ABC News recently published a piece lamenting the existence of anonymous right-leaning social media accounts for supposedly spreading false narratives on platforms like X, formerly known as Twitter.

In the article, the authors make the dubious claim that anonymous users are “dominating” right-wing conversations on social media while spreading misinformation. Their primary example is an anonymous user who claimed that a government website showed rising cases of illegal immigrants registering to vote with a valid photo ID in three states.

The authors highlight several high-profile individuals who spread the narrative, including X owner Elon Musk, Trump, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), and others. They lament that this post had to be refuted by several government officials.

Stephen Richer, the recorder in Maricopa County, Arizona, which includes Phoenix, refuted the claim in multipleX posts while Jane Nelson, the secretary of state in Texas, issued a statement calling it “totally inaccurate.”

Yet by the time they tried to correct the record, the false claim had spread widely. In three days, the pseudonymous user’s claim amassed more than 63 million views on X, according to the platform’s metrics. A thorough explanation from Richer attracted a fraction of that, reaching 2.4 million users.

The incident sheds light on how social media accounts that shield the identities of the people or groups behind them through clever slogans and cartoon avatars have come to dominate right-wing political discussion online even as they spread false information.

If this is true, it is certainly problematic. Undoubtedly, there is a problem with fake news permeating various social media platforms. However, it would be nice to see these people have the same energy when establishment media does the same thing when they spread false narratives. What the author describes is a problem – but when it is a “reputable” media outlet peddling falsehoods, only to “correct” them after millions of people have already believed it, it is even more dangerous than some anonymous user on social media.

Spoiler alert: The authors make no mention of left-leaning accounts or news outlets engaging in the same type of deception. Instead, they go on to claim that these accounts “can generate substantial financial rewards from X and other platforms by ginning up outrage against Democrats.”

Again, this is a hypocritical argument, given that left-leaning accounts generate outrage against Republicans using false information. But it is also worth noting that on X, the Community Notes feature prevents these accounts from monetizing their lies. Earlier this year, the company instituted a policy that would demonetize any post that has been community-noted, and the tool has been used quite frequently to correct misinformation and disinformation.

The article even features “experts” who affirm the authors’ claims.

They are exploiting a long history of trust in American whistleblowers and anonymous sources, said Samuel Woolley, director of the Propaganda Research Lab at the University of Texas at Austin.

“With these types of accounts, there’s an allure of covertness, there’s this idea that they somehow might know something that other people don’t,” he said. “They’re co-opting the language of genuine whistleblowing or democratically inclined leaking. In fact what they’re doing is antithetical to democracy.”

Let’s say for the sake of argument that Woolley’s claims are accurate. Is it any different from public accounts and legacy media outlets spreading fake news?

Not really. The effect is still the same: People are being taken in by “influencers” who are not as dedicated to the truth as they pretend to be.

The authors then point out that anonymous accounts “have thrived online for years” and that some “have used anonymity on social media to avoid persecution by repressive authorities or to speak freely about sensitive experiences.”

The article notes that “Many left-wing protesters adopted anonymous online identities during the Occupy Wall Street movement of the early 2010s.”

This statement further reveals the author’s clear bias. Yes, leftists do use anonymous accounts to avoid prosecution by the government. Some are actually bad actors. Others are simply expressing their views.

But, the fact that the author ignores the fact that folks on the right have the same motivations shows that their arguments are entirely disingenuous. Even further, cancel culture has created an environment in which folks on the right can literally lose their jobs for what they say online. The bottom line is that people should be able to express their ideas freely without fear of punishment – but that is not the world in which we currently live.

What is particularly humorous about the piece is the authors’ claim that Musk “has nurtured the rise of these accounts, frequently commenting on their posts and sharing their content,” while protecting them by employing a privacy policy “to ban people from exposing the identity of an anonymous user.”

However, this claim is also deceptive. Musk is the one who pioneered the Community Notes feature, and has even been corrected by those using the tool. If he was so intent on protecting those who peddle fake narratives, why would he have instituted the tool?

The reality is that the authors don’t seem to have a real problem with misinformation – as long as it’s coming from the left. There are seemingly endless examples of progressive news outlets and influencers pushing lies on social media. Some are anonymous, others are not. If these people actually cared about the spread of false information, they would criticize all of it, not just one side of the political divide. Unfortunately, this only ensures that the problem will persist. When folks only care about addressing fake news from one political side, there is no real way to come up with solutions.

See also:

The Facts Behind the Death of a Trans Student in Oklahoma Exposes the Activist Media, Once Again