Pittwater Online News

Just days out from the United States presidential election last month, X (formerly Twitter) suddenly crippled the ability of many major media and political organisations to reach audiences on the social media platform.

Without warning, the platform, under tech billionaire Elon Musk’s stewardship, announced major changes to the main pathway these organisations use to disseminate content. This pathway is known as the application programming interface, or API. The changes meant users of the free tier API would be limited to 500 posts per month – or roughly 15 per day.

This had a huge impact on news media outlets, including The Conversation – especially with one of the biggest political events in the world just around the corner. It meant software programs designed to quickly and easily share stories wouldn’t work and newsrooms had to scramble to post stories manually.

In turn, it also had a huge impact on the public’s ability to access high quality, independent news at a time when there was a flood of polarising fake news and deepfakes on X and other social media platforms.

But this is just one example of how social media companies are throttling public access to quality news content, which research has shown is a proven antidote to the insidious effect of misinformation and disinformation. If this trend continues, the implications for democracy will be severe.

The backend of online communication

An API acts like a service corridor between websites and other internet services such as apps. Just like your computer has a keyboard and mouse at the front, then a series of sockets at the back, APIs are the backend that different websites and services use to communicate with each other.

An example of an API in action is the weather updates on your phone, where your device interacts with the API of some meteorology service to request temperatures or wind speeds.

Access to social media APIs has also been essential for news companies. They use APIs to publish stories across their various platforms at key intervals during the day.

For instance, The Conversation might publish a story on X, Facebook, Instagram and Bluesky all at the same time through an automated process that uses APIs.

Journalists and researchers can also use APIs to download collections of posts to identify and analyse bot attacks and misinformation, study communities and understand political polarisation.

My own research on political behaviours online is one such example of a study that relied on this data access.

APIpocalypse

API restrictions – such as those suddenly imposed by X before the US presidential election – limit what goes in and what comes out of a platform, including news.

Making matters worse, Meta has removed the News Tab on Facebook, replaced the CrowdTangle analytics tool with another system that is less open to journalists and academics, and appears to have reduced the recommendation of news on the platforms.

X also seems to have reduced the reach of posts including links to news sites, starting in 2023.

After once being open and free, Reddit’s APIs are also essentially inaccessible now without expensive commercial licenses.

The net result is that it is getting harder and harder for the public to access high quality, independent and nonpartisan news on social media. It is also getting harder and harder for journalists and researchers to monitor communities and information on social media platforms.

As others have said, we really are living through an “APIpocalypse”.

The exact effect of this on any of the 74 national elections around the world this year is unclear.

And the harder it is to access APIs, the harder it will be to find out.

A public hunger for quality news

Research suggests there has been renewed diversification in the social media sector. This will likely continue with the recent explosion of X clones such as Bluesky in the aftermath of the US presidential election.

News organisations are capitalising on this by expanding their profile on these emerging social media platforms. In addition, they are also focusing more on email newsletters to reach their audience directly.

There is an enormous public hunger for reliable and trustworthy information. We know that globally people value quality, nonpartisan news. In fact, they want more of it.

This should give news media outlets hope. It should also inspire them to rely less on a few monolithic tech companies that have no incentive to provide the public with trustworthy information, and continue investing in new ways to reach their audiences.

Cameron McTernan, Lecturer of Media and Communication, University of South Australia

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Australians now use social media more often than any other type of media, including TV, radio and websites. While the increased use of social media platforms present new opportunities to access and engage with information, it also introduces serious challenges associated with the spread of misinformation.

The sheer volume of information available on social media is overwhelming. These platforms can be used to target people with false, manipulative and misleading claims.

It’s not surprising most adults regularly encounter false and misleading information when they are online. And those who use social media see misinformation the most.

Although people are concerned about misinformation, our new report reveals that 97% of adults in Australia have limited skills to verify information online.

Concerning findings

Our study tested the ability of 2,115 adult Australians to verify information online. Our sample was representative of the Australian adult population.

Participants were shown two real-life web pages and two social media posts. They were asked to evaluate each of them and decide whether the content is reliable and trustworthy. They were also instructed to explain the steps they took to reach the decision.

To evaluate the content, participants could search online on use any device they had at hand.

In all four tasks, respondents were first asked if the claims on the social media posts or websites were true. These questions had a correct answer.

After the first question, participants were asked to explain how they reached their conclusion. If the respondent provided some evidence as to how they were able to verify the information, they were given one point. If the person clearly articulated how they conducted the verification task and provided sufficient evidence, they were given two points.

The highest score achievable was eight points. We grouped respondents into three categories based on their scores:

• no ability (a score of zero)
• emerging ability (one to three points)
• developing ability (four or more points)

The results raise serious concerns about the ability of Australians to identify misinformation online. Almost half (45%) of adult Australians showed “no ability” to take basic steps to verify online information, and 52% had only an “emerging ability”.

Only 3% of respondents were ranked with a “developing ability” because they scored four or more points.

A large gap between assumption and reality

Most studies about media literacy are based on people’s self-reports – what they say they can do. Prior to this research, very little was known about adult Australians’ actual ability to identify misinformation online.

Our study reveals a large gap between what people say they can do and their actual ability.

In our previous survey, 42% of adult Australians said they were confident they could check if information found online is true.

However, in our new study involving the same respondents, 39% of those who said they were confident didn’t demonstrate any ability to verify information, and 55% had only basic skills. This shows many people overestimate their ability.

Another important finding from the current study: the ability to verify information online is low across the board, across all age groups.

There wasn’t a huge difference between age groups – overall, the vast majority of Australians were struggling to verify information. That said, older Australians tended to score slightly lower. A little more than half of the 60–69 age group landed in the “no ability” category, compared to 38% of those aged 30–39 years.

We did find that news and information consumption habits are related to people’s ability to verify information. Heavy news consumers scored higher. Only 36% of heavy news consumers were in the “no ability” group, compared to 59% of those who are non-news consumers.

This indicates that regularly accessing quality information verified by professional journalists may help people distinguish fact-based and fact-checked stories from other information.

What stands in the way of better verification skills?

We found common challenges that may prevent people from making informed judgements about dubious information.

One unhelpful behaviour was to rely on existing beliefs to decide if content is true, rather than scrutinise the claims made in the post.

Another type of unhelpful strategy is to make a snap judgement about veracity based on a person’s past experience with a content producer or actor featured in the post.

We also found many people accept content at face value, mostly based on their “gut feeling” or emotional response, rather than questioning the content.

These unhelpful strategies prevented people from engaging in lateral reading to verify sources and information. Rather than staying on the website, lateral reading is when you leave the page to check other sources to assess the credibility of the original site.

How do we improve Australians’ ability to verify online content?

Accessing reliable and trustworthy information enables citizens to make informed decisions about everything – from voting, to making purchases, to staying safe online, to accessing health advice and services.

Australians must urgently update their media literacy skills to suit the online environment. However, unlike many advanced democracies such as the Netherlands or Finland, Australia doesn’t have a national media literacy policy or strategy to ensure citizens are provided with support to help them verify information online.

The good news is Australians do want access to media literacy support. In our study, 82% of participants agreed adults need access to media literacy education.

They want this education to be delivered in a range of ways – via online tutorials, short videos and in libraries.

The federal government just failed to get a misinformation bill through the Senate, and some argue legislation may be ineffective even it if is passed.

Our work shows that without equipping citizens with media literacy, legislation can only have limited impact. Misinformation will remain part of our media diet: we all need to develop our ability to be able to identify and respond to it.

Sora Park, Professor of Communication, News & Media Research Centre, University of Canberra and Tanya Notley, Associate Professor in Digital Media, Western Sydney University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.