Social Media Workers on Strike

New York (CNN Concern)When Twitter suspended Marjorie Taylor Greene for a week last month for posting misinformation about Covid-xix vaccines, it may have sparked some déjà vu. The Republican congresswoman from Georgia had been kicked off the platform for 12 hours for the same violation merely iii weeks earlier. And six months before that, she was briefly suspended for sharing conspiracy theories about the Senate runoff elections in Georgia.

Greene wasn't the only political figure taking a forced social media hiatus recently. YouTube suspended Senator Rand Paul the same week for posting false claims about Covid-19, triggering the first strike of the video sharing platform'south misinformation policy. (Paul and Greene each claimed the platforms had violated their freedom of speech; nonetheless, gratis speech laws don't apply to private companies.)

It is widely believed past misinformation researchers that one of the most powerful — if controversial — tools that social media platforms accept in combating misinformation from public figures and lesser-known individuals alike is to kicking the worst offenders off entirely. Simply before platforms take that pace, they typically follow a more nuanced (and sometimes confusing) arrangement of strike policies that can vary from platform to platform, issue to upshot and even instance by example. These policies oft stay out of the spotlight until a loftier-profile suspension occurs.

Some platforms have iii-strike policies for specific violations, others use five strikes. Twitter (TWTR) doles out strikes separately for misinformation related to Covid-19 and civic integrity, which could give misinformation spreaders up to nine chances before beingness booted from the platform. On YouTube and Facebook (FB), expiration timelines for strikes — 90 days and a year, respectively — could provide loopholes for people looking to mail service misinformation spread out over time, especially when using multiple accounts, experts say. And in some cases, strikes don't always amount to a ban.

Many misinformation experts agree that social media platforms had to start somewhere, merely such policies sometimes suffer from the perception that they were created simply later things went incorrect. And some critics question whether the confusing nature of these policies is a feature or a bug.

"The most outrageous people, the most controversial people, the virtually conspiratorial people, are good for business. They drive engagement," said Hany Farid, a professor at the University of California Berkeley School of Data whose inquiry focuses include misinformation. "So that's why I remember there'southward this tug of state of war — we're going to slap y'all on the wrist, y'all can't post for a week, and so they come back and of form they do information technology again."

Social media companies say the strike policies allow them to remainder managing misinformation with educating users almost their guidelines, and also ensuring their platforms remain open to diverse viewpoints. They also indicate to the millions of pieces of problematic content they have removed, and highlight efforts to boost the reach of reliable information to counteract the bad.

"We developed our three strikes policy to balance terminating bad actors who repeatedly violate our community guidelines with making sure people have an opportunity to acquire our policies and appeal decisions," said YouTube spokesperson Elena Hernandez. "Nosotros piece of work hard to make these policies every bit understandable and transparent as possible, and we enforce them consistently beyond YouTube."

In a argument, a Twitter spokesperson said: "Equally the Covid-nineteen pandemic evolves in the United States and around the world, nosotros go on to iterate and expand our work accordingly. ... Nosotros're fully committed to protecting the integrity of the conversation occurring on Twitter, which includes both combatting Covid-19 misinformation through enforcement of our policies and elevating credible, reliable health information."

Yet, platforms continue to face criticism for hosting misinformation and for the limitations of their strike policies to stop the spread of it.

Social media strike policies are "designed, in essence, to discourage people from spreading misinformation, but the effect it probably has is negligible," said Marc Ambinder, the counter-disinformation atomic number 82 for USC's Election Cybersecurity Initiative. He added that the policies appear aimed more at average users accidentally posting bad data than strategic, frequent posters of misinformation.

"What we know is that the most constructive manner the sites can reduce the spread of harmful misinformation is to identify the serial spreaders ... and throw them off their platform," he said.

The strike rules

For many years, social media platforms tried to avert regulating what'due south true and false. And, to an extent, some remain uncomfortable with being the arbiters of truth. YouTube primary product officer Neal Mohan noted in a blog postal service last week that misinformation is not e'er "clear-cut." He added: "In the absenteeism of certainty, should tech companies decide when and where to set up boundaries in the murky territory of misinformation? My strong conviction is no."

But the fallout from the 2016 Us Presidential ballot, as well as the chaos around the 2020 election and the urgency of the Covid-19 pandemic, forced tech companies to take more than steps to combat misnformation, including applying warning labels, removing content and, in Twitter's case, introducing various strike policies.

Twitter first warned last twelvemonth that repeated violations of its Covid-nineteen and civic integrity misinformation policies would result in permanent suspension, subsequently coming nether burn for its handling of both. In March 2021, information technology clarified and published its official strike system. Posts with severe policy violations that must be removed — such as misleading data meant to suppress voters — receive 2 strikes. Bottom violations that crave only a warning label accrue only one. The first strike receives no consequences; 2 and iii strikes each event in a 12-hour intermission; and four strikes means a seven-day suspension. After five or more strikes, the user is permanently banned from the platform.

To brand matters more complicated, users accumulate strikes for each issue separately: they get five chances on posting Covid-xix misinformation, and five chances on civic integrity. (For other rules violations, Twitter said information technology has a range of other enforcement options.)

Other platforms' strike policies vary. YouTube's strike policy, which has been in effect for years, offers users 3 escalating consequences after an initial alarm, culminating with a permanent pause if they violate the platform's guidelines three times within a single ninety-day period. On Facebook (FB), for most violations, the company offers upwardly to five strikes with escalating consequences, the terminal footstep being a 30-day suspension. (If a user continues violating afterwards the 5th strike, they could go on receiving 30-twenty-four hour period suspensions, unless they post more severe violations, which could get them kicked off.) Both companies' strike policies utilise to breaches of their other guidelines, in addition to misinformation violations.

Facebook publicly outlined its strike policy in June at the recommendation of its Oversight Board after a monthslong review of the company'southward decision to append old President Donald Trump following the coup at the US Capitol. The board criticized Facebook's lack of physical policies and, as part of its conclusion, called for the company to "explain its strikes and penalties procedure."

"Everything is reactionary," Farid said. "None of this has been thoughtful, and that's why the rules are such a mess and why no 1 can sympathize them."

Both Facebook and YouTube say they may remove accounts after just ane law-breaking for astringent violations. YouTube may too remove channels that it determines are entirely dedicated to violating its guidelines. And Facebook said information technology will remove accounts if a certain percentage of their content violates the company's policies, or if a sure number of their posts violate policies within a specific window of time, though information technology doesn't provide specifics "to avoid people gaming our systems."

On Facebook and Instagram, it'southward somewhat less clear what constitutes a strike. If the company removes content that violates its guidelines (which include prohibitions of misinformation related to Covid-19 and vaccines and voter suppression), information technology "may" use a strike to the account "depending on the severity of the content, and the context in which it was shared." Multiple pieces of violative content may as well be removed at the aforementioned fourth dimension and count for a single strike.

"By and large y'all may get a strike for posting anything which goes against or Customs Standards - for instance - posting a slice of content which gets reported and removed as hate speech or bullying content," Facebook said in a statement. Separate from its guidelines enforcement, Facebook works with a team of third-political party partners to fact bank check, label and, in some cases, reduce the reach and monetization opportunities of other content.

Whack-a-mole

In the same month that Twitter began enforcing its borough integrity misinformation policy, Greene received what appears to be her first known strike, with more to follow. Based on Twitter'due south policy, Greene'due south recent week-long break would represent her fourth strike on Covid-19 misinformation, but the company declined to ostend.

Co-ordinate to Twitter's policy, Greene could be permanently banned from the platform if she violates its Covid-xix misinformation policy once again. Only the line between spreading misleading data and violating the policy can be murky, highlighting the ongoing challenges with making these policies work in stopping the spread of misinformation to users.

Greene recently re-shared a postal service from another user that Twitter labeled "misleading" for its claims about Covid-nineteen vaccines, which doesn't count as a strike on Greene's business relationship. Twitter said that while labeled tweets tin can't be retweeted, they tin can exist "quote tweeted," a policy designed to permit other users to add context to the misleading information. Still, it'southward possible to make a quote tweet without adding any boosted words, which ends up looking basically identical to a retweet — thus further spreading the misleading content.

The aforementioned video that got Paul suspended from YouTube for a week was shared as a link on his Twitter business relationship, which directs users to a third-party website where they tin can watch information technology. Twitter said it takes action against links to third-political party content that would violate its policies if it were posted to Twitter by either removing the tweet or calculation a warning that users must click through earlier proceeding to the other site. No such alert has been practical to Paul'south tweet with the video link, which a Twitter spokesperson said is not in violation of the platform's rules.

"I don't necessarily envy the decisions ... that the platforms have to make," USC's Ambinder said. "But it does seem pretty clear that the book and the vigilance of misinformation reduces itself in proportion to the number of serial misinformation spreaders who are deplatformed."

Share this post