Lies and free speech

The lies are bad enough, but Republicans such as Jim Jordan are claiming that efforts to identify online misinformation and disinformation are attempts to limit free speech.  Those with funds can threaten and implement lawsuits that even though mostly unsuccessful place a serious burden on institutions without access to political money.  This was the case with the Stanford Internet Observatory one of the targets of this political harassment. Of course, each of us can fact check questionable claims, but a formal organization would simply have the reputation and credibility necessary to make a difference. Just to be clear responding to or labeling disinformation is free speech so complaints about an effort to limit such analyses and responses are hypocritical. 

The links I have provided are related to Stanford University’s Internet Observatory and the decision to scale back operations after online disinformation researcher Alex Stamos decided to leave the institution and program. Stanford had collaborated with Washington University in an effort to address the online falsehoods associated with the 2020 election and vaccination programs to combat the COVID epidemic and were the targets of multiple suits related to their efforts. (NYTimes, NPR, Platformer).

The rejection of expertise and data has become a serious problem online (see references) and efforts to reduce the identification of misinformation and disinformation as a free speech issue is in itself a misrepresentation. 

Disinformation

It may be ironic or serendipitous, but as I wrote this post a useful example appeared in my Twitter feed. This makes a good example. Consider the claim about giving the vote to illegal aliens. Aside from the term applied to those seeking asylum, it appears that Democratic politicians are working to change eligibility to vote. Those who are not citizens cannot vote in federal elections and there is no effort to change this requirement. In addition, there is no effort on the part specifically of Democratic politicians to make such a change. You should have learned this in high school, but some may be persuaded by the baseless claim if you are not thinking critically.

Is any part of this possible? Perhaps, but the specifics are not included and this is what makes the statement misleading. Folks like Jordan know this is the case and are taking advantage of the lack of exactness present in false claims that appear online (PolitiFact has a good explanation). To be more exact, there are a few locations in which all adults can vote on local issues. For example, voting on a school board election is quite different from voting for the President. The issue is also confused with the situation in the District of Columbia in which citizens of the country and the district cannot vote for federal officials and an effort was made by Democrats to change this denial of suffrage.

References

The Death of Expertise: The Campaign against Established Knowledge and Why it Matters (Tom Nichols)

Science denial: Why it happens and what can be done about it (Sinatra & Hofer)