So GW was including deliberate false information.

Uh huh....and what exactly does that justify in your mind?

Should the government tell social media platforms what to allow and what to censor?

 

[Vanellus]

It appears necessary for the job.
They wouldn't be elected if they told the truth.

You dodged my question

Uh huh....and what exactly does that justify in your mind?
Should the government tell social media platforms what to allow and what to censor?

So, you didn't read the OP then.
It would be ok if someone accused you of murder on social media then?

 

[disciple Clint]

you hadn't noticed all the other posters?
Definition of SOCIAL MEDIA

Which other posters are you talking about?