Kate Starbird is a professor at the University of Washington and the protagonist of a recent 60 minutes segment on the so-called spread of online misinformation. Starbird had previously worked with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to flag allegedly inaccurate social media content to platform moderators, in the explicit hope that the platforms would remove such content. Yet she told CBS News that the real victims of censorship are researchers like her, who face increasing scrutiny from conservative media and congressional Republicans.
“Are researchers being cooled?” asked 60 minutes’ Lesley Stahl.
“Absolutely,” Starbird replied.
Yet he continues to speak out. The National Press Club will host an event with her later this month; its aim is to help journalists counter the spread of “harmful misinformation and disinformation, especially during times of crisis”. She will share the spotlight with Tamoa Calzaldilla, managing editor of Factchequeado, a group that fights misinformation aimed at Latinos. A PBS article on Factchequeado laments that Spanish-speaking immigrants from countries with “recent histories of authoritarianism, socialism, high inflation and voter fraud may be more vulnerable to misinformation on these topics.” One wonders why immigrants fleeing inflation and socialist repression should be less informed about these issues with respect to native citizens; perhaps disinformation watchers are worried that Hispanic immigrants may simply disagree with the Democratic Party’s position on the scope of these problems?
Regardless, the industry of fighting misinformation is getting bigger and bigger. CBS is ready to debut a new program, CBS News confirmed, entirely focused on preventing misinformation. The show will “identify and combat the spread of false stories, conspiracy theories and negative facts,” according to Variety.
Meanwhile, misinformation watchdog groups are pressuring social media companies to do more to combat AI-generated misinformation. Miles Taylor, former DHS chief of staff and author of the infamous editorial “I’m Part of the Resistance Within the Trump Administration,” who now works for an anti-misinfo tech group, said Axios that insufficient social media moderation was responsible for Donald Trump’s victory in 2016.
Thanks to the Twitter files, it is now public knowledge that an army of federal bureaucrats has been pressuring tech platforms to censor so-called misinformation related to the election, Hunter Biden, COVID-19 and other topics. Whether these efforts violated the First Amendment is currently under review by the Supreme Court. But the platforms themselves have clearly become frustrated with the government’s guidance. Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg is openly frustrated with how his company has handled the feds, and Elon Musk’s acquisition of X, formerly of Twitter, was largely motivated by his self-proclaimed desire to resist this censorship.
As a result, “the government is not talking to social media companies,” Taylor complained Axios. “Many social media companies want nothing to do with the government, which means new AI-related threats may go undetected.”
It is certainly true that there is bad information and made-up nonsense circulating on social media. But the fundamental problem remains that our new self-appointed fact-checkers have not proven themselves to be error-free. Nina Jankowicz, chosen to lead the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) disinformation task force, has been misidentified The New York Postthe story of Hunter Biden’s laptop as Russian disinformation; the Global Disinformation Index, a nonprofit group, has incorrectly labeled the lab leak theory about the origins of COVID-19 as racist and conspiracy (neither, as the Department of Energy now believes it to be the most plausible explanation); and third-party fact-checking organizations often lead social media platforms astray.
Disinformation experts would be invited to contribute to the marketplace of ideas and set the record straight when they think false narratives are circulating online. But their favorite tactic is to block free speech by working with the media, nonprofits, and even the federal government to extort social media platforms into bending to their wishes. This is not improving online discourse. It certainly isn’t making the Internet a better place.
NPR’s Mistakes
For a good example of what can go wrong when a mainstream viewpoint decides to parrot the supposedly expert progressive consensus, see this article on NPR in Bari Weiss The free press. Veteran NPR journalist Uri Berliner recounted a series of instances over the years in which the publicly funded news organization succumbed to groupthink.
“An open-minded spirit no longer exists within NPR, and now, predictably, we do not have an audience that reflects America,” he writes.
This week in free media
If you haven’t heard yet, I’m hosting a new show for Reason about what happens in the media. (It’s named after this newsletter.) This week, Amber Duke and I had a discussion The sightof climate alarmism, MSNBC’s dawning realization that perhaps the minimum wage could contribute to inflation, and whether it’s right to ask questions about Jan. 6. Watch below:
It’s worth watching
Reaction from the Reason the staff was mixed, but I admit I’m intrigued by the trailer for Joker: Folie a Deuxthe next sequel of 2019 Joker film with Joaquin Phoenix. I liked her, but she didn’t love,Joker, that took an interesting concept and failed to expand on it in an interesting enough way. In fact, the trailer for the original film is probably better than the film and the next best thing Joker it was probably the short teaser of the “camera test”. We’ll see if director Todd Phillips is able to make something magical with the addition of Lada Gaga as Harley Quinn.