The reposts and expressions of shock from public figures followed quickly after a user on the social platform X who uses a pseudonym claimed that a government website had revealed “skyrocketing” rates of voters registering without a photo ID in three states this year — two of them crucial to the presidential contest.
“Extremely concerning,” X owner Elon Musk replied twice to the post this past week.
“Are migrants registering to vote using SSN?” Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, an ally of former President Donald Trump, asked on Instagram, using the acronym for Social Security number.
Trump himself posted to his own social platform within hours to ask, “Who are all those voters registering without a Photo ID in Texas, Pennsylvania, and Arizona??? What is going on???”
…
Yet by the time they tried to correct the record, the false claim had spread widely. In three days, the pseudonymous user’s claim amassed more than 63 million views on X, according to the platform’s metrics. A thorough explanation from Richer attracted a fraction of that, reaching 2.4 million users.
The incident sheds light on how social media accounts that shield the identities of the people or groups behind them through clever slogans and cartoon avatars have come to dominate right-wing political discussion online even as they spread false information.
This is a perfect example of truthful mainstream propaganda.
I have no doubt all of the facts in this piece are correct, but they’re also aligned in such a way to suggest to the reader that the real root of the problem is that commoners are allowed to have anonymous social media accounts not tied to a real name or some government ID program.
It also doesn’t distinguish between anonymous and pseudonemous, which is important.
This.
The real way to deal with this issue is immedate fact checking of information.
The article, however, suggests that the way to deal with the issue is forcing people to use their real identities on line, which will only serve to silence speech. How many of these right wing psychopaths will happily threaten to murder you if you argue they’re wrong?
The answer to bad speech is more speech, not suppression.
Fact checking the firehose of falsehoods? That’s never going to work.
We should teach how to be critical of information.
I keep running into people who say moderation is impossible at scale.
It does not make surface level sense to me. But it’s true. Ban evasion is too easy. With no repercussions behavior is not socially enforced.
If you think through it, and do want moderation and bans to work, it always comes back to having to have an authoritative index of all users. And that gets dystopian almost instantly. It always needs some organization or government to tell the platform that a user is who they say they are.
What about networks of trust instead of a single index?
That sounds interesting. I’d be curious to learn if:
You and I both! Unfortunately I am familiar with the concept but unfamiliar with any specific details.
Moderation at scale, like democracy, only works with an educated user base. When your user base is too dumb to help self-police, shit gets very difficult.
So people don’t deserve, or can’t be trusted enough, to be allowed the right to have anonymous online accounts? Everything needs be tied to a centralized/government ID system because the average person is too stupid?
Not what I said. But you are proving my point.
The fact that you can’t see the irony in your own response, is more evidence for your point than anything else.
Regardless, I don’t think that should deprive you of the right to anonymity.
Cool story bro. Still not what I said.
There is not some conspiracy here where media companies are colluding with God knows who to covertly and subtly spread the idea that anonymity online is bad.
It’s more likely that you don’t want that to be true, but recognize that at least on some level it is true, and this is how you’re grappling with that cognitive dissonance.
You’re wrong and I hope you take the time to learn why. Start here.
This doesn’t show there is some conspiracy, it shows that there could be one. Maybe I should not be so forceful in my dissent, and I should say there is a potential the conspiracy is happening, but neither you nor the other poster has actually offered up any evidence of such a conspiracy. A conspiracy is always just a good way to dismiss things we don’t want to admit are true or might be true.
You keep saying conspiracy because it’s easy to discount that label, a label that I never used.
I wasn’t describing a plot by some old men in a smoke filled room, I was pointing out an example of propaganda used to manufacture consent.
Unfortunately, the culprit is the system, working as designed. That’s an exponentially more dangerous villain then any cabal could ever be.
Because even without outright saying, it’s clearly implied. And, besides, you’ve still provided zero evidence to support the assertion. You are doing what you are accusing me of doing: using a label to assert (or in my case, dismiss) something without evidence.