Epistemic Rights and Injustice: Critical Skills for Navigating Media Messages

Image Credit: Abenomics on Pexels

By Lilian H. Hill

 

Epistemology is concerned with the theory of knowledge, including its nature, sources, scope, and validity. It addresses fundamental questions, such as what knowledge is, how it is acquired, and how we can distinguish between justified beliefs and unfounded opinions (Audi, 2011). Epistemic rights are based on the idea that society should guarantee that all its citizens can access truthful and accurate information and have the competence to use knowledge for their own benefit and that of society. These rights are part of a broader discourse on epistemic justice (Fricker, 2007). Epistemic inequality refers to the growing divide in access to information, knowledge, and understanding between societal elites and the broader population. This divide has given rise to two contrasting regimes of truth and knowledge: one controlled and interpreted by elites, and the other, often dismissed as disinformation, fake news, or alternative truths, consumed by marginalized and disillusioned segments of society (Nieminen, 2024).

 

Epistemic rights are related to information and media literacy, which equip individuals with critical skills to evaluate sources, identify bias, and navigate complex media, thereby enabling them to exercise their epistemic and democratic rights more effectively. When people lack these literacies, they are more vulnerable to disinformation, manipulation, and epistemic injustice, such as exclusion from meaningful public discourse. Fostering strong media literacy helps promote epistemic justice by empowering individuals to participate in knowledge-sharing processes, challenge dominant narratives, and ensure diverse voices are respected in democratic societies.

 

Epistemic Injustice and Democracy

In the digital age, political media consumption is influenced not only by individual preferences but also by Artificial Intelligence (AI) algorithms that tailor content based on user behavior, often reinforcing ideological echo chambers (Fricker, 2007). When audiences are often exposed to uniform perspectives, marginalized voices are excluded or misrepresented (Noble, 2018). Consistent exposure to media rooted in a single ideology can lead to distorted beliefs and perceptions of others. In the absence of strong information and media literacy skills, individuals are vulnerable to misinformation and epistemic harm (Hobbs, 2021). These patterns compromise individual understanding and pose a threat to a democratic society by allowing the polarization of knowledge and weakening the informed diversity essential to its functioning.

 

Nieminen (2024) comments that democracy is experiencing a downturn across the globe. Even in nations with a longstanding tradition of democratic governance, neo-authoritarian trends are on the rise. Similar patterns have emerged in countries where governments have tightened their grip on the media, limited citizens' freedom of movement, and undermined the independence of the judiciary. While these actions are typical of autocratic regimes found on every continent, political movements with comparable agendas are also gaining traction in countries that are not officially under authoritarian rule.

 

Key Aspects of Epistemic Rights

Epistemic rights refer to the entitlements individuals have regarding their rights to access, seek, use, and share knowledge, and be respected as knowers. These rights include:

 

·      Right to be heard and believed. Individuals have the right to be respected as credible sources of knowledge within their communities and social contexts.

 

·      Right to access knowledge. This includes access to information, education, and other resources that enable individuals to become effective knowers.

 

·      Right to contribute knowledge. People should have the opportunity to participate in knowledge production and dissemination, particularly in cultural or institutional contexts that have historically excluded them.

 

·      Right to epistemic agency. Epistemic agency refers to the capacity to ask questions, offer interpretations, and assert knowledge claims. Denial of this right can occur through silencing or dismissing individuals' perspectives.

 

Examples of Epistemic Injustice

Fricker (2007) identified two primary forms of epistemic injustice. Testimonial injustice occurs when a person’s word is discredited due to their race, gender, accent, or social status. Hermeneutical injustice occurs when individuals lack the language, concepts, or interpretive frameworks necessary to make sense of their own experiences. Both forms of epistemic injustice contribute to the unfair exclusion of individuals or groups from full participation in shared knowledge and understanding. The table below provides examples from the healthcare, education, and media domains that demonstrate the real-world consequences of epistemic injustice.

Confronting Epistemic Injustice

Confronting epistemic injustice requires actively challenging the systems, practices, and assumptions that silence, discredit, or marginalize individuals as knowers. This work can occur at both individual and structural levels.

 

On the individual level, it begins with acknowledging and reflecting on personal biases about who is credible or knowledgeable (Fricker, 2007). Individuals are encouraged to examine who is typically respected in their environments, including workplaces, classrooms, or social settings, and who is overlooked or doubted. Practicing epistemic humility is crucial, which involves recognizing that others may possess valuable knowledge rooted in personal or cultural experiences that differ from one's own (Dotson, 2011).

 

Actively listening to and validating the voices of marginalized individuals is another crucial step. This involves creating space for underrepresented or historically marginalized groups to share their voices, taking their accounts seriously, and seeking to understand rather than challenge their perspectives (Medina, 2013). Clarifying questions deepen understanding rather than interrogating. At the institutional and cultural levels, diversifying knowledge sources is essential. This involves integrating a range of perspectives into curricula, media, and policy, and valuing non-traditional knowledge systems, such as Indigenous, oral, or embodied knowledge, alongside academic or institutional expertise (Kovach, 2009).

 

Another important strategy is to expand language and conceptual frameworks to promote hermeneutical justice. This includes supporting the development of terminology that helps individuals articulate their experiences, such as trauma-informed or inclusive gender language, and broadening public understanding through education, advocacy, and media (Carel & Kidd, 2014). Creating inclusive decision-making spaces is also vital. Marginalized communities must be included in decisions that affect them, and these processes should be transparent so that power dynamics and the value placed on different types of knowledge can be critically assessed and adjusted.

 

Ultimately, holding institutions accountable is crucial for achieving systemic change. This involves challenging policies and practices that perpetuate testimonial injustice, such as dismissing patient complaints or discriminatory hiring practices (Crenshaw, 1991). Structural changes redistribute epistemic authority, such as implementing community advisory boards, reforming peer review processes, or adopting more inclusive research funding criteria (Harding, 1991). Together, these actions contribute to a more just and equitable distribution of knowledge and voice in society.

 

References

Audi, R. (2011). Epistemology: A contemporary introduction to the theory of knowledge (3rd ed.). Routledge.

Carel, H., & Kidd, I. J. (2014). Epistemic injustice in healthcare: A philosophical analysis. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, 17(4), 529–540. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-014-9560-2

Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241–1299.

Dotson, K. (2011). Tracking epistemic violence, tracking practices of silencing. Hypatia, 26(2), 236–257. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1527-2001.2011.01177.x

Fricker, M. (2007). Epistemic injustice: Power and the ethics of knowing. Oxford University Press.

Harding, S. (1991). Whose science? Whose knowledge? Thinking from women's lives. Cornell University Press.

Kovach, M. (2009). Indigenous methodologies: Characteristics, conversations, and contexts. University of Toronto Press.

Nieminen, H. (2024). Why we need epistemic rights. In M. Aslama Horowitz, H. Nieminen, K. Lehtisaari, & A. D'Arma. (Eds.), Epistemic rights in the era of digital disruption. Global transformations in media and communication research (pp. 11-28). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-45976-4_2

Euphemism Use vs. Saying What You Really Mean

 

By Lilian H. Hill

 

Euphemisms are mild or indirect expressions that soften the harshness or bluntness of reality and often reflect cultural sensitivities and societal norms. While they can serve a compassionate role by helping to protect feelings or maintain social decorum, they are also used to conceal uncomfortable truths, obscure responsibility, or sanitize morally questionable actions. We often use this kind of language to be tactful, polite, and to reduce confrontation or negativity—cooperative strategies that are generally positive for communication. Avoiding a direct linguistic approach makes the language seem more neutral and objective, creating a sense of distance from personal involvement (Luu, 2020).

 

Unfortunately, euphemisms can be obfuscation tools in political, corporate, and everyday conversation. Governments might refer to civilian casualties as “collateral damage,” corporations may describe mass layoffs as “rightsizing,” and healthcare providers might call death a “negative health outcome.” These substitutions can distance the speaker and the audience from the emotional or ethical weight of what is being described, reducing the potential for public outrage, guilt, or resistance (Davis, 2025). One method of creating euphemisms is to use passive voice so that the actor is concealed. For example, passive constructions (e.g., “she was found dead from the gunfire,” “mistakes were made”) can obscure who is responsible, making actions seem as if they occur without human agency. Other linguistic strategies, like existential constructions (“there was a shooting”) or transforming active verbs into impersonal nominalizations (such as “incarceration”), similarly deflect attention from the actors involved. Euphemisms may be nebulous, long-winded, or employ non-specific comparisons. These techniques are common in technical jargon, often minimizing the perceived impact of the actions themselves (Luu, 2020).

 

Euphemisms can obscure racist intentions or actions, making them appear less overtly racist and, therefore, more palatable to a wider audience. Code words and euphemisms allow individuals to express racist ideas without explicitly using racist language, providing them with a degree of “plausible deniability.” The repeated use of euphemisms can normalize racist concepts, subtly reinforcing prejudiced attitudes and beliefs over time (Wexler, 2020). 

 

Euphemisms exist on a continuum: at one end, they are acts of empathy; at the other, acts of deception. Euphemisms can desensitize people or help authorities evade accountability by masking the real nature of events. The ethical tension lies in whether they are used to protect the vulnerable or to shield the powerful. Language can reshape our emotional, ethical, or political responses to serious issues. When euphemisms conceal, they don't simply reframe reality; they can fundamentally distort it. They create a linguistic buffer between action and consequence, potentially delaying necessary confrontation with injustice, failure, or harm. They can shape mentalities, societal values, and worldviews (Csathó, 2024). Over time, habitual euphemistic language can erode trust, making communication seem insincere or manipulative.

 

Influence of Euphemisms and Plain Language Compared

The following table compares the influence of euphemisms with plain language based on several aspects:

Words are powerful, and their impact has only grown as technological advancements make communication faster and more widespread.

 

Euphemism Use vs. Plain Language

Euphemisms are often used when speakers want to protect themselves from legal liability, political fallout, public anger, or to minimize emotional disturbance for listeners. The cost is that they can erode public trust, obscure facts, and delay justice or informed decision-making. The Plain Language Program, formally approved by the U.S. government in the Plain Writing Act of 2010, aims to strip away bureaucratic jargon and misleading terms to make communication accessible and truthful. The mandate emphasizes writing that is clear, concise, and well-organized; avoiding jargon and overly complex sentences; and bureaucratic terminology so that the intended audience can comprehend and act confidently based on the information. Underlying this initiative is a commitment to government transparency, accountability, and accessibility because democracy depends on informed participation. Government agencies are now required to train staff, maintain compliance, and regularly review communications to meet plain language standards.

 

Confronting Euphemistic Speech

Confronting euphemistic language involves recognizing when words are being used to obscure meaning and actively working to uncover and name realities more directly. Euphemisms often arise when the truth is uncomfortable (e.g., war, injustice, racial discrimination, corporate failures, or public health crises). While they can soften emotional blows, they frequently serve to minimize accountability, urgency, or harm (Luu, 2020). The Associated Press updated its guidance to promote a stronger approach by encouraging reporters to directly identify racism and provide context, helping readers understand why a statement or system is considered racist. Relying on euphemisms weakens the message and can be especially damaging when used to soften the portrayal of racist remarks made by those in power.

 

Confronting euphemistic speech effectively requires the following actions:

• Educate ourselves and others about the history and impact of euphemisms and coded language. 
• Identify the euphemism. Listen for vague or softened expressions that seem to sidestep who is responsible or what really happened.
• Ask clarifying questions. Push for concrete details: Who? What exactly? How much? When?
• Restate plainly. Translate euphemistic phrases into clear, direct language to expose the core reality.
• Name the stakes. Highlight why clarity matters for justice, public safety, informed decision-making, or ethical action.
• Directly naming and calling out racism when it occurs, without resorting to euphemisms. 
• Challenging and disrupting the normalization of racist ideas and language. 

 

Challenging euphemistic language is not just about semantics; it’s about reclaiming honest communication, promoting accountability, and ensuring serious issues are neither diluted nor ignored.

 

References

Csathó, Z. L. (2024, September 26). Euphemisms in everyday language: A linguistic perspective on their role in shaping thought, society, and therapeutic reframing. Medium. https://zitalucacsatho.medium.com/euphemisms-in-everyday-language-a-linguistic-perspective-on-their-role-in-shaping-thought-9f0d1b28653e

Davis, B. (2025, February 13). How to blur the lines: Euphemism and erosion. Democratic Erosion Consortium. https://democratic-erosion.org/2025/02/13/euphemism-and-erosion/

Luu, C. (2020, September 30). The ethical life of euphemisms. JSTOR Daily. https://daily.jstor.org/the-ethical-life-of-euphemisms/

Wexler, C. (2020, September 23). (Wexler, 2020). Mainstream media need to stop using euphemisms to describe Trump’s racism. Media Matters. https://www.mediamatters.org/new-york-times/mainstream-media-need-stop-using-euphemisms-describe-trumps-racism

 

 

 

How Healthy is Civic Literacy in the U.S.?

 

 

By Lilian H. Hill

 

Do you remember:

·      How many senators serve in the Senate?

·      How many members are in the U.S. House of Representatives?

·      What is the difference between the House and the Senate?

·      How many justices sit on the U.S. Supreme Court?

o   What are their responsibilities?

·      How many branches of government are there?

o   What are their responsibilities?

·      What is the Constitution?

o   Why is it important?

 

You would have learned the answers to these questions if you took Civics in school or studied to pass the test to become a naturalized citizen of the United States. The answers to these questions are all part of the necessary knowledge of civic literacy for American citizens. Other countries have their own required knowledge for civic participation.

 

Definition and Importance

Civic literacy refers to the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that enable individuals to participate actively and responsibly in civic and democratic life. It encompasses knowledge and understanding of government structures, laws, rights, and responsibilities and the ability to analyze social and political issues critically. Civic literacy is not just about knowing how government works; it also includes skills such as:

 

• Media literacy: evaluating sources of information and recognizing misinformation.
• Critical thinking: assessing policies, political discourse, and legal frameworks.
• Civic engagement skills: advocacy, voting, and participating in community initiatives.

 

A civically literate population is essential for a healthy democracy, social progress, and an empowered citizenry. Unfortunately, time dedicated to civic education in American public schools began to decline in the 1960s. For many decades, neither the federal nor state governments have prioritized civics. Additionally, instructional time for civics has decreased as an unintended consequence of shifting educational priorities, such as the emphasis on STEM subjects and policies like No Child Left Behind (Sandra Day O’Connor Institute, 2024).

 

General Population Findings

Recent studies indicate a concerning deficient civic literacy among Americans, reflecting a widespread lack of understanding of fundamental governmental structures and processes.

 

For example, a 2024 study from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Foundation highlights a troubling reality as America nears its 250th anniversary: the nation's civic knowledge is significantly lacking. The national survey, which gathered responses from 2,000 registered voters, reveals that over 70% of respondents failed a basic civics quiz covering topics such as the three branches of government, the number of Supreme Court justices, and fundamental democratic processes (these are all part of the U.S. Citizenship test). Only half could correctly identify which branch of government is responsible for turning bills into laws. Interestingly, while two-thirds reported taking civics in high school, only 25% felt “very confident” in explaining how the U.S. government functions.

 

The American Bar Association conducted its annual Survey of Civic Literacy for five years. The 2024 Survey highlighted that while 37% of respondents believe the general public should safeguard democracy, nearly two-thirds felt the public is “not very informed” or “not at all informed” about how democracy functions (Smith, 2024).

 

A survey administered to 3,026 undergraduate students by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA) found that only 31% of college students could correctly identify James Madison as the Father of the Constitution. Additionally, 60% were unaware of the term lengths for U.S. House and Senate members, and just 27% knew that the Vice President serves as the President of the Senate. Further, ACTA findings indicated that approximately one-third of students could not identify the current Speaker of the House, and many incorrectly believed that the Supreme Court is mandated to have nine justices. ACTA President Michael Poliakoff said,

 

The dismal results of our survey show that current students and recent college graduates have little idea of the American past or its core principles and values, no guide to take them through the roiling controversies facing us today or to enable them to defend and protect the free institutions that are the glory of our nation and an inspiration to the world. They cannot uphold what they do not comprehend. There is so much to be proud of as we near the 250^th anniversary of our independence and the birth of our democratic republic. But being the world’s oldest democracy is no guarantee for the future of our democratic republic (para. 4).

 

The Importance of Civic Literacy

Civic literacy offers five distinct advantages:

 

1.    Empowers Informed Decision-Making

A key aspect of civic literacy is equipping individuals with the knowledge to make informed decisions about governance and societal issues. It helps citizens understand political candidates’ platforms, government policies, and legislative changes. Civic literacy enables people to critically evaluate sources of news and distinguish between facts, opinions, and propaganda. It fosters awareness of economic, environmental, and social issues, allowing individuals to make responsible decisions in both personal and public life. Without civic literacy, individuals may be more susceptible to misinformation, manipulation, and political rhetoric that does not align with their best interests.

 

2.    Strengthens Democracy

A functioning democracy relies on the active participation of its citizens. Civic literacy helps to encourage voter participation and engagement in elections; promote accountability by ensuring people understand their rights to petition, protest, and hold leaders responsible; and support the rule of law by ensuring citizens are aware of legal rights, civic duties, and due process. When citizens are uninformed or disengaged, democratic institutions weaken, and the risk of authoritarianism, corruption, and political apathy increases.

 

3.    Promotes Social Responsibility and Community Engagement

Civic literacy fosters a sense of shared responsibility for the well-being of society. This includes encouraging volunteerism, community service, and grassroots activism; understanding and advocating for marginalized or underrepresented communities; and taking part in local governance, such as attending town hall meetings, joining advisory boards, or contributing to civic initiatives. By recognizing how personal actions impact the community, individuals become proactive in solving societal challenges, such as poverty, climate change, and human rights violations.

 

4.    Enhances Critical Thinking and Civil Discourse

In an era of social media and rapid information dissemination, the ability to critically analyze information is crucial. Civic literacy helps individuals engage in respectful, fact-based debates on complex social and political issues; encourages open-mindedness and respect for diverse perspectives; reduces polarization by promoting evidence-based discussions rather than emotional or partisan reactions. This contributes to a more informed and respectful public dialogue, which is essential for social cohesion and policymaking.

 

5.    Encourages Advocacy and Active Civic Engagement

Civic literacy empowers individuals to advocate for meaningful change. It provides knowledge of the legislative process, helping citizens influence policies and laws; skills to organize and mobilize communities around critical issues; and human rights and social justice awareness, encouraging activism to address inequality and discrimination. Civically literate individuals play a crucial role in shaping policies that affect their lives and communities through petitions, protests, and public discussions.

 

Civic literacy is foundational to a thriving, equitable, and resilient society. It empowers individuals to make informed choices, strengthens democratic institutions, fosters community involvement, and cultivates the skills necessary for respectful dialogue and effective advocacy. As our world's challenges grow more complex, the need for an engaged, informed citizenry becomes ever more urgent. Investing in civic education prepares students and adults for lifelong participation in a democratic society where their voices and actions matter.

 

References

Smith, M. (2024, May 1). The link between civics literacy and our threatened democracy. American Bar Association. https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2024/05/link-between-civics-and-democracy/

Nietzel, M. T. (2024, July 17). New survey reveals low level of civics literacy among college students. American Council of Trustees and Alumni. Forbes. https://www. goacta.org/2024/07/new-survey-reveals-low-level-of-civics-literacy-among-college-students/?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Sandra Day O’Connor Institute for American Democracy (2024, September). When and why did America stop teaching civics? https://oconnorinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/When-and-Why-Did-America-Stop-Teaching-Civics_.pdf

U.S. Chamber of Commerce Foundation (2024, February 12). New study finds alarming lack of civic literacy among Americans. https://www.uschamberfoundation.org/civics/new-study-finds-alarming-lack-of-civic-literacy-among-americans

Can Social Media Platforms Be Trusted to Regulate Misinformation Themselves?

 

By Lilian H. Hill

Social media platforms wield immense influence over public discourse, acting as primary sources of news, political debate, and social movements. While they once advertised their policies intended to combat misinformation, hate speech, and harmful content, their willingness and ability to effectively enforce these policies is problematic. The fundamental challenge is that these companies operate as profit-driven businesses, meaning their primary incentives do not always align with the public good. Myers and Grant (2023) commented that many platforms are investing fewer resources in combating misinformation. For example, Meta recently announced that they have ended their fact-checking program and instead will rely on crowdsourcing to monitor misinformation (Chow, 2025). Meta operates Facebook, Instagram, and Threads. Likewise, X, formerly known as Twitter, slashed it trust and safety staff in 2022. Experts worry that diminished safeguards once implemented to combat misinformation and disinformation decreases trust online (Myers & Grant, 2023).  

 

Key Challenges in Self-Regulation

There are four key challenges to social media platforms’ self-regulation: 

 

 

1.    Financial Incentives and Engagement-Driven Algorithms

Social media platforms generate revenue primarily through advertising, which depends on user engagement. Unfortunately, research has shown that sensationalized, misleading, or divisive content often drives higher engagement than factual, nuanced discussions. This creates a conflict of interest: aggressively moderating misinformation and harmful content could reduce engagement, ultimately affecting their bottom line (Minow & Minow, 2023).

 

For example, Facebook’s own internal research (revealed in the Facebook Papers) found that its algorithms promoted divisive and emotionally charged content because it kept users on the platform longer. YouTube has been criticized for its recommendation algorithm, which has in the past directed users toward conspiracy theories and extremist content to maximize watch time. Because of these financial incentives, social media companies often take a reactive rather than proactive approach to content moderation, making changes only when public pressure or regulatory threats force them to act.

 

 

2.    Inconsistent and Arbitrary Enforcement

Even when platforms enforce their policies, they often do so inconsistently. Factors like political pressure, public relations concerns, and high-profile users can influence moderation decisions. Some influential figures or accounts with large followings receive more leniency than average users. For instance, politicians and celebrities have been allowed to spread misinformation with little consequence, while smaller accounts posting similar content face immediate bans. Enforcement of community guidelines can vary across different regions and languages, with content in English often being moderated more effectively than in less widely spoken languages. This leaves many vulnerable communities exposed to harmful misinformation and hate speech (Minow & Minow, 2023).

 

 

3.    Reduction of Trust and Safety Teams

In recent years, many social media companies have cut back on their Trust and Safety teams, reducing their ability to effectively moderate content. These teams are responsible for identifying harmful material, enforcing policies, and preventing the spread of misinformation. With fewer human moderators and fact-checkers, harmful content is more likely to spread unchecked, especially as AI-driven moderation systems still struggle with nuance, context, and misinformation detection (Minow & Minow, 2023).

 

 

4.    Lack of Transparency and Accountability

Social media companies rarely provide full transparency about how they moderate content, making it difficult for researchers, policymakers, and the public to hold them accountable. Platforms often do not disclose how their algorithms work, meaning users don’t know why they see certain content or how misinformation spreads. When harmful content spreads widely, companies often deflect responsibility, blaming bad actors rather than acknowledging the role of their own recommendation systems. Even when they do act, platforms tend not to share details about why specific moderation decisions were made, leading to accusations of bias or unfair enforcement (Minow & Minow, 2023).

 

 

What Can Individuals Do?

Disinformation and “fake news” pose a serious threat to democratic systems by shaping public opinion and influencing electoral discourse. You can protect yourself from disinformation by:

 

1.     Engaging with diverse perspectives. Relying on a limited number of like-minded news sources restricts your exposure to varied viewpoints and increases the risk of falling for hoaxes or false narratives. While not foolproof, broadening your sources improves your chances of accessing well-balanced information (National Center of State Courts, 2025).

 

2.     Approaching news with skepticism. Many online outlets prioritize clicks over accuracy, using misleading or sensationalized headlines to grab attention. Understanding that not everything you read is true, and that some sites specialize in spreading falsehoods, is crucial in today’s digital landscape. Learning to assess news credibility helps protect against misinformation (National Center of State Courts, 2025).

 

3.     Fact-checking before sharing. Before passing along information, verify the credibility of the source. Cross-check stories with reliable, unbiased sources known for high factual accuracy to determine what, and whom, you can trust (National Center of State Courts, 2025).

 

4.     Challenging false information. If you come across a misleading or false post, speak up. Addressing misinformation signals that spreading falsehoods is unacceptable. By staying silent, you allow misinformation to persist and gain traction (National Center of State Courts, 2025).

 

What Can Be Done Societally?

As a society, we all share the responsibility of preventing the spread of false information. Since self-regulation by social media platforms has proven unreliable, a multi-pronged approach is needed to ensure responsible content moderation and combat misinformation effectively. This approach includes:

 

1. Government Regulation and Policy Reform

Governments and regulatory bodies can play a role in setting clear guidelines for social media companies by implementing stronger content moderation laws that can require companies to take action against misinformation, hate speech, and harmful content. Transparency requirements can force platforms to disclose how their algorithms function and how moderation decisions are made. Financial penalties for failure to remove harmful content could incentivize more responsible practices. However, regulation must be balanced to avoid excessive government control over speech. It should focus on ensuring transparency, fairness, and accountability rather than dictating specific narratives (Balkin, 2021).

 

2. Public Pressure and Advocacy

Users and advocacy groups can push social media companies to do better by demanding more robust moderation policies that are fairly enforced across all users and regions. Independent oversight bodies to audit content moderation practices and hold platforms accountable. A recent poll conducted by Boston University’s College of Communications found that 72% of Americans believed it is acceptable for social media platforms to remove inaccurate information. More than half of Americans distrust the efficacy of crowd-source monitoring of social media (Amazeen, 2025). Improved fact-checking partnerships are needed to counter misinformation more effectively.

 

3. Media Literacy and User Responsibility

Since social media platforms alone cannot be relied upon to stop misinformation, individuals must take steps to protect themselves. They can verify information before sharing by checking multiple sources and rely on reputable fact-checking organizations. Other actions can include diversifying news sources and avoiding relyiance on a single platform or outlet for information, reporting misinformation and harmful content by flagging false or dangerous content, and educating others by encouraging media literacy in communities can help reduce the spread of misinformation (Sucui, 2024).

 

Conclusion

Social media companies cannot be fully trusted to police themselves, as their financial interests often clash with the need for responsible moderation. While they have taken some steps to curb misinformation, enforcement remains inconsistent, and recent cuts to moderation teams have worsened the problem. The solution lies in a combination of regulation, public accountability, and increased media literacy to create a more reliable and trustworthy information ecosystem.

 

References

Amazeen, M. (2025). Americans expect social media content moderation. The Brink: Pioneering Research of Boston University. https://www.bu.edu/articles/2025/americans-expect-social-media-content-moderation/

Balkin, J. M. (2021). How to regulate (and not regulate) social media. Journal of Free Speech Law, 1(71), 73-96. https://www.journaloffreespeechlaw.org/balkin.pdf

Chow, A. R. (2025, January 7). Whey Meta’s fact-checking change could lead to more misinformation on Facebook and Instagram. Time. https://time.com/7205332/meta-fact-checking-community-notes/

Minow, & Minow (2023). Social media companies should pursue serious self-supervision — soon: Response to Professors Douek and Kadri. Harvard Law Review, 136(8). https://harvardlawreview.org/forum/vol-136/social-media-companies-should-pursue-serious-self-supervision-soon-response-to-professors-douek-and-kadri/

Myers, S. L., and Grant, N. (2023, February 14). Combating disinformation wanes at social media giants. New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/14/technology/disinformation-moderation-social-media.html

Sucui, P. (January 2, 2024). How media literacy can help stop misinformation from spreading. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/petersuciu/2024/01/02/how-media-literacy-can-help-stop-misinformation-from-spreading/

How to Report Misleading and Inaccurate Content on Social Media

 

By Lilian H. Hill

 

Misinformation and disinformation, often called "fake news," spread rapidly on social media, especially during conflicts, wars, and emergencies. “Fake news” and disinformation campaigns injure the health of democratic systems because they can influence public opinion and electoral decision-making (National Center for State Courts, n.d.). With the overwhelming content shared on these platforms, distinguishing truth from falsehood has become challenging. This issue has worsened as some social media companies have downsized their Trust and Safety teams, neglecting proper content moderation (Center for Countering Digital Hate, 2023).

 

Users can play a role in curbing the spread of false information. The first step is to verify before sharing that we are mindful of what we amplify and engage with. Equally important is reporting misinformation when we come across it. Social media platforms allow users to flag posts that promote falsehoods, conspiracies, or misleading claims, each enforcing its own Community Standards to regulate content (Center for Countering Digital Hate, 2023).

 

Reporting misleading content on social media platforms is essential in reducing the spread of misinformation. Unfortunately, some platforms fail to act on reported content (Center for Countering Digital Hate, 2023). Nonetheless, users should still report when misinformation and disinformation flood their timelines.

 

Here’s how to report misleading content on some of the most widely used platforms:

1. Facebook

• Click on the three dots (•••) in the top-right corner of the post.
• Select "Find support or report post."
• Choose "False Information" or another relevant category.
• Follow the on-screen instructions to complete the report.

 

2. Instagram

• Tap the three dots (•••) in the top-right corner of the post.
• Select "Report."
• Choose "False Information" and follow the steps to submit your report.

 

3. X (formerly known as Twitter)

• Click on the three dots (•••) on the tweet you want to report.
• Select "Report Tweet."
• Choose "It’s misleading" and specify whether it relates to politics, health, or other misinformation.
• Follow the prompts to complete the report.

 

4. TikTok

• Tap and hold the video or click on the share arrow.
• Select "Report."
• Choose "Misleading Information" and provide details if necessary.

 

5. YouTube

• Click on the three dots (•••) below the video.
• Select "Report."
• Choose "Misinformation" and provide any additional details required.

 

6. Reddit

• Click on the three dots (•••) or the "Report" button below the post or comment.
• Select "Misinformation" if available or choose a related category.
• Follow the instructions to submit your report.

 

7. LinkedIn

• Click on the three dots (•••) in the top-right corner of the post.
• Select "Report this post."
• Choose "False or misleading information."

 

8. Threads

• Click  next to a post.
• Click Report and follow the on-screen instructions.

 

After reporting, the platform will review the content and take action if it violates their misinformation policies. Users can also enhance efforts by sharing fact-checked sources in the comments or encouraging others to report the same misleading content.

 

References

Center for Countering Digital Hate (2023, October 24). How to report misinformation on social media. https://counterhate.com/blog/how-to-report-misinformation-on-social-media/

National Center for State Courts (n.d.) Disinformation and the Public. https://www.ncsc.org/consulting-and-research/areas-of-expertise/communications,-civics-and-disinformation/disinformation/for-the-public