[[link removed]]

MOST AMERICANS BELIEVE MISINFORMATION IS A PROBLEM — FEDERAL
RESEARCH CUTS WILL ONLY MAKE THE PROBLEM WORSE  
[[link removed]]


 

H. Colleen Sinclair
June 16, 2025
The Conversation
[[link removed]]


*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

_ Most Americans believe misinformation is a problem — federal
research cuts will only make the problem worse _

This past weekend, Northeastern and Harvard convened researchers and
experts across disciplines to examine the fake news phenomenon and
find solutions. , Photos via iStock

 

Research on misinformation and disinformation has become the latest
casualty
[[link removed]]
of the Trump administration’s restructuring of federal research
priorities.

Following President Donald Trump’s executive order on “ending
federal censorship
[[link removed]],”
the National Science Foundation
[[link removed]] canceled hundreds of
grants
[[link removed]]
that supported research on misinformation and disinformation.

Misinformation refers to misleading narratives shared by people
unaware that content is false. Disinformation is deliberately
generated and shared misleading content, when the sharer knows the
narrative is suspect.

The overwhelming majority of Americans
[[link removed]]
– 95% – believe misinformation’s misleading narratives are a
problem.

Americans also believe
[[link removed]]
that consumers, the government and social media companies need to do
something about it. Defunding research on misinformation and
disinformation is, thus, the opposite of what Americans want. Without
research, the ability to combat misleading narratives will be
impaired.

The attack on misleading narrative research

Trump’s executive order claims that the Biden administration used
research on misleading narratives to limit social media companies’
free speech.

The Supreme Court had already rejected this claim
[[link removed]] in a 2024 case.

Still, Trump and GOP politicians continue to demand disinformation
researchers defend themselves, including in the March 2025
“censorship industrial complex” hearings
[[link removed]],
which explored alleged government censorship under the Biden
administration.

The U.S. State Department, additionally, is soliciting all
communications
[[link removed]]
between government offices and disinformation researchers for evidence
of censorship.

Trump’s executive order to “restore free speech,” the hearings
and the State Department decision all imply that those conducting
misleading narrative research are enemies of the First Amendment’s
guarantee of free speech.

These actions have already led to significant problems – death
threats
[[link removed]]
and harassment
[[link removed]]
included – for disinformation researchers, particularly women
[[link removed]].

So let’s tackle what research on misinformation and disinformation
is and isn’t.

Misleading content

Misinformation and disinformation researchers examine the sources of
misleading content. They also study the spread of that content. And
they investigate ways to reduce its harmful impacts.

For instance, as a social psychologist
[[link removed]] who
studies disinformation and misinformation, I examine the nature of
misleading content. I study and then share information
[[link removed]]
about the manipulation tactics used by people who spread
disinformation to influence others. My aim is to better inform the
public about how to protect themselves from deception.

Sharing this information is free speech, not barring free speech.

Yet, some think this research leads to censorship when platforms
choose to use the knowledge to label or remove suspect content or ban
its primary spreaders. That’s what U.S. Rep. Jim Jordan argued in
launching investigations
[[link removed]]
in 2023 into disinformation research.

It is important to note, however, that the constitutional definition
of censorship [[link removed]]
establishes that only the government – not citizens or businesses
– can be censors.

So private companies have the right
[[link removed]]
to make their own decisions about the content they put on their
platforms.

Trump’s own platform, Truth Social, bans certain material
[[link removed].]
such as “sexual content and explicit language,” but also anything
moderators deem as trying to “trick, defraud, or _mislead_ us and
other users [[link removed]].”
Yet, 75% of the conspiracy theories
[[link removed]]
shared on the platform come from Trump’s account.

Further, both Trump
[[link removed]]
and Elon Musk
[[link removed]],
self-proclaimed
[[link removed]]
free speech advocates
[[link removed]],
have been accused of squelching content on their platforms that is
critical of them.

Musk claimed the suppression of accounts on X was a result of the
site’s algorithm
[[link removed]]
reducing “the reach of a user if they’re frequently blocked or
muted by other, credible users.” Truth Social representatives
[[link removed]]
claim accounts were banned due to “bot mitigation” procedures, and
authentic accounts may be reinstated if their classification as
inauthentic was invalid.

Is it censorship?

Republicans say social media companies have been biased against their
content
[[link removed]],
censoring it or banning conservatives unfairly.

The “censorship industrial complex
[[link removed]]”
hearings held by the House Foreign Affairs South and Central Asia
Subcommittee were based on the premise that not only was misleading
narrative research part of the alleged “censorship industrial
complex,” but that it was focused on conservative voices.

But there isn’t evidence
[[link removed]] to support this
assertion.

Research from 2020 shows that conservative voices are amplified
[[link removed]]
on social media networks.

When research does show that conservative authors have posts labeled
or removed
[[link removed]],
or that their accounts are suspended at higher rates than liberal
content, it also reveals that it is because conservative posts are
significantly more likely to share misinformation
[[link removed]] than liberal posts.

This was found in a recent study of X users
[[link removed]]. Researchers tracked whose
posts got tagged as false or misleading more in “community notes”
– X’s alternative and Meta’s proposed alternative to fact
checking [[link removed]] – and it
was conservative posts, because they were more likely to include false
content than liberal posts.

Furthermore, an April 2025 study shows conservatives are more
susceptible to misleading content
[[link removed]] and more likely to be
targeted [[link removed]] by it
than liberals.

Misleading America

Those accusing misleading narrative researchers of censorship
misrepresent the nature and intent of the research and researchers.
And they are using disinformation tactics to do so.

Here’s how.

The misleading information about censorship and bias has been repeated
so much through the media and from political leaders, as evident in
Trump’s executive order, that many Republicans believe it’s true
[[link removed]].
This repetition produces what psychologists call the illusory truth
effect [[link removed]], where as few
as three repetitions convince the human mind something is true.

Researchers have also identified a tactic known as “accusation in a
mirror
[[link removed]].”
That’s when someone falsely accuses one’s perceived opponents of
conducting, plotting or desiring to commit the same transgressions
that one plans to commit or is already committing.

So censorship accusations from an administration that is removing
books
[[link removed]]
from libraries, erasing history from monuments
[[link removed]]
and websites
[[link removed]],
and deleting data archives
[[link removed]]
constitute “accusations in a mirror.”

Other tactics include “accusation by anecdote
[[link removed]].” When strong
evidence is in short supply, people who spread disinformation point
repeatedly to individual stories
[[link removed]]
– sometimes completely fabricated
[[link removed]]
– that are exceptions to, and not representative of, the larger
reality.

Facts on fact-checking

Similar anecdotal attacks are used to try to dismiss fact-checkers,
whose conclusions can identify and discredit disinformation, leading
to its tagging or removal from social media. This is done by
highlighting an incident where fact-checkers “got it wrong.”

These attacks on fact-checking come despite the fact that many of
those most controversial decisions were made by platforms, not
fact-checkers
[[link removed]].

Indeed, fact-checking does work to reduce the transmission of
misleading content [[link removed]].

In studies of the perceived effectiveness of professional
fact-checkers versus algorithms and everyday users, fact-checkers are
rated the most effective
[[link removed]].

When Republicans do report distrust of fact-checkers, it’s because
they perceive the fact-checkers are biased
[[link removed]].
Yet research shows little bias in choice of who is fact-checked, just
that prominent and prolific speakers
[[link removed]] get checked
more.

When shown fact-checking results of specific posts, even conservatives
often agree the right decision was made
[[link removed]].

Seeking solutions

Account bans
[[link removed]]
or threats of account suspensions
[[link removed]] may be more effective
than fact-checks at stopping the flow of misinformation, but they are
also more controversial
[[link removed]]. They are
considered
[[link removed]]
more akin to censorship
[[link removed]]
than fact-check labels.

Misinformation research would benefit from identifying solutions
[[link removed]]
that conservatives and liberals agree on
[[link removed]].

Examples include giving people the option, like on social media
platform Bluesky, to turn misinformation moderation on or off
[[link removed]].

But Trump’s executive order seeks to ban that research. Thus,
instead of providing protections, the order will likely weaken
Americans’ defenses
[[link removed]].

* Free Speech; Misinformation; Fact-checking;
[[link removed]]

*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

 

 

 

INTERPRET THE WORLD AND CHANGE IT

 

 

Submit via web
[[link removed]]

Submit via email
Frequently asked questions
[[link removed]]
Manage subscription
[[link removed]]
Visit xxxxxx.org
[[link removed]]

Twitter [[link removed]]

Facebook [[link removed]]

 




[link removed]

To unsubscribe, click the following link:
[link removed]