Politics
California’s solution to fight AI disinformation is worse than the problem
Democracy, California Gov. Gavin Newsom warns, is on the brink. The culprit? A wave of “disinformation powered by generative AI,” poised to “pollute our information ecosystems like never before.” With the 2024 election looming, Newsom and California Democrats argue that artificial intelligence-generated content threatens to warp public perception. In response, the Golden State has swiftly enacted two bold new laws designed to stem the tide of “deceptive” content spreading across the internet.
These laws not only likely violate the First Amendment, which protects even false political speech, but they are also rooted in exaggerated fears of AI disinformation.
An obviously deepfaked video of Vice President Kamala Harris, widely shared by Elon Musk, prompted Newsom’s push to regulate online discoursebut, of course, these laws will also ban the many parody AI videos of Donald Trump.
As researchers have pointed out…the extent and impact of disinformation are typically much smaller than the alarmist scenarios assume.
To be sure, disinformation, deepfakes and propaganda can spread and have real-life effects. But as researchers have pointed out — mostly to deaf ears — the extent and impact of disinformation are, thus far, typically much smaller than the alarmist scenarios assume. And a recent study by MIT researchers found that humans can frequently discern deepfakes with both audio and visual cues. That’s why widely shared deepfakes of Harris or Trump failed to convince anyone they were real.
Also, a closer look at 2024 elections around the world demonstrates how fears of AI deepfakes have largely been overblown.
Before this summer’s European parliamentary elections, headline after headline sounded the alarm that “AI could supercharge disinformation” and put the future of democracy at stake. A perfect storm of Russian propaganda and artificial intelligence threatened to drown the integrity of an election with 373 million eligible voters in 27 countries in disinformation and deepfakes.
That message was echoed by think tanks, researchers and European Union leaders ahead of the June election. Věra Jourová, the European Commission vice president for values and transparency, said AI deepfakes of politicians could create “an atomic bomb … to change the course of voter preferences.” In response, the European Commission sent alerts to social media platforms and set up crisis units expecting to deal with efforts to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the election’s outcome for weeks after the vote.
So what happened? Despite active disinformation networks on social media platforms, the E.U.-funded and often alarmist European Digital Media Observatory identified no major disinformation-related incident or any deluge of deepfakes. In the U.K. elections, British fact-checking group FullFact told Politico“There hasn’t been a [deepfake] which has just dominated a day of the actual election campaign.”
What about the rest of the world? Elections have taken place in many countries, some with less resilient democratic institutions and more vulnerable election procedures than European democracies.
A Washington Post article highlighted India’s 2024 elections as a “preview” of how AI is transforming democracy. Despite being “awash in deepfakes,” researchers found, AI had little impactinstead proving a net positive by connecting voters.
These election results demonstrate that a critical mass of voters can think for themselves and don’t slavishly fall for lies propaganda and nonsense.
In Pakistan and Indonesiaobservers reported minimal disinformation, with viral fake news fact-checked on social media. A coalition of civil society groups and government agencies in Taiwan ensured transparency and crowdsourced fact-checking, mitigating China’s interference attempts.
It should be a positive story that democracies around the world, to this point, have a higher degree of resilience than many feared. More importantly, these election results demonstrate that a critical mass of voters can think for themselves and don’t slavishly fall for lies, propaganda and nonsense, even when slickly produced with cutting-edge technology.
As the 2024 U.S. election approaches, we should be vigilant but resist the urge to sacrifice free speech in the name of fighting disinformation. Our democracy is more resilient than fearmongers suggest.
California’s two new laws, on the other hand, are panic-driven and counterproductive, and they open the door to state-sanctioned censorship of lawful speech.
A.B. 2839 prohibits the use of AI deepfakes about political candidates, while A.B. 2655 requires large platforms to block “deceptive” content about politicians, respond to every public complaint within 36 hours and remove “substantially similar” content.
Both laws will chill political speech, infringe on Californians’ ability to criticize politicians, undermine platforms’ rights to moderate content and even prevent people from highlighting “deceptive” content as fake.
While A.B. 2839 exempts political satire and parody, it requires those responsible to include disclosures that the “materially deceptive” content isn’t real, which will surely undermine the impact of these messages if commentators must declare that they are just joking.
Both laws will chill political speech, infringe on Californians’ ability to criticize politicians.
We would also be wise to remember that the very politicians who generate headlines about AI disinformation — and insist that they should be trusted to define this nebulous concept — are frequently the sources of political misinformation.
Instead of succumbing to elite panic, we should face the challenge of disinformation while heeding the words of former Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedywho said, “Our constitutional tradition stands against the idea that we need Oceania’s Ministry of Truth.” In defending free speech, we must avoid granting the government unprecedented powers to decide what truth is, recognizing that the greatest threat to democracy often comes from those who claim to protect it.
(Disclosure: The Future of Free Speech is a nonpartisan think tank in joint partnership with Vanderbilt University and Denmark-based Justitia. It has received limited financial support from Google for specific projects not related to the subject of this piece. In all cases, The Future of Free Speech retains full independence and final authority for its work.)
Jacob Mchangama is the executive director of The Future of Free Speech and a research professor at Vanderbilt University. He is also a senior fellow at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) and the author of “Free Speech: A History From Socrates to Social Media.”
WASILLA, Alaska — Three weeks out from Election Day, President Donald Trump took a helicopter to a plane to another helicopter to a motorcade to an ice hockey rink in Alaska’s Matanuska-Susitna Valley, traversing nearly 4,000 miles over more than eight hours to turn out his base here to help Republicans defend the Senate.
But Trump’s trek might not be enough to save Sen. Dan Sullivan, who’s running in a tougher-than-expected race against Democrat Mary Peltola in a state where the president’s approval rating is underwater and independents outnumber both Republicans and Democrats.
Alaska strategists and voters who spoke to Blue Light News acknowledged that Sullivan faces a difficult path to reelection, despite Trump’s time investment and the outside money pouring in.
“Very conservative MAGA voters can’t vote for you harder,” said Scott Kendall, a veteran political strategist who worked on two of Alaska GOP Sen. Lisa Murkowski’s campaigns and was chief of staff to former Alaska Gov. Bill Walker. “Donald Trump’s support in this current climate is both a blessing and a curse.”
Even some Trump supporters at the Tuesday night rally admitted the outlook appeared bleak.
“I think Alaska’s turning blue,” said Matt Niessink, a 45-year-old general contractor from Wasilla. He said he had voted for Trump three times and planned to support Republicans this year.
What did he wish the president would do differently? “I wish he’d shut his mouth sometimes and not be such a pompous ass,” Niessink said.
The president was in Wasilla — population 10,556 — because the outlook is darkening for his party in a state he carried by 13 points just two years ago. In a midterm year defined by the cost of gas and groceries, the Last Frontier has been hit particularly hard, with the average price of diesel nearing $7 per gallon. In the Senate race, Peltola is flush with cash and leads Sullivan in most polls. MAGA Inc., the cash-rich Trump-aligned super PAC, is increasingly focusing on Alaska as one in a slate of states that can help Republicans hold the Senate.
Enter Trump, who has been spending the cycle’s crucial final weeks holding rallies in red states to juice support among his base, which tends to see depressed turnout in years when he’s not on the ballot.
“That was a lot of flying,” the president said at the top of his remarks. “In fact, they were thinking about canceling. They said, ‘Sir, you’re very busy, this is very tough.’” But, Trump continued, he refused to cancel for a state he won three times.
Echoing his comments at other red-state rallies, Trump asked the roaring crowd for “one big favor” — to “pretend that I’m on the ballot, because every time I’ve been on the ballot, we win.” He repeated his promise that Americans will receive $5,000 dividends if Republicans hold both chambers.
“What this is about is getting out the vote,” Sullivan told reporters before Trump’s speech. “A rising tide of enthusiasm lifts all the candidates.”
Unlike some other Republican candidates in tight races, Sullivan has shied away from distancing himself from the least popular aspects of Trump’s presidency.
Sullivan proclaimed on stage at the rally that “the conflict in the Middle East is temporary. The true forever war is the national Democrats’ war against Alaska oil and gas and our jobs.” And although a campaign aide released a statement condemning Trump’s move to import Russian diesel, Sullivan did not join four of his Republican Senate colleagues, including Murkowski, who called on Trump to reverse the decision.
Art Hackney, a veteran Republican strategist in Alaska, said that “most of the people who support” Sullivan “think that he should” break more with the president.
Hackney, who runs a pro-Sullivan super PAC called “We Stand with Dan,” attributed that choice to loyalty — but suggested the president’s demand of fealty, and treatment of frequent dissenter Murkowski, could also be part of Sullivan’s calculus.
“A lot of his longtime supporters and the people who are in the industries that would benefit from that wish he would be more blunt,” Hackney said. “But with what Murkowski has done, if Dan did something considered a disrespectful trigger or something, what do you think would happen? It could well have implications for things that affect Alaska’s economy.”
Like this content? Consider signing up for Blue Light News’s Playbook PM newsletter.
Some top congressional Republicans have privately concluded that it is likely impossible for them to keep control of the House of Representatives in the midterm elections, and they are now focused on limiting the scale of the defeat and salvaging the party’s Senate majority.
Five senior Republican lawmakers, all granted anonymity to speak candidly about their party’s dire position, told Blue Light News the House had all but slipped away.
One senior House Republican said the GOP’s goal at this point was to “save as many Republican seats as we can.” The president, this person said, was not helping.
“President Trump has made this election all about himself,” the lawmaker said. “Now we have to survive that political storm.”
A second Republican member of Congress said the movement of campaign advertising made plain which side was in control of the midterms. This lawmaker predicted Democrats would pick up about 10 seats, more than enough to take control of the chamber.
Even in newly redistricted red states like Florida and Texas, this person said, Republican candidates were “hanging on with their fingernails.”
Republicans have already fallen back from several contested House districts that they feel are no longer winnable, including those held by Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks of Iowa and Tom Kean Jr. of New Jersey. Trump carried their districts just two years ago. The party last week gave up on an Omaha-based district held by retiring Rep. Don Bacon.
Trump officials and other top GOP operatives say more candidates may be cut off in the coming days, in order to shift advertising money to races where it can make more of a difference. Republican groups have already given up on multiple races where they once hoped to unseat Democratic lawmakers.
The Republican Party is under extreme pressure across the Midwest, where it is now spending heavily to defend Senate seats in once-reliably MAGA states like Iowa, Nebraska and Kansas.
Bacon, a maverick often at odds with the White House, said there was no mystery in his party’s political tribulations.
“I’ve talked to some who are making these decisions: The biggest problem is the president’s polling numbers and unfavorables,” Bacon said.
White House officials insist they’re not giving up on either chamber of Congress. In a statement, White House spokeswoman Liz Huston said Trump remained “committed to maintaining Republican majorities in both the House and Senate.”
As he departed on Tuesday to campaign in Alaska for embattled GOP Sen. Dan Sullivan, Trump professed optimism about the midterms but acknowledged that sitting presidents typically see their party lose seats in the off year.
“But I’m doing a tour right now and I’m doing rallies,” Trump added. “The level of enthusiasm for the Republican Party is way up.”
House Speaker Mike Johnson went even further, flatly declaring during a campaign stop in deep-red Texas that “the polling is wrong” in showing his party on the brink of a broad defeat.
Yet at a tactical level, the Republican Party’s moves to shift money away from defending the House and toward saving the Senate are clear enough. In recent days, the Congressional Leadership Fund, the top super PAC for House Republicans, canceled advertising for key House candidates in Nebraska and Iowa and allowed the Senate Leadership Fund – a Republican group focused on the upper chamber – to swoop in and claim the airtime to support Nebraska Sen. Pete Ricketts and Rep. Ashley Hinson, who is running for Senate in Iowa.
“These are not the moves of a party that’s going to keep the House,” a third Republican lawmaker said.
In statements to Blue Light News, both CLF and the National Republican Congressional Committee said they had no intention of giving up on the fight for control of the House.
NRCC spokesperson Mike Marinella said districts are won “one by one,” and that the GOP has “the financial firepower and ground game needed to win.”
Chris Winkelman, president of CLF, said his group would keep moving money around to maximize the impact nationally.
The goal, he said, was to “keep the pressure on the most vulnerable Democrats and preserve a path to 218 seats.”
Former Rep. Carlos Curbelo, a Florida Republican who lost his swing seat in Trump’s first midterm election eight years ago, said his former colleagues were clear-eyed about where the election seemed to be headed.
“The environment is about as tough as one could expect,” Curbelo said. “There is no one who has privately stated that they believe Republicans can hold the House — not in recent weeks, anyway.”
Megan Messerly, Lauren Fedor, Lisa Kashinsky and Myah Ward contributed to this report.
Democratic Sen. Jon Ossoff said Tuesday he will not run for president in 2028 and committed to serving a full six-year Senate term if reelected.
“I have zero interest in running for president. I’m not running for president. I’m running for reelection to the Senate,” Ossoff said during a Georgia Senate debate against Republican Rep. Mike Collins.
Asked by Greg Bluestein of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution whether he would serve his full term if he wins in November, Ossoff replied: “Yes, I will.”
The remarks are Ossoff’s most forceful rejection yet of a potential 2028 presidential bid even as his name has repeatedly surfaced in national Democrats’ conversations about possible contenders for the party’s nomination. His public commitment to a full Senate term on Tuesday is the latest of his campaign’s many efforts to tamp down that speculation.
Ossoff gained national attention this year given his strong fundraising numbers, his consistent lead in public polling against Collins and his ability to generate viral moments on the campaign trail, particularly through his attacks on President Donald Trump. Democrats are bullish about Ossoff’s ability to hold onto his Senate seat — so much so that the Democratic-aligned Senate Majority PAC said Tuesday it was removing its ad spending in Georgia for the week.
He’s also taken steps to boost the state Democratic party in Georgia, a perennial battleground that has been and will be key to winning the presidency. If November brings historic wins up and down the ballot, Ossoff will get some of the credit — and he’ll have confirmed his status as a leader in the swing state.
-
Politics2 years agoFormer ‘Squad’ members launching ‘Bowman and Bush’ YouTube show
-
Uncategorized2 years ago
Bob Good to step down as Freedom Caucus chair this week
-
The Josh Fourrier Show2 years agoDOOMSDAY: Trump won, now what?
-
The Dictatorship2 years agoPete Hegseth’s tenure at the Pentagon goes from bad to worse
-
Politics2 years agoFormer Kentucky AG Daniel Cameron launches Senate bid
-
The Dictatorship2 years agoLuigi Mangione acknowledges public support in first official statement since arrest
-
Politics2 years agoBlue Light News’s Editorial Director Ryan Hutchins speaks at Blue Light News’s 2025 Governors Summit
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoMike Johnson sums up the GOP’s arrogant position on military occupation with two words