YouTube and Google are the latest platforms to share more about how they are preparing for the upcoming midterm elections, and the flood of misinformation that will come with it.

For YouTube, much of that strategy hinges on continuing to counter misinformation about the 2020 presidential election. The company’s election misinformation policies already prohibit videos that allege “widespread fraud, errors, or glitches” occurred in any previous presidential election. In a new blog post about its preparations for the midterms, the company says it's already removed “a number of videos related to the midterms” for breaking these rules, and that other channels have been temporarily suspended for videos related to the upcoming midterms.

The update comes as YouTube continues to face scrutiny for its handling of the 2020 election, and whether its recommendations pushed some people toward election fraud videos. (Of note, the Journal of Online Trust and Safety published a study on the topic today.)

In addition to taking down videos, YouTube also says it will launch “an educational media literacy campaign” aimed at educating viewers about “manipulation tactics used to spread misinformation.” The campaign will launch in the United States first, and will cover topics like “using emotional language” and “cherry picking information,” according to the company.

Google

And Both Google and YouTube will promote authoritative election information in their services, including in search results. Before the midterms, YouTube will link to information about how to vote, and on Election day, videos related to the midterms will link to “timely context around election results.” Similarly, Google will surface election results directly in search, which it has done in previous elections as well.

The company is also trying to make it easier to find details about local and regional races. Beginning in “the coming weeks,” Google will highlight local news sources from different states in election-related searches.

Meta has outlined its strategy for combatting misinformation during the 2022 US midterm elections, and they'll mostly sound familiar if you remember the company's 2020 approach. The Facebook and Instagram owner said it will maintain policies and protections "consistent" with the presidential election, including policies barring vote misinformation and linking people to trustworthy information. It will once again ban political ads during the last week of the election campaign. This isn't quite a carbon copy, however, as Meta is fine-tuning its methods in response to lessons learned two years ago.

To start, Meta is "elevating" post comments from local elections officials to make sure reliable polling information surfaces in conversations. The company is also acknowledging concerns that it used info labels too often in 2020 — for the 2022 midterms, it's planning to show labels in a "targeted and strategic way."

Meta's update comes just days after Twitter detailed its midterm strategy, and echoes the philosophy of its social media rival. Both are betting that their 2020 measures were largely adequate, and that it's just a question of refining those systems for 2022.

Whether or not that's true is another matter. In a March 2021 study, advocacy group Avaaz said Meta didn't do enough to stem the flow of misinformation and allowed billions of views for known false content. Whistleblower Frances Haugen also maintains that Meta has generally struggled to fight bogus claims, and it's no secret that Meta had to extend its ban on political ads after the 2020 vote. Facebook didn't catch some false Brazilian election ads, according to Global Witness. Meta won't necessarily deal with serious problems during the midterms, but it's not guaranteed a smooth ride.

Less than two months before Brazil’s 2022 election, a report from international NGO Global Witness found Facebook parent company Meta “appallingly” failed to detect false political ads. The organization tested Facebook’s ability to catch election-related misinformation by submitting 10 ads.

Five of the advertisements featured blatantly false information about the election. For instance, some mentioned the wrong election date and methods citizens could use to cast their votes. The other five ads sought to discredit Brazil’s electoral process, including the electronic voting system the country has used since 1996. Of the 10 ads, Facebook only rejected one initially but later approved it without any further action from Global Witness.

In addition to their content, the ads had other red flags Global Witness contends Meta should have caught. To start, the non-profit did not verify the account it used to submit the advertisements through the company’s ad authorizations process. “This is a safeguard that Meta has in place to prevent election interference, but we were easily able to bypass this,” Global Witness said.

Additionally, the organization submitted the ads from London and Nairobi. In doing so, it did not need to use a VPN or local payment system to mask its identity. Moreover, the ads did not feature a “paid for by” disclaimer, which Meta notes all “social issue” advertisements in Brazil must include by June 22, 2022.

“What’s quite clear from the results of this investigation and others is that their content moderation capabilities and the integrity systems that they deploy in order to mitigate some of the risk during election periods, it’s just not working,” Jon Lloyd, senior advisor at Global Witness, told The Associated Press.

Meta did not immediately respond to Engadget’s request for comment. A Meta spokesperson told The Associated Press it has “prepared extensively” for Brazil’s upcoming election. “We’ve launched tools that promote reliable information and label election-related posts, established a direct channel for the Superior Electoral Court (Brazil’s electoral authority) to send us potentially-harmful content for review, and continue closely collaborating with Brazilian authorities and researchers,” the company said.

This isn’t the first time Global Witness has found Facebook’s election safeguards wanting. Earlier this year, the non-profit conducted a similar investigation ahead of Kenya’s recent election and reached many of the same conclusions. Then, as now, Global Witness called on Meta to strengthen and increase its content moderation and integrity systems.

Twitter is both reviving and improving its election misinformation strategy ahead of the 2022 US midterms. The social network has reactivated enforcement of its Civic Integrity Policy to prepare for the vote, and there are a handful of upgrades in store this year. To begin, it will avoid recommending misleading tweets through notifications — falsehoods might not spread as much as in the past. The company is considering this approach for "other surfaces," too.

You should also see redesigned fact-check labels that are better at prompting people to read. Twitter first tested these labels in late 2021.

Other efforts will be more familiar. You already see candidate labels for any Governor, House or Senate hopeful who qualified for the general election ballot. You can expect "prebunks" that counter bogus claims before they become hot topics. You'll find a dedicated US Elections tab in Explore, along with state-specific hubs. Twitter plans to ramp up protection for candidates as well, with "more sophisticated" detection of suspicious activity as well as more login safeguards and speedier account recovery should the worst happen.

These aren't dramatic changes to Twitter's methods from previous elections, including those outside the US. However, it's clear the firm is bracing for trouble in light of the fallout from 2020. The question is whether or not this will be enough. Critics warned of shortcomings in social media companies' anti-misinformation efforts during the previous elections, and tweaks to recommendations and labels aren't guaranteed to address those issues.

Google is working on a way to ensure emails from US political campaigns reach users' Gmail inboxes instead of automatically getting dumped into the spam folder. The company has asked the Federal Election Commission for approval on a plan to make emails from "authorized candidate committees, political party committees and leadership political action committees registered with the FEC" exempt from spam detection, as long they abide by Gmail's rules on phishing, malware and illegal content.

“We want Gmail to provide a great experience for all of our users, including minimizing unwanted email, but we do not filter emails based on political affiliation," Google spokesperson José Castañeda told Axios, which first reported on the move. Castañeda added that the pilot program "may help improve inboxing rates for political bulk senders and provide more transparency into email deliverability, while still letting users protect their inboxes by unsubscribing or labeling emails as spam."

If the project goes ahead, users will see a prominent notification the first time they receive an email from a campaign. They'll be asked if they want to keep receiving such emails. They'll be able to opt out of campaign notices later too. That should help cut down on unwanted campaign emails, especially for users who didn't sign up to receive them in the first place, while making sure they still hit inboxes.

Google has noted that a key reason why Gmail puts many campaign emails in the spam folder is because other users often mark the missives as spam. A North Carolina State University study from earlier this year found that Gmail was more likely than Yahoo (Engadget's parent company) and Microsoft Outlook to algorithmically filter emails from Republican campaigns as spam during the 2020 campaign.

Republican leaders this month introduced a bill that seeks to make it illegal for email service providers to automatically put campaign messages in the spam folder. It would also require operators to issue a quarterly transparency report detailing how many times campaign messages were flagged as spam, with breakdowns for emails from both the Republican and Democratic parties. In addition, providers would have to disclose the tools they use to determine which campaign emails to mark as spam.

The New York Timesreports Massachusetts' Supreme Judicial Court has rejected a proposed ballot measure that would have enshrined Uber and Lyft's business model in law. The court said the measure violated the Massachusetts constitution by including two unrelated policy decisions, including one hidden by "obscure language."

The bulk of the proposed ballot measure outlined limited benefits for rideshare drivers. However, the offending provision would have said that drivers couldn't be treated as an "employee or agent" of gig-based companies. If voted into law, this might have shielded outfits like Uber or Lyft from liability in the event of a crash or crime — not to mention kneecapping any attempts to reclassify drivers as employees in the state. The unrelated provisions raised concerns that voters might be "confused, misled and deprived" of a real choice, the court wrote in its decision.

Uber, Lyft and their supporters contended that formalizing the gig worker model would have protected flexibility for drivers seeking their own hours. Groups supporting the companies, such as Chamber of Progress, have claimed employee status could cost jobs and income. Critics like AFL-CIO union federation, however, have argued that measures like this create a false dichotomy between flexibility and benefits — they see ballot options like this as attempts to cut employment costs at the expense of laborers.

Uber and Lyft declined to comment. The two spent a total of $17.8 million endorsing the ballot measure, and have had mixed success promoting similar efforts in other states. They got Californians to vote for Proposition 22, a bid to reverse a state law protecting drivers as employees, only to watch as a judge ruled the measure unconstitutional. The companies struck an agreement with Washington State legislators in early 2022, but failed to get much traction in New York State.

Oracle CEO Larry Ellison was involved in a call where a number of influential GOP figures—including Senator Lindsay Graham (R-SC), Fox News anchor Sean Hannity and Trump attorney Jay Sekulow — brainstormed ways to contest the 2020 presidential election, reported the Washington Post. Details of the call which occurred on November 14, 2020 were revealed in new court filings from a lawsuit brought by voting rights organization Fair Fight against True The Vote, a conservative Texas vote monitoring organization that disputes the results of the 2020 presidential election.

“Jim was on a call this evening with Jay Sekulow, Lindsey O. Graham, Sean Hannity, and Larry Ellison,” True the Vote’s founder, Catherine Engelbrecht, wrote to a donor, according to court filings reviewed by the Post. “He explained the work we were doing and they asked for a preliminary report asap, to be used to rally their troops internally, so that’s what I’m working on now.”

Ellison is a high-profile GOP donor and has hosted fundraisers for former president Donald Trump. He has seemingly never expressed doubts about the 2020 election results publicly. While the CEO has donated to both parties over the years as the Palm Desert Sunpoints out, he’s poured a substantial amount of money into the GOP and conservative causes since the 2020 election. His $15 million donation in February to a super PAC associated with Senator Tim Scott (R-SC) is one of the largest of the 2022 election cycle so far.

Ellison's proximity to Trump has led to concerns that Oracle may have had an unfair advantage in competing for federal contracts during the former administration. Oracle nabbed a lucrative contract in 2020 to aid the Department of Health and Human Services to collect data on doctors who treat COVID-19 patients with hydroxychloroquine, an anti-malaria drug embraced by Trump. It is also nearing a deal with TikTok to store their US data, which Trump approved in 2020.

The initial results of a second union election at Amazon's BHM1 warehouse in Bessemer, Alabama have finally come through. Workers have voted against unionization in a closely contested 993-875 vote (with 59 voided votes) out of 6,153 workers eligible to cast a ballot. Turnout appears to have been considerably lower this time around, as more than 3,000 employees cast ballots in the early 2021 vote. However, 416 votes have been challenged — more than enough to change the outcome — so the definitive result might not be available for some time.

The tally brings BHM1 to the possible end of a long and messy saga. Bessemer workers voted against unionization in early 2021, but the National Labor Relations Board ruled that Amazon violated labor laws by allegedly interfering with the vote. The Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union (RWDSU) accused Amazon of repeatedly trying to intimidate workers through measures like an unauthorized ballot box and anti-union campaign material. While Amazon disputed the claims, the NLRB ultimately ordered a second vote.

The rerun election didn't go smoothly, either. The RWDSU has maintained that Amazon interfered with the second vote by removing pro-union posters, forcing attendance of anti-union meetings and limiting time spent on company grounds to discourage organization. Before the vote, the RWDSU also accused Amazon of illegal retaliation against worker Isaiah Thomas' pro-union efforts. The company has again argued that its actions are legal.

BHM1 was the first major Amazon facility in the US to hold a union vote, but it's no longer the only one. One Staten Island warehouse, JFK8, is already voting on possible unionization, and early vote totals show the grassroots Amazon Labor Union ahead by several hundred votes. Another facility in Staten Island is scheduled to hold its own unionization vote starting in late April. Simply put, there's a growing desire for workers to have a say in their conditions at at Amazon's — whether those efforts succeed, however, remains to be seen.

A judge has ruled that voting machine manufacturer Smartmatic can proceed with a $2.7 billion defamation lawsuit against Fox News and Rudy Giuliani. The company has accused them and others of making false claims that it rigged votes in favor of Joe Biden in the 2020 presidential election.

Fox News parent Fox Corp, anchor Maria Bartiromo, former anchor Lou Dobbs, The Five host Jeanine Pirro and ex-Donald Trump lawyer Sidney Powell all tried to have Smartmatic's claims against them dismissed. Justice David Cohen of New York State Supreme Court dismissed the claims against Pirro and Powell, though rejected the bids from Fox Corp, Bartiromo and Dobbs.

Smartmatic claimed Fox News made up a story about helping Biden to steal the presidency from Trump to boost ratings. A lawyer for the company said Fox News caused "catastrophic damage" to Smartmatic's business and reputation, according to Reuters.

Cohen ruled that Fox News "turned a blind eye to a litany of outrageous claims about [Smartmatic], unprecedented in the history of American elections, so inherently improbable that it evinced a reckless disregard for the truth." He also said Giuliani accused Smartmatic of rigging elections in Venezuela and claimed it engaged in "old tricks" in the presidential election, which provided grounds for Smartmatic to proceed with some of its claims against the former Trump lawyer.

Fox News called Smartmatic's claims "baseless." It plans to appeal Cohen's decision and countersue Smartmatic for fees and costs.

In December, a judge dismissed an attempt by Fox News to toss out a lawsuit by another voting machine maker. Dominion Voting Systems has accused Fox News of defamation in its $1.6 billion suit.

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has reportedly approved a petition for another Amazon warehouse union election, the Amazon Labor Union (ALU) has tweeted. If a vote goes ahead, the LDJ5 facility will be the second in Staten Island to hold a union election and the third in the US, according to The Verge. 

The ALU originally petitioned the NLRB to hold union elections for all facilities on Staten Island. However, it withdrew that and decided to focus on one warehouse at a time, subsequently receiving approval to hold an vote at the JFK8 facility starting on March 25th. It later petitioned for an election at LDJ5, which requires the NLRB to confirm that there's sufficient interest.

Amazon has acknowledged the NLRB decision, according to a screenshot of a note texted to employees by Amazon, tweeted by Vice's Lauren Kaori Gurley. "Today, March 2, the National Labor Relations Board notified us that it has found the ALU met the criteria to continue processing the ALU's petition to have an election at LDJ5," the message reads. Amazon and the NLRB have yet to officially respond, but if the report is accurate, the next step would be an NLRB hearing followed by a decision about a vote date.  

One Amazon union election has already been held at Amazon's Bessemer, Alabama facility, and the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union union lost the vote by a count of 1,798 to 738. However, the NLRB determined that Amazon interfered with the election and ruled that a new vote could be held starting on February 4th. Counting is set to begin on March 28th.