Tech

Misinformation on Kamala Harris’s Eligibility Amidst Biden’s Endorsement

Explore the swirling rumors and misinformation regarding Kamala Harris’s eligibility for office, especially in light of President Biden’s endorsement. Uncover the facts behind the claims and understand the implications for the political landscape.

Published

on

Misinformation Surrounding Kamala Harris’s Eligibility

Less than an hour after President Biden publicly endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris as the Democratic candidate for president on Sunday, a wave of misinformation spread across the platform X, falsely asserting that she was “ineligible” to run for office due to her parents’ immigration status. This unfounded claim quickly gained traction, with one post alone being shared thousands of times and amassing nearly 137,000 views.

In response, another user attempted to correct the misinformation by stating, “Kamala Harris was born in Oakland, California, USA.” They further clarified, “This makes her a natural born citizen, and she is eligible to run for President of the United States.” However, amidst the barrage of misleading posts, such corrections were conspicuously absent on many other threads.

Since acquiring the social media platform in 2022, Elon Musk has largely dismantled the existing content moderation frameworks. Instead, he has implemented a system known as Community Notes, which empowers users to contribute fact-checking labels and vote on their usefulness. Those labels that gain enough approval are subsequently attached to misleading posts through an algorithmic process. According to insiders, X has deemed this approach adequate to manage the spread of misinformation, particularly in the lead-up to the presidential election in November.

However, the efficacy of Community Notes has proven to be inconsistent. Even when a corrective label is affixed to a post, misleading claims can still proliferate across the platform, as observed by researchers focusing on misinformation. The collaborative nature of the program means that users from various political backgrounds must agree on the corrections, leading to the potential for crucial comments and fact checks about contentious issues to be overlooked entirely.

For instance, nearly 8,000 fact-checks related to immigration have been drafted within the Community Notes framework, yet only 471 have received user approval and been made public. This represents a mere 6 percent visibility rate. Similarly, a scant 4 percent of Community Notes addressing the topic of abortion have been brought to light.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Trending

Exit mobile version