using the information provided to write a long paragraph about who should be responsible for spreading misinformation. The paragraph should not be too long because should be part of a more complex essay.

The Challenge of Misinformation: Who should be accounted responsible? <— THIS IS THE PARAGRAPH YOU SHOULD WRITE WITH THE INFO PROVIDED
write using Chicago citation style


here is the information to use as a source --> USE ALL THE SOURCES PROVIDED ACCORDINGLY

# Who’s ‘mainly’ responsible for curbing disinformation?

Who should be responsible for curbing the spread of disinformation?

—> who is responsible for spreading it.

- That lack of a single source also explains why it is so hard to identify a solution. There’s not just one place to look.
- 2020 poll on disinformation reflects the difficulty people have in assigning responsibility for addressing the problem.
- little consensus when it asked people to choose who should have the “main responsibility” for addressing the question: 39% pointed to the media, 18% to technology companies, 15% to the government and 12% to the public.
- second poll in a year in which the largest share of respondents said the media should have the primary responsibility for reducing the flow of misinformation. In a Pew Research Center survey conducted in early 2019, 53% of respondents said journalists have the most responsibility to fix the problem.
- 59% of respondents reported that it is hard to tell the difference between factual and misleading information.
- There is also the question of whether it is realistic to ask people to assign the main responsibility for stopping the flow of disinformation to one entity
- multi-faceted solution:
- more fact-checking (ex: on politicians)
- Platforms may need more regulation
- To help users spread less false information —> news literacy programs.

# Fake news on social media: Whose responsibility is it?

### Can we trust social media?

The extent of untrustworthy information on social media is concerning, and recent events have certainly put social media under question. The cause for concern is not surprising given that many consumers rely heavily on social media for news. In the U.S., for example, 67 percent of survey participants say they get their news from social media in general, and 45 percent say they get it from Facebook alone. The situation in Europe is a little better but still cause for concern. In the EU, 13 percent of consumers say they stay up to date on European politics via social media, with the figure rising to 16 percent regarding domestic politics. In Sweden and Denmark, social media serves as the main source of information for 30 percent of consumers.

Yet, in spite of these high figures, there is evidence to suggest that consumers are sceptical about information on social media. According to our latest ConsumerLab report, less than one in five trust information they read on social media.

### Can we stop the spread of fake news?

- Printed media like newspapers and journals build relationship with their readers based on reputation, by carefully checking information before publishing it.
- On social media “there are no editors”, which allows all kind of content to spread without control

—> having a person or AI review a social media platform’s content ?

his was a key takeaway from the ConsumerLab report: as many as two-thirds say that social media services should hire employees to manually check the content on their platforms and 40% expect AI editors to do this in the future.

- Fake news on social media is a complex phenomenon and probably has to be addressed from various angles. There’s no denying the role that social media companies have in controlling the spread of fake news on their platforms. But we, social media users, also have a role to play —> learning to verify information that we read on social media platforms. Personal responsibility can be the first step to protecting the fabric of our societies.

### Report by #OMG social media is here to stay

Fake news travels fast

On top of these issues, the fake news phenomenon arrived, leveraging social media tools, such as share and like buttons, to spread misinformation faster than ever. Over half of consumers interviewed in the US and UK acknowledged they have read news on social media they later found to be fake. Almost one in four admitted spreading articles they later found were fake news. While to a large extent being driven by the hunt for advertising money, fake news poses a major threat to social media’s advertising business model, as fewer than 20 percent now trust information found on social media platforms. Social media is included free of charge on some mobile data plans, and for many who use those data plans, social media is their sole source of news and information, and that might harm not only social media’s business model, but also damage democracy and society as a whole.

Social media companies themselves are only now waking up to the threat of fake news. Consumers expect social media services to act, with two-thirds thinking social media companies should ensure there is no fake content on their platforms, and well over half agreeing social media services should be legally liable for fake news and misinformation on their platforms. Consumers want the publisher role back; three out of five say social media services should hire people to review content on their platforms to ensure fake information is not spread. Forty percent think artificial intelligence should do it, while half believe social media services should only host users with verified real names.

# Disinformation is disrupting the practice of journalism

### Key findings:

- Virtually all the journalists responding consider disinformation a serious problem for journalism today; 81 percent say it’s a very serious problem.
- Most deal with disinformation regularly: 61 percent on some days and 15 percent all or most days.
- Only 8 percent say that detecting and addressing disinformation is “not too important” a priority at their news outlet; 40 percent categorized this task as “urgent.”
- More than 90 percent said disinformation had an impact on their experiences as journalists in recent years; 65 percent had faced hostility from the public, 48 percent reported feeling frustrated or overwhelmed, and 42 percent felt some portion of their audience had lost trust in them.
- While 99 percent of the journalists expressed at least some confidence in their own ability to detect disinformation as they worked, 11 percent acknowledged they had unwittingly reported disinformation themselves.
- More than 90 percent had made one or more changes in their journalistic practice as a result of disinformation, including 66 percent who said they are spending more time actively debunking disinformation and 59 percent who reported intentional efforts to be transparent about decisions, methods, and sources. But one in three found themselves questioning their gut instincts and one in four reported feeling overwhelmed by the level of fact-checking required to complete a story. And 17 percent said they had avoided doing a story they were considering covering due to fear of “fake news” backlash that would seek to discredit their accurate reporting.
- Three out of five journalists surveyed said that amid the proliferation of disinformation and distrust, at least one of these things had happened to them: received threatening emails, phone calls, or letters; been harassed in person while working; been doxed or trolled; been catfished; and/or feared for their personal safety sufficiently to add security precautions to their daily routines.

Yet despite these high levels of concern and clear impact on their practices, most journalists responding said they did not feel they had the specialized skills or the newsroom support systems to respond adequately to the disinformation crisis:

- Only 30 percent of the journalists said their news outlet had generally effective processes in place to cope with disinformation; 40 percent said no organization-wide approach exists.
- Asked about eight different steps media outlets could take to address disinformation—including training journalists in how to report on it and putting systems in place to respond to it quickly—one in three said their newsroom has not taken a single one.

# Others Are to Blame: Whom People Consider Responsible for Online Misinformation

- One approach to this issue has examined journalists’ and news institutions’ role in spreading misinformation. (…) Although not intending to spread misinformation, in contrast to other nefarious actors, news outlets might instead contribute to its dissemination through their debunking efforts. People become exposed to false information due to mainstream media correcting falsehoods that would otherwise reach only a small number of citizens.
- News outlets may also disseminate false information due to media manipulation. Interest groups, such as conspiracy theorists and trolls, have developed techniques to increase the visibility of their ideas online by targeting news media sources to help spread their content. For instance, these groups can coordinate actions that force specific topics into the public discourse so that journalists may be unable to ignore them.
- Journalists are aware of these issues; however, they highlight barriers to delivering accurate information, such as technical difficulties in obtaining data from social media and the power relations between them and online platforms.
- Instead of focusing on a specific actor’s responsibility, Graves and Wells argued that political elites, news media, and citizens each take part in establishing “factual accountability”. The authors proposed a comprehensive approach to the issue encompassing all entities involved in online misinformation. They argued that public discourse should not be limited to specific entities that can be blamed and are expected to prevent misinformation online. Instead, it should embrace a joint responsibility undertaking in which various actors are held jointly accountable for online information.

FINDINGS:

- No entity was held individually responsible for the complex problem of online misinformation, i.e., no individual or organization was deemed single-handedly accountable for misinformation. This trend was particularly prominent when considering misinformation dissemination. Hence, we agree with and expand on Graves and Wells’ proposal of “factual accountability” [32]. Instead of relying on specific entities to prevent the spread and creation of misinformation, all actors involved have a role in this fight as a form of joint accountability:
1. Users should become aware of their role in creating, disseminating, debunking, and preventing false information from being shared online. Online interventions could play a crucial role in circumventing any psychological factors influencing users’ behaviors.
2. Social media platforms should fight misinformation through algorithmic and manual methods. Platforms could implement rapidly accessible interventions to promote users’ personal accountability.
3. Irrespective of political orientation, news media outlets were considered responsible for misinformation to a level comparable to social media. Considering that news media could unintentionally share misinformation when trying to debunk it [65], news outlets could promote accurate information more actively to overshadow falsehoods.
4. Political actors and organizations should invest in stronger regulation to combat misinformation at its core through nonpartisan collaborations. Polarization should not become an obstacle since misinformation’s ill effects spread across the political spectrum.