United Nations proposes social media guidelines after survey finds 85% of people worry...

midian182

Posts: 9,748   +121
Staff member
A hot potato: Do you worry about the impact of online disinformation? According to a global survey by the United Nations, it's something that 85% of people are concerned about, slightly less than the 87% of those who believe it has already harmed their country's politics.

The UN's culture body, Unesco, commissioned a survey by Ipsos that involved 8,000 people in 16 countries due to hold elections next year, including Austria, Croatia, the US, Algeria, Mexico, Ghana, and India.

The report highlights the growing importance of social media as a daily source of information over the last 15 years. On average, 56% of internet users got their news mainly from these platforms, far more than from TV (44%) or media sites (29%), with those under 35 more likely to use social media for information compared to those over 55.

Somewhat ironically, despite being the main source of news in virtually every country, social media remains the second-least-trusted source of information. Only 50% have faith in the credibility and quality of the information on these platforms, compared to 66% for television, 63% for radio, and 57% for media websites and apps. Only large groups or communities on online messaging apps were less trusted (45%) than social media.

Furthermore, almost two-thirds (68%) of internet users on average said that social media is the place where disinformation is most widespread, ahead of online messaging apps (38%) and media websites/apps (20%).

Hate speech has long been an online issue, with 68% of survey participants saying they had seen it online. The percentage is higher for under 35s - 75%. Almost nine out of ten people said they want governments and regulators, as well as the platforms themselves, to take action against hate speech and election interference.

HDI: Human Development Index

Unesco published an action plan to tackle the issue. It follows an 18-month consultation process that involved 10,000 contributions from 134 countries.

The plan's principles include social media platforms employing teams of qualified moderators and being transparent about the process, especially when it is automated using algorithms.

Additionally, public regulators must be established everywhere. Along with the platforms themselves, these regulators must take stronger measures during elections.

"Digital technology has enabled immense progress on freedom of speech. But social media platforms have also accelerated and amplified the spread of false information and hate speech, posing major risks to societal cohesion, peace, and stability," said Audrey Azoulay, Unesco director general. "To protect access to information, we must regulate these platforms without delay, while at the same time protecting freedom of expression and human rights."

While social media has faced accusations of being used to influence elections since 2016, the more recent trend has been to combine the practice with generative AI. Microsoft warned in September that Chinese operatives have been using the technology for this purpose, creating images (like the one above) and other content focusing on politically divisive topics, including gun violence and denigrating US political figures and symbols.

Ultimately, though, the biggest challenge facing the companies and organizations working to prove that something you read online is fake is the huge number of people who simply refuse to believe otherwise, despite what the evidence shows.

Permalink to story.

 
Misinformation merely means information the government doesnt like. ANY attempt to censor is merely a powergrab by those whom live for power. Look no further then australias government now outright admitting that their "disinformation" wont be censored like other's "disinformation".

Every big election cycle The Powers That Be try these power grabs. Over and over and over.
 
"To protect access to information, we must regulate these platforms without delay, while at the same time protecting freedom of expression and human rights."

Something governments are terrible at. Less government is always the correct answer and the UN can go fly a kite. I trust their surveys even less than I trust them.
 
There's no easy answer. Disinformation (whether it be caused by the government censoring true things that they don't like or non-governments spreading malicious slander and conspiracy theories) causes all kinds of harm. Nobody can be trusted on an unregulated platform, nobody can be trusted to regulate the platform. The only online platforms that seem particularly good at this are the ones where consensus and sources are required for the content to be kept (such as Wikipedia), and that type of burden doesn't work as a social platform.
 
Talk talk talk talk ..... I look forward to the day they actualy DO SOMETHING .....
 
There's no easy answer. Disinformation (whether it be caused by the government censoring true things that they don't like or non-governments spreading malicious slander and conspiracy theories) causes all kinds of harm. Nobody can be trusted on an unregulated platform, nobody can be trusted to regulate the platform. The only online platforms that seem particularly good at this are the ones where consensus and sources are required for the content to be kept (such as Wikipedia), and that type of burden doesn't work as a social platform.
At this point, "conspiracy theories" have been more accurate than the nonsense that the mainstream media spouts.
 
85% of people worry about misinformation? Really? I think that survey number is disinformation - a fake number deliberately designed to mislead and justify more censorship.

It might have been more credible if the number were, say, 45% not too much, and not low enough to ignore. But 85%?

They are using 'misinformation' to justify more censorship and more government-sponsored 'misinformation'!
 
There's no easy answer. Disinformation (whether it be caused by the government censoring true things that they don't like or non-governments spreading malicious slander and conspiracy theories) causes all kinds of harm. Nobody can be trusted on an unregulated platform, nobody can be trusted to regulate the platform. The only online platforms that seem particularly good at this are the ones where consensus and sources are required for the content to be kept (such as Wikipedia), and that type of burden doesn't work as a social platform.
Wikipedia has a bad habit of removing edits that don't conform to the official narratives, so they are not to be trusted either.
 
"Importance of social media as a daily source of information over the last 15 years."

Also showing the stupidity of people doing stupid things just to get hits.
 
85% of people worry about misinformation? Really? I think that survey number is disinformation - a fake number deliberately designed to mislead and justify more censorship.

It might have been more credible if the number were, say, 45% not too much, and not low enough to ignore. But 85%?

They are using 'misinformation' to justify more censorship and more government-sponsored 'misinformation'!
85% is a very reasonable number to expect. Remember that surveys often just ask a question, like "Do you worry about misinformation on social media?" A question like that will get a very high "yes" response rate. But the question on its own doesn't mean much, you have to get to the source (why) there is worry, what the specific worries are, etc. Are people just worried about ti because it is annoying, or are they more concerned with fraud? Do they see people posting obnoxiously false things (and other people falling for it)? There's a spectrum out there, and the "85%" doesn't cover what that is.

In fact, the exact question was "Question : Would you say you are concerned about the impact and influence of disinformation and “fake news” on the population in your country?"

I'm curious as to who said they were not concerned, and why.
 
Wikipedia has a bad habit of removing edits that don't conform to the official narratives, so they are not to be trusted either.
That's not a bad habit at all. If those edits don't have sources to back them up, they should be removed. If they have sources to back them up and fall within acceptable boundaries for an encyclopedia (e.g. the source isn't exclusively primary (read: some B.S. company press release, etc.)), then the content is allowed. If you have an example of cases where that doesn't happen, you are more than welcome to bring it up to the editors.
 
1.) covid was not made in a lab
2.) mrna vaccines were the most effective covid prophylactic
3.) Ivermectin is not an effective treatment against covid
4.) mrna vaccines do not cause heart damage in young men/boys
5.) the definition of vaccine being changed to fit big pharma's needs.

Go to Dr. John Campbell's youtube channel, he references everything above meticulously. If you aren't awake by now, you're a lost cause.
 
Not sure if this poll tells us much. Misinformation could mean both 'conspiracy theories' AND government /MSM/ big corp stuff. I guess people on both sides of the fence could have reason to say they're worried.
 
Audrey Azoulay, Unesco director general. "To protect access to information, we must regulate these platforms without delay, while at the same time protecting freedom of expression and human rights."

What a LOAD of BS haha.

Ministry of Truth soon.
 
Back