Such information would help researchers better understand how climate misinformation is spread and reinforce the platforms' own policies, the scorecard said.
Environmental groups harshly criticized Elon Musk's X app, formerly Twitter, in a report issued Wednesday grading social media outlets on their climate-related disinformation stances. The scorecard was created by the Climate Action Against Disinformation coalition, which is composed of over 50 groups ranging from environmental organizations to advertising agencies. X was awarded the lowest grade as there is no evidence of policies in place to prevent the propagation of false information about climate change. This is an issue of critical importance, as bogus climate-related information has impeded progress in combatting the crisis, such as the implementation of restrictions on the usage of fossil fuels.
"A fossil-fuel-backed minority is putting the brakes on the reasonable voices of science and rationale and the social media platforms are enabling this," declared Erika Seiber, a spokesperson for coalition member Friends of the Earth, in a statement. The coalition convened in 2021 in the wake of the U.N. climate meeting in Scotland and now counts WWF International and Patagonia among its members.
Before Musk's buyout last year, Twitter had banned advertisements which opposed the scientific consensus regarding climate change. However, it appears that this directive was not extended into Musk's ownership. Representatives from X did not provide any input to NBC News in response to queries. Additionally, the researchers reported that they contacted X as part of their scorecard's construction, but did not receive a response. On the 21-point grading system, the app registered 1 point for having an easily accessible and intelligible privacy policy; a score of zero was the lowest possible score.
Pinterest carried off the laurels on the scorecard with 12 points for a wide array of measures taken to discourage climate-related disinformation, including the specification of climate misinformation in its community guidelines, the release of an annual report regarding climate misinformation trends, and the prohibition of monetization of false climate information. The company expressed pride in its actions. "At Pinterest, we have been developing policies to ensure a positive online environment. Navigating and opposing misinformation is a constantly changing challenge, so we are continually evaluating our guidelines and implementation techniques," it expressed in a statement.
TikTok, Meta, and YouTube followed in Pinterest's wake, each earning 9, 8, and 6 points respectively. While the scorecard did not cover all components of social media, researchers did have conversations with other tech companies, including LinkedIn and Wikipedia. For a considerable period of time, researchers have been warning of the dangers of climate change deniers, whose statements stem from tech platforms, increasing the severity of the crisis, such as rising sea levels.
Various strategies have recently been used to tackle the issue. In 2021, Meta, at the time known as Facebook, stated that it would add labels to posts containing climate disinformation and provide a link to an information hub showcasing scientific findings. However, the implementation has been inconsistent. As for YouTube, it decreed a halt to the moneymaking of climate deniers that year, though The New York Times reported in May 2021 that some still found a way.
Responding to the scorecard, YouTube declared, "Our climate change policy clearly bars the monetization of content which nullifies climate change, or ads which echo such beliefs. Discussion or debate about climate change topics, such as public policy or research, is permissible, however if the content surpasses the bounds of climate change denial, we stop displaying ads. Generally, our algorithms do not recommend or prominently showcase content containing climate change disinformation."
Nevertheless, all the scores on the scorecard were brought down by the fact that the platforms do not provide researchers and academics with sensible access to non-personal data regarding material and advertising. Such knowledge would be beneficial to researchers assessing the lengthening of false climate information and furthering the platforms' own policies.
top of page
bottom of page
Comentários