States have few tools to fight misinformation
Matt Vasilogambros, Tribune News Service
As deadly wildfires raged in Los Angeles this month, local officials were forced to address a slew of lies and falsehoods spreading quickly online. From artificial intelligence-generated images of the famous Hollywood sign surrounded by fire to baseless rumors that firefighters were using women's handbags full of water to douse the flames, misinformation has been rampant. While officials in Southern California fought fire and falsehoods, Meta — the parent company of Facebook and Instagram — announced it would eliminate its fact-checking programme in the name of free expression.
That has some wondering what, if anything, state governments can do to stop the spread of harmful lies and rumors that proliferate on social media. Emergency first responders are now experiencing what election officials have had to contend with in recent years, as falsehoods about election fraud — stemming from President Donald Trump's refusal to acknowledge his 2020 loss — have proliferated. One California law, which passed along party lines last year, requires online platforms to remove posts with deceptive or fake, AI-generated content related to the state's elections within 72 hours of a user's complaint.
The measure allows California politicians and election officials harmed by the content to sue social media companies and force compliance. However, federal statute protects social media companies broadly from lawsuits, shielding them from being found liable for content. 'Meta's recent announcement that they were going to follow the X model of relying on a community forum rather than experts goes to show why the bill was needed and why voluntary commitments are not sufficient,' Democratic Assemblymember Marc Berman, who introduced the measure, wrote Stateline in an email. X, the company formerly known as Twitter, sued California in November over the measure, likening the law to state-sponsored censorship.
'Rather than allow covered platforms to make their own decisions about moderation of the content at issue here, it authorizes the government to substitute its judgment for those of the platforms,' the company wrote in the suit. The law clearly violates the First Amendment, the suit argues. Further hearings on the lawsuit are likely to come this summer. Berman said he's confident the law will prevail in the courts since it's narrowly tailored to protect the integrity of elections. California's measure was the first of its kind in the nation. Depending on how it plays out in the courts, it could inspire legislation in other states, Berman said.
The spread of misinformation about the Los Angeles fires, bolstered by algorithms that boost divisive content, shows how social media companies cannot and are not handling this 'crisis moment,' said Jonathan Mehta Stein, executive director of California Common Cause, a pro-democracy advocacy organization. States need to do more, he said. 'You're not getting information from fire agencies or from the local authorities unless the social media companies ensure that you do,' he said in an interview. 'And, unfortunately, the social media companies not only aren't doing it, they're actively working to make it harder for government to do anything about online mis- and disinformation.'
The two words are sometimes used interchangeably, but 'misinformation' applies to false and misleading information, while 'disinformation' refers to falsehoods that are spread deliberately by people who know the information is inaccurate. California Common Cause and its California Initiative for Technology and Democracy project helped craft Berman's bill and are working to promote similar state legislation around the country.
Misinformation laws in other states have been far more limited. In Colorado, for example, Democratic lawmakers last year passed legislation that requires the attorney general to develop statewide resources and education initiatives aimed at preventing the spread of online misinformation. But it doesn't target social media companies.
In July, the US Supreme Court put on hold laws in Florida and Texas that would have prevented social media companies from banning or restricting content from politicians. Social media companies argued those laws violated their First Amendment protections. The laws were a response to what Republican state lawmakers saw as anti-conservative bias in social media companies, especially after Trump was banned from Twitter and Facebook in the aftermath of the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the US Capitol. The justices unanimously agreed that the legal issues need further study in lower courts.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Gulf Today
33 minutes ago
- Gulf Today
Reclaiming the US Flag for ‘No Kings Day'
Paul Loeb, Tribune News Service Will marchers carry flags on "No Kings Day"? On June 14, more than 1,000 local demonstrations will challenge President Donald Trump's North Korean-style military parade for his birthday with our defense of democracy. The 14th is also Flag Day and the 250th anniversary of the US Army. The flag can't replace protest signs. But it complements and amplifies them. The demonstrations send a message that even as Trump and his allies wrap themselves in their flags, they are betraying the best of America. They highlight a culture of corruption where the only Americans who matter are allies of Trump at the top and persons or institutions who would challenge this become subjects of attacks. Our flags make clear, in contrast, that we are defending Americans' fundamental right to speak out, without which all other rights become meaningless. They're a message to all who agree with us but also to all those Americans who voted for Trump or stayed home, rejecting both candidates. Because to change the direction of our country, the support of at least some of these people will be essential. As "No Kings Day" reminds us, 'The flag doesn't belong to Donald Trump. It belongs to us.' But at most anti-Trump protests, flags have been absent or marginal. I counted one when several thousand people marched in Seattle this past May Day, plus scattered Uncle Sam and Statue of Liberty images. That may be because carrying the flag feels uncomfortable, a false embrace for many who've marched to challenge American wars, call out racial injustice, or push back against corporate power. But the flag also stands for legacies of courage and sacrifice that should give us all hope and strength, like the classic World War II image of GIs raising it over Iwo Jima. The flag represents the imperfect but essential mechanisms of democracy that Trump's regime so profoundly threatens, ones that allow us to keep working for justice. In defending these mechanisms and the rule of law, Thomas Jefferson condemned the very Alien and Sedition Acts whose remnants Trump is now abusing. These acts created the power of kings, Jefferson warned, writing of threats to the 'constitutional rights and liberties of the States and by the suspicions of the President, or be thought dangerous to his or their election, or other interests, public or personal.' These acts first targeted 'the friendless alien,' Jefferson wrote, but 'the citizen will soon follow.' Flags have long been part of the protest tradition and may have even more impact when those speaking out are being marginalized or attacked. American labor activists from the radical IWW union carried them at the Lawrence Textile 'Bread and Roses' Strike. They fly next to Martin Luther King Jr. in photos from the 1963 March on Washington and his talks at anti-war rallies. This year, demonstrators who helped defeat South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol's dictatorial power grab waved South Korean flags along with their signs. Some recent anti-Trump rallies have featured them. But they need to become protest staples to help take the flag back. A recent Vietnam trip reminded me of the power of national pride. Americans are welcomed now, even as museums, statues, and street names commemorate heroes in what they call 'the American war,' and the related fights against the Japanese and French occupations. But Vietnam also honors 13th, 15th, and 16th-century kings who resisted and eventually defeated repeated invasions by the Chinese and Mongols. The country's leadership could have dismissed them as the embodiment of now-discarded feudalism. Instead, they present their stories as part of a continuing story of resistance, a history they highlighted during the war as Ho Chi Minh and other leaders talked of fighting for their country, not communism. Whatever the limits of Vietnam's current regime in terms of democracy, this worked because the roots of national patriotism ran deeper than any particular ideology. The threat to American democracy that those of us marching address is internal, of course (with help from white South African billionaires Elon Musk, Peter Thiel, and David Sacks). But the lesson of patriotism and national pride as a wellspring of resistance still holds true. I've learned to appreciate those who bring flags to social justice protests. And I finally bought my own the other week at my local hardware store to complement a 'Don't Putinize America' sign I plan to carry. The young woman at the counter's initial look seemed to mark me, an older white man, as a likely Trump supporter. When I said I was buying it for the Trump protest, 'No Kings Day,' she broke into a grin. No matter our anger or disappointment for America failing to achieve much of what it should be, we need to defend what we have had and the possibility of what could be. Making the flag our own helps us do that.
Gulf Today
33 minutes ago
- Gulf Today
Empathy for animals should cross the party divide
Ashley Byrne, Tribune News Service When you hear the name Richard Nixon, what's the first thing that comes to mind? My answer might surprise you: the Endangered Species Act. Nixon signed this critical bill into law in 1973 after it sailed through Congress with nearly unanimous bipartisan support, stating, 'Nothing is more priceless and more worthy of preservation than the rich array of animal life with which our country has been blessed.' This landmark piece of legislation is responsible for saving many species from extinction, including the peregrine falcon, the gray wolf and the bald eagle. Before Nixon, Dwight D. Eisenhower signed the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act of 1958. While it hasn't effectively ended animal suffering during slaughter, both the Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush administrations worked to strengthen it. Barack Obama ended government funding for experiments on chimpanzees and oversaw the recoveries of numerous wildlife species. Throughout our nation's history, consideration for other species has never been a 'liberal cause' or a 'conservative cause.' It's an issue that we've been united over far more than we've been divided. If we polled Americans and asked, 'Do you support cruelty to animals?' it's likely that almost 100% of respondents would answer 'no,' regardless of their political affiliation. Considering that PETA has worked with such right-wing figures as Senator Bob Dole and G. Gordon Liddy, it's strange when I hear someone falsely suggest that 'only the left cares about animals' or that 'PETA is left-wing.' As a PETA spokesperson, I've been invited to appear on many conservative media platforms and have found much common ground on animal protection issues, including with hosts Tucker Carlson and Jesse Watters. Recently, under President Donald Trump, the Food and Drug Administration and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) have committed to significantly reducing or eliminating many experiments on animals in favor of the sophisticated, human-relevant methods that PETA scientists have been urging the agencies to adopt for years. The president's appointee, NIH Director Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, practically quoted their appeals when he noted, 'This human-based approach will accelerate innovation, improve healthcare outcomes, and deliver life-changing treatments. It marks a critical leap forward for science, public trust, and patient care.' PETA's Los Angeles office, the Bob Barker Building, is named in honor of a staunch PETA supporter and lifelong Republican. One of the few things that GOP strategist Mary Matalin and her husband, Democratic consultant James Carville, agree on is working with PETA to oppose 'ag-gag' bills, which seek to criminalize documenting abuse of animals raised for food—the very evidence that authorities have frequently relied on to prosecute egregious acts of cruelty. After PETA exposed extreme suffering and death at a Virginia facility that bred beagles for experiments—resulting in its closure and the rescue of nearly 4,000 dogs — Virginia lawmakers unanimously passed five PETA-backed bills providing better protection to animals bred and sold for experiments, which Governor Glenn Youngkin swiftly signed. The state has since passed additional laws requiring more transparency at publicly funded animal testing facilities and giving primates who've been experimented on a chance to retire to accredited sanctuaries. Other conservative leaders have endeavored to ban private ownership and breeding of primates and to put an end to the archaic mink fur farming industry in the US. There's nothing 'left' or 'right' about our ability to recognize that other living beings have the capacity to suffer or about our desire to treat them humanely. Go to any dog park and you'll see guardians sharing conversations, treats and water bowls — oblivious to any political lines that might strongly divide them, simply connecting over their shared appreciation for animals. At a time when things are divisive, it's helpful to remember our mutual respect for other species. And as we work together to promote kindness to animals, we may even find that we have more for one another.
Gulf Today
33 minutes ago
- Gulf Today
Trump's new travel ban goes into effect against citizens of 12 nations
President Donald Trump's sweeping new travel ban came into effect early on Monday immediately after midnight, barring citizens from a dozen nations from entering the United States and reviving a divisive measure from his first term. The move is expected to disrupt refugee pathways and further restrict immigration as the Trump administration expands its crackdown on illegal entries. Many of the nations covered by the restrictions have adversarial relations with the United States, such as Iran and Afghanistan, while others face severe crises, like Haiti and Libya. In announcing his restrictions last week, Trump said the new measure was spurred by a recent "terrorist attack" on Jews in Colorado. The group had been protesting in solidarity with hostages held in Gaza when they were assaulted by a man the White House said had overstayed his visa. That attack, Trump said, "underscored the extreme dangers posed to our country by the entry of foreign nationals who are not properly vetted" or who overstay their visas. The move bans all travel to the United States by nationals of Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, Congo-Brazzaville, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen, according to the White House. Trump also imposed a partial ban on travelers from Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela. Some temporary work visas from those countries will be allowed. New countries could be added, Trump warned, "as threats emerge around the world." Mehria, a 23-year-old woman from Afghanistan who applied for refugee status, said the new rules have trapped her and many other Afghans in uncertainty. "We gave up thousands of hopes and our entire lives... on a promise from America, but today we are suffering one hell after another," she told AFP. World Cup, Olympics, diplomats excluded The ban will not apply to athletes competing in the 2026 World Cup, which the United States is co-hosting with Canada and Mexico, or in the 2028 Los Angeles Olympics, Trump's order said. Nor will it apply to diplomats from the targeted countries. United Nations rights chief Volker Turk warned that "the broad and sweeping nature of the new travel ban raises concerns from the perspective of international law." US Democratic lawmakers and elected officials blasted the ban as draconian and unconstitutional. "I know the pain that Trump's cruel and xenophobic travel bans inflict because my family has felt it firsthand," congresswoman Yassamin Ansari, who is Iranian-American, posted Sunday on X. "We will fight this ban with everything we have." Rumours of a new travel ban had circulated following the Colorado attack, with Trump's administration vowing to pursue "terrorists" living in the United States on visas. US officials said suspect Mohamed Sabry Soliman, an Egyptian national according to court documents, was in the country illegally having overstayed a tourist visa, but that he had applied for asylum in September 2022. Trump's new travel ban notably does not include Egypt. His proclamation said Taliban-ruled Afghanistan and war-torn Libya, Sudan, Somalia and Yemen lacked "competent" central authorities for processing passports and vetting. Iran was included because it is a "state sponsor of terrorism," the order said. For the other countries, Trump's order cited an above-average likelihood that people would overstay their visas. Agence France-Presse
