Social Media’s Struggle to Combat Misinformation Ahead of the 2024 Election
With the 2024 US presidential election looming, election officials across the country are grappling with a familiar challenge: the rampant spread of misinformation on social media platforms. While platforms like Facebook have attempted to curb the issue, their efforts are being hampered by algorithmic changes, reduced trust and safety teams, and a lack of effective communication with local election authorities. This leaves officials scrambling to combat false narratives that could potentially sway voters and undermine the integrity of the election. The situation is particularly acute in swing states, where even a small number of misinformed voters could significantly impact the outcome.
Key Takeaways: A Looming Misinformation Crisis
- False narratives about voting procedures are spreading virally on Facebook, despite past attempts by the platform to flag and debunk such claims.
- State and local election officials are struggling to counter misinformation with limited reach and engagement on social media platforms.
- Meta’s reduced emphasis on political content, coupled with cuts to their trust and safety teams, has made it harder to detect and remove election misinformation.
- Election officials report difficulties communicating with Meta, receiving canned responses or no response at all to crucial issues.
- The problem transcends Facebook; similar challenges exist across platforms like X (formerly Twitter), illustrating a broader systemic concern.
The Resurgence of Old Misinformation
Derek Bowens, Durham County’s director of elections in North Carolina, recently faced a crisis when a Facebook post containing demonstrably false information about ballot invalidation went viral. The post claimed that if a poll worker wrote anything on a voter’s ballot, it would be invalidated. This false claim, debunked in 2020 by Facebook’s fact-checking partners, resurfaced without the “false information” tag that previously accompanied it. This highlights the persistent and recurring nature of election misinformation and the platform’s inconsistent enforcement of its fact-checking policies. Bowens and his team had significant difficulty countering the misinformation until the North Carolina State Board of Elections issued a press release clarifying the facts – a clear indication of how difficult it is to combat misinformation spreading organically. “It was spreading and there wasn’t anything happening to stop it until our state put out a press release and we started engaging with our constituency on it,” Bowens told CNBC.
Meta’s Response and the Challenges of Fact-Checking
When CNBC flagged the posts containing misinformation to Meta, the company responded that they’d sent them to third-party fact-checkers for review. This process, however, is slow and reactive, often failing to contain the damage before the misinformation reaches a large audience. The lack of proactive measures and inconsistent application of fact-checking protocols make it difficult for election officials to rely on these platforms to protect the integrity of the electoral process. Moreover, the reduction of fact-checking resources within Meta itself further exacerbates the issue.
Election Officials Face Growing Challenges
The difficulties extend beyond North Carolina. In Arizona, Taylor Kinnerup, communications director for Maricopa County’s recorder’s office, faces similar challenges. Maricopa County, with over half of Arizona’s population, is a high-profile target for disinformation, particularly after Trump’s false claims of voter fraud in 2020, which resulted in an ongoing stream of false narratives and conspiracy theories. Kinnerup and her team actively share information on Facebook and Instagram, but their organic reach is minimal. Furthermore, they experienced a significant setback when their Facebook and Instagram accounts became unlinked, hindering their ability to reach their constituents effectively. “I couldn’t be dealing with Meta every single day, because I had to be giving tours,” Kinnerup lamented, highlighting the time lost tackling technical issues instead of addressing public concerns.
Lack of Support from Social Media Platforms
Conversations with election officials across numerous states reveal a consistent pattern: a significant lack of responsive support from social media platforms. Officials report difficulty communicating with Meta, often receiving only canned statements or no response at all to their repeated concerns. This lack of communication poses a considerable obstacle in fighting the spread of misinformation and ensuring transparency in the electoral process. Meta’s claim of proactive training sessions for state and local officials was contradicted by election officials who stated they were unaware of such programs. This disparity underscores the communication breakdown between the social media giant and the very people responsible for the smooth functioning of the elections.
Beyond Facebook: A Broader Problem
The challenges are not restricted to Facebook alone. Scott McDonell, Dane County clerk in Wisconsin, noted significant reduction in post engagement on Facebook. “If I link to a story about election security, three people will see it,” he commented. Furthermore, many of his colleagues have opted out of engaging on Facebook entirely due to the constant barrage of attacks and abuse faced by election officials in previous electoral cycles. This widespread reluctance underscores the hostile environment created by misinformation and online harassment, making it difficult to share accurate information effectively.
The Need for Proactive Solutions
The upcoming election necessitates a more proactive approach from social media platforms. Jeramy Gray, chief deputy of Los Angeles County’s registrar-recorder/county clerk office, suggests that Meta (while considered the “most mature” of the platforms) needs to significantly improve its level of support and engagement. He advocates for consistent outreach to state and local officials several months before any major election to discuss what tools and partnerships are available to ensure accurate election information is readily shared and disinformation effectively countered. “What I would like to see is just more engagement from them, at least three to four months from a large national election, for them to reach out to key stakeholders at the state and local level to really talk about what they can do or what they’re doing,” he stated.
Balancing Free Speech and Misinformation
Derek Bowens raises a pertinent point about navigating free speech concerns in the fight against misinformation. The line between misinformation and the exercise of First Amendment rights isn’t always clear, and aggressive action by election officials could potentially lead to accusations of censorship. Striking this critical balance requires proactive communication and transparent collaboration between social media platforms and election authorities to establish efficient mechanisms for dealing with election-related misinformation.
The situation highlights a critical need for stronger collaboration and proactive measures from social media platforms, improved communication channels, and further research into the most effective strategies for combating misinformation. The 2024 elections will be a crucial test of whether these platforms can effectively fulfill their responsibility in safeguarding the integrity of the democratic process.
