Mediaboss Marketing

A new study conducted by researchers from Michigan State University suggests that the battle against online disinformation cannot be won by content moderation or banning those who spread fake news. Instead, the key lies in early and continuous education that teaches individuals to critically evaluate information and remain open to changing their minds.

The study was recently featured in SIAM News, a publication of the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics (SIAM).

Disinformation is one of the most important problems of modern times and is poised to worsen as the power of AI increases. Our research group develops models for the spread of contagions, so disinformation, like disease, is a natural topic, explained study author Michael Murillo, a professor in the Department of Computational Mathematics, Science and Engineering.

The researchers used a type of math called agent-based modeling to simulate how peoples opinions change over time. They focused on a model where individuals can believe the truth, the fake information, or remain undecided. The researchers created a network of connections between these individuals, similar to how people are connected on social media.

They used the binary agreement model to understand the tipping point (the point where a small change can lead to significant effects) and how disinformation can spread.

They tested three main disinformation mitigation strategies under consideration by the U.S. Congress: content moderation (such as banning those who spread fake news), public education (teaching people to fact-check and be skeptical), and counter campaigns (promoting groups committed to spreading the truth).

The researchers implemented each strategy in the simulated environment to test its effectiveness. They created thousands of small networks representing different types of social connections and applied mathematical rules to simulate real-world scenarios.

Disinformation is an important problem that policy makers are attempting to address, Murillo told PsyPost. We have developed models to simulate the spread of disinformation to test various mitigation strategies. From the mathematics and many thousands of simulations, we are able to assess the most fruitful strategies.

The researchers found that found that if just 10% of the population strongly believes in disinformation, the rest may follow suit. The findings suggest that disinformation spreads easily because people naturally want to believe things that align with their existing beliefs.

Teaching people to recognize their biases, be more open to new opinions, and be skeptical of online information proved the most effective strategy for curbing disinformation.

Early education (teaching people to be skeptical and question information early on, before they form strong opinions) had the most significant effect on stopping disinformation. Late education (trying to correct peoples beliefs after they have already formed opinions) was not as effective as early education but still had some impact.

Strategies like removing people who share fake content or creating counter campaigns were not as effective as education. The researchers explained that even though these strategies might seem like quick solutions, they dont work as well in the long run.

We were surprised, and disheartened, by how difficult this problem is, Murillo said. If one guesses the cost and time to implement strategies, such as broad education on critical thinking and education, we are looking at a generational-scale problem.

As with all research, the new study includes some caveats.

We deliberately created a parsimonious model to uncover the essential factors at play; however, much more detail could be added to better match specific situations, Murillo explained. Also, many proposed strategies are only band-aids that treat the symptom, such as labeling videos in YouTube, but do not address the underlying cause that may be related to a social or political issue.

More research is needed to understand how and why people are drawn toward disinformation in general, Murillo added. People tend to be drawn toward sensationalist ideas, which empower and gives advantage to the sources of disinformation. Given improved knowledge of this aspect of human nature, we can enhance our models and policy makers could perhaps develop more optimal seat belts to control the spread of disinformation.

The study, Evaluating the Effectiveness of Mitigation Policies Against Disinformation, was authored by David J. Butts and Michael S. Murillo.

Visit link:
Critical thinking education trumps banning and censorship in battle ... - PsyPost

In January 2010, the then-U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, doing what she does best, grasped a platitude and ran with it in launching, of all things, an institution called the Newseum. Information freedom, she declared, supports the peace and security that provide a foundation for global progress.

The same figure has encouraged the prosecution of such information spear carriers as Julian Assange, who dared give the game away by publishing, among other things, documents from the State Department and emails from Clintons own presidential campaign in 2016 that cast her in a rather dim light. Information freedom is only to be lauded when it favours your side.

Who regulates, let alone should regulate, information disseminated across the Internet remains a critical question. Gone is the frontier utopianism of an open, untampered information environment, where bright and optimistic netizens could gather, digitally speaking, in the digital hall, the agora, the square, to debate, to ponder, to dispute every topic there was. Perhaps it never existed, but for a time, it was pleasant to even imagine it did.

The shift towards information control was bound to happen and was always going to be encouraged by the greatest censors of all: governments. Governments untrusting of the posting policies and tendencies of social media users and their facilitators have been, for some years, trying to rein in published content in a number of countries. Cyber-pessimism has replaced the cyber-utopians. Social media, remarked science writer Annalee Newitz in 2019, has poisoned the way we communicate with each other and undermined the democratic process. The emergence of the terribly named fake news phenomenon adds to such efforts, all the more ironic given the fact that government sources are often its progenitors.

To make things even murkier, the social media behemoths have also taken liberties with what content they will permit on their forums, using their selective algorithms to disseminate information at speed even as they prevent other forms of it from reaching wider audiences. Platforms such as Facebook and Twitter, heeding the call of the very screams and bellows of their own creation, thought it appropriate to exclude or limit various users in favour of selected causes and more sanitised usage. In some jurisdictions, they have become the surrogates of government policy under threat: remove any offending material, or else.

Currently under review in Australia is another distinctly nasty example of such a tendency. The Communications Legislation Amendment (Combating Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2023 is a proposed instrument that risks enshrining censorship by stealth. Its exposure draft is receiving scrutiny from public submissions till August. Submissions are sought on the proposed laws to hold digital platform services to account and create transparency around their efforts in responding to misinformation and disinformation in Australia.

The Bill is a clumsily drafted, laboriously constructed document. It is outrageously open-ended on definitions and a condescending swipe to the intelligence of the broader citizenry. It defines misinformation as online content that is false, misleading or deceptive, that is shared or created without an intent to deceive but can cause and contribute to serious harm. Disinformation is regarded as misinformation that is intentionally disseminated with the intent to deceive or cause serious harm.

The bill, should it become law, will empower the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) to monitor and regulate material it designates as harmful online misinformation and disinformation. The Big Tech fraternity will be required to impose codes of conduct to enforce the interpretations made by the ACMA, with the regulator even going so far as proposing to create and enforce an industry standard. Those in breach will be liable for up to $5 million or 5% of global turnover for corporations.

What, then, is the harm? Examples are provided in the Guidance Note to the Bill. These include hatred targeting a group based on ethnicity, nationality, race, gender, sexual orientation, age, religion, or physical or mental disability. It can also include disruption to public order or society, the old grievance the State has when protestors dare differ in their opinions and do the foolish thing by expressing them. (The example provided here is the mind of the typical paranoid government official: Misinformation that encouraged or caused people to vandalise critical communications infrastructure.)

John Steenhof of the Human Rights Law Alliance has identified, correctly, the essential, dangerous consequence of the proposed instrument. It will grant the ACMA a mechanism what counts as acceptable communication and what counts as misinformation and disinformation. This potentially gives the state the ability to control the availability of information for everyday Australians, granting it power beyond anything that a government should have in a free and democratic society.

Interventions in such information ecosystems are risky matters, certainly for states purporting to be liberal democratic and supposedly happy with debate. A focus on firm, robust debate, one that drives out poor, absurd ideas in favour of richer and more profound ones, should be the order of the day. But we are being told that the quality of debate, and the strength of ideas, can no longer be sustained as an independent ecosystem. Your information source is to be curated for your own benefit, because the government class says its so. What you receive and how you receive, is to be controlled paternalistically.

The ACMA is wading into treacherous waters. The conservatives in opposition are worried, with Shadow Communications Minister David Coleman describing the draft as a very bad bill giving the ACMA extraordinary powers. It would lead to digital companies self-censoring the legitimately held views of Australians to avoid the risk of massive fines. Not that the conservative coalition has any credibility in this field. Under the previous governments, a relentless campaign was waged against the publication of national security information. An enlightened populace is the last thing these characters, and their colleagues, want.

If you're interested in writing for International Policy Digest - please send us an email via submissions@intpolicydigest.org

See more here:
The Censors Down Under: The ACMA Gambit on Misinformation ... - International Policy Digest

Following the success of Batman: The Animated Series, several more superhero action shows were produced during the 1990s. One of the most successful was Fox Kid's Spider-Man: The Animated Series, led by John Semper Jr. Working closely with Stan Lee, this show introduced a new generation to the adventures of the wall-crawler and is still fondly remembered for its creativity, memorable voice-acting, and terrific intro.

The show also experienced a fair amount of behind-the-scenes censorship and notes from Fox executives, which resulted in some questionable writing and editing decisions. Nowadays, these choices can be looked back on as a product of over-correction in the '90s and provided moments of comedy upon re-watches.

Spider-Man's rogues gallery includes some of comic's most popular villains. Early in the comic run, six of them teamed up to defeat Spider-Man and called themselves the Sinister Six. The idea of villain team-ups continues to be popular, and many shows and video games have had their own version of the six.

RELATED: The 10 Best Episodes of 'Spider-Man: The Animated Series', Ranked According to IMDb

The animated series was no exception, but along with swapping members out, they also changed the name from Sinister to Insidious. Allegedly, this is due to the word Sinister being considered too scary for the target audience. All it really did was ruin the rhyming compound of an iconic name that's existed in comics for decades.

There has been a long-standing debate regarding the level of violence in children's shows, especially when guns are involved. To avoid making things seem too replicable to children, shows tended to exaggerate their action scenes. One way this is done is by changing their weapons into weapons usually found in sci-fi epics like Star Wars.

Spider-Man was not the first show to do this, but it is one of the funniest examples. While real guns make sporadic appearances and are never fired, the majority of weapons are laser-based and range from the size of a rifle to a bulky bazooka. It'd be one thing if the criminals were the only ones to use them, but the NYPD is also shown to carry a futuristic arsenal.

One of the reasons for Spider-Man's enduring popularity is how relatable of a protagonist he is. Many fans are able to identify with his struggles, and younger fans can easily imagine themselves with his powers when playing pretend. Unfortunately, some censors were scared kids might emulate him too much and thus acted accordingly.

RELATED: Why Spider-Man Works Best In Animation

To prevent children from swinging through windows, the show was banned from showing broken glass, especially if it came from a window. As such, most villains entered buildings by breaking holes in the walls or ceilings. Even on the rare occasions when windows were broken, like in the episode "Tombstone," the hole just magically appears offscreen with no shattered glass in sight.

Censorship is sometimes done to make a show more accessible to international audiences. One example is the depiction of blood, which can get a show bumped up in ratings depending on the country, and moved to a time slot where it might not be viewed by its intended audience. As such, Spider-Man's characters could never be shown bleeding from any injury.

While this is understandable from a marketing standpoint, it's rather confusing in-show, since the characters could be put through all sorts of physical trauma and not suffer a scratch. It also limited the abilities of some heroes, such as Wolverine (Cal Dodd), who couldn't use his claws to injure people. Blood did appear in the show, but only in test tubes and needles.

Decades before the MCU was a thing, Spider-Man was the center of a shared Marvel television universe. This was due to Marvel shifting its focus to television shows at the time due to poor comic sales. Along with crossing over with other shows like X-Men: The Animated Series, and Iron Man: The Animated Series, Spider-Man also teamed up with the likes of the Punisher (John Beck) and Blade (JD Hall).

While this show did grant kids an introduction to these characters, they sadly got watered-down versions due to censorship. Blade is forced to trade his signature katana for a discount lightsaber, and the Punisher avoids lethal force unless it's a last resort. Their backstories were also altered or had certain details omitted that might be considered too heavy for young viewers.

Language is probably the most censored aspect of kids' shows. Usually, this is reserved for curse words and sexual innuendos, which forces writers to get creative in order to sneak adult jokes into episodes. For Spider-Man, the censors also went after any word that sounded too violent, such as death, die, and kill.

As a result, bad guys said they were going to get rid of or obliterate Spider-Man instead of killing him. There are a few times characters come close to saying the dreaded "D" word, only to get comedically cut off by another character. The best example of this censorship comes from the episode, "Turning Point," where Mary Jane Watson (Saratoga Ballantine) and Green Goblin (Neil Ross) fall into alternate dimensions instead of kicking the bucket.

Web-swinging is probably the most iconic trait of Spider-Man. It allows him to stay mobile in fights and provides a great excuse to showcase the beauty and size of New York City. The animated series capitalized on both when it has Spidey swing by, but the censors gave the creators a particularly strange request.

RELATED:Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse Director on That Spectacular Spider-Man Cameo

Writers and animators were told that, if Spider-Man lands on a building, he can't harm any pigeons. This request has baffled people for decades since the only way a pigeon would be in the scene is if an animator intentionally drew one, and why would they do that? Even Spectacular Spider-Man took a jab at this, with several episodes featuring Spider-Man startling pigeons as he passes or even getting tossed into caged pigeons (though none are hurt).

Carnage is one of Spider-Man's most popular modern villains, but also notoriously difficult to adapt. Being a serial killer who merges with the offspring of the Venom symbiote, his stories are known for their gratuitous amount of death, destruction, and anarchy. Given all the censorship already present in the show, it seems odd to try and adapt Carnage, but they did.

Although offhanded mentions are made about Cletus Kasady's (Scott Cleverdon) offscreen actions, he is never shown killing anyone, even when he gains his powers. Instead, he sucks the souls from their bodies as part of a ritual to summon Dormamu (Ed Gilbert), and the souls all get returned to their owners when he is defeated. Also, while the show kept his ability to generate weapons, he could really use them due to the limited violence.

While the show was an action series, the censors were very strict about what could or couldn't happen during fights. The biggest limitation came to punches: while heroes and villains could throw punches, they pretty much never connected. This forced the team to get creative.

Most fights in the show instead involve characters kicking, body-checking, or wrestling with one another. Villains like the Lizard could get away with swinging his tail like a club, and Spidey could always fall back on his webbing. If a character possessed super strength, they might pick up objects and throw them at their opponents as well.

No character is as affected by censorship as Michael Morbius (Nick Jameson). A foreign exchange student from an Eastern European country, he comes to American to study medicine in the hopes of curing his homeland of a deadly plague spread by bats. An accident involving a bat results in him becoming a vampire, but due to the blood embargo, couldn't be seen biting people.

RELATED: Sony Does Marvel Better Than Marvel

To get around this, the writers gave Morbius suckers on his hand and hunger for plasma, the liquid component of blood. In some ways, the image of Morbius draining his victims just by grabbing them is a terrifying sight. On the other hand, the show's theme song has the lyrics "radioactive spider blood," so why couldn't Morbius say the word?

KEEP READING: What Happened to James Camerons Failed 'Spider-Man' Movie?

See more here:
'Spider-Man: The Animated Series' 10 Most Confusing Examples of Censorship - Collider

A key Senate committee voted to move forward one of the most dangerous bills weve seen in years: the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA). EFF has opposed the Kids Online Safety Act, S. 1409, because its a danger to the rights of all users, both minors and adults. The bill requires all websites, apps, and online platforms to filter and block legal speech. It empowers state attorney generals, who are mostly elected politicians, to file lawsuits based on content they believe will be harmful to young people.

These fundamental flaws remain in the bill, and EFF and many others continue to oppose it. We urge anyone who cares about free speech and privacy online to send a message to Congress voicing your opposition.

TAKE ACTION

the "kids online safety act" isn't safe for kids or adults

Before the Senate Commerce Committee voted to move forward the bill on July 27, it incorporated a number of amendments. While none of them change the fundamental problems with KOSA, or our opposition to the bill, we analyze them here.

The first change to the bill is that the knowledge standard has been tightened, so that websites and apps can only be held liable if they actually know theres a young person using their service. The previous version of the bill regulated any online platform that was used by minors, or was reasonably likely to be used by a minor.

The previous version applied to a huge swath of the internet, since the view of what sites are reasonably likely to be used by a minor would be up to attorney generals. Other than sites that took big steps, like requiring age verification, almost any site could be reasonably likely to be used by a minor.

Requiring actual knowledge of minors is an improvement, but the protective effect is small. A site that was told, for instance, that a certain proportion of its users were minorseven if those minors were lying to get accesscould be sued by the state. The site might be held liable even if there was one minor user they knew about, perhaps one theyd repeatedly kicked off.

The bill still effectively regulates the entire internet that isnt age-gated. KOSA is fundamentally a censorship bill, so were concerned about its effects on any website or servicewhether theyre meant to serve solely adults, solely kids, or both.

Another significant change to the bill is a longer amendment from Sen. John Thune (R-SD), who railed against filter bubbles during the markup hearing. Thunes amendment requires larger platforms to provide an algorithm that doesnt use any user data whatsoever. The amendment would prevent websites and apps from using even basic information, like what city a person lives in, to decide what kind of information to prioritize.

The Thune amendment is meant to push users towards a chronological feed, which Sen. Thune called during the hearing a normal chronological feed. Theres nothing wrong with online information being presented chronologically for those who want it. But just as we wouldnt let politicians rearrange a newspaper in a particular order, we shouldnt let them rearrange blogs or other websites. Its a heavy-handed move to stifle the editorial independence of web publishers.

Theres also no evidence that chronological feeds make for better or healthier content consumption. A recently published major study on Facebook data specifically studied the effects of a chronological feed, and found that a chronological feed increased the share of content from designated untrustworthy sources by more than two-thirds relative to the Algorithmic Feed.

A small part of KOSA deals with targeted advertising. It would require disclosures about things like why the minor is being targeted with a particular advertisement.

This part of the bill is actually a positive stepprotecting users privacy, rather than imposing censorship on the content they can access. But as the only privacy-protective part of the bill, its pathetically small.

At this point in the internets history, we need more than mild disclosure requirements and more studies about behavioral ads. They should be banned altogether. And theres no reason to limit the ban to minors; behavioral ads are tracking the mouse clicks and browsing history of users of all ages.

A bill that worked to protect internet users by limiting tracking and protecting privacy would be great. Thats not KOSA, which barely even gestures at privacy protections, while offering politicians and police a comprehensive suite of censorship options.

Overall, these small changes to a flawed bill dont change the basic fact that KOSA is a censorship bill that will harm the rights of both adult and minor users. We oppose it, and urge you to contact your congressperson about it today.

TAKE ACTION

TELL CONGRESS to oppose kosa

See the original post:
Congress Amended KOSA, But It's Still A Censorship Bill - EFF

(CN) The Biden administration urged a Fifth Circuit panel on Thursday to nix an injunction that limits its communications with social media companies, arguing that persuading platforms to take down misleading posts did not cross the line into unconstitutional coercion.

In a 155-page order he issued on Independence Day, U.S. Chief District Judge Terry Doughty found Missouri, Louisiana and several individual plaintiffs had presented proof of arguably the most massive attack against free speech in United States history that infringed on the First Amendment rights of millions of Americans.

He granted the challengers a sweeping preliminary injunction, restricting White House staffers and numerous federal agencies communications with social media companies.

After appealing to the Fifth Circuit, the feds lobbied Doughty to stay his injunction.

Doughty denied the governments stay motion. The Trump appointee insisted his injunction only bars illegal conduct, and noted it has a long list of carveouts, allowing the administration to talk to social media firms about posts involving criminal activity, national security threats and those intended to mislead voters about voting regulations.

He also said the White House can still promote its policies and views on matters of public concern.

On July 14, however, a Fifth Circuit panel issued a temporary stay of the injunction and fast-tracked an appeal hearing.

Another panel of the New Orleans-based circuit court heard arguments Thursday.

Doughty compared the governments efforts to control social media discourse about Covid-19 and the 2020 presidential election to the Ministry of Truths propaganda and alteration of historical records in George Orwells dystopian novel 1984.

The dystopian theme continued in Thursdays 80-minute hearing.

An attorney for the state of Louisiana asked the three judges on the panel to imagine a scenario where senior White House staffers told book publishers to burn books critical of the federal government, and threatened to go after the publishers with an antitrust investigation when they refused to go along.

And then suppose all the book sellers decided the game wasnt worth the gamble and they started complying. Thats exactly what you see in the record here, said John Sauer, Louisiana special assistant attorney general.

Justice Department lawyer Daniel Tenny gave his own bleak scenario.

He said Doughtys injunction is so broad if there were a natural disaster and untrue statements about it circulating on social media were endangering Americans, the government would be powerless to discourage social media companies to stop spreading the lies.

And, Tenny continued, if a law enforcement official believed certain posts were part of a human trafficking conspiracy he or she would not be allowed to bring the posts to social media platforms attention.

U.S. Circuit Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod, a George W. Bush appointee, questioned if either of those examples would be excluded from the communication prohibitions in Doughtys injunction.

We dont know whether they are, Tenny replied. The plaintiffs have argued they are not. The exceptions are very unclear.

In complaints of online censorship, the most prominent narrative is from Republicans who say social media companies censor right-wing or conservative speech Exhibit A being Twitters suspension of former President Donald Trump after the Jan. 6 insurrection.

But the challengers claim the governments pressure campaign secretly started in 2017 during Trumps tenure in the White House when senior congressional staffers, coordinating with the FBI, started regularly traveling to Silicon Valley to meet privately with platforms content-moderation chiefs.

They claim the governments censorship efforts dramatically increased after Biden took office in January 2021. And White House officials, including Bidens former White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki, threatened the companies with legal consequences and adverse legislation, namely doing away with protections afforded by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

The provision shields social media companies from liability for content posted by third parties and lets them moderate content as they see fit.

Tenny noted it would fall to Congress, not President Biden, to repeal that law. The idea that if you dont do what the president wants hell amend Section 230 or antitrust laws is far-fetched, he said.

U.S. Circuit Judge Don Willett agreed with Tenny that the federal officials and the president should be able to make public statements to persuade people about matters of public concern. I think that passes First Amendment muster with flying colors, the Trump appointee said.

But here you have the government in secret, in private, out of the public eye relying on fairly unsubtle kind of strong arming, in veiled or not so veiled threats thats a real nice social platform you got there, it would be shame if something happened to it, he added.

Tenny insisted that the government had not coerced any social media company to censor any posts because it had not threatened them with any punishment for not doing so.

Louisiana and Missouri convinced Doughty they have standing by laying out in their lawsuit, filed in May 2022, they themselves have been censored online.

The Louisiana Department of Justice said in August 2021the Google-owned video sharing platform YouTube had censored it for sharing footage in which Louisianans criticized mask mandates and Covid lockdown measures.

Missouri says YouTube also removed video of four public meetings in the states St. Louis County because some citizens stated masks are ineffective against transmission of Covid-19.

But Tenny, the Justice Department attorney, argued in Thursdays hearing the states and individual plaintiffs lack standing since they have not alleged they intend to make similar posts in the future.

To have standing they have to show they have a future, ongoing injury, he asserted.

Tenny said the Biden administration is no longer focused on combating misleading posts about Covid because its pandemic public health emergency ended in May.

Sauer, Louisianas counsel, took issue with that contention. This notion that Covid censorship is over is totally unsupportable, he said.

He explained that two weeks ago he gave a talk about this litigation and criticized the federal governments censorship.

It was taken down the next day by YouTube. I was censored as a lawyer for the Louisiana attorney general. Do not tell me that Louisiana doesnt face ongoing censorship injuries as a result of federal influence, he stated.

Senior U.S. Circuit Judge Edith Brown Clement, appointed by George W. Bush, was also on the panel. The judges gave no timeline for a ruling.

Sign up for the Top 8, a roundup of the day's top stories delivered directly to your inbox Monday through Friday.

Link:
Red states accuse Biden administration of censorship before Fifth ... - Courthouse News Service