Hey CAADies, how’s your summer going? If you’re anything like us, you’re enjoying the sun and sand…through the lens of AI-generated music videos spreading anti-offshore-wind disinfo through a bikini-clad waif apparently prompted to mimic folksy female singer-songwriters wistful for beach days without the horrors of slowly spinning wind turbines on the horizon.
For now we’ve been tipped off to a couple examples of the small, local anti-offshore wind groups on Facebook sharing this specifically anti-renewable sort of otherwise–common gen-AI disinfluencers, but it’s enough to make one seasoned CAAD member want to “stab my ears with a drill,” so we’re not just blasting out the links to the posts just yet, to spare you all the torture (and deprive them the exposure and traffice referrals.)
But let us know if you’d like to burden yourself with the psychological damage one endures by experiencing these gen-AI abominations, especially if you’ve already seen any examples of generative AI being used to manufacture the illusion of opposition to climate action.
Social media operates as a “funhouse mirror factory,” that makes unpopular disinformation feel like it’s widespread among the general public, and generative AI makes it all the easier for them to manufacture that illusion. And while some platforms have information integrity measures that limit the ability for the rich or nefarious to manipulate what users see, others are more concerned with making money, playing politics, and stoking addiction.
So social media sites are not an unbiased representation of public sentiment, as convenient as it would be to use them as functionally free polling.
They’re not fair playing fields, as a new report shows- read on to find out more!
Main finding
As the World Cup keeps millions glued to their screens, it’s important to remember how fair games are supposed to work: if you break the rules, you face consequences; keep breaking them and eventually you’re off the field.
Of course that’s only if the game is supposed to be fair.
Because whether it’s yellow then red cards that get rule-breakers sent off field in football or out of the water in canoe polo or into rugby’s “sin bin”, sports have long demonstrated a simple principle: rules only matter if they’re enforced. Break them once and you’re penalized. Keep breaking them and you’re removed. The one thing fair competition doesn’t do is reward repeat offenders.
But social media isn’t a fair competition. Who gets rewarded isn’t necessarily those who play by the rules, it’s often a matter of who’s friends with the owners or who gets to break the rules without punishment, or even with reward.
Case in point: a new report from WhatToFix, (De)monetizing Repeat Disinformers found that Meta is failing to enforce its own rules on demonetizing content and accounts that are repeatedly fact-checked. The report also argues that the Facebook, Instagram and Threads-owning company is falling short of its commitments under the EU Code of Conduct on Disinformation, “which includes an explicit commitment to ‘demonetize disinformation’ and ‘bar participation by actors who systematically post content or engage in behaviors which violate policies.’”
So, is Meta actually living up to its commitments to demonetize disinfo and disinfluencers? Looks like no.
Partnering with the IFCN-certified Bosnia and Herzegovina-based Raskrinkavanje, researchers found that the outlet responsible for the highest number of fact checked falsehoods – 424 uncorrected claims – was one of 9 repeat offenders who Meta invited to join their exclusive invite-only Content Monetization program.
So Meta is not just failing to enforce its policy and commitment to demonetize disinfluencers, it’s actively inviting not just bad actors but the worst actors into its monetization programs!
Are these accounts spreading lies for money while being paid by Meta? According to the report, yes. Raskrinkavanje documented accounts accumulating as many as 30 ‘false’ ratings while actively participating in Meta’s monetization program.
And is being demonetized at least an answer to permanently protect Meta’s users from harmful false content? Nope, as it appears that the majority of demonetized accounts, 84%, were able to regain access to monetization, with over 50% having restrictions lifted within a month, and some within just 2 days.
Imagine a World Cup game where one team gets 424 red cards. Instead of sending off even a single player, the referee waves play on, then signs the team to a sponsorship deal!
WHAT NOW?
What To Fix had plenty of recommendations on what Meta can do to fix this mess – if it actually wants to, that is.
First off, they could apply “risk-based onboarding controls” that makes a point to check and see if accounts have been flagged repeatedly by fact-checkers over its full monetization history.
Then Meta should “make monetization enforcement predictable” by publishing their enforcement standards, so that everyone knows if it’s 3 strikes and you’re out or 30 and you’re still in or get a weekend suspension or what. Transparency, basically.
Third, if Meta wanted to protect Facebook and Instagram users from actors it has already deemed harmful, it should also apply those enforcement measures to related accounts managed by that restricted actor, or prevent them from just making new accounts to continue the same disinfluence operations.
Additional measures include making it so that only successful “disputes” change a rating, that there’s a minimum restriction time, that re-monetization processes include human review, and to actually meet the DSA risk assessment mitigation requirements, as required by law.
All very easily implementable solutions for a company like Meta, assuming there’s a willingness within the company.
IN CAAD NEWS
- Mayor of London opens London Climate Action Week with global fightback against climate disinformation – C40 Cities
- A Policy Playbook to Inoculate the Public Against AI Text Falsehoods | TechPolicy.Press
- Santa Marta & the Future of Climate Journalism | Covering Climate Now
- Climate misinformation as a systemic risk to information integrity in German media | Quotaclimat
- Agrodemia: The New Commodity of Agribusiness Disinformation | Oii
- Big Beef Sponsors Scientists To Make Them “Part of the Family” I CAAD
- Taking a Lesson from the Tobacco Ad Ban to Shut Down Fossil Fuel Greenwashing – Union of Concerned Scientists
- Climate Disinformation and Information Warfare : State Interference and Security Implications | DefenseClimat|
- Demystifying Disinformation presentation| Toronto Public Library
- The Plastics Plot: The Corporate Disinformation Tactics Behind Plastics Pollution – Center for International Environmental Law
- Are electric car batteries as dirty as critics claim?[No. ] |DeutscheWelle
- Climate Mis/Disinformation Is Meant to Stall Action: CAAD | Energy Mix
- Revealed: The Trump Donors, Reform-Backing Billionaires and Oil Companies Funding the Alliance for Responsible Citizenship – DeSmog
IN OTHER NEWS
- Climate scientists say heatwave misinformation is fuelling online harassment | Euronews
- TalkTV: We’re suing Ofcom for failing to stop hate and misinformation | Good Law Project
- Why Carbon Capture Can’t Conceivably Solve Climate Change — ProPublica
- Climate: Tips and tools to help journalists counter disinformation | IFJ
- Science ‘under attack’ from fossil fuel interests at UN climate talks | Climate Change News
- Governors urge Congress to defend states’ rights and reject Big Oil’s immunity proposal | Center for Climate Integrity
Got a lead that isn’t getting the scrutiny it deserves? Or a hunch that something doesn’t quite add up? Send it our way at [email protected]