Social media policies curb election misinformation
Facebook announced policies that will reject new political advertisements in the days leading up to the general election, and Twitter committed to fact-check false or misleading information pertaining to political processes. Photo illustration by Clarisse Guevarra.
Amidst fear of misinformation and foreign electoral interference, social media is likely to play an integral role in the outcome of the presidential election. Websites such as Facebook and Twitter are under scrutiny to curb the perpetuation of false narratives in the weeks leading up to the Nov. 3 election.
To this end, Facebook announced Sept. 3 that it will not be accepting any new political advertisements seven days before Nov. 3. In addition to this, the media conglomerate will attach labels to posts that attempt to delegitimize the results of the election or claim false victory, as well as take down posts that claim individuals who vote in the election will contract the coronavirus. Nevertheless, political advertisements submitted before Oct. 27 will still be allowed to run on the platform.
Twitter followed suit shortly thereafter to update policies in accordance with preventing the spread of false and misleading media relating to the election. The policy took effect Sept. 17 and encompasses content that relates to other forms of civic engagement. Twitter will label or remove false or misleading information of this kind. This includes false statements made regarding unverified information about election rigging and the outcomes of a civic process – in this case pertaining to the outcome of the election.
Chapman sociology professor Bernard McGrane believes that media is fundamental in shaping political viewpoints in the United States.
“(Media) almost dominates perception in the U.S.,” McGrane said. “(It) dominates it, infuses it, contextualizes it and permeates it.”
Advertising and methods of persuasion go hand-in-hand, said McGrane, who argued that the relationship between the two is used to sell products and ideas to influence citizens’ perceptions of candidates and programs.
“There was this huge transition (in the 1950s) from marketing research finding out what people like and don’t like to motivational research, finding out the springs of human behavior,” McGrane said. “The extraordinary infestation of advertising into all aspects of media has had an enormous impact on politics.”
The fear of editorialized or fake news may also take a front seat in the public’s concern when navigating accurate portrayals of information. Gordon Babst, a political science professor, believes that media literacy and education are necessary defenses against such influence.
“People being media-savvy helps so that they can perceive when they’re being duped,” Babst said. “But I don’t know if our education system produces those kinds of people, and to an extent it doesn’t. We’re incredibly vulnerable to messaging.”
As several states engage in early voting and older advertisements will be allowed to run, McGrane is doubtful that Facebook’s policy to reject new political advertisements will be fully effective, a skepticism echoed by Babst.
“If the ban is just on new ads, I’m really not sure what they think they’re doing,” Babst said. “But, addressing (misinformation) is serious, and I’m glad they started to do that.”
With social media becoming an increasingly more popular method of communication and networking, used by 72% of the American population in 2019, McGrane said it could have a considerable impact on the general election.
“(Social media) is an extraordinarily effective propaganda tool for miseducation and misinformation,” he said. “(People) can be targeted and most effectively influenced, persuaded, and manipulated.”