Misinformation Watchdogs Keep Failing Upward
And they're still trying to censor speech on social media.

Kate Starbird is a University of Washington professor and the main character of a recent 60 Minutes segment about the so-called spread of misinformation online. Starbird previously worked with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to flag purportedly inaccurate social media content for platform moderators, in explicit hopes that the platforms would remove said content. Yet she told CBS News that the real victims of censorship were researchers like herself, who face increasing scrutiny from conservative media and congressional Republicans.
"Are researchers being chilled?" asked 60 Minutes' Lesley Stahl.
"Absolutely," Starbird replied.
And yet, she continues to speak up. The National Press Club is hosting an event with her later this month; its purpose is to help equip journalists to counter the spread of "harmful mis- and disinformation, especially during times of crisis." She will share the spotlight with Tamoa Calzaldilla, the editor in chief of Factchequeado, a group that combats misinformation aimed at Latinos. A PBS writeup of Factchequeado laments that Spanish-speaking immigrants from countries with "recent histories of authoritarianism, socialism, high inflation and election fraud may be more vulnerable to misinformation about those topics." One wonders why immigrants fleeing inflation and socialist repression would be less informed on these subjects than native-born citizens; perhaps misinformation watchdogs are worried that Hispanic immigrants might simply disagree with the Democratic Party's position on the extent of these problems?
In any case, the misinformation-fighting industry is growing bigger and bigger. CBS is set to debut a new program, CBS News Confirmed, entirely themed around preventing misinformation. The show will "identify and fight the spread of false stories, conspiracy theories and bad facts," according to Variety.
Meanwhile, misinformation watchdog groups are pressuring social media companies to do more to combat AI-generated misinformation. Miles Taylor, a former DHS chief of staff—and author of the infamous "I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration" op-ed—who now works for an anti-misinfo tech group, warned Axios that governments and tech platforms are not doing nearly enough to deal with this threat.*
Thanks to the Twitter Files, it's now public knowledge that an army of federal bureaucrats pressured tech platforms to censor so-called misinformation related to elections, Hunter Biden, COVID-19, and other subjects. Whether these efforts violated the First Amendment is currently being sorted out by the Supreme Court. But the platforms themselves have clearly grown frustrated with government guidance. Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg is openly frustrated with how his company handled the feds, and Elon Musk's takeover of X—formerly Twitter—was largely motivated by his self-proclaimed desire to resist such censorship.
As a result, "the government isn't talking to social media companies," Taylor lamented to Axios. "Many of the social media companies don't want anything to do with the government—which means novel AI threats could get missed."
It's certainly true that bad information and made-up nonsense circulate on social media. But the fundamental problem remains that our new self-appointed fact-checkers have not proven to be free from error themselves. Nina Jankowicz, who was tapped to run the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) misinformation task force, incorrectly identified The New York Post's Hunter Biden laptop story as Russian disinformation; the Global Disinformation Index, a nonprofit group, incorrectly flagged the lab leak theory of COVID-19 origins as racist and conspiratorial (it is neither, as the Energy Department now believes it is the more plausible explanation); and third-party fact-checking organizations frequently lead social media platforms astray.
Misinformation experts would be welcome to contribute to the marketplace of ideas and set the record straight when they think false narratives are circulating online. But their preferred tactic is to shut down speech by working with the media, nonprofits, and even the federal government to extort social media platforms to bow to their wishes. This isn't improving the discourse online. It's certainly not making the internet a better place.
NPR's Errors
For a good example of what can go wrong when a mainstream outlet decides to reflexively parrot the purportedly expert progressive consensus, see this article about NPR in Bari Weiss's The Free Press. NPR veteran journalist Uri Berliner has tallied a number of instances over the years in which the publicly funded news organization succumbed to groupthink.
"An open-minded spirit no longer exists within NPR, and now, predictably, we don't have an audience that reflects America," he writes.
This Week on Free Media
If you haven't heard yet, I'm hosting a new show for Reason about what's happening in the media. (It's named after this newsletter.) This week, Amber Duke and I discussed The View's climate alarmism, MSNBC's dawning realization that perhaps minimum wage could be contributing to inflation, and whether it's OK to ask questions about January 6. Watch below:
Worth Watching
Reaction from the Reason staff has been mixed, but I admit that I'm intrigued by the trailer for Joker: Folie à Deux, the upcoming sequel to the 2019 Joker film starring Joaquin Phoenix. I liked—but did not love—Joker, which took a cool concept and failed to expand on it in a sufficiently interesting way. Indeed, the original film's trailer is arguably better than the movie, and the best thing about Joker was probably the brief "camera test" teaser. We will see if director Todd Phillips is able to pull off something magical with the addition of Lada Gaga as Harley Quinn.
Correction: This article originally stated that Taylor thinks insufficient content moderation was the decisive factor in Trump's 2016 victory. He rejects that characterization and says such a claim would not be accurate. His exact quote to Axios was: "Trump won the presidency on a bad-ass earned media campaign."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
"researcher".
lol.
Barring open fascism, dictatorship, where truth is clearly deemed irrelevant, all remaining corruption depends on lies which obfuscate the truth.
Lies coerce by compelling people under the false authority of truth to act in the liar’s interests instead of their own.
There can be no reasonable defence against lying without first defining and accepting a rational definition of what criteria must be met to constitute truth. Only then can there be real consequences for spreading misinformation, lying.
Correctly applied logic and science have been developed by humanity for millennia to do just that.
Their correct application represents the best understanding of truth that humanity is capable of. As such they serve humanity to define truth used in both the identification and prosecution of lies, aka misinformation.
Criminalize lying.
You would be the first in jail if we did.
You just lied.
Demonstrate with a link and a description when anyone has refuted anything that I’ve said.
You can’t and you don’t understand or value logic or science.
Can't let a little thing like the truth get in the way of a good Campaign-trail talking point, now can we.
I cant believe you used the term "misinformation experts" with a straight face.
But the fundamental problem remains that our new self-appointed fact-checkers have not proven to be free from error themselves.
No, that is not the fundamental problem. not even close to the fundamental problem.
I don't know, there might be someone in the world who would qualify as a misinformation expert. Most likely someone who has studied government propaganda extensively.
Isnt that who these experts are? Experts in the preferred narrative to silence the truth?
Well, I suppose you probably are more likely to find experts who specialize in producing and disseminating misinformation.
Misinformation Expert
It sounds like something George Costanza would write down on an application for unemployment.
Jesus H Christ. This woman actively works to censure social media content and then has the nerve, the unmitigated gall to complain that she is the real victim of censorship. Up is down. Left is right.
Freedom is Slavery. Get F'n lost.
and that face, my god. That is the face of the politburo official signing off on your tenner in the gulag comrade.
I will never be able to drive past the "Starbird Lane" exit from I-5 again without seeing that face! That is now the new poster child image for "Karen" in America ...
NPR, you mean American government controlled media that works with American intelligence and security services to craft and control narratives, big and small?
NPR = CIA
Yeah. At best, saying "For decades, since its founding in 1970," about NPR is like the Volkswagen Superbowl ad where the story starts with the first Beetles to be sold in the US in 1949.
We were nerdy, but not knee-jerk, activist, or scolding...I eagerly voted against Trump twice but felt we were obliged to cover him fairly.
This is NPR's fucking apostate?
the rise of advocacy took off with Donald Trump.
That's a right handy excuse but NPR's and the media as a whole's activist advocacy pre-dates Trump by decades. Other than his SCOTUS nominations, the greatest achievement of the first Trump presidency may have been exposing what disgusting, disingenuous people these asshats really are.
Impossible job. Facts change all the time!
So far, all the evidence indicates that the most dangerous spreader of misinformation was the governments all over the world. Can she show us one instance where she was doing her job to warn us of government misinformation?
Shut up. We've always been at war with Eastasia.
"Thanks to the Twitter Files, it's now public knowledge that an army of federal bureaucrats pressured tech platforms to censor so-called misinformation related to elections, Hunter Biden, COVID-19, and other subjects."
This is still news to some people here. Somehow.
Misinformation is not dangerous. Ignorant people acting on misinformation may be dangerous. There is no such thing as misinformation, only people who don't know they're wrong and people who are lying. And then there are opinions and disagreements over opinions. Even seeming facts are subject to questioning by intelligent people.
Misinformation on Social Media is destroying our ability to handle the societal and global threats. Misinformation is a big deal. People can go on about censorship, but the real issue is going to be the cratering of our country's response to the next big threat to our society due to misinformation on social media. https://politicsofthelastage.blogspot.com/2023/10/social-media-in-year-2020-was-swarming.html
That's pure bullshit. Large numbers of people have always been wrong since the dawn of human history; it has always been a problem; yet despite that, humanity has almost constantly and continuously progressed both ethically and technologically, each generation becoming wealthier, healthier and more numerous almost everywhere on Earth than the previous generation. There is nothing new or more alarming about the current scope of misinformation or its dangers than those of any previous generation. We see through all of your hilariously transparent excuses to justify censorship and we reject them with extreme prejudice. Having seen "our country's response" to previous "big threats" I would just as soon our country didn't bother to try to respond to the next one.
I was told to be wary of those who use fear.
What big threat? The threat of government trying to control thoughts and opinions?
"Misinformation is a big deal."
Misinformation is not a big deal. There's a big list of big deals and misinformation ain't on it. To claim that it is is misinformation.
What is a big deal however are the goose-stepping little fascists who claim misinformation is a big deal. Because they are invariably authoritarian fucks who are trying to censor opposition and silence dissent, and they're as dangerous as hell.
If you believe their job is to actually correct factually incorrect information, I could see how you’d be confused. But their job is to be propagandists for the regime, and they’re doing that job just fine.
Also, anyone who believes that their job is to correct incorrect information: I have a bridge I can sell you at an unbelievably low price! Practically a steal!
^ this.
They have no interest in actual "misinformation". I can go to youtube right now and watch 1000s of videos on bigfoot, on how aliens built the pyramids, on flat earth theory and chupacabra sightings and vast underground UFO bases in antarctica. None of these gonzo misinformation videos are ever taken down. why is that?
Misinformation is code for against the party line. How the dem media handled the lab leak theory proves this. Lab leak at that time was in fact within the realm of possibility. But it was treated politically, not logically. Anyone who spoke of lab leak should get shutdown and ridiculed. It's something Trump supporters would say. If someone was trying to fight misinformation they would have called the dems out, said nothing was proven, and the lab leak was one of the existing possibilities.
A reasonable person sees through the bullshit.
Although it is currently the Dems who want to take down resistance to their agenda and narrative, and the Repubs who are being targeted and want to play the victim; when the shoe is on the other foot, the Repubs will try to take down "misinformation" about abortions and birth control pills and women's proper place in society and what church you're allowed to attend - or not attend. ALL statists have an agenda and a narrative and ALL of them at one time or another have imposed their opinions on everyone with the power of government.
Your fever dreams are noted.
"when the shoe is on the other foot, the Repubs will try to take down “misinformation” about abortions and birth control pills and women’s proper place in society and what church you’re allowed to attend"
Remind me again of when the Republican party did that in the past and which ones are advocating that now. It sounds like you just ate a whole jar of Salon or Democratic Underground.
"None of these gonzo misinformation videos are ever taken down. why is that?" Because they aren't revealing facts embarrassing to government agencies. Here's something I learned in the 1960's from the Pentagon Papers and other discussion of the war in Vietnam: when the government wants something censored, it is never because it is false.
""Nina Jankowicz, who was tapped to run the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) misinformation task force, incorrectly identified The New York Post's Hunter Biden laptop story as Russian disinformation""
Or perhaps she was towing the company line as directed by the DHS.
Repeal the 19th!
All this government mothering literally started when women shared more power. Most of us don't want a handmaid tale society, but we also don't want a preschool life.
And it's becoming increasingly difficult to get a home made sammich.
False! All of this started the day after the Founders tried to prevent it with checks and balances in the Constitution, and the newly freed citizens started looking for ways around it. And before that the Puritans left England to escape religious persecution so that they could start persecuting non-Puritans in their new home. Once you start trying to impose your opinions on someone else, there is no possible stopping place where the feud ends.
The problem is that for these people misinformation = disagreement with government narratives or government-approved narratives. It’s dissenting views that are being targeted. I realize I state the somewhat obvious but I felt it needed to be said.
Which part of Idaho are you in? The northern part? The Boise part? Or the Mormon part?
Look at the Nazi pigfucker try to make new friends.
You must have me confused with someone else. First of all I am not a nazi. Second of all I fuck human women. Not pigs.
Blowup dolls aren't really women.
I’ve never owned one, so I wouldn’t know
He’s in “the cool part” KAR. The place where you’re not.
How’s 8th grade treating ya, little guy?
More importantly, the "misinformation" changes whenever the government in-group changes.
Yeah, I too really liked NPR (and its soon-competitor APR) 50 years ago, and I too was slowly turned off to their ilk, though it happened decades sooner for me than for the linked writer. I think we just all have our limits, and it was just a matter of time until they exceeded them, so at different points for different ones of us.
Around the turn of the century, WNYC hosted a show called "On The Media", in which they searched their own souls, and I always found it ha-ha funny how belatedly they were always realizing how out of touch with reality they'd been. But I'm sure these days they wouldn't deign to self-examine like that, instead thinking everyone else is unrealistic and it's they who know the truth.