Big techs: most have no rule to avoid a new one 8 /1 – 02/09/2023 – Poder

Most internet platforms do not have policies to prevent them from being used on a new January 8, shows study by InternetLab.

According to the survey, all major platforms, with the exception of Telegram, have electoral integrity policies, which prohibit, among other things, disclosing wrong dates and times of the election or unfounded allegations of fraud.

However, most do not have rules specific enough to deal with incitement to violence after the election result or against the peaceful transmission of power — content that spread through social media in the days leading up to the attacks on Brasilia on January 8 of this year. .

The only platforms that have specific policies for attempts at democratic rupture after the elections are Instagram, Facebook and X (formerly Twitter), according to the study “Commitment to Democracy: Electoral Integrity and the Democratic Rule of Law in Digital Platform Policies” .

TikTok, YouTube, LinkedIn and Kwai had, between June 2022 and January 2023, policies related to maintaining the integrity of public debate during elections and inhibiting acts that could prevent or hinder the electoral process, but they did not have rules on insurrections after the release of the results, the report states.

“Platforms have more general policies about democratic breakdown and don’t make it clear to users and moderators what is allowed, [o que] leaves everyone in limbo”, says Ester Borges, research coordinator for InternetLab and for the report.

“It is a big concern to enter another election with insufficient rules. And, in addition, the speeches are always one step ahead of the regulation. We expect in 2024 bigger problems or as big as we had in 2022.”

According to InternetLab, policies need to be sensitive to pre-violence contexts, making platforms capable of assessing, in advance and comprehensively, the danger of each speech, with gradual sanctions.

In the case of messaging applications, WhatsApp prohibits the abusive use of the platform in an electoral context, with a ban on mass messages; tighter limits on viral messages, accompanied by forwarding labels; tools to verify the information received by referral and partnerships with fact-checking agencies.

Telegram, on the other hand, prohibited only sending spam and did not have specific policies for civic and electoral integrity.

Another problem pointed out by the InternetLab study is the restriction of rules to election periods.

OX (ex-Twitter) is the only one that prohibits “misleading information about the outcomes of civic acts” and “contested statements that may undermine one’s faith in the process” during the election period and as long as the platform deems it necessary.

The report recommends that the standards should not be applied only during periods of major events, such as elections and plebiscites. “On the contrary, it is essential to create an environment permanently conducive to honest political debate, protecting the rights and dignity of all users.”

Another diagnosis in the report is the need for specific care for election advertisements. The law authorizes electoral propaganda promoted by parties or candidates on digital platforms, but prohibits “the disclosure or sharing of facts that are known to be untrue or seriously out of context that affects the integrity of the electoral process”.

However, companies only regulate the procedure for serving ads, and do not have specific measures for advertising with disinformation or questioning electoral integrity, according to the study. “The absence of parameters, in this case, is even more sensitive, given that platforms profit from these monetized publications”, says the text.

Facebook, Instagram, YouTube and Kwai had policies aimed at electoral propaganda in the period. In the case of Facebook and Instagram, in addition to the authorization process for serving ads, there was an obligation to label the ad as “electoral advertising”. There was also the ad library, which stores electoral propaganda for seven years.

InternetLab recommends that, in addition, platforms should ban ads that question electoral integrity and democracy. And also that, following the example of the 2020 US election, platforms could restrict the circulation of election ads in periods close to polling days.

X (formerly Twitter), TikTok and LinkedIn ban electioneering on their platforms.

The survey also questions the transparency of the platforms’ content moderation measures. Normally, they only disclose the number of removed contents, but not how many were viewed and reported, nor the total universe of publications.

Regarding profiles of candidates and public figures, it would be necessary to have specific rules and quick moderation, given the great reach and influence of publications from these accounts, says the study. But it is also crucial to ensure equality in the moderation of different candidate profiles.