IT IS less than a month until the US presidential election, and Facebook’s misinformation problem is as rampant as ever. Despite pledges from the social media firm to tackle hate speech and false content on its platform in the wake of interference during the 2016 US elections, progress has been glacial.
In a fraught year marked by the coronavirus pandemic, widespread protests over racial inequality and severe wildfires in the US, the consequences of fake news are more serious than ever. According to one estimate, health misinformation on Facebook has been viewed . A released on 1 October suggests that US president Donald Trump has probably been the largest single driver of coronavirus misinformation. The researchers analysed 38 million English-language articles published by traditional and online media between January and May that covered prominent misinformation topics.
Advertisement
They found that mentions of Trump comprised just under 38 per cent of the “misinformation conversation”. The most prevalent topic was bogus miracle cures for covid-19, driven in part by Trump’s touting of hydroxychloroquine – a drug that has been shown not to have any beneficial effects for covid-19 – and his speculation that using disinfectant internally could treat the virus. Trump has since been diagnosed with covid-19.
Facebook has been under widespread scrutiny for its failure to moderate content and its continued policy of not fact-checking political ads. After the chaotic first US presidential debate, the Trump campaign peddling a conspiracy theory that Democratic candidate Joe Biden wore an earpiece during the debate. Within a day, these had .
Last December, Facebook pledged $130 million towards an oversight board that would have the power to independently moderate content posted to the platform. Once active, the board will hear appeals from individual users over content removal decisions. The first members were announced in May, but the board still isn’t operational. In July, the board announced it .
Even if it launches ahead of the US election, it is unclear what effect arbitration from the board would have on the sheer quantity of hate speech and misinformation circulating daily on Facebook, given that decisions could take up to three months to adjudicate.
In July, major advertisers including Coca-Cola and Unilever participated in a boycott of advertising on Facebook and Instagram, as part of a campaign protesting against the platform’s inaction on hate speech and misinformation. It was the largest advertiser boycott in Facebook’s history, but when the firm’s several million advertisers are taken into account, it wasn’t very damaging to the company’s bottom line.
“We’re not gonna change our policies or approach on anything because of a threat to a small per cent of our revenue, or to any per cent of our revenue,” told staff ahead of the protest.
Last week, civil rights campaigners and academics including Jonathan Greenblatt, CEO of the Anti-Defamation League, and Yael Eisenstat, former head of election integrity operations for Facebook’s political ads, launched what they call the “real” Facebook oversight board. Their aim is to hold the platform to account around election-related issues, such as misinformation and voter suppression.
Despite scrutiny, advertising boycotts and public pledges, however, Facebook has failed to make any significant improvements since the last US election. It seems that nothing short of government regulation will make a real difference.
