Read on Twitter
This week I wrote about tech platforms struggling to figure out how to label state-controlled or affiliated media and reduce their ability to engage in information operations, propaganda, and foreign influence in elections. But there are some issues... https://cpj.org/?p=51109
Each tech company chose a different term: #Facebook uses "state-controlled" while #Twitter uses "state-affiliated" and #Google opted for funded in full or in part by X government. Which label do you think is the best choice?
Al Jazeera objected in 2018 when @YouTube labeled it as funded in full or in part by the government of Qatar; @MhamedKrichen told me it was "harmful to the brand because it implicitly tell the audience ‘Al Jazeera is a propaganda platform for Qatar.'” https://cpj.org/2018/03/youtube-labels-on-public-broadcasters-draw-ire-in/
But @AlJazeera seems to like Facebook's label even less. As does Maffick, a company with alleged financial ties to Russia that is suing Facebook to sticking the label on its channels, like In The Now.
“The policy recognizes that state media have an agenda setting power, an opinion making power, that is coupled with the strategic power of the state," @Facebook's @sarahshirazyan. Which is true, especially in P5 countries that run scores of media outlets in dozens of languages
Which is why Twitter selected the initial target countries, they have an “outsized influence on the global conversation” @nickpickles explained. China has @CCTV @Xinhua, Russia has RT, US has @VOANews, UK has @BBC and France has @AFP @FRANCE24. Some got labels, others didn't
VOA didn't get FB & Twitter labels, but the recent politically divisive appointment of new CEO @VOA's parent @USAGMgov has raised the specter of political interference. But no one knows if, or when, platforms might reassess, or their process, criteria https://www.houstonchronicle.com/opinion/outlook/article/Opinion-Trump-administration-puts-the-U-S-15430272.php
Facebook and Twitter used the consultation approach, tapping experts like @pressfreedom, @PublicMediaPMA, @mariusdrag @RSF_inter & 65 others (FB) while Twitter asked its Trust & Safety council (which I'm on for CPJ); YouTube took the @Wikipedia approach, linking to it from label
And what about private media? Should private media outlets, often run by cronies of the leaders (see Hungary, Turkey, US) get labels of some sort? And be required to provide information on funding sources?
Labeling is more art than science. Short of labeling all news media, their ownership, funding, classifications are imperfect—but more information about how they're made & what, if any, impact they have would help experts refine them & improve transparency https://cpj.org/2020/08/tech-platforms-struggle-to-label-state-controlled-media
But @Facebook @Twitter @Google don't appear to collect data that would let them track whether their labels, other measures have the intended impact. A perennial issue this lack of data collection & transparency, no? @CenDemTech @datasociety @daphnehk @BostonJoan @janethaven
“We don’t want corporate censorship and we don’t want government censorship... But I also feel like you have to start somewhere. The alternative is just throwing up your hands.” Exactly. Great point @anyaSIPA. Platforms starting with labels, a drop in battle against propaganda.
