Enlarge / Chicago City Wire is a hyper-partisan website masquerading as an outlet that does journalism. (credit: FT Montage)

The number of partisan news outlets in the US masquerading as legitimate journalism now equals genuine local newspaper sites, researchers say, as so-called pink slime operators gear up ahead of November’s presidential election.

Pink slime sites mimic local news providers but are highly partisan and tend to bury their deep ties to dark money, lobbying groups, and special interests.

NewsGuard, which rates the quality and trustworthiness of news sites, has identified 1,197 pink slime sites operating in the US as of April 1—about as many as the estimated 1,200 real news sites operated by daily local newspapers.

Enlarge (credit: Getty )

Meta is discontinuing data analysis tool CrowdTangle on August 14. The closure will come three months ahead of the next US presidential election and three years after it was reported that the platform used for spotting misinformation on Facebook and Instagram was causing internal strife.

Meta acquired CrowdTangle in 2016. CrowdTangle has been used by researchers, reporters, and government officials to identify trends about conspiracies and other forms of misinformation spreading through Facebook. Meta is going to replace CrowdTangle with a technology currently under development called Meta Content Library, but it will only be available to academic and non-profit researchers. For-profit organizations, like many news organizations, will lose access, as The Wall Street Journal points out .

Previously, CrowdTangle had some features available to the public, like Live Displays, which tracked how people discussed trending topics on certain social media channels like Facebook Pages. Journalists working at for-profit news outlets were able to apply for access to the full CrowdTangle service, as were publishers, including music labels, content creators, and public figures.

Enlarge (credit: JasonDoiy | iStock Unreleased )

A fake video manipulated to falsely depict President Joe Biden inappropriately touching his granddaughter has revealed flaws in Facebook's "deepfake" policies, Meta's Oversight Board concluded Monday.

Last year when the Biden video went viral, Facebook repeatedly ruled that it did not violate policies on hate speech, manipulated media, or bullying and harassment. Since the Biden video is not AI-generated content and does not manipulate the president's speech—making him appear to say things he's never said—the video was deemed OK to remain on the platform. Meta also noted that the video was "unlikely to mislead" the "average viewer."

"The video does not depict President Biden saying something he did not say, and the video is not the product of artificial intelligence or machine learning in a way that merges, combines, replaces, or superimposes content onto the video (the video was merely edited to remove certain portions)," Meta's blog said.

Enlarge (credit: WPA Pool / Pool | Getty Images Europe )

At a moment when misinformation about the Israel-Hamas war is rapidly spreading on X (formerly Twitter)— mostly by verified X users —many researchers have given up hope that it will be possible to closely monitor this kind of misinformation on the platform, Reuters reported .

According to a "survey of 167 academic and civil society researchers conducted at Reuters' request by the Coalition for Independent Technology Research" (CITR) in September, more than 100 studies about X have been canceled, suspended, or switched to focus on another platform since Elon Musk began limiting researchers' access to X data last February . Researchers told Reuters that includes studies on hate speech and child safety, as well as research tracking the "spread of false information during real-time events, such as Hamas' attack on Israel and the Israeli airstrikes in Gaza."

The European Union has already threatened X with fines if the platform fails to stop the spread of Israel/Hamas disinformation. In response, X has reported taking actions to curb misinformation, like removing newly created Hamas-affiliated accounts and accounts manipulating trending topics, working with partner organizations to flag terrorist content, actioning "tens of thousands of posts," and proactively monitoring for antisemitic speech.

Enlarge (credit: NurPhoto / Contributor | NurPhoto )

After researchers flagged verified users on X (formerly known as Twitter) as top superspreaders of Israel/Hamas misinformation and the European Union launched a probe into X, Elon Musk has vowed to get verified X users back in check.

On Sunday, Musk announced that "any posts that are corrected by @CommunityNotes"—X's community-sourced fact-checking feature—will "become ineligible for revenue share."

"The idea is to maximize the incentive for accuracy over sensationalism," Musk said, warning that "any attempts to weaponize @CommunityNotes to demonetize people will be immediately obvious, because all code and data is open source."

Enlarge / Elon Musk at the Viva Tech fair in Paris, France, on Friday, June 16, 2023. (credit: Getty Images | Bloomberg)

In the wake of Hamas’ deadly attacks on Israel this weekend—and the Israeli military’s response—journalists, researchers, open source intelligence (OSINT) experts, and fact-checkers rushed to verify the deluge of raw video footage and images being shared online by people on the ground. But users of X (formerly Twitter) seeking information on the conflict faced a flood of disinformation.

While all major world events are now accompanied almost instantly by a deluge of disinformation aimed at controlling the narrative, the scale and speed at which disinformation was being seeded about the Israel-Hamas conflict is unprecedented—particularly on X.

Enlarge (credit: Aurich Lawson | Getty Images)

The world has been flooded with misinformation. Falsehoods and conspiracy theories bubble up on everything from the weather to vaccines to the shape of the Earth. Purveyors of this garbage may be motivated by attention, money, or simply the appeal of sticking it to the educated elite. For people who try to keep both feet planted in the real world, it's enough to make you want to scream. Even if you spend 24 hours a day pushing back against the wrongness on the Internet , it seems impossible to make a dent in it.

I've been pondering this, and I've decided that we need a way to target the worst sources of misinformation—a way to identify the people who are both the most wrong and the most dangerous. So, as a bit of a thought experiment, I started playing with a simplified scoring system for misinformation merchants.

I'm calling it the 10-point Ladapo scale in honor of the surgeon general of Florida, for reasons I hope are obvious . Any person can be given a score of zero or one (fractions are discouraged) for each of the following questions; scores are then totaled to provide a composite picture of just how bad any source is. To help you understand how to use it, we'll go through the questions and provide a sense of how each should be scored. We'll then apply the Ladapo scale to a couple of real-world examples.

Enlarge (credit: NurPhoto / Contributor | NurPhoto )

A prominent anti-vaccine activist, Joseph Mercola, yesterday lost a lawsuit attempting to force YouTube to provide access to videos that were removed from the platform after YouTube banned his channels.

Mercola had tried to argue that YouTube owed him more than $75,000 in damages for breaching its own user contract and denying him access to his videos. However, in an order dismissing Mercola's complaint, US magistrate judge Laurel Beeler wrote that according to the contract Mercola signed, YouTube was "under no obligation to host" Mercola's content after terminating his channel in 2021 "for violating YouTube’s Community Guidelines by posting medical misinformation about COVID-19 and vaccines."

"The court found no breach because 'there is no provision in the Terms of Service that requires YouTube to maintain particular content' or be a 'storage site for users’ content,'" Beeler wrote.

Enlarge (credit: James Marshall; Getty Images)

In May, Sputnik International, a state-owned Russian media outlet, posted a series of tweets lambasting US foreign policy and attacking the Biden administration. Each prompted a curt but well-crafted rebuttal from an account called CounterCloud, sometimes including a link to a relevant news or opinion article. It generated similar responses to tweets by the Russian embassy and Chinese news outlets criticizing the US.

Russian criticism of the US is far from unusual, but CounterCloud’s material pushing back was: The tweets, the articles, and even the journalists and news sites were crafted entirely by artificial intelligence algorithms, according to the person behind the project, who goes by the name Nea Paw and says it is designed to highlight the danger of mass-produced AI disinformation. Paw did not post the CounterCloud tweets and articles publicly but provided them to WIRED and also produced a video outlining the project.

Paw claims to be a cybersecurity professional who prefers anonymity because some people may believe the project to be irresponsible. The CounterCloud campaign pushing back on Russian messaging was created using OpenAI’s text generation technology, like that behind ChatGPT , and other easily accessible AI tools for generating photographs and illustrations, Paw says, for a total cost of about $400.