As Nov. 8 approaches, experts are concerned about the effect misinformation will have on the electorate — and are warning voters to be prepared for false information to spread in ways they might not be used to.
Many of the most-used social media networks, including Facebook and Twitter, have taken steps in recent years to label and moderate false information. But experts say those companies could be doing more, and are worried about apps like TikTok and WhatsApp that have exploded in popularity since the last election.
“We certainly know elections can, and have been, and will be again decided by a handful of votes, so anything that affects voters has the potential to change the outcome,” said Jesse Littlewood, vice president of campaigns at Common Cause, an advocacy organization whose efforts include fighting mis- and disinformation.
“That would include voter myths or disinformation which could either cause the voter to miss the chance to participate because they believed incorrect information, or cause them to not participate at all because they don’t believe in the integrity of the election process,” Littlewood said.
Here is what four people who study or research social media and misinformation said voters should be aware of this election cycle:
Apps like Telegram and WhatsApp are a challenge
Viral information is spread through Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and YouTube in a public-facing way, making it easier for researchers and fact-checkers to spot and debunk false claims.
But apps like Telegram and WhatsApp make fighting misinformation more difficult. These apps are encrypted, and they operate more like group chats between friends and family. They’re also hugely popular in immigrant diaspora communities, so much of the information spread through them is in a language other than English.
“We don’t see what’s happening there,” said Inga Kristina Trauthig, a senior research fellow at the University of Texas at Austin’s Center for Media Engagement. “There’s no content moderation on these platforms because they’re encrypted.”
On Telegram and WhatsApp, a false claim is also more likely to come from a friend or relative rather than a stranger — making people more inclined to trust and make voting decisions based on it, and less likely to do any vetting or research, Trauthig said. Also, few people want to stir up drama in a family group chat by calling out dubious messages.
Trauthig said the best way to react to false information shared on those apps is to gently point whoever shared the claim toward more reliable sources.
“In general,” Trauthig said, “just basically tell your family members, ‘OK, listen, I know these platforms are also infiltrated by bad actors. The stuff we’re seeing here isn’t just from family and friends.’”
The steps a voter should take are “the same whether it’s a tweet, a Facebook post, a WhatsApp chat from your uncle or aunt or a Telegram message from former President Trump,” Littlewood said.
“You should take the same steps of verifying that it’s a trusted source of information and verifying the motivation of who the provider of the information is,” he said.
Meta and Twitter are better, but far from perfect
Labels meant to make social media scrollers think before sharing a claim they come across have been “effective for what they are,” said Joseph McGlynn, associate professor of communication studies at the University of North Texas.
“One of the things I would like for people to think about is, if you’re not sure, don’t share,” McGlynn said, “and one of the most effective things that Facebook or Twitter can do before someone shares something is say, ‘Are you sure you want to share this?’ Those nudges at least slow people down.”
McGlynn said there should be partial responsibility on the platforms to limit and moderate false information. But individuals should put the onus on themselves to be critical of what they see.
“People need to go into these platforms with a dose of skepticism,” he said. “If you can approach Twitter, Facebook, TikTok with that dose of skepticism, that’s really the right place to start, and then the platforms themselves can help that process by acting quickly, flagging potentially false information and getting people to think, pause and deliberate before sharing that information.”
Trauthig said the major companies still leave voters in a vulnerable position, and can make improvements in being transparent about paid content that could be used for political purposes.
“In the end, they are companies that need to make money,” she said. “They live off the algorithms, they live off the virality of topics. They do not live off transparency or making it clear to a user how a post has been promoted.”
Jo Lukito, an assistant professor at UT’s school of journalism and media, said she’ll be watching how the platforms sustain their efforts to repeal election-related misinformation after Election Day passes. Some have slipped on their efforts to label and remove false information about potential voter fraud after ballots have been cast, she said.
“They would track misinformation, especially about the election, but they kind of stopped after the election thinking it was done,” she said. “They did not realize how sustained this kind of misinformation is that persists.”
Elon Musk owning Twitter would shake things up
Earlier this month, billionaire SpaceX founder Elon Musk indicated he wanted to go through with a $44 billion deal to buy Twitter. Musk has repeatedly said Twitter would look different under his control, and has suggested he would loosen many of the platform’s efforts at moderating content.
“That would take Twitter back many years, if not a decade, in terms of improvements to its platform, content and moderation policies, and would potentially give free rein to individuals who have been removed from the platform because of their negative impacts on our democracy and our society,” Littlewood said.
Making drastic changes to the service so close to an election could have enormous implications, McGlynn said.
“I would not want to see any big changes to how these platforms are operating right before an election,” he said. “If Elon loosens the reins a week before the election, with all those changes to how the system operates, there’s going to need to be a settling period for people to adjust.”
Trauthig said Musk’s vision of Twitter as a public square is “fundamentally flawed.” In a real public square, you can identify who is speaking. It’s much more obscure on the social media network.
Musk’s efforts to loosen moderation on Twitter “would not make democratic engagement any fairer,” she said. “We need to have certain rules that govern the space or moderate this space, which can be manipulated by bad actors so easily.”
Voters need to do due diligence, trust election officials
Each individual has a responsibility to make sure they’re sharing verified information, and anyone can be susceptible to misinformation, no matter which side of the political aisle they belong to.
“I think the thing for people to consider is we’re most likely to be vulnerable to misinformation when it’s something that we want to be true,” McGlynn said. He added that state election offices need to be more transparent about how votes are counted and how misinformation is debunked.
Voter fraud and voter turnout are two of the biggest issues people will be talking about this election cycle, McGlynn said. Election officials should be ready to quickly debunk those claims, and consider making a website or landing page that aims to dispel rumors and false claims.
Trauthig said false procedural information — untruths about how to vote, how to get to the polls, what time polls open and close — becomes more and more prevalent as the election gets closer.
“That stuff is really bad for the democratic process,” she said. Voters should always make sure their information about voting comes from an elections office or official.
“In general, I would say people need to be wary,” she added. “If you see something that seems almost too good to be true, too easy to believe, then usually that’s not giving you the whole story because everything in this world is complicated and complex.”
