National

There's a growing fear that political misinformation is spiraling out of control on social media two weeks before the U.S. midterm elections.

Driving the news: Activist groups are sounding the alarm on election-related dis- and misinformation, putting pressure on tech platforms to be more vigilant, per a letter to the CEOs of Meta, TikTok, Twitter and YouTube signed by more than 60 groups and shared exclusively with Axios.

"[I]t remains painfully clear that social media companies are still failing to protect candidates, voters, and elected officials from disinformation, misogyny, racism, transphobia, and violence," the letter reads. It was signed by organizations focused on abortion rights, women's rights, LGBTQ rights, voting rights, anti-racism and tech accountability, including the National Organization of Women, GLAAD and the Global Justice Center.

Concurrently, watchdog group Accountable Tech placed a $250,000 national television and digital ad buy starting this week, criticizing Meta for what the group describes as rolling back election integrity safeguards prior to the midterms.

And cybersecurity firm Recorded Future warned this month that both Russian and Chinese state-sponsored actors are likely to conduct "malign influence operations" targeting U.S. audiences to sway perceptions of the elections.

The big picture: Misinformation and inaccurate narratives perpetuated by high-profile figures on both social and traditional media have made the past few elections even more fraught as Americans retreat into echo chambers.

"There is so much pressure on the social media companies and yet they seem only responsive to a fraction of it," Jiore Craig, head of elections and digital integrity at the Institute for Strategic Dialogue (ISD), told Axios. "It is worthwhile to all of these groups to apply this pressure, as long as companies remain the only entities who can immediately impact this at scale, at any moment."

How it works: Platforms have largely gotten a handle on the type of foreign meddling seen in 2016. The misinformation landscape is now mostly driven by domestic forces.

In the 2022 midterm election cycle, heated rhetoric toward election workers and public officials has worsened, spurred by continued claims of Trump wrongfully losing the 2020 election, ISD researchers said in an October note.

That includes calls for "vigilante" actions at places like ballot drop-boxes and polling locations, ISD researchers noted. Two people were seen last week lingering in tactical gear near a drop-box in Mesa, Arizona.

What's happening: The letter demands platforms remove false information, hate speech, threats against candidates and election workers. It also asks platforms to address widespread misinformation on abortion and to connect users to legitimate news sources.

The groups also urge the companies to de-platform users who spread misleading information about LGBTQ issues and call for more transparency around moderation decisions.

Accountable Tech's ad buy accuses Meta of disbanding Facebook's Civic Integrity Team, cutting its election-focused staff and not seeing the safeguarding of elections as a priority.

Meta has pushed back against claims that its elections-focused Civic Integrity team was disbanded. Guy Rosen, the company’s chief information security, said in a tweet that the Civic Integrity team was integrated into a more central team to do work across the company.

What they're saying: "We know what's possible when platforms don't act," Bridget Todd, communications director at Ultraviolet, the letter's organizer, told Axios. 

"The problem with platforms is that too often they are reactionary, when election dis- and misinformation can lead to real world violence and threats to democracy."

"While we have to hope something happens in this moment that encourages platforms to do the best they can, we don't have data to suggest that's what they'll do," Jiore said.

The other side: Many platforms have publicized their 2022 midterms strategy.

TikTok launched an elections center in August, offering election and voting information in both English and Spanish. TikTok does not allow paid political advertising and has a policy against election misinformation.

YouTube is prominently recommending authoritative news outlets when users search of midterms content, the company's VP of government affairs Leslie Miller wrote in a September blog post. Miller said YouTube removes content that violates its policies against inciting violence, spreading misinformation or interfering with voting.

Meta says it will provide links to official information about voting and the midterms when people search and has a "dedicated team in place to combat election and voter interference," per an August blog post from president of global affairs Nick Clegg.

Twitter activated its Civic Integrity Policy banning misleading information about elections, which includes placing labels on tweets with disputed information, for the 2022 midterms in August, the company said in a blog post.

Groups demand crackdown on online misinformation ahead of midterms

There is a growing fear that misinformation is spiraling out of control on social media again.

Illustration of an upside down and tattered American flag with a broken grid in the background

Big Tech

Misinformation

From the Valley to D.C., Big Tech players like Facebook, Google and Amazon are under more scrutiny than ever as new technology develops and privacy and antitrust concerns grow in lockstep with companies’ ambitions.

Technology

Big Tech platforms are blocking abortion-pill distribution information and permitting false narratives about abortion to spread, more than 100 days after the Supreme Court's ruling overturning a constitutional right to abortion.

Why it matters: Social media firms were caught flat-footed by that sudden change in the legal and informational landscape at a time when there's an overwhelming, sudden need for solid information and access to healthcare services online.

The big picture: Abortion rights advocates say that misinformation around reproductive health online has gotten worse since the Dobbs decision in June striking down Roe v. Wade.

"Evidence shows that misinformation and disinformation about reproductive health care, especially abortion, is on the rise on social media platforms and right-wing, anti-choice news sites," Julia Bennett, senior director of digital education and learning strategy at Planned Parenthood, told Axios. 

Driving the news: Most major platforms don't have abortion-specific misinformation policies. Only YouTube has rolled out an abortion-related policy since the Dobbs decision. TikTok includes medical misinformation about vaccines and abortion in its integrity policies.

Per new research from the Institute for Strategic Dialogue (ISD), a nonprofit focused on extremism and disinformation, TikTok, YouTube and Meta have allowed dis- and misinformation about abortion to spread and be monetized in the months since the court's decision.

"Policies that do exist (under health misinformation policies, policies against graphic imagery, etc.) are not properly enforced when it comes to abortion-related content," ISD researchers write in an upcoming study shared with Axios.

Catch up fast: Shortly after Roe was overturned, more than 200 medical organizations and non-profits sent a letter to top executives at Meta, YouTube, TikTok and Twitter saying that "medical disinformation is a threat to public health."

State of play: In addition to false or misleading narratives being circulated on platforms, accounts that link people to information about abortion pills or pro-choice candidates are being flagged and taken down.

Sara Tabatabaie, chief political officer for #Voteprochoice, told Axios that the group was blocked from using its social media content scheduling tool to post on Facebook for allegedly "violating guidelines."

Tabatabaie said this was because the group’s Facebook posts were "flooded with hate comments" and were being "falsely reported."

Women on Web, a nonprofit which connects people to abortion pill access, had its Instagram account taken down without much explanation, Martha Dimitratou, digital strategist for the organization, told Axios. After contacting Meta, she said, Women on Web was told the reason for the suspension was "that our account went against their 'Community Guidelines' by inciting people 'to purchase, sell, raffle, gift, transfer, or trade certain goods and services on our platform.'"

Between the lines: "Access to correct information in this era is even more important than before, given the rapidly-changing laws around abortion," the ISD researchers write, since inaccurate information can lead people "to make dangerous decisions about their healthcare."

Even though the medical facts about abortion are more extensive and stable than those around COVID, the platforms have a "complacency" and "refusal to take hardline action" even when their policies call for it, Jenna Sherman, program manager at the digital health lab at Meedan, a technology nonprofit focusing on technology and reproductive health, told Axios.

False information around medication abortion and other procedures and how they work.

"Undue" comparisons of abortion to tragedies, genocide and the Holocaust.

Non-English speaking countries as an especially weak spot in platforms' efforts to provide reliable abortion information. ISD researchers wrote that YouTube's labels didn't show up when videos were accessed from a non-English speaking country.

Claims that the effects of abortion pills can be "reversed," which experts say are not scientifically based, are particularly worrisome to the medical community. 

 The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists says that this treatment is "unproven and unethical."

"The regimen touted as medication abortion reversal is not proven to be effective in a scientifically meaningful way, and in some research, it has been shown to be potentially dangerous," said Nisha Verma, former ACOG fellow and a practicing OB-GYN in Georgia.

Yet some states now require doctors to give women being administered abortion pills information on such treatment, per Politifact.

ISD researchers found promotions of the "reversal" treatment in 1,138 posts on Meta-owned platforms, posted by 559 unique accounts with a combined following of 58 million. 

What they're saying: Elena Hernandez, a YouTube spokesperson, told Axios that the company will remove a video that "provides instructions for unsafe abortion methods or promotes false claims about abortion safety."

Hernandez said YouTube has panels that provide information from local and global authorities in the U.S. and the U.K., and it plans to expand to additional countries and languages.

"We work with independent fact-checking partners to assess content so that we can remove violations of our policies," said Jamie Favazza, a TikTok spokesperson.

The bottom line: Advocates hope to see platforms invest in making their algorithms and moderation systems smarter on abortion information. "I know that platforms are busy, and they have a lot of topics to cover and moderate," said Sherman. "But we all use the internet."

Social media loses ground on abortion misinformation

A new report finds the major online platforms remain in disarray on the issue,  months after the decision striking down Roe v. Wade.

Illustration of a phone growing a wooden Pinocchio nose. 

Abortion

Axios Explains: Abortion

The U.S. faces a range of health care flashpoints — unaffordable drugs, opioids, vaping — as we debate whether to adopt universal care. For now, the Affordable Care Act is the law of the land, but Republicans want to issue it a final death blow.

Health

After Big Tech platforms cracked down on political ads in the 2020 election's wake, political advertisers have increasingly flocked to the new Wild West of programmatic ad companies, per a report exclusively shared with Axios.

Why it matters: Programmatic ad companies, which automate the buying and selling of ads on various platforms, have minimal transparency tools and few specific content restrictions.

The report finds that "programmatic advertising through other platforms accounts for a substantial and increasing share of political advertising."

What's happening: Published by the University of North Carolina's Center on Technology Policy, the report, supported in part by the Knight Foundation, looks at the growing impact of programmatic ad companies to understand how they are shaping political speech ahead of the 2022 midterms.

The report looks at ad exchanges, supply-side platforms and demand-side platforms, rather than big ad networks like Taboola or publishers like Hulu. Tech for Campaigns estimates that advertisers spent $2.3 billion on Facebook and Google ads and $1.5 billion on other digital ads in 2019-20.

Consultants quoted in the report say ad money is shifting away from tech platforms as targeting rules get stricter.

Between the lines: Social media platform rules around political advertisements are under close scrutiny, as they serve the majority of digital political ads in the U.S. Yet programmatic political advertising sorely needs clearer policies around content, disclaimers, targeting, transparency and accountability, the report argues.

The Federal Election Commission is very limited in how it can regulate online political advertisements, and legislative efforts to regulate them have failed.

The report offers 12 recommendations for improving regulation and transparency of programmatic political advertising.

What they're saying: "Most of these [programmatic] platforms, their political speech policies for paid speech look kind of like how ad platforms looked in 2012," report co-author Matt Perault, a former head of global policy development at Meta who now directs the North Carolina center, told Axios. 

"We’re only two months from another election cycle, and there’s still so much we don’t know about the online political ads ecosystem," said report co-author J. Scott Babwah Brennen, head of online expression policy at the same center. "We found an ad-tech ecosystem that seems to be designed to be opaque and Byzantine."

The intrigue: No programmatic ads companies reviewed by Perault and Babwah Brennen explicitly prohibit lies about election processes or outcomes, and few make their policies around misinformation in the context of political ads clear. 

Only one programmatic ad company, Xandr, keeps an archive of ads, per the authors' review.

Transparency issues haunt digital ads ahead of midterms

As platforms have tightened rules, advertisers have moved to programmatic ad sellers with laxer standards.

Illustration of an old TV with pop up ads covering the screen.

Online advertising

Media Trends

Axios Media Trends

The FBI's raid of former President Trump's home in Mar-A-Lago has set off another wave of online rage among his supporters, putting tech giants on high alert for new efforts to undermine the legitimacy of U.S. elections.

Why it matters: Tech companies were caught flat-footed by the deluge of  disinformation aimed at delegitimizing the election process and outcome in 2020. Now, amid intense regulatory scrutiny, they are trying to get ahead of a repeat. 

Details: A slew of Big Tech firms debuted new midterm-election policies in the past week, designed to give political campaigns time to adapt to the changes as campaigns ramp up. 

TikTok on Wednesday doubled down on its ban on paid political ads, including paid influencer content. 

The company said it's taking new measures to block influencers and advertisers from forming undisclosed paid political partnerships. 

It also launched its Election Center, an in-app hub with authoritative information about voting and the election, six weeks earlier than it did in 2020.

Meta on Tuesday vowed to remove any misinformation about voting and said it will reject ads encouraging people not to vote or calling into question the legitimacy of the election.

As it did in 2020, Meta will block new political and issue ads during the final week of the election campaign.

It also said that during that week, it would no longer permit any edits to ads that have been previously approved to run.

Twitter last week said it would beginning enforcing its civic integrity policy, which bans the most common types of misinformation about elections and civic events.

It also labels questionable tweets and adds links to credible information or helpful context. 

The company said it will also begin rolling out "prebunks," or blurbs about accurate information about voting and the elections. 

Yes, but: The media landscape has become so fragmented in recent years that even the most careful defensive tactics by the most popular social media firms won't be able to halt the spread of election misinformation — including the "big lie" that Trump won in 2020, a claim supported by no credible evidence.

Cable news networks, podcasts, encrypted messaging apps, email, direct mail, and alternative social networks provide a huge breeding ground for misleading  election information. And the spreaders of election denialism are very adept at navigating a sprawling and ever-changing media landscape. 

The big picture: The shift in election misinformation online from mostly Russian, state-backed campaigns in 2016 to more domestic, fringe networks now presents social media firms with a difficult free speech challenge.

Coordinated inauthentic behavior campaigns by state-backed actors are often easier to identify and stop than misinformation spread by everyday users.

Twitter's decision to block a New York Post story about Hunter Biden's laptop from being shared in the month leading up to the 2020 election triggered a  sweeping backlash from conservative users who felt that the company had censored the story for political purposes. (Twitter's former CEO later said that decision was a mistake.) 

What to watch: More companies are putting resources towards combating election and voting misinformation in languages other than English, following revelations over the past year of election misinformation campaigns targeting Spanish-language voters.

Meta said it's putting more infrastructure in place to show accurate information about voting to users in a second language other than English. 

Twitter's prebunks will be presented in English, Spanish and all other languages supported on Twitter. 

TikTok's Elections Center will include resources in more than 45 languages, including English and Spanish. 

Big Tech braces for "big lie" in 2022 midterms

The FBI's Mar-a-Lago raid stirred up the right, and online platforms foresee new waves of election misinformation.

Illustration of a "vote" pin with a long nose growing out of it

Elon Musk

After Twitter began offering further monkeypox information to users, GLAAD is putting out a call for other social media platforms to follow suit.

Why it matters: As monkeypox has spread in the U.S., so has online misinformation about how it is contracted and who is at risk.

The fact that the virus has so far spread primarily among men who have sex with men has fueled misconceptions that monkeypox is a sexually transmitted infection.

What's happening: When Twitter users search the term "monkeypox" on the social media site, they are presented with a link to the Department of Health & Human Services and invited to "Know the facts."

GLAAD told Axios that they are calling on Meta, TikTok and YouTube to also steer users to trusted sources of medical information about monkeypox.

What they're saying: "Twitter's action will not only help stem the tide of MPV misinformation, but is also a clear example of leadership underscoring that institutions across all of civil society can play roles towards addressing this public health emergency," said GLAAD CEO Sarah Kate Ellis in a statement.

"Though anyone can contract MPV, it is disproportionately impacting the LGBTQ community, especially men who have sex with men, and it is urgent and critical to get the facts around vaccines, treatment, and prevention widely and equitably distributed."

Between the lines: The call for action comes a month after GLAAD released a report that gave major social media sites a failing grade when it came to protecting LGBTQ users on their networks.

The report gave points to Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, YouTube and TikTok for having at least some policies protecting LGBTQ users from harassment and attack, but took points away for both the limitations of their policies as well as actions taken in upholding them.

GLAAD calls on social media to push monkeypox info

As monkeypox has spread in the U.S., so has online misinformation.

Illustration of patterns of hospital plus turned into x’s and one right side up

Monkeypox

There is a clear and growing link between Russian propaganda and online far-right extremism globally, according to a new study from researchers at the George Washington University. 

Why it matters: The findings suggest the influence of Russian media on these communities is organic, which makes it harder to stop.

"It's almost like a fog of war," said Neil F. Johnson, a physicist who co-authored the report. "It would be so easy if it were organized in some sense. It's unfortunately not that way."

Links to Russian media shared by online extremist groups, by platform

Data: George Washington University; Table: Thomas Oide/Axios Visuals

Percentage of online extremist groups that posted links to Russian media, by platform

Driving the news: The data gives context to recent real-world hate crimes, most notably the mass shooting in Buffalo, N,Y., last month. 

"Our paper establishes a connection of these two worlds: Russian media promoting certain types of narratives around themes like immigration or racism, and a whole ecology of extreme communities online listening to them," Johnson said.

A network of hate groups amplifies exiting narratives about white nationalism in a way that seeps into the mainstream, he noted. Those messages are often first spread on fringe platforms, often encrypted chat apps and gaming networks.

How it works: To study the connection between extremist groups online and Russian propaganda, researchers mapped what they call "hate clusters" (online fringe extremist groups) that have posted links to Russian media. 

They identified 734 extremist groups, and surveyed whether and how often those groups shared links to Russian state media across five social networks, from June 2019 through January 2020. 

Key takeaways: The findings suggest extremist hate groups that post links to Russian media tend to originate from places with deep racial divides, including North America, Europe, South Africa, Australia, and Nordic regions.

"The common theme is white frustration, which bleeds into 'Who can I blame?" Johnson said. This is why extremist groups online often bleed into one another organically. "They are looking to see whether there are other communities online around the world that also feel the way they do."

Mainstream social networks, like Facebook, may harbor a greater number of extremist groups compared to smaller platforms, but those groups are far less likely to share links to Russian media, likely due to stricter content moderation. Less than 1% of the total Russian state links identified were shared on Facebook.

Hate groups on 4chan and Gab, which are both based in the U.S., share almost as many links to Russian state media sources as the Russian social media network VKontakte (VK).

The big picture: The findings dispel the notion that Russian influence on domestic extremism happens through coordinated bot campaigns. 

Instead, they suggest that even a small number of stories from Russian state media can spread very quickly among a huge ecosystem of interconnected extremist communities. 

"It turns out that we’ve all got it wrong," Johnson said. 

'What this study shows is you don't need a huge organized campaign of bots to influence these types of groups and movements," he said, but rather "just a sprinkling" of stories from Russian media to feed a sprawling network of hate communities that will spread the divisive messaging on their own. 

What's next: Johnson, who has spent years mapping the intersection between extremist communities online, notes that these types of groups are "self policing," and often shift their messaging around certain topics. 

But they continuously take cues from Russian media, or messages derived from Russian media and spread by like-minded groups. 

"They’re listening, the issue is who they’re listening to."

Russian media drives online hate

Extremist groups spread Russian propaganda organically.

Propaganda

Science

Axios Science

In the wake of mass shootings in Uvalde, Texas, and Buffalo, New York, right-wing conspiracy theories moved faster than ever from fringe to the mainstream, thanks to a misinformation infrastructure that's grown stronger over time. 

Why it matters: The pipeline of misinformation moving from obscure internet platforms to the mouths of sitting members of Congress "seems to be going a lot faster now," said Bryce Webster-Jacobsen, director of intelligence operations at GroupSense, a threat intelligence firm.

"The misinformation narratives in places that start on places like 4chan or reddit Mae it to the public consciousness really quickly

"The misinformation narratives that start on places like 4chan or Reddit make it to the public consciousness really quickly," he added. 

They're "getting picked up by individuals with more power and louder voices," said Jared Holt, resident fellow at Atlantic Council's Digital Forensic Research Lab. "So the effect of misinformation has felt like it's multiplying." 

Details: In the wake of the Buffalo and Uvalde shootings, several big conspiracy theories quickly took hold, with many falsely characterizing the shooter or victims to match fringe political narratives. 

In Uvalde, misinformation falsely claiming the shooter was transgender appears to have quickly spread from 4chan, an anonymous message board, to the mainstream. The pictures used to support the falsehood were pulled from a user on Reddit. Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.) tweeted that the shooter was a "transsexual leftist illegal alien," but later deleted the post.

In Buffalo, misinformation falsely claiming that the shooting was a "false flag" operation — an attack disguised to look like it was made by the opposite side in a conflict — spread quickly in the aftermath of the massacre. A conservative Arizona state lawmaker is under investigation by the Arizona Senate for her Telegram post endorsing the theory. 

Be smart: Conspiracy theories can work both ways, rewriting history after terrible tragedies or inspiring the events in the first place. 

The "Great Replacement" conspiracy theory that motivated the Buffalo gunman had been echoed by conservative members of Congress and mainstream conservative media personalities. 

Zoom out: "Shootings are particularly rife for misinformation," said Holt. Bad actors will capitalize on situations where "there's a big window of gaps and unknowns" to promote their own political ideology.

Holt notes that in the wake of the Buffalo mass shooting, the national conversation around extremism online created "an appetite to almost settle the score on this white nationalist narrative" — to balance "a very clear far-right act of violence" with rumors the perpetrator was transgender. 

How it works: The decentralization of conversations across dozens of fringe online platforms, apps and messaging boards has made it easier for conspiracy-theory spreaders to source information that feeds falsehoods in a way that's hard to trace. 

"Often, it strikes me that these kinds of communities or figures ... want to believe a certain thing, and someone on the internet finds something to provide source material," Holt said. "They come up with the concept first and then scour the internet to patch details in there so that it can live on."

Right-wing conspiracies are often seeded on fringe social networks like 4chan or Patriot.win, or private messaging apps like Telegram and Discord, and are then picked up by larger websites and news outlets , which lends them more legitimacy. 

The big picture: The past two shooting massacres show that conspiracy theories can jump directly from fringe platforms to mainstream conversations almost instantaneously without circulating too widely on intermediate blogs or news sites. 

Knowing which types of narratives are likely to stick gives conservative lawmakers more cover to promote such falsehoods. 

"There are some common stories that always get spread, and they’re usually about the shooter's identity — and they usually use the same pictures and names," said Webster-Jacobsen. 

Certain narratives, like the claim that an event is a false flag operation, repeatedly appear in the aftermath of breaking news, including the Jan. 6 Capitol siege. 

Yes, but:  As the same narratives become more pervasive with each new shooting massacre, it's becoming easier for tech platforms and the media to identify and debunk them.

"I've been happy to see that this kind of discussion, and the immune system that the national media has developed over time, has been going in a positive direction," Holt said. 

What to watch: A lack of consistent information from law enforcement agencies can also give conspiracy theory mongers an information void to fill.

"People want answers, and if they’re not getting them from authorities, they’ll get them somewhere else," said Caroline Orr Bueno, a behavioral scientist who focuses on social media manipulation.

Right-wing misinformation machine revs up after shootings

After Buffalo and Uvalde, lies and misinformation spread faster than ever.

President Biden has made the COVID-19 crisis and a post-Trump return to national unity and traditional democratic ideals his top priorities. From vaccinations to stimulus to schools, Biden is seeking bipartisan compromise while showing a willingness to use executive authority and bare Democratic majorities in the U.S. House and Senate to implement his policies. Republican leaders are navigating deep party divisions over if and how to move beyond former President Trump.

Politics & Policy

Login

Axios Login

Right-wing politicians were among those most excited by Elon Musk's purchase of Twitter, while those expressing the most worry were groups representing women, people of color and the LGBTQ+ community.

Why it matters: While it is far too early to fully understand how Elon Musk's ownership will end up changing Twitter, it's worth noting who is most excited and who most fearful of the shift. 

Inside Twitter, vocal skeptics of the deal included people working on everything from the core technology to those responsible for building equitable AI systems. Notably, it's also top of mind for both those doing the hiring and the people Twitter is recruiting.

"If you're wondering what Twitter employees think, I can only speak for myself: It's a time of genuine discomfort & uncertainty," Twitter's Edward Perez wrote. "Most of us believe deeply that Twitter is much more than a tech platform; we have a deep responsibility to society. I hope our new owner gets that."

Twitter co-founder Jack Dorsey said he doesn't think any person or company should own Twitter, but praised the sale to Elon Musk as the best strategy for the company. "Taking it back from Wall Street is the correct first step."

Outside its walls, Musk's purchase won plaudits from Sen. Josh Hawley and Marsha Blackburn, while statements of concern came from the NAACP, GLAAD and the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

Many focused on the pros and cons of Musk's promise to promote free speech above all, while others worried about the impact of any one man being in charge of such a vital voice in the internet.

Still others questioned how Musk's own business interests, including those in China, could impact Twitter policy. That group included Amazon's Jeff Bezos, who noted Musk's China business and quipped: "Did the Chinese government just gain a bit of leverage over the town square?"

American Civil Liberties Union: "While Elon Musk is a card-carrying member and one of our most significant supporters, there's a lot of danger having so much power in the hands of any one individual."

Electronic Frontier Foundation: "Elon Musk’s purchase of Twitter highlights the risks to human rights and personal safety when any single person has complete control over policies affecting almost 400 million users. And in this case, that person has repeatedly demonstrated that they do not understand the realities of platform policy at scale."

Sen. Marsha Blackburn tweeted that yesterda was "a great day to be conservative on Twitter" while Sen. Josh Hawley quoted comments from Musk, adding, "Imagine: a major social media company that actually believes in free speech."

GLAAD: "Twitter should hold to its principles and the industry standard of prohibiting speech that endangers people, spreads misinformation, and incites harassment and abuse," CEO Sarah Kate Ellis said. 

Be smart: Some of the biggest changes may come not from policy dictates, but rather the employee turnover as those who disapprove of Musk's approach leave and others join. 

Go deeper: Everything Elon Musk wants to change about Twitter

Who is cheering, jeering Musk's Twitter deal

Republican politicians were quick to offer praise, while civil rights groups expressed concern.

Photo illustration: Sarah Grillo/Axios. Photo: Britta Pedersen-Pool/Getty Images

Twitter

False narratives surrounding Russia's invasion of Ukraine are increasing and extend far beyond the bounds of Russia-controlled state media, according to new research from NewsGuard first shared with Axios. 

Why it matters: Though Russian state-media has faced widespread de-platforming, many shady think tanks, anonymous websites and other outlets can easily continue to spread misinformation about the war.

OneWorld.press, for example, is a website that bills itself as a “Global Think Tank,” but doesn't disclose ownership, funding or control. It continues to regularly publish falsehoods supporting Russian disinformation and NewsGuard notes that the site's internet domain was registered in Moscow. 

By the numbers: Misinformation about the invasion is on the rise, both in terms of the number of false claims being spread and the amount of outlets actively posting misinformation. 

NewsGuard has identified 172 distinct sites that continuously spread disinformation about the war, including a number of anonymous websites, foundations and research websites with uncertain funding. That's 48% more than the organization had tracked as of March 3.

The number of specific myths being tracked by NewsGuard has also risen. It more than doubled to 23 false claims, the organization said.

Ukraine misinformation is spreading — and not just from Russia

A growing number of online sites are spreading myths about the invasion.

Misinformation

The big picture

YouTube pulls Bolsonaro videos over COVID misinformation

The search for misinformation's measure

When U.S. politicians exploit foreign disinformation

2020 rules of the road for the Age of Misinformation

Tech platforms struggle to police deepfakes

Human actors are changing the spread of disinformation

All Misinformation stories