Meta sunsets Crowdtangle - what now for misinformation research?

Data isn’t sexy, but it is essential. For misinformation research, 2024 should be a vintage year. Thanks to the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA) the largest social media platforms (known as Very Large Online Platforms, or VLOPs) must provide vetted researchers access to publicly available data. This paragraph of regulation was inspired by Meta’s monitoring tool Crowdtangle, even referred to as “the Crowdtangle provision”.

How ironic, then, when Meta announced its intention to shut down the service on August 14th 2024. The proposed replacement, the Content Library, is a significant downgrade. Initially reported as such, no updates so far give hope that it will be close to as useful as Crowdtangle. Meanwhile, onboarding is far too slow: just a few hundred seem to access compared to the tens of thousands on Crowdtangle. For a year where half the world’s population got to vote, this is poor timing at best and cynical timing at worst. 

Crowdtangle is considered one of the strongest offerings for data analysis among climate misinformation researchers. Below we share a couple of case studies explaining why, followed by what we can do about backsliding platform transparency.

CROWDTANGLE CASE STUDIES

WHAT NOW?

Despite poor action on climate misinformation, Meta should be applauded for providing the level of data access it has so far. Indeed, before the announcement about Crowdtangle, our DSA scorecard provided Meta full marks for data access. Meta did publish public dashboards covering European Parliamentary candidates recently, this is a minor gesture - and one that Meta used to do around all major events. But it does not address the fast-arriving data blackout. Ironically, this gesture is not currently possible with the new Content Library.

Claire Pershan, EU Advocacy Lead at Mozilla said:

“Meta’s move to create CrowdTangle live displays for the European Parliamentary elections, just before the elections is a superficial effort. The bottom line is, Meta hasn’t addressed the core concerns — CrowdTangle users and election monitoring groups need continued access after August 14th to continue monitoring global elections and world events that are still to come."

We should be expecting more from platforms on data access, not less; especially in a year where half the world goes to the polls. But the other VLOPs are performing even worse for data access. All have quietly launched minimum effort web pages with confusing and opaque application processes. The European Commission has opened investigations into X, TikTok - as well as Meta - in part due to data access concerns.

What can we do? Legislators in Europe can continue to push platforms hard on this issue through the European Commission’s investigations, while others across the world can look to the Digital Services Act as a starting point for data access laws; and learn from any shortcomings too. Meanwhile, communicators can raise the profile of this largely unspoken issue. 

From our side, we’ll keep you updated on developments.

IN OTHER NEWS

Artificial intelligence - a developing threat to climate change. “AI companies spread hype that they might save the planet, but currently they are doing just the opposite.” says Friends of the Earth’s Michael Khoo. Our report demonstrates how AI heightens climate risks through disinformation and energy consumption. So much consumption that the transition from coal, oil and gas is already more challenging than before. More CAAD-connected resources: coverage of the energy consumption problem in HEATED, plus a shadow report submitted to the US Senate on how its legislation is falling flat.

Speaking of YouTube… dozens of election interference ads were approved. These were submitted in English, Hindi and Telugu ahead of the Indian elections. Approved adverts included messages that dissuaded votes for the biggest opposition parties, encouraged voters of a certain age to vote, and false information on how to vote by text message. All 48 adverts submitted by Global Witness were approved. As we have seen time and again, having policies against election interference is one thing, but enforcing them is another.

Since the Paris Agreement, just 57 companies produced 80% of carbon emissions. What’s more, InfluenceMap’s Carbon Majors Database found that most of these organisations increased production in the seven years following COP21. All while - as regularly found in our COP28 coverage last year - they greenwashed everywhere. Investor-owned companies were some of the biggest polluters, with ExxonMobil top of the pile. The Database also found that state-owned oil, gas and coal companies have seriously ramped up production in the time period - worth noting as we reach COP29 in Azerbaijan.

Beware the “globalisation effect” supercharging hyperlocal misinformation. When local people consume a global disinformation diet on channels like YouTube and X, legitimate concerns balloon and people become radicalized. Then they organise disinformation-fuelled opposition locally via other channels like Facebook Groups, Telegram and WhatsApp. We’ve seen this interaction lately with traffic filter protests in the UK and farmers’ protests across Europe. According to academic Alison Novak, an offshore wind project in the US recently experienced the same globalisation effects too.

If you have any investigative leads CAAD should explore, want to find out more about our research and intel, or interview one of our members, please email contact@caad.info.

You are receiving this email having previously subscribed to outputs from our coalition, including the CAAD Data Monitor and COP Intelligence Unit. If you do not wish to receive these emails, click here to unsubscribe | Sent to: _t.e.s.t_@example.com

CAAD, www.caad.info, , , United Kingdom