League of Women's Voters to discuss recent SCOTUS decision on Social Media Censorship
CHICAGO - Does the First Amendment allow U.S. government officials to intervene and prevent the spread of misinformation and disinformation on social media?
Jill Wine-Banks, a distinguished attorney and MSNBC Legal Analyst known for her prominence in political and legal discourse, is scheduled to speak about the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent action on social media censorship. This virtual event will take place on Tuesday, August 20, at 7 p.m. via Zoom. The program is free and is presented by the League of Women Voters of Illinois’ Mis/Disinformation Task Force.
The U.S. Supreme Court recently had an opportunity to rule on this question. Instead, they declined to issue decisions in two cases, punting them back to officials in Texas and Florida.
Among her many accomplishments, Wine-Banks was named General Counsel of the U.S. Army by President Carter, where she supervised what was, in essence, the world's largest law firm.
She started her legal career as the first woman to serve as an organized crime prosecutor at the U.S. Department of Justice in Washington, D.C. Four years later, she was selected to be one of the three Assistant Watergate Special Prosecutors in the obstruction of justice trial against President Nixon's top aides. Nixon was named an unindicted co-conspirator in that case, but the evidence presented led to Nixon’s resignation.
In 2014, she was named by the Secretary of Defense to the Judicial Proceedings Panel’s Subcommittee on Sexual Assault in the military, where she served until 2017. She was also the first woman to serve as Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of the American Bar Association.
Those who wish to join the online talk can register for the event here.
To tackle the concerning increase in misinformation and disinformation, particularly its impact on our elections, the League of Women Voters of Illinois established the Mis/Disinformation Task Force in January 2024. The goal of the task force is to educate the public about misinformation and disinformation. For more information, please visit lwvil.org/misdis-info.
League of Women Voters of Illinois hosting lecture on AI and misinformation
CHICAGO – Diane Chang will give a Zoom talk concerning strategies on how to protect and secure democracy in an age of threats from social media and AI for a virtual meeting of the League of Women Voters of Illinois (LWVIL) on Wednesday, April 17.
Addressing the rise of misinformation and disinformation — and its impact on our elections — the League of Women Voters of Illinois formed the Mis/Disinformation Task Force in January 2024 with their mission to educate the general public on mis/disinformation.
Diane Chang
Chang, Entrepreneur-in-Residence at the Brown Institute for Media Innovation at Columbia Journalism School and the former head of Election Integrity and Product Strategy at Meta, will discuss her experience building artificial intelligence and consumer technology products that connect people to information, safety, and sustainability. She led Meta’s election strategy integrity and product strategy from 2021–23.
In her current position at the Brown Institute, Ms. Chang is an advisor and consultant to nonprofits in the U.S. and abroad on technology and elections. She has a master’s degree in public policy from the Harvard Kennedy School Research Institute at Harvard University in Cambridge, Mass.
Organized by LWVIL’s Misinformation and Disinformation Task Force, the event is the second in a series of presentations where noted authorities will discuss topics that inform and educate voters starting at 7 p.m. The webinar is free and open to the public. All programs are recorded and made available on the LWVIL website.
Visit lwvil.org/misdis-info for more information or to register.
Commentary | Jan. 6 was an example of networked incitement
A media and disinformation expert explains the danger of political violence orchestrated over social media
Joan Donovan, Boston University
The shocking events of Jan. 6, 2021, signaled a major break from the nonviolent rallies that categorized most major protests over the past few decades.
Illustration: W4HR/Pixabay
My co-authors and I, a media and disinformation scholar, call this networked incitement: influential figures inciting large-scale political violence via social media. Networked incitement involves insurgents communicating across multiple platforms to command and coordinate mobilized social movements in the moment of action.
The reason there was not more bloodshed on Jan. 6 emerged through investigation into the Oath Keepers, a vigilante organization composed mostly of former military and police. During their trials for seditious conspiracy, members of the Oath Keepers testified about weapons caches in hotels and vans, stashed near Washington, D.C. As one member described it, “I had not seen that many weapons in one location since I was in the military.”
The Oath Keepers were following Washington law by not carrying the weapons in the district, while waiting for Trump to invoke the Insurrection Act, which gives the president the authority to deploy the military domestically for law enforcement.
The militia was waiting for orders from Trump. That was all that kept U.S. democracy safe from armed warfare that day.
Social media as command and control
What happened in D.C. on Jan. 6, 2021, does not easily fit into typical social movement frameworks for describing mobilization. The insurrectionists behaved akin to a networked social movement, with online platforms forming the infrastructure to organize action, but its leaders were politicians and political operatives as opposed to charismatic community leaders. On that day in particular, the insurrectionists, who are closely aligned with MAGA Republicans more broadly, functioned like Trump’s volunteer army rather than a populist movement.Even with the availability of social media, networked social movements still need mainstream media coverage to legitimize their cause. Typically, community organizers push a particular issue – for example Black Lives Matter and #MeToo – into the media spotlight to get the public to care about their issue. Social movements tend to struggle for exposure and to frame favorable narratives.
Illustration: Gerd Altmann/Pixabay
The insurrectionists had the advantage of betting on mainstream media coverage for Jan. 6, so they focused on gathering resources and coordinating attendance. As a result, Trump’s supporters did not need to expend much effort to bring attention to the event and, instead, concentrated on organizing ride-shares and splitting hotel costs. As in prior social movements, the networking capacity of social media proved to be an important conduit to bring strangers together for the occasion. What the insurrectionists failed to do was convince key stakeholders, such as mainstream media, Vice President Mike Pence and the U.S. Capitol Police, to join their fight.
Networked incitement is different from the legalistic understanding of incitement, where an inflammatory statement immediately precedes unlawful acts or creates a dangerous situation. The call to action for Jan. 6 came from the president himself in a series of social media posts enticing supporters to come to D.C. for a “wild” time.
Tweets like these from a prominent figure became social media’s equivalent of shouting fire in a crowded theater.
Mobilizing for violence
My colleagues and I sought data to better understand what motivated everyday folks to storm the Capitol that day under great personal risk. Using the method of qualitative content analysis, we assembled 469 charging and sentencing documents for 417 defendants and coded them for the stated reasons for attending the event. We chose these court documents because they represented the fullest narrative accounts available. The purpose of these documents was to explain the rationales and mental states of the accused, while also offering a defense or explanation for their actions.
We analyzed the documents, looking at the multiple motivations for the insurrectionist mobilization. Overwhelmingly, insurrectionists said they were motivated by a desire to support Trump, which was equally split with a rationale to stop a rigged election. In sum, we concluded that disinformation mobilizes and incites political violence under specific conditions, such as a popular public figure calling for help.
No sitting president before Trump had exploited the capacity of social media to directly reach citizens to command specific actions.
For example, the court documents also directly reference social media posts of the accused. On Dec. 22, 2020, Kelly Meggs, an Oath Keeper who was later convicted of seditious conspiracy and sentenced to 12 years in prison, wrote on Facebook:
“Trump said It’s gonna be wild!!!!!!! It’s gonna be wild!!!!!!! He wants us to make it WILD that’s what he’s saying. He called us all to the Capitol and wants us to make it wild!!! Sir Yes Sir!!! Gentlemen we are heading to DC pack your sh*t!!”
The reference to “it’s gonna be wild” was a rejoinder to the now infamous tweet Trump sent after a reportedly difficult six-hour meeting the president had with staff about how to proceed with the fraud inquiry and undo the election results. Oath Keeper Meggs’ tweet illustrates that even before Jan. 6, militia groups were looking for signs from Trump about how to proceed. An investigation by NPR also illustrated how Trump’s messages emboldened participants and ignited the events of that day.
A dark future
No sitting president before Trump had exploited the capacity of social media to directly reach citizens to command specific actions.
The use of social media for networked incitement foreshadows a dark future for democracies. Rulers could well come to power by manipulating mass social movements via social media, directing a movement’s members to serve as the leaders’ shock troops, online and off.
Clear regulations preventing the malicious weaponization of social media by politicians who use disinformation to incite violence is one way to keep that future at bay.
Joan Donovan, Assistant Professor of Journalism and Emerging Media Studies at Boston University, is on the board of Free Press and the founder of the Critical Internet Studies Institute.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Voting in Illinois: Ensuring election integrity and voting security
URBANA - As election season approaches, understanding the voting process in Illinois is crucial for making informed choices. The state takes significant measures to ensure that voting and ballot counting systems are secure, reliable, and transparent.
Election officials in Illinois regularly conduct tests on voting and ballot counting machines, performing “logic and accuracy” tests to confirm that votes for every candidate and issue on the ballot are counted correctly. These tests are standard practice across almost all states, aimed at preserving the integrity of the electoral process.
In Illinois, all voting systems must be certified by the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) or tested by an EAC-accredited Voting System Test Laboratory before use. The state's ballot handling procedures are designed to protect against both intentional and unintentional ballot destruction, ensuring the integrity of both mail-in and in-person voting.
Prior to and following elections, Illinois conducts thorough testing of voting equipment and ballot counting processes, which are open for public observation. Post-election audits, including risk-limiting audits, are also performed to verify that vote counts are accurate, reinforcing public trust in the results.
"Election officials implement ballot processing and tabulation safeguards designed to ensure each ballot cast in the election can be correctly counted," explained Becky Simon, President of the League of Women Voters of Illinois. "These safeguards include chain of custody procedures, auditable logging requirements, and canvass processes. Illinois safeguards mail ballots by verifying signatures, tracking barcodes, and setting clear chains of custody for all ballots."
Amidst these safeguards, voters should remain vigilant against false claims regarding election results. Disinformation can spread quickly, often fueled by individuals seeking to undermine confidence in the democratic process. If you encounter misleading information online, you can report it at reportdisinfo.org. It is essential to respect all votes cast, regardless of the outcome.
Every election, organizations like the League of Women Voters play a pivotal role in equipping voters with essential information. By sponsoring candidate forums and providing resources like IllinoisVoterGuide.org, they help ensure that voters are prepared to make their voices heard.
In the lead-up to elections, it’s common for voters to receive calls and texts from political groups, urging them to support specific candidates or measures. However, it is important to be aware of potential scams that exploit these tactics. Here are some red flags to watch for:
- Be cautious if a caller or texter requests personal information, such as your Social Security number. They may falsely claim you can vote early by phone or fix nonexistent errors in your voter registration.
- Avoid sharing credit card or financial information over the phone, especially if the caller offers seemingly free gifts in exchange for participation in surveys.
- If asked to donate over the phone, verify the legitimacy of the request by asking for a website where you can find more information.
Keywords: Voting in Illinois, Election integrity, Ballot counting process, Voter information, Election disinformation, Protect against election scams
Local news options for some rural Illinois communities are limited
by Terri DeeIllinois News Connection
CHICAGO - The days of thumbing through a community newspaper are retreating into history.
Photo: Claudio Schwarz/Unsplash
Commentary |Many online conspiracy-spreaders don't believe the crazy lies they spew
H. Colleen Sinclair, Louisiana State University
There has been a lot of research on the types of people who believe conspiracy theories, and their reasons for doing so. But there’s a wrinkle: My colleagues and I have found that there are a number of people sharing conspiracies online who don’t believe their own content.
They are opportunists. These people share conspiracy theories to promote conflict, cause chaos, recruit and radicalize potential followers, make money, harass, or even just to get attention.
There are several types of this sort of conspiracy-spreader trying to influence you.
Chaos conspiracists, aka trolls, a high “need for chaos” are more likely to indiscriminately share conspiracies, regardless of their personal beliefs.
Photo:Rafael Silva/PEXELS
Coaxing conspiracists – the extremists
In our chapter of a new book on extremism and conspiracies, my colleagues and I discuss evidence that certain extremist groups intentionally use conspiracy theories to entice adherents. They are looking for a so-called “gateway conspiracy” that will lure someone into talking to them, and then be vulnerable to radicalization. They try out multiple conspiracies to see what sticks.
I don’t believe in anything. I’m only here for the violence.
Research shows that people with positive feelings for extremist groups are significantly more likely to knowingly share false content online. For instance, the disinformation-monitoring company Blackbird.AI tracked over 119 million COVID-19 conspiracy posts from May 2020, when activists were protesting pandemic restrictions and lockdowns in the United States. Of these, over 32 million tweets were identified as high on their manipulation index. Those posted by various extremist groups were particularly likely to carry markers of insincerity. For instance, one group, the Boogaloo Bois, generated over 610,000 tweets, of which 58% were intent on incitement and radicalization.
You can also just take the word of the extremists themselves. When the Boogaloo Bois militia group showed up at the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection, for example, members stated they didn’t actually endorse the stolen election conspiracy, but were there to “mess with the federal government.” Aron McKillips, a Boogaloo member arrested in 2022 as part of an FBI sting, is another example of an opportunistic conspiracist. In his own words: “I don’t believe in anything. I’m only here for the violence.”
Combative conspiracists – the disinformants
Often the behavior of the conspiracists gives them away. Years later, Russia eventually confessed to lying about AIDS in the 1980s. But even before admitting to the campaign, its agents had forged documents to support the conspiracy. Forgeries aren’t created by accident. They knew they were lying.
As for other conspiracies it hawks, Russia is famous for taking both sides in any contentious issue, spreading lies online to foment conflict and polarization. People who actually believe in a conspiracy tend to stick to a side. Meanwhile, Russians knowingly deploy what one analyst has called a “fire hose of falsehoods.”
Likewise, while Chinese officials were spreading conspiracies about American roots of the coronavirus in 2020, China’s National Health Commission was circulating internal reports tracing the source to a pangolin.
Chaos conspiracists – the trolls
In general, research has found that individuals with what scholars call a high “need for chaos” are more likely to indiscriminately share conspiracies, regardless of belief. These are the everyday trolls who share false content for a variety of reasons, none of which are benevolent. Dark personalities and dark motives are prevalent.
For instance, in the wake of the first assassination attempt on Donald Trump, a false accusation arose online about the identity of the shooter and his motivations. The person who first posted this claim knew he was making up a name and stealing a photo. The intent was apparently to harass the Italian sports blogger whose photo was stolen. This fake conspiracy was seen over 300,000 times on the social platform X and picked up by multiple other conspiracists eager to fill the information gap about the assassination attempt.
Commercial conspiracists – the profiteers
Often when I encounter a conspiracy theory I ask: “What does the sharer have to gain? Are they telling me this because they have an evidence-backed concern, or are they trying to sell me something?”
When researchers tracked down the 12 people primarily responsible for the vast majority of anti-vaccine conspiracies online, most of them had a financial investment in perpetuating these misleading narratives.
Some people who fall into this category might truly believe their conspiracy, but their first priority is finding a way to make money from it. For instance, conspiracist Alex Jones bragged that his fans would “buy anything.” Fox News and its on-air personality Tucker Carlson publicized lies about voter fraud in the 2020 election to keep viewers engaged, while behind-the-scenes communications revealed they did not endorse what they espoused.
Profit doesn’t just mean money. People can also profit from spreading conspiracies if it garners them influence or followers, or protects their reputation. Even social media companies are reluctant to combat conspiracies because they know they attract more clicks.
Often, folks are just looking for attention or other personal benefit. They don’t want to miss out on a hot-topic conversation.
Common conspiracists – the attention-getters
You don’t have to be a profiteer to like some attention. Plenty of regular people share content where they doubt the veracity, or know it is false.
These posts are common: Friends, family and acquaintances share the latest conspiracy theory with “could this be true?” queries or “seems close enough to the truth” taglines. Their accompanying comments show that sharers are, at minimum, unsure about the truthfulness of the content, but they share nonetheless. Many share without even reading past a headline. Still others, approximately 7% to 20% of social media users, share despite knowing the content is false. Why?
Some claim to be sharing to inform people “just in case” it is true. But this sort of “sound the alarm” reason actually isn’t that common.
Often, folks are just looking for attention or other personal benefit. They don’t want to miss out on a hot-topic conversation. They want the likes and shares. They want to “stir the pot.” Or they just like the message and want to signal to others that they share a common belief system.
For frequent sharers, it just becomes a habit.
The dangers of spreading lies
Over time, the opportunists may end up convincing themselves. After all, they will eventually have to come to terms with why they are engaging in unethical and deceptive, if not destructive, behavior. They may have a rationale for why lying is good. Or they may convince themselves that they aren’t lying by claiming they thought the conspiracy was true all along.
It’s important to be cautious and not believe everything you read. These opportunists don’t even believe everything they write – and share. But they want you to. So be aware that the next time you share an unfounded conspiracy theory, online or offline, you could be helping an opportunist. They don’t buy it, so neither should you. Be aware before you share. Don’t be what these opportunists derogatorily refer to as “a useful idiot.”
About the author:
H. Colleen Sinclair is a Associate Research Professor of Social Psychology at Louisiana State University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
H. Colleen Sinclair is a Associate Research Professor of Social Psychology at Louisiana State University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
A threat to democracy, fighting back against voter suppression and intimidation
SNS - The right to vote is legally protected from intimidation and harassment. Federal law makes it a crime to intimidate, harass, or deceive voters at home or at the polls.
Voter suppression is any attempt to prevent or discourage certain Americans from registering to vote or casting their ballot. It is any act that deliberately restricts or discourages certain groups from voting, undermining electoral fairness. You may not be threatened, coerced, frightened, assaulted, compelled, or discouraged to vote one way or another, or not to vote at all. The right to vote necessarily includes the right to be free from intimidation and harassment.
“A true democracy is where every person has the desire, the right, the knowledge, and the confidence to participate,” said Becky Simon, president of the League of Women Voters of Illinois. “We encourage you to join the League of Women Voters of Illinois in our fight to support everyone’s freedom to vote.”
After the Civil War, African Americans in the former Confederacy were able to exercise their newly won rights to vote; to run for local, state, and federal offices; and to serve on juries. These rights were given and protected by federal laws and the 14th and 15th Amendments. The laws, adopted to curtail white supremacist violence, specifically criminalized the terrorist activities of white supremacist organizations such as the Ku Klux Klan and authorized the use of federal troops to protect polling stations and suppress white supremacist violence.
Over time, white supremacists found other ways to control voting in their towns, counties, and states without direct physical violence. Political parties have used five key methods to suppress voting by targeted groups: voter ID laws, gerrymandering, voter purges, felony disenfranchisement, and criminalizing voting through the arbitrary enforcement of oppressive, unfair laws.
Today, experts warn that voter suppression and intimidation trends are moving to the digital spaces, becoming embedded in technology.
"It might include robocalls and social media posts that provide incorrect information about where to vote or promote the false idea that voters' personal information or ballot choices will be shared with the government, the public, or law enforcement," wrote the League of Women Voters of Illinois in a recent statement.
The League of Women Voters of Illinois (LWVI) is fighting voter suppression and intimidation by mailing thousands of Get Out the Vote postcards, deploying nonpartisan poll watchers throughout the state, observing public testing of voting equipment, and actively fighting misinformation and disinformation.
According to the ACLU, "More than 400 anti-voter bills have been introduced in 48 states. These bills erect unnecessary barriers for people to register to vote, vote by mail, or vote in person."
What should you do if you witness voter suppression or intimidation? Document incidents thoroughly using your phone (outside the polling place) or by taking notes. If your voter registration is denied at your polling place, you may ask a poll worker to double-check your registration, and you may still cast a provisional ballot.
The LWVI recommends that you avoid engaging with groups or individuals who are actively trying to intimidation fellow voters and immediately reported to the Illinois State Board of Elections at 217-782-4141 or the Election Protection Hotline:
English: 866-OUR-VOTE (866-687-8683)
Spanish: 888-VE-Y-VOTA (888-839-8682)
Asian Languages: 888-API-VOTE (888-274-8683)
Arabic: 844-YALLA-US (844-925-5287)
Spanish: 888-VE-Y-VOTA (888-839-8682)
Asian Languages: 888-API-VOTE (888-274-8683)
Arabic: 844-YALLA-US (844-925-5287)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
More Sentinel Stories
PONTIAC - People everywhere are conquering their cabin fever and are enjoying the great outdoors after a long, bitter winter. But before you head out for that hike, health care experts remind you to take precautions to avoid tick bites. Read more . . .
I’ve always known my Arab culture is worth celebrating.
I heard it in Syrian tenor Sabah Fakhri’s powerful voice reverberating in my mom’s car on the way to piano lessons and soccer practice during my youth. I smelled it in the za’atar, Aleppo pepper, allspice, and cumin permeating the air in the family kitchen. Read more . . .
I heard it in Syrian tenor Sabah Fakhri’s powerful voice reverberating in my mom’s car on the way to piano lessons and soccer practice during my youth. I smelled it in the za’atar, Aleppo pepper, allspice, and cumin permeating the air in the family kitchen. Read more . . .
CHAMPAIGN - In a show of solidarity against President Donald Trump's trade and immigration policies, which critics say are harming families and retirement savings, more than a thousand protesters gathered Saturday at West Park near downtown Champaign for the Hands-Off! Mobilization rally. Read more . . .
Photo Galleries
A couple of runners found themselves in the wrong race at this year's Illinois Marathon. Over 60 photos from the race that you should see.
Photos: Sentinel/Clark Brooks