Despite the focus on generative AI misinformation, policy discourse ignores that politicians pose the gravest misinformation threat, ahead of big 2024 elections
As we head into a big election year, beware the risks of misleading statements from those at very top X: @fascinatorfun , @jpeterburger , @prateekwaghre , @katray , @rasmus_kleis , @risj_oxford , @acerbialberto , @nivincent , @mr_james_c , @jburnmurdoch , @1br0wn , @jason_kint , and @whotargetsme . LinkedIn: Lars Boering X: @fascinatorfun : “In the US, the Washington Post stopped counting after documenting at least 30,573 false or misleading claims made by Donald Trump as president. In the UK, the non-profit FullFact has reported that as many as 50 MPs — including 2 PMs, cabinet ministers & shadow cabinet ministers Peter Burger / @jpeterburger : ‘Of course there will be examples of AI-generated misinformation, bots, and deepfakes during various elections next year. But the key question is how politicians will be using these tools.’ Prateek Waghre / @prateekwaghre : As someone who has followed @rasmus_kleis ‘misinformation comes from the top exhibit ♾️’ tweets for years, thrilled to see this piece. You can also count on the him to direct our attention to where we should be focusing (i.e. the role of political actors in this case). For... Kathryn Raymundo / @katray : Perhaps, DIS/MALinfo & influence operations — usually deliberate & systematic. “...misinformation coming from the top is likely to have a far greater impact than that from most other sources, whether social media posts by ordinary people, hostile actors, or commercial scammers.” Rasmus Kleis Nielsen / @rasmus_kleis : “When it comes to the most serious misinformation, the calls tend to come from inside the house. Technology will not change that, so let's stop gaslighting the public and admit clearly [that] misinformation often comes from the top” Wrote this for the @FT https://giftarticle.ft.com/... @risj_oxford : “Discussions remain bogged down with how to police AI content, while distracting us from how politicians are pushing for legal exemptions from content moderation” Our own @rasmus_kleis at @FT on why politicians pose the gravest misinformation threat https://www.ft.com/... Alberto Acerbi / @acerbialberto : “When it comes to the most serious misinformation, the calls tend to come from inside the house. Technology will not change that, so let's stop gaslighting the public and admit clearly [...] that misinformation often comes from the top.” https://www.ft.com/... Vincent Ni / @nivincent : “Academic findings repeatedly underline the actual impact of politics, while policy documents focus persistently on the possible impact of new technologies,” Read this piece by @rasmus_kleis https://www.ft.com/... @mr_james_c : Oh it goes *waaay* deeper than that. [image] John Burn-Murdoch / @jburnmurdoch : Great piece from @rasmus_kleis on the poor quality and ironically often misleading nature of discourse around misinformation. Report after report warns about deepfakes and AI bots, but there's virtually no mention of the most significant source of misinformation: politicians [image] Ian Brown / @1br0wn : “This is set to be a big election year... People will rightly be on their guard for #misinformation, but much of the policy discussion on the topic ignores the most important source: members of the political elite.” @rasmus_kleis https://www.ft.com/... Jason Kint / @jason_kint : Reasonable take but would encourage not to bifurcate this way. AYK, the misinformation has always existed. The velocity and micro targeted reach of social media combined with its suppression of counterspeech is new and material here. And we're less prepared after the last year. @whotargetsme : Excellent from @rasmus_kleis. Focus less on tech/AI/misinfo/foreign influence. Instead, follow the politicians, what they say, who they say it to and how much they spend to say it. https://www.ft.com/... LinkedIn: Lars Boering : A spot on article by Rasmus Kleis Nielsen: misinformation often comes from members of the political elite. — Quote: — 'We know this from years of research. …
Context & Ripple Effects
The debate enters the 2024 election cycle with attention concentrated on generative AI and deepfakes, even as earlier coverage documented social-media feedback loops around Trump and the role of political advertising in spreading politically motivated claims.
The article’s intervention is that source power matters as much as content format: scrutiny of AI-generated material can obscure misleading claims from leaders, while pressure on misinformation researchers has narrowed the capacity to study the broader problem.
First-order effects
- Policymakers and platforms face a reframed enforcement problem: election-integrity measures aimed at synthetic media may fail to address falsehoods originating with prominent political actors.
- Political leaders seeking exemptions from content-moderation rules gain added salience, because such carve-outs could limit responses to a major source of high-reach misinformation.
Second-order effects
- Platforms’ moderation choices become more politically contentious: treating political speech differently from other high-reach content can create an enforcement gap precisely where amplification is strongest.
- Researchers, fact-checkers and civil-society groups become more important complements to AI detection tools, but their work is constrained if political pressure continues to chill misinformation research.
Third-order effects
- Election-integrity policy may shift from a technology-centric framing toward a source-and-distribution framing that examines who can repeatedly command reach, not just whether content is AI-generated.
- If the pattern holds, the central governance challenge will be preserving credible, independently verifiable oversight of political speech without allowing moderation rules to become partisan instruments.
The trend: The larger trend is a move from treating misinformation as a synthetic-content problem to treating it as a power, amplification and accountability problem ahead of elections.