Fringe Groups Offer a Critical, Teachable Moment
Even as a sitting President continues to lob disparaging remarks on social media about the integrity of the election, we have yet another (related) issue with which to contend. Marjorie Taylor Greene, an adherent of theories espoused by QAnon — the pro-Trump conspiracy group that the FBI has labeled anti-government and a possible domestic terrorism threat — has gained a House seat in the state of Georgia. As most other QAnon members lost their political races, it might be easy to dismiss the conspiracists as an insignificant “fringe” minority and press on despite their gain. This would be a critical failure with enduring consequences.
Instead, we need a course correction, one whose aim is to prevent present and future misinformation and disinformation efforts with the help of social media leaders. This is essential to our discourse and our democracy.
On the level of remediation, we can begin to achieve this through multilateral verification and accountability. President Trump and his ilk do not care for either of these. Such measures prevent the dissemination of whatever message is conducive to their current political objectives, so often at odds with the truth, not to mention the country’s best interests. As a result, conspiratorial groups like QAnon feel empowered to present their own “alternative facts”, which, though once on the fringes, are now making their way onto Capitol Hill.
In stark contrast, data based on empirical research from domestic governmental organizations, educational institutions, and non-partisan think tanks can provide facts from which to make decisions that counter politically motivated grassroots attempts at disinformation, such as those propagated by domestic conspiracy theorists like QAnon, as well as foreign interference.
Further, straightforward steps taken by social media companies to prime people for authenticity and veracity can go a long way. In June of 2020, a study published in Psychological Science about the spread of misinformation regarding COVID-19 suggests “that nudging people to think about accuracy is a simple way to improve choices about what to share on social media.” With this in mind, social media platforms should be able to slow or prevent widespread dissemination of false information by simply providing a prompt to think about what articles people share before the act of tweeting or posting online.
We are seeing small but necessary changes. On Twitter, President Trump’s tweets now frequently come with a disclaimer that they may contain misleading or false information. The same rule has been applied recently to Florida Governor Ron DeSantis (R) as well for preemptively claiming victory in his state, which is against the platform’s policy. In some cases, a user must first click through a disclaimer to see the content of a particular tweet. Facebook has taken similar measures as well in recent weeks to slow the spread of “fake news” articles regarding the election. Twitter and others have also added “think before you share” disclaimers as well, further encouraging caution.
This is a decent start, but still not enough. Education and positive reinforcement ought to be bolstered by evidence-based findings from educational institutions, think tanks, NGOs, and the press. In fact, it is the press that serves as a key component of this approach.
President Theodore Roosevelt said, “Nothing but the truth should be spoken about [the President] or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else.” The United States Executive Branch should be held to account for its words and provide evidence for its claims. The same goes for all branches of our government, especially now, as conspiracy theorists are given a vote in the halls of Congress.
Whatever claims the government makes can and should be held to account with research presented by independent institutions and universities; in turn, they may receive a check and balance from the press itself, which can verify, dispute, and provide further context; finally, social media platforms themselves can work with the aforementioned to disseminate truth and stem the spread of outright lies.
One might argue that we have already tried this four-fold approach and failed. This is only superficially true. With the focused efforts of social media companies in particular, the dissemination of false information can be cut off at the base, before it has the chance to spread. These companies can join with the press and non-partisan researchers to create systems of verification through empirical data and multilateral transparency, transforming these networks into platforms for honest discourse, rather than further insulation for increasingly dangerous echo chambers.
We’ve already seen the change possible with minor alterations to social media interfaces. Further progress is necessary to repudiate blatant fabrications, reaffirm trust in our governmental processes, and rebuild a fact-based foundation for national dialectic moving forward. Many questions remain about a more robust and interdisciplinary implementation, but we may be able to contain baseless, fringe discourse as a result, and ultimately protect and preserve our democracy and our nation.
