Content Moderation Case Study: Twitter Attempts To Tackle COVID-Related Vaccine Misinformation (2020)
from the dealing-with-covid-misinfo dept
Summary: Following on its efforts in tamping down on election-related misinformation, Twitter's latest moderation efforts target misleading posts about COVID and the coronavirus, with a specific focus on vaccine related information.
Despite being months into a global pandemic, there has been a lack of clear, consistent communication from all levels of government in the United States, which has given conspiracy theorists and anti-vaccination activists plenty of room to ply their dubious trades. Twitter is hoping to reduce exposure to tweets containing misleading information as the nation continues to deal with multiple COVID outbreaks.
Since early in the pandemic, Twitter had been aggressive in moderating misleading content regarding how the virus spreads, unproven remedies and treatments, and other health related info. Its new policy expands on that, mainly to focus on false information and conspiracy theories regarding vaccines.
Twitter won't be limiting itself to applying warnings to tweets with dubious content. The platform will force users to delete tweets that don't comply with its expanded code of conduct. Added to restrictions on misinformation about the spread of the disease and its morbidity rates are bans on false claims about immunization safety or COVID's dangers.
Decisions for Twitter:
- If there are actual stories of harm or side effects from vaccines, how will Twitter distinguish those reports from the conspiracy theories?
- Who will Twitter consider to be trusted sources for determining which information is factual, and which are conspiracy theories?
- Is there an effective way to teach users that they are sharing false information, rather than simply banning them?
- Does moderating COVID conspiracy theories inadvertently lend "credence" to conspiracy theorists?
- Does more direct moderation of certain content invite even more Congressional scrutiny and calls for direct government regulation?
- Will human moderation help mitigate possible collateral damage to "good faith" users who aren't aware they're spreading misinformation?
Resolution: Twitter's expanded ban on misinformation is crafted to specifically target conspiracy theories about vaccinations or the disease's existence. The site will use a combination of AI and human moderators to determine whether flagged tweets should be labeled as questionable or removed entirely. Repeat violators can expect to have their accounts suspended or deleted.
The company also suggests that in early 2021 it will likely expand this fight against vaccine misinformation by placing warnings or labels on content that is unsubstantiated, disputed, or without necessary context.
Originally posted to the Trust & Safety Foundation website.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: content moderation, covid, disinformation, misinformation, vaccines
Companies: twitter
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Please seek help for your mental health issues.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
"They are not Gods. They are megalomaniacs!"
I'm confused, I know that's an accurate description of the main character in the old testament of the biggest selling fiction book in history, but as I recall there was only one of him. Who else are you referring to?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Republicans.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
So, too dumb to understand sarcasm, believes every random conspiracy theory no matter how stupid, ties this all into religion no matter how tenuous the link and doesn't understand how signing names on a forum works - but believe s they're smarter than everyone else?
It's true what the say - the first rule of Dunning-Kruger Club is that you don't know you're in it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Why would I care what you think?"
I don't know or care, I'm just responding to a fool on a public forum for my own entertainment.
"I do not know what you mean by saying does not know how signing names on a forum works"
Look above your posts and see your name there. Then understand why you look like an idiot for putting it at the end.
"I know that when I used pseudonyms, people pkagiarized me and tried to assume my identity"
They tried to assume an identity... that you made up as a fiction to hide behind? Hmmm...
"tried to falsely profit from my intellectual property"
If that work is as high quality and based in reality as what you're writing here, I assume they failed to profit, and not because they didn't try.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Are you Andrea Iravani, by any chance? I hear that Andrea Iravani has an obsessive need to keep repeating their own name even when it's not remotely necessary to do so. Andrea Iravani.
"I did not create a pseudonym to have a fiction to hide behind"
Hmmm...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"I probably understand some things that you have no idea about"
Hey, if you'd like to talk about those instead of playing a self-obsessed religious conspiracy nut online, I'm all for it. Although, be warned, I like my conversations to take place within verifiable reality.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
And if any of things had to do with actual reality instead of the delusional headspace in which you obviously live, maybe that would mean something.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Why are you so obsessed with me using my name?"
I'm taking the piss out of an idiot who can't stop writing it, and trying to work out if this is an act or if you are actually this mentally challenged.
"If you disagree with my original post go ahead."
I have, and I will. As will most sane people.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
What do you think about the dissemination of content, on twitter and elsewhere, that is demonstrably wrong?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Yes or no: Do you work for Marjorie Taylor Greene?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
"have been claiming is the truth is almost always wrong"
I said demonstrably.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lets just go back to non-official tweets
Content moderation is made harder when official policy is tweeted instead of delivered through proper channels.
Now as for "an effective way to teach users that they are sharing false information, rather than simply banning them?". You have to realize that some users are using comedy where appropriate, while others just say inappropiate things that are funny. Either way, too much censoring and you effectively tweet yourself out of the platform..
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Now RFK Jr. has had his Instagram account shut down by Facebook. So, Assange is in prison, a sitting president was deplatformed from Twitter, and now RFK Jr. a national hero has been deplatformed in addition to many others that most people have never even heard of. Society cannot function if the choices are being a fool, willful ignorance, lying, or being punished. It is a recipe for disaster. What are parents supposed to tell children? Everyone is lying, including your teachers, the police, the government, the media, the corporations, and the financial institutions are all lying to you? How is that supposed to work? It cannot work. They have to stop the pathological lying!
Andrea Iravani
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I think we just asses the situation, tell our children the truth. Wow didn't know that about RFK Jr. Let's not forget the My Pillow Guy...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Said it before, sayin’ it again: Please seek help for your mental health issues.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
“Nobody has a right to use social media, some people can be massive assholes, and that Andrea lady is battier than Bruce Wayne.”
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
"What are parents supposed to tell children?"
Watch out for Andrea Iravani, what a loon?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
"Watch out for Andrea Iravani, what a loon?"
What really bugs me about the conspiracy theorists is, I think, that they can't just settle for one religious belief. They mix-and-match to the point where most Iranian Mullahs and american pulpit thumpers come off as comparative pillars of reason and proportionality.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, this seems to be a textbook example of such. They've latched on to numerous conspiracy theories, decided that random samplings of the bible proves they're right, and seem immune to people telling them they might be wrong in certain ways.
This particular person is so ridiculous that I still haven't decided if they're trolling, but it's worth some gentle mocking to help others understand that there's no basis in reality.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Wanna know the irony there? People primed to accept religious texts as inerrant factual truth and never question the truth of those texts (or those who preach from those texts) are more susceptible to believing conspiracy theories than anyone else.
[ link to this | view in thread ]