News: Digital Deception
We lacked the laws and systems to combat deceptive digital politics in 2016, and we have yet to make significant progress with the 2020 election quickly approaching.
We’ve collected and defined some of the terms most commonly used in reference to online political manipulation. If you find yourself having trouble telling your botnets from your troll farms, never fear: MapLight’s digital deception glossary is here.
The federal government has done remarkably little to counter digital deception in our democracy, but the state level is a different story.
MapLight examines some of the most relevant pieces of legislation for countering online disinformation and deceptive political advertising making their way through Congress -- including a break down what the bills would do and what prospects they have of passing.
Explore MapLight's guide to social media political advertising databases active in the United States.
Efforts at self-regulation by technology companies fall far short of providing the true transparency necessary to inform voters about who is trying to influence them.
The 2016 election cycle marked the first time there was widespread recognition of the problems posed by online political manipulation efforts. What, exactly, is digital deception, and how do we combat it?
MapLight and the Institute for the Future outline more than 30 concrete proposals—all grounded in the democratic principles of transparency, accountability, standards, coordination, adaptability, and inclusivity--to protect the integrity of the future elections.
Following revelations exposing online advertising surrounding the 2016 election linked to a Russian propaganda company, MapLight and the Voters’ Right to Know project propose recommendations to improve transparency.