Don’t Believe What You Read: Misinformation in the 2024 Election

The next presidential election is taking place next year in November, and serves as a potential inflection point for this country: will the Grand Old Party (GOP) reclaim the presidency or will incumbent candidate President Joe Boden win re-election? Amid this high-stake vote, recent misinformation concerns have grown prevalent, particularly with the unprecedented growth of social networks like Instagram and X, even with some states and institutions taking further steps to mitigate the risk of potential interference.

In order to understand the context of this election, the 2020 election is integral to examine. Prior to that election, during a Nevada rally on September 13th, 2020, former President Donald Trump, claimed, “The Democrats are trying to rig this election because that’s the only way they’re going to win.” His polarizing statements continued after his narrow defeat, tweeting, “I WON THIS ELECTION, BY A LOT.” As debatably the most influential voice in conservative politics, his comments pushed right-leaning voter bases toward the extreme, resulting in a negative feedback loop by which those right extremists now spread and give life to blatantly false conspiracy theories. 

 On the other hand, dozens of former intelligence officials lied on record, claiming that the Hunter Biden (President Biden’s son) laptop was Russian propaganda. James R. Clapper Jr., the former director of national intelligence, testified recently on Capitol Hill regarding that public letter sent during a critical point in the 2020 presidential campaign. The laptop contained his business dealings with the Ukrainian Energy company Burisma and China, federal tax evasion, illegal possession of firm arms, and explicit images. A New York Post columnist Miranda Devine claimed that “10% of voters would have changed their vote if they knew about Hunter Biden.” 

The present world of politics is not different from 2020, perhaps even worse, as a result of the further growth of social media platforms. During the recent Republican primary debate, in response to a moderator question regarding whether or not the candidates believed human behavior was affecting climate change, Vivek Ramaswamy, a GOP candidate, stated that the climate change agenda is a “hoax.” “Let us be honest, as Republicans, I’m the only person on this stage who isn’t bought and paid for so I can say this,” he continued. The crowd erupted and the other candidates responded aggressively. Ramaswamy’s claim is not verifiable by any source and seems utterly false; however, he garnered millions of views across social media platforms with just that 10-second clip alone. He was invited on a myriad of podcasts ranging from Dr. Jordan Peter to the Nelk Boys, Ramaswamy’s incomprehensible statement, although spreading falsehoods, ultimately affected his campaign in a positive direction. There are no longer incentives for candidates or institutions within politics to speak the truth backed by logic and facts. These recent anecdotes have demonstrated that a candidate is more successful when they are entertaining and not fact-oriented. This point was also echoed by Trump’s claims. While his election rigging accusations were dismissed in a court of law, he disregarded the decisions and continued his crusade. Today, he is outpacing other GOP candidates with a 55% polling rate, but remains unparticipative in the Republican debates.  

With the rise of independent, pro-freedom-of-speech platforms like Rumble and X, it is far easier to spread a candidate’s ideological agenda. This naturally results in false claims that could persuade voters. The Center for Countering Digital Hate found that “Twitter (now X) fails to act on 99% of hate posted by Twitter Blue subscribers.”  In June 2023, their research focused on the rise of antisemitic and anti-Muslim hate speech on Twitter after Elon Musk’s buyout. Musk countered by suing the British nonprofit, accusing them of “falsely claim[ing] it had statistical support showing the platform is overwhelmed with harmful content.” Evidently, voters are inclined towards adopting an independent approach to media consumption, distancing themselves from legacy mainstream media. 

The overall rise in misinformation regarding politics exists within the incentive structure and media platforms that mostly younger voters use. The amount of falsehoods a given candidate spews through a hypothetical debate can be severely mitigated if they are tangibly penalized instead of applauded. Similarly, political commentators are incentivized to grow their personal brand value through clicks. In a world full of different voices, distinguishing between disinformation and verified facts is hard for the average American, and it is not getting any easier. The 2024 election will certainly be full of falsehoods and polarizing statements, but voters need to recognize the danger of belief without verification. Without a dubious perspective, anyone could believe any fallacy.