With the 2022 US midterm elections just days away, we asked 4 social media experts how Twitter can fix its enormous fake news problem. You’ll be surprised at the consensus in their recommendations.
While misinformation has many homes, Twitter is notable for its uncanny ability to spread incorrect information far and fast, with disturbing results. Former President Donald Trump’s heavy use of the platform, especially during his quixotic effort to overturn the 2020 election results, is just one of many examples of how Twitter misinformation has been weaponized.
Despite this obvious issue with misinformation, it is unclear how much Twitter can or will do to curb its spread. A recent whistleblower report presented evidence that Twitter was manifestly failing to control misinformation, particularly outside the US. An ongoing attempt to purchase the company by self-styled free speech proponent and billionaire Elon Musk has called Twitter’s future commitment to control misinformation into serious question.
With the first US national election since 2020 on the horizon, I put the same questions to several misinformation experts: What should Twitter do about misinformation on its platform, and is the company willing to do it?
While not everyone agrees, there’s surprising consensus. It turns out we know a lot about the problem of misinformation but may not necessarily be equipped to deal with it. Moreover, getting rid of misinformation might actually be worse than learning to live with it.
A Note on Semantics
When I first started writing about misinformation a few years ago, I knew I was going to have trouble telling it apart from its more insidious cousin, disinformation. Misinformation is anything that is factually incorrect, while disinformation is factually incorrect information specifically spread with the intent to deceive. To keep them straight in my mind, I made a little mnemonic device: mis-information is a mis-take, and dis-information is dis-seat (deceit).
My goal here isn’t to ferret out intent, so for simplicity’s sake, I assume the best possible intentions and use “misinformation” throughout, except where interview subjects use a different term. However, my word choice doesn’t mean that Twitter and other social media platforms have less of a problem with disinformation.
Odanga Madung on Misinformation in the Kenyan General Election
With the US midterm election still weeks away and the 2020 election a fading memory, I reached out to investigative journalist and member of Mozilla’s Tech and Society Fellows Odanga Madung to get a view on how Twitter handled a recent election in Kenya, a subject Madung has written about in depth.
“I can speak to the Kenyan context because I’m a Kenyan, and we’ve just come from what I consider to be a shitshow of an election information environment thanks to the platforms,” Madung told me over our WhatsApp call. “This country essentially plunged into what we’re calling a post-election information dystopia.”
“Many of us could really not tell what was real and what wasn’t. I’m not exaggerating,” Madung said.
Although I couldn’t see his face, it was easy to tell that Madung was not exaggerating, as his energetic voice dropped down to an earnest quiet and level.
This isn’t the first time Madung has criticized social media platforms’ involvement in Kenyan politics. In September 2021, Madung and coauthor Brian Obilo released a report(Opens in a new window) that alleged Twitter’s trending algorithm was systematically manipulated during a particularly tense moment in Kenyan politics. They found 3,700 accounts generating more than 23,000 tweets across 11 different misinformation campaigns, eight of which were successful in being highlighted as a trending topic on Twitter. A statement from Twitter included in the report says that the company “took action” on 100 accounts the authors investigated and found evidence of “at least one network of coordinated accounts.”
Madung and Obilo go on to claim a conflict between Twitter’s business model and its commitment to curbing misinformation. The authors write, “The overall message this sends is that it’s okay to sow hate on the platform, so long as its owners can place ads next to the content and make money from it.”
Madung’s criticism of social media is not limited to Twitter. In my conversation with him, he spoke broadly about social media platforms in general. In June of this year, his research into TikTok posts(Opens in a new window) related to Kenya’s general election led to that platform removing several videos.
When asked for comment on its role in the 2022 Kenyan general election, Twitter referred us to its blog post(Opens in a new window) outlining the company’s efforts. The company told me, “We’re committed to providing a service that fosters and facilitates free and open democratic debate, while protecting the health of the electoral conversation, as demonstrated through our civic integrity and engagement work.”
Twitter and Transparency
Madung’s view on Twitter’s activities during the Kenyan general election were presaged by an internal report disclosed by whistleblower Peiter Zatko. That report says Twitter was unable to provide even a “scaled-back” version of the efforts it took during the 2020 US presidential election for a then-upcoming Japanese election. The report also states that Twitter staff lacked the language skills to properly address global misinformation.
To better control misinformation, Madung told me that Twitter needs to be more transparent about its interventions. “Without transparency, it’s almost impossible for us to know what has worked in this context and what hasn’t worked and therefore what interventions we should double down on and what should be recalled.” As an example, Madung told me that if Twitter is labeling misinformation, the platform should release information on how those labels have reduced the viewership of those tweets.
Madung’s criticism of social media is not limited to Twitter. In my conversation with him, he spoke broadly about social media platforms in general. In June of this year, his research into TikTok posts(Opens in a new window) related to Kenya’s general election led to that platform removing several videos.
When asked for comment on its role in the 2022 Kenyan general election, Twitter referred us to its blog post(Opens in a new window) outlining the company’s efforts. The company told me, “We’re committed to providing a service that fosters and facilitates free and open democratic debate, while protecting the health of the electoral conversation, as demonstrated through our civic integrity and engagement work.”
Twitter and Transparency
Madung’s view on Twitter’s activities during the Kenyan general election were presaged by an internal report disclosed by whistleblower Peiter Zatko. That report says Twitter was unable to provide even a “scaled-back” version of the efforts it took during the 2020 US presidential election for a then-upcoming Japanese election. The report also states that Twitter staff lacked the language skills to properly address global misinformation.
To better control misinformation, Madung told me that Twitter needs to be more transparent about its interventions. “Without transparency, it’s almost impossible for us to know what has worked in this context and what hasn’t worked and therefore what interventions we should double down on and what should be recalled.” As an example, Madung told me that if Twitter is labeling misinformation, the platform should release information on how those labels have reduced the viewership of those tweets.
Start Early, Don’t Stop Too Soon
Madung also criticizes Twitter’s timing of election misinformation interventions, saying that it and other social media platforms move too slowly to begin working against misinformation and then halt their efforts too quickly. “Especially in a hyperactive information environment like the US, you can’t just go in three months before the election and say, ‘now is when we decide to do things!'” quipped Madung. “No. It’s almost too late.”
As with the 2020 US presidential election, Madung says that problems on Kenyan Twitter continued after voting as well. “There was just a lot of electoral misinformation in a post-election context that was going around that was not necessarily debunked or labeled, and that was essentially allowed to run rampant around the platform, which greatly affected the voters’ perception of the post-electoral environment,” he said. Madung told me that this confusion and misinformation created enormous anxiety in the Kenyan population.
After the 2020 US election, Twitter was criticized for halting enforcement of its civic integrity policy in March of 2021, just two months after the deadly January 6th attack on Congress that attempted to stop the certification of the 2020 election results.
I asked Madung if he thought Twitter would be able to make the necessary changes to curb misinformation on its platform. “It’s better to just speak from a point of evidence,” he said. “All you have to do is observe the record, and so far I don’t think the record is that good.”
Once again, Madung grew quiet and serious as we concluded our conversation. “Especially in light of the midterms, one thing I’m learning is that a lot of this stuff that the platforms are promising you guys is complete crap,” warned Madung. “[US voters] really have to hold them to account.”
Madung conceded that while he didn’t know the specifics of what Twitter would do to protect the US midterm elections, he speculated the company would “do the usual script,” which includes labeling posts that are potentially misleading, partnering with fact-checkers, and other similar efforts.
In a follow-up call with Madung, he added another warning: single-mindedness among advocates calling on Twitter to address misinformation can be counterproductive. “Focusing on narrow goals like avoiding violence or removing a specific problematic individual, while important, cannot be our sole focus.”
