SuperCitizen

Concerns about online misinformation accelerated after 2016 — Russian election interference, COVID-19 health misinformation, election-fraud claims surrounding 2020 results, and AI-generated deepfakes.

Policy responses have been controversial:

Government-platform coordination: The Murthy v. Missouri (2024) Supreme Court ruling weakened standing for First Amendment challenges to government communication with platforms about content; debates over the Disinformation Governance Board (DHS, briefly stood up and dissolved in 2022).
Platform action: Labels, downranking, removal, account suspensions.
Foreign-influence-operations disruption (FBI, DHS).
Election-specific rules: Deepfake disclosure, AI-content labeling.
Media literacy: School curriculum, public education programs.

Spectrum of framings

How adherents on each side of the conventional left / center / right spectrum frame this issue — written so each camp would recognize the framing as charitable.

left

Progressive views vary: some favor robust platform action against misinformation; civil-liberties progressives worry about coordination with government.

center

Most centrists support transparency in government-platform interaction and targeted election-specific rules.

right

Most conservatives oppose government-driven misinformation efforts, viewing them as censorship of disfavored views.

Perspectives

Each perspective is presented in terms its advocates would recognize, with the concerns they treat as paramount. None is endorsed.

Active-response advocates
Online misinformation undermines elections, public health, and social cohesion. Coordinated action by government, platforms, and civil society — within First Amendment limits — is essential.
- Election integrity
- Public-health information
- Foreign influence operations
Free-expression / anti-censorship advocates
Government pressure on platforms to remove "misinformation" has chilled lawful speech, including views later proven correct. The cure is worse than the disease; rely on counter-speech and transparency, not removal.
- Government pressure on speech
- Defining "misinformation" reliably
- Counter-speech alternatives
Targeted-narrow-response advocates
Focus on narrow, clear harms: foreign influence operations, fraud, election deepfakes. Use transparency and labeling rather than removal; avoid government determinations of truth on contested topics.
- Targeted foreign-influence response
- Labeling and transparency
- Avoiding government truth-determination

Voices on this issue1

Commonly-cited public figures who have taken a position on this issue. Grouped by their conventional left/center/right lean. Tap a voice to see their full position record.

center1

Maggie Haberman
chief White House correspondent · The New York Times
"As a reporter, has documented the spread of political misinformation rather than taking explicit policy positions"

Discuss this issue with the Coach →