A crucial tool that enabled users in certain areas to immediately report false political information has just been discreetly deleted by X, previously known as Twitter. Concerns have been expressed regarding the platform’s dedication to combating disinformation in light of this move, especially in relation to politics and elections.
This modification was initially noticed by the Australian digital research organization Reset. Australia, which prompted them to compose an open letter to X’s regional manager. They underlined their profound worry that Australian users were unable to adequately report election disinformation in the letter. In the past, people could report false political material by selecting the option “It’s misleading” under the “Politics” category. However, this option is no longer available, allowing users to choose from offensive categories including “hate speech,” “abuse,” “spam,” and “imitation.”
This modification could violate the disinformation code, which compels members to make reporting mechanisms accessible to the public so that people can report material or actions that contravene their rules. It’s important to note that this move occurred only a few weeks before a significant vote in Australia, which should worry people who keep an eye on election integrity.
Given the platform’s recent dedication to battling electoral concerns, this change in reporting options for X is especially important. Users should not use the platform for influencing or intervening in elections or other civic processes, according to X’s “Civic Integrity” principles. This includes publishing or disseminating materials that might discourage participation or provide the public the wrong information about how, when, or where to engage in civic processes.
However, a deeper examination of X’s policy modifications indicates a specific interpretation of civic integrity. While the platform has concentrated on preventing false or misleading affiliations, attempts to suppress voting, and misleading information about how to vote, it has not broadly forbade false statements about elected or appointed officials, candidates, or political parties. In essence, X now views this kind of political disinformation as “freedom of expression.”
Further increasing doubts about its dedication to battling disinformation, X has taken attempts to limit the impact of postings that violate its regulations rather than deleting them outright. The fact that X has enhanced reporting tools for electoral propaganda, but only for users in the European Union (EU), further confuses issues.
Users in Spain, a member of the EU, no longer have access to a direct reporting option for political disinformation, but they may still “report EU illegal content.” This update enables users in the EU to file complaints under the new Digital Services Act (DSA), which controls harmful material and imposes severe fines for violations. Users outside of the EU are left without a clear way to report inaccurate election-related material even though this enhanced reporting option is provided inside the EU. X’s declared principles on election integrity seem to be in conflict with this case, raising questions about how consistent its strategy is.
The absence of the direct opportunity to report political misinformation raises more general concerns about the functions of social media platforms in combating misinformation and preserving the integrity of elections. Users, academics, and regulators will surely continue to keep a close eye on how X’s rules and reporting systems change as the platform strikes a careful balance between encouraging constructive political dialogue and halting the spread of harmful disinformation.
