state-affiliated_media_label
Table of Contents
'State-affiliated media' label
A 'state-affiliated media' label, alternatively known as a 'state-controlled media' label or 'state-funded media' label, is a controversial label that platform(s) may use to denote accounts as state media. It initially started with YouTube in 2018,1) then spread in 20202)3) and worsened.
Background information
In the aftermath of Facebook's Cambridge Analytica data scandal boosting conservative campaigns, the tech industry became heavily scrutinized, not for its political origins,4) but for its impact on politics. Several politicians were quick to escalate this as a 'national security' issue, blaming their real-world shortcomings over allegations of foreign electoral interference, rather than go through any periods of reflection.
As a response, YouTube added state-funded media labels in 2018, which were so incredibly *thorough* that even Radio Free Asia had a label.5) However, the same can't be said for companies that allow national security consultants to suggest copying it, but selectively enforce this onto state media from countries deemed antagonistic to the United States (e.g. China, Russia, Iran),6)7)8) showing its bias.
Analysis and criticisms
On the surface, the labels simply allow users to recognize whether a post was from 'state media' and provide an opportunity for users to scrutinize others for interacting with said media, while allowing the companies to hype themselves up for 'finding a solution' and the state to protect its own interests. However, its often selective implementation has caused a number of possible consequences to surface, detailed below.
Defining 'state media'
The first issue is that 'state media' is an incredibly broad label. Who gets to define 'state media', and how is it applied? If the state defines it, wouldn't it be counterintuitive to declare what sources are, what some would describe as a 'thoughtcrime' or 'wrongthink', enabling a reverse psychology effect? People also forget their own state often has state media,9) thus the 'state media with extra steps' angle.
Recently, there has been efforts to help define the nuances between 'state media' and 'public media', such as the Media and Journalism Research Center's seven-category matrix that factors in funding, governance, and editorial control. Of course, don't overlook the fact that every media outlet, including 'independent' ones, is capable of pushing propaganda, which is part of a much bigger issue regarding objectivity.
Reverse psychology effect
The second issue is that these labels ironically enable a reverse psychology effect, so users who normally wouldn't engage with said content might feel inclined. After all, some people don't like being told what to do. However, it's ultimately up to the individual if they want to virtue signal like sheep, or simply engage with the other side to get a 'different perspective' and draw their own conclusions.10)
Besides, if somebody was smart enough to understand that propaganda doesn't work as long as somebody is willing to hear the other side, knowing propagandists work hard to push the 'us vs. them' dichotomy and typically ban outlets to impede people from drawing their own conclusions, then you would think that they might be smart enough to find a workaround11) or put these ideas into words, don't you think?
Fighting with who?
The final issue is that it takes a lot of energy to willingly confront people or get into arguments on the internet, especially when you know it'll probably be a colossal waste of time when it's more likely that one would be confronting: an internet troll, a non-genuine social persona, or a social bot posing as an internet troll, which is especially popular amongst subscribers of the dead internet theory.
I'd also like to highlight Facebook's attempts to spin the labels as a 'positive' change,12)13) knowing that their real name policy essentially throws users into this psychological, no-win hostage situation, where they either must conform (i.e. groupthink) or risk ostracization (i.e. cancel culture) for being themselves. In other words, small things like this contribute to the ongoing political polarization crisis.
Notable affected platforms
- Instagram - since October 5th, 2020.17)
See also
1)
, 5)
, 14)
"Greater transparency for users around news broadcasters" (February 2, 2018). YouTube Blog.
4)
It is important to remember that the tech industry has 'reactionary' origins because it had to rely on financial institutions and military funding, thus why it upholds the bourgeois status quo, then you had petite bourgeois hobbyists transforming the scene into this libertarian status quo amalgamation. This is how you get those nerds that preach about a technocratic utopia, including cryptocurrency and 'apolitical' AI solutions.
6)
, 12)
"Facebook’s ‘state-controlled media’ labels appear to reduce engagement" (August 23, 2023). Engadget.
7)
, 13)
"Meta says Chinese, Russian influence operations are among the biggest it's taken down" (August 29, 2023). NPR.
8)
"Russia, China, Iran state media see boost on X after removal of ‘state-affiliated’ labels" (September 26, 2023). The Hill.
10)
That being said, I don't recommend doing this with Russian state media, not for the usual reasons, but it's because I find them intentionally confusing, contradictory, and syncretic (i.e. not communist) as a way to instill apathy into its readers. It might be useful for dissecting Eurasianism or Nazbolism, or trying to find news about multipolarity, but it's mostly just another flavor of conservative news.
11)
I mean, the internet has a number of web archival projects, and a URL shortening service can easily be established to *temporarily* circumvent artificial labels or bans that may be in place.
17)
"Instagram starts labeling ‘state-controlled media’ accounts and posts" (October 5, 2020). Engadget.
18)
"TikTok's state-affiliated media policy" (January 18, 2023). TikTok Newsroom.
state-affiliated_media_label.txt · Last modified: 2025-04-29 22:38:23 by namelessrumia