The battle to stop the spread of misinformation online

4 mn read

Technology companies have dominated the worlds of news and politics. As people’s consumption of fast-circulating content online increased throughout the pandemic, much of it were misleading posts about the coronavirus vaccines. This has led to a demand from American politicians to revoke or modify Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1934, the law that protects internet companies from liability and allows freedom to moderate any content uploaded.

Major platforms are protected under this law by not being liable for the offensive content users posts on their site and continues to circulate daily. In other words, a user can get sued for a specific tweet but not Twitter. Internet companies also have the freedom under this law to restrict access to any posts that they consider to be harmful, as long as their action is taken in good faith.

Many Republican politicians criticize this law and are concerned that too many posts are being removed as a way to “censor” conservative views. While on the other hand, Democrat leaders worry that harmful content is not being removed enough and causing danger to users.

The U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee faced off with Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Google CEO Sundar Pichai and Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey during the first hearing since the rollout of the vaccine. Members of Congress criticized the tech companies for their handling of misinformation and extremism on their platforms. Most of all, for their lack of regulation when it comes to misinformation about coronavirus vaccines on their sites.

Articles that falsely claim the vaccine has caused deaths have been viral and highly engaged this year. According to recent data from the Centers For Disease Control and Prevention, there is no evidence that connects deaths directly to the vaccines. These dangerous falsehoods cause people to become hesitant about taking the vaccine, which can lengthen the duration of the pandemic while the country works to prevent further coronavirus deaths. 

◆Related Posts:  Journalism became crime in Pakistan

Tech giants have put certain policies in place to prevent further vaccine misinformation but have failed to strictly enforce those policies. Imrad Ahmed, the CEO of the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) said, “They have all failed to remove the accounts of prominent anti-vaxxers who have repeatedly violated their terms of service.” Research carried out by the CCDH, found that there are only twelve anti-vaxxers with large audiences who produce the majority of Covid-19 misinformation. One of the biggest influences in spreading anti-vax content is Robert F. Kennedy Jr, who was banned from Instagram but continues to violate vaccine misinformation policies on other platforms.

Ahmed also stated, “Anti-vaxxer accounts on Facebook, YouTube, Instagram and Twitter reach more than 59 million followers, making these the largest and most important social media platforms for anti-vaxxers.” Additional CCDH research found that the anti-vaxxer movement is worth almost $1 billion a year to big tech.

For years, social media companies have been blamed by Congress and tech advocates for prioritizing ad revenue and engagement over rooting out misinformation that harms users. The algorithms on these platforms rely on likes, comments and shares from viral posts that magnify misinformation. By continuing to recommend the same type of misleading content to users, social media companies gain profit and that plays a big role in their lack of action. 

Tech companies were already under scrutiny for not taking down election conspiracy theories that led to the Capitol Hill attack on January 6, which was planned by far-right media accounts on their sites. In the aftermath, Twitter permanently suspended Donald Trump’s account, along with 70,000 other users, “due to the risk of further incitement on violence.” He also lost accounts on YouTube, Snapchat, Twitch, Spotify, Shopify, Facebook, and more. This raised the question of why tech giants choose to wait or avoid deplatforming hateful and threatening content. 

◆Related Posts:  Pakistan Army Generals including Spy ISI chief name among Suisse Secrets

Many on the right believe the ban raised concerns about free speech and censorship over conservatives but privately owned social media companies have legal rights to decide what content to allow or delete from their sites. For this reason, the First Amendment only limits government action and does not apply to these private corporations.

Far-right users are seeking other smaller platforms that are alternative to mainstream social networks, where they engage with others who share their same extremist views without the “censorship” they perceive on other bigger sites. The conservative site Parler was suspended by Google and Apple for showing graphic violence, hate speech, and misinformation that helped incite the Capitol’s insurrection. However, there are still a number of right-leaning sites like QAnon, that continue spreading dis-misinformation, propaganda and conspiracy theory media that gets consumed by millions of Americans.

Politicians introduced a number of proposals to change Section 230 such as requiring more transparency about content moderation, but they have yet to come to an agreement with tech companies over any potential changes. Facebook announced days leading to the hearing that it had removed 1.3 billion fake accounts and Twitter said it would start to apply warning labels before users click on vaccine misinformation. While the platforms argue they have done enough, Congress plans to continue pushing forward on holding platforms accountable.

A large number are flocking to the Eat News for quality news every day, and readers in Taiwan, United States, United Kingdom, India, Japan, France, Pakistan, China, Malaysia and more, now support us financially.

◆Related Posts:  Heartbreaking testimonies from friends of victims of Miami Surfside condo collapse

In these chaotic, perilous times, an independent, truth-seeking news organisation like the Eat News is essential. We believe everyone deserves access to trustworthy information. That’s why we choose to keep our reporting open for all readers, regardless of where they live or what they can afford to pay.

The Eat News has no shareholders or billionaire owner, meaning our journalism is free from influence and vested interests – this makes us different. Our editorial independence and autonomy allows us to provide fearless investigations and analysis of those with political and commercial power. We can give a voice to the oppressed and neglected, and help bring about a brighter, fairer future.

If there were ever a time to join us, it is now. You have the power to support us through these volatile economic times and enable our journalism to reach more people, in all countries.

Every contribution, however big or small, makes a difference. Support the Eat News for better reporting.

Support the Eat News ➔


Victoria Gonzalez is a U.S. correspondent for Eat News who covers a variety of topics about the entertainment world and politics.


Eat News is a Taiwanese digital media, analyzes current events and issues through column articles, videos, visual aid, and exclusive interviews.

6 thoughts on

The battle to stop the spread of misinformation online

  • Rick Cuyler

    One of the hallmarks of Emotional Intelligence is empathy, and those with high EQs extend it to everyone they cross. But there’s an enormous difference between displaying empathy towards a friend or loved one and allowing another person’s rage or misery to incense, dominate, or merely influence one’s well-being.

    • Martina Blasic

      Think of the histrionic behavior of your co-worker who is “distraught” not because she’s going through a break-up but because her friend is.

  • Ralph Fiennes

    Whining and grumbling implies two things — one, that we are victims, and two, there are no solutions to our problems. Rarely does an emotionally intelligent person feel victimized, and even more infrequently does an emotionally intelligent person feel that a solution is beyond their grasp.

    • Martina Blasic

      Instead of looking for someone or something to blame, they immediately think of how to constructively address the dilemma.

  • Elena Bulleati

    They don’t always say yes — to others and themselves.
    Like empathy, self-control and conviction are sure signs of an emotionally solid person. Emotionally intelligent people are well-aware that a second glass of wine will lead to negative consequences the next morning, just as they know that an invitation to go on a spontaneous weekend rendezvous will detract them from fulfilling their preexisting commitments.

  • Shen Foster

    They don’t gossip.
    Emotionally acute people sidestep gossip as determinedly as they skirt drama. To involve themselves in scandalous talk, they know, is to shame another for a supposed error — and an emotionally intelligent person understands that all humans are equally deserving, and that what others might perceive as a mistake is an opportunity for improvement.

Comments are closed.
Printer: Economic and Political Media Limited © 2022 Thesis7ting LLC