Is social media being used to target the disenfranchised in swing states?

Twitter is robust to the spread of fake news

Question: Is social media being used to target the disenfranchised in swing states?
Position‹2 of 2: No, social media is not being used to target the disenfranchised in swing states
Argument1 of 4›: Twitter is robust to the spread of fake news

Social media is not being used to target the disenfranchised in swing states. Platforms like Twitter acknowledge the threat of disinformation on society, and in particular on political outcomes. They will take action to ensure disinformation does not influence the US election.

The argument

Twitter has already flagged Trump's tweets as misleading and provides a link under tweets such as "mail boxes will be robbed", reading “Get the facts about mail-in ballots." These links take users to robust fact-checking articles from CNN and the Washington Post along with a number of tweets from journalists debunking his claim. Social media platforms like Twitter acknowledge the threat disinformation and fake news have on society, and in particular on political outcomes. They will take action to ensure disinformation does not influence the US election.

Premises

[P1]Twitter actively flags misleading political tweets and directs users to credible fact-checking sources. [P2] Social media platforms recognize the threat of disinformation and are taking action to prevent it from influencing elections. [C] Therefore, social media is not being used to effectively target the disenfranchised in swing states with fake news.

Counter-arguments

Twitter is not actually deleting the tweets, only flagging them as misleading. Not all users may read the link taking them to fact-checking pages, and may therefore be misled by potential conspiracy theories. Users in swing states could potentially be more likely to believe such statements. Other social media sites including Facebook have chosen not to take actions on Trump's posts. Trump posted the same statement about mail-in fraud on Facebook, where it received 170,000 reactions and was shared 17,000 times. Although Facebook's policy is to remove content which misrepresents voting and voter registration, it will not take action against Trump: “We believe that people should be able to have a robust debate about the electoral process, which is why we have crafted our policies to focus on misrepresentations that would interfere with the vote.”

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] Flagging is not removal, and the mechanism depends on a user choosing to follow a link that most do not. Labels were applied to a small share of posts and generally after they had already circulated, and research on corrections finds they reach a fraction of those who saw the original. The premise also assumes the labelled post is the vector, when the same claim travels through screenshots, replies and private groups that no label touches. [Rejecting P2] One platform's policy is not the state of the field, and the conclusion is about social media in general. The same claim about mail-in voting posted to Facebook drew 170,000 reactions and 17,000 shares with no action taken. Recognising a threat and stating a policy is also not the same as preventing the targeting the conclusion denies — a claim about what actually reaches voters in particular states, which cannot be settled by pointing at one company's labelling practice.