Sign up for our daily briefing

Make your busy days simpler with Axios AM/PM. Catch up on what's new and why it matters in just 5 minutes.

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Catch up on coronavirus stories and special reports, curated by Mike Allen everyday

Catch up on coronavirus stories and special reports, curated by Mike Allen everyday

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Denver news in your inbox

Catch up on the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Denver

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Des Moines news in your inbox

Catch up on the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Des Moines

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Minneapolis-St. Paul news in your inbox

Catch up on the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Twin Cities

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Tampa Bay news in your inbox

Catch up on the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Tampa Bay

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Charlotte news in your inbox

Catch up on the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Charlotte

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!
Data: NewsWhip; Chart: Andrew Witherspoon/Axios

Facebook and other big online platforms insist they're removing more and more misinformation. But they can't say whether they're actually stemming the tide of lies, and neither can we, because the deluge turns out to be impossible to define or measure.

Why it matters: The tech companies mostly won't share data that would let researchers better track the scale, spread and impact of misinformation. So the riddle remains unsolved, and the platforms can't be held accountable.

Where it stands: Quantifying the volume of misinformation online requires three things: a clear definition of the stuff you're measuring; a way to divide it into countable units; and the ability to see into vast pools of online data to find and enumerate it.

The catch: Different people disagree over which pieces of information are actually misinformation.

  • The other catch: Big platforms are reluctant to share data, because releasing it could help competitors and might violate users' privacy rights.

We're not entirely in the dark, and have some simple but useful tools. Among them:

  • Google Trends measures the total volume of searches for a given term and can capture the tipping point when false narratives break out into the mainstream.
  • NewsWhip gauges the attention particular topics are receiving by measuring the social media interactions — Facebook and Twitter likes and shares, for example — that news stories and other links about them garner. (It's how we built our chart above.)

Yes, but: Such methods provide just a small part of the picture — and nothing about whether the people clicking on misinformation are actually buying it.

  • "Measurement of reach alone never tells you the story of where it is that [misinformation is] having influence," said Camille François, the chief information officer of social media analysis firm Graphika, which has proposed its own scale for measuring misinformation-incident severity.

Between the lines: So-called "super spreaders" of misinformation — such as President Trump and his family, who hoist large volumes of often obscure misinformation to large followings — play a big role here. But they're far from the only factor.

The big picture: Experts Axios talked with point to several big problems with existing methods of quantifying misinformation.

1. The numbers that are available are incomplete and potentially misleading.

  • Twitter and Facebook have offered snapshots of how much material they've taken down around certain topics, but not the total volume of material they're reviewing.
  • Observers aren't sold on relying on the platforms' own assessments. "They make mistakes in both directions," said Ian Vandewalker, who focuses on influence and disinformation campaigns as senior counsel for the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center for Justice.
  • "They're using algorithms, so they miss a lot of things, and they also have a lot of false positives."

2. The public internet is only one stream in the broader misinformation deluge.

  • False claims and conspiracy theories are increasingly being spread in private Facebook groups, private chat servers on platforms like Discord, private texts and messaging groups. They also surface in partisan media outlets, elected officials' public statements and everyday real-world conversation.
  • "It is in all types of spaces," said Amy Mitchell, director of journalism research at Pew Research Center. "This is not just a social media phenomenon."

3. "Misinformation" can be a subjective category.

  • Something like "5G towers spread COVID-19" is an easily adjudicated false claim. But most misinformation appears in shades of gray, coming as a misleading gloss on events or statistics with some basis in reality.
  • Claims that downplay the threat posed by the coronavirus, for instance, often leave out the fact that it can be more deadly to people with pre-existing conditions — and that many people who have survived the virus are suffering long-term health complications.
  • And the language of misinformation is often innuendo and obfuscation — vague allusions to conspiracies and malfeasances rather than bald-faced lies.

What's next: To measure misinformation, we may need to think less about counting grains of sand and focus more on following currents. That would mean a greater effort on classifying and tracking the communities discussing topics linked to misinformation.

  • Yonder, an artificial intelligence startup that monitors mis- and disinformation, is one of a number of companies and research groups doing just that.
  • Understanding who's driving discussion of a topic can serve as a shortcut for individuals to judge its merits without relying on platform enforcement or transparency.
  • "We need to empower the users who consume this information with more information about the agenda behind the groups that are promoting it," Yonder CEO Jonathon Morgan told Axios.

Go deeper

Fringe right plots new attacks out of sight

Illustration: Aïda Amer/Axios

Domestic extremists are using obscure and private corners of the internet to plot new attacks ahead of Inauguration Day. Their plans are also hidden in plain sight, buried in podcasts and online video platforms.

Why it matters: Because law enforcement was caught flat-footed during last week's Capitol siege, researchers and intelligence agencies are paying more attention to online threats that could turn into real-world violence.

24 mins ago - Politics & Policy

Stalemate over filibuster freezes Congress

Illustration: Sarah Grillo/Axios

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and Mitch McConnell's inability to quickly strike a deal on a power-sharing agreement in the new 50-50 Congress is slowing down everything from the confirmation of President Biden's nominees to Donald Trump's impeachment trial.

Why it matters: Whatever final stance Schumer takes on the stalemate, which largely comes down to Democrats wanting to use the legislative filibuster as leverage over Republicans, will be a signal of the level of hardball we should expect Democrats to play with Republicans in the new Senate.

Dave Lawler, author of World
51 mins ago - World

Biden opts for five-year extension of New START nuclear treaty with Russia

Putin at a military parade. Photo: Valya Egorshin/NurPhoto via Getty

President Biden will seek a five-year extension of the New START nuclear arms control pact with Russia before it expires on Feb. 5, senior officials told the Washington Post.

Why it matters: The 2010 treaty is the last remaining constraint on the arsenals of the world's two nuclear superpowers, limiting the number of deployed nuclear warheads and the bombers, missiles and submarines which can deliver them.

You’ve caught up. Now what?

Sign up for Mike Allen’s daily Axios AM and PM newsletters to get smarter, faster on the news that matters.

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!