Barbara   08 Mar 2017   E-Diplomacy, Internet Governance

Printer Friendly and PDF

Discussions about fake news, ignited right after the US Presidential election in November 2016, have continued to dominate the public debate, as Internet companies increasingly face backlash over the spread of fake news on their platforms. Fake news has become a concern across time, regions, and the political spectrum, leaving many to wonder about its implications, spillover effects, and the role of ‘truth’ in today’s Internet era.



source: The Denver Post, 21 November 2016
 

1. A grave concern or a tool against free press?

The discussion on fake news has been made even more ambiguous and complex with the multiple uses of the concept in different kinds of discussions. This blogpost discusses the trend of misinformation on social media platforms that seem to have mushroomed throughout last year. In another context, U.S. President Trump has declared that ‘fake news’ is ‘the enemy of the American people’ and that ‘any negative polls are fake news’, giving rise to the emerging claim that some politicians and commentators have co-opted the term ‘to mean anything they disagree with’. This risks transforming the term fake news into something ‘essentially meaningless and more of a stick to beat the mainstream press with than a phenomenon in itself’. Yet, while these political figures might extensively exaggerate the phenomenon and point towards the wrong source, there are plenty of indications that fake news, generated and disseminated online, is a grave concern. Not because of its political undesirability, but because of the spread of factually incorrect information.

 

2. A new post-truth era or an age-old phenomenon?

Connected to the hype around fake news, some have suggested that we are living in a post-truth era, in which public opinion is shaped by emotions and personal perceptions rather than objective facts. The concept of ‘post-truth’ was even chosen as Oxford Dictionary’s ‘word of the year’ of 2016 as it was extensively used in the context of Brexit and the U.S. Presidential Election.


Source: Oxford Dictionaries


At first sight, fake news and post-truth might appear to be different phenomena: fake news is the presentation of false information as objective facts. Post-truth refers to the irrelevance of objective facts in shaping public opinion. Yet the two concepts are closely related: in an era in which personal feelings, perceptions, and beliefs seem to be the main factors in public decision-making, fake news arises to play into those feelings and confirm pre-existing perceptions with sensational headlines.

Historians are debating whether fake news is something inherently new about today’s society, or whether it is a continuation of the past. Many claim that fake news has always existed, pointing at antiquity, interwar Germany and Britain, or twentieth-century ideological struggles. Although the interests of certain actors to spread false information is as old as humanity, today’s society might be particularly prone to the reception of large quantities of false information.

The main difference between the past and the present is the advent of digital media. Online platforms have introduced the ability to disseminate news to millions of people in one click. Furthermore, these platforms are increasingly used by political and economic actors for ‘microtargeting’: direct marketing data-mining that tailors messages to subgroup of the society based on the information they provide on online platforms. In addition, as society is overloaded by information on the Internet, those articles that provide sensational highlight are often picked out and given most attention, while these are more likely to be false. These articles are not only cherry-picked by Internet users, but are also often prioritised by media platforms with algorithms that are based on user behavior, rather than what is factual. Moreover, this dissemination is arguably easier in an online environment that is loosely regulated, providing a more fertile breeding ground for fake news than ever before.

Finally, the spaces in which users interact online can become echo chambers, where we only meet like-minded people with like-minded views. The selection of both content and people based on their similarity to ourselves is not necessarily something new, yet the Internet could allow the force of the echo to become louder, and the walls to become thicker. While offline spaces form a more or less coherent media ecosystem in which we can choose our own news outlets from the selection available, online echo chambers have the tendency to produce multiple parallel media ecosystems comprised of their own websites, publishers, and news outlets, which reinforce one worldview and refute others, whether they are factual or not. In fact, the walls of these echo chambers can be so thick that ‘any misinformation spreads almost instantaneously within one group, and so segregated that it does not reach the other’.

 

3. An Anglo-Saxon frenzy or a global trend?

Most discussions about fake news have predominantly focused on its role in US politics or the British referendum on EU membership. Yet, although the initial uproar about fake news might have been generated by these processes in the USA and the UK, other countries are increasingly having to deal with their own fake news incidents.

In Europe, concerns have arisen over the fake media's potential to impact this year’s elections in France, Germany, and the Netherlands. Fake news has also entered the news ecosystems of a number of African countries, including Eritrea, Kenya, Nigeria, South Africa, and Zimbabwe, leading Nigerian Minister of Information and Culture, Alhaji Lai Mohammed, to claim that fake information ‘poses a greater threat than insurgency and militancy’. Similar fake news incidents have been reported in Iran and India. In Latin America, the Venezuelan government blocked CNN in Spanish, accusing it of spreading fake news.

 

4. A balanced response: A suppression of facts or a suppression of freedoms?

The natural first responders ‒ and most criticised actors ‒ are the platforms on which fake news is published or can spread. Filtering and suppressing content that could possibly contain false information risks infringing freedom of expression and might lead to a situation in which intermediaries are the arbiters of truth ‒ a role that Facebook’s CEO Mark Zuckerberg is ‘extremely cautious’ about. At the same time, fake news can lead to massive misinformation and adverse political consequences.



Source: Australian National Review


This delicate balance was also highlighted by Apple’s CEO Tim Cook, who explained that the tech sector should not be stepping on freedom of speech and freedom of the press, but we ‘
must also help the reader’.

Dealing with fake news begs another question: Is it realistic for Internet platforms to be able to filter through the millions of posts that are published on their platforms every day? Can artificial intelligence provide solutions for automatic filtering, as it has been suggested by the Internet industry?

Facebook’s and Google’s current approach is to flag fake news and to remove posts that are violating their terms of use or local regulations. In the midst of the US elections, Google introduced its Fact Check tag in October 2016, which has now been launched in Argentina, Brazil, France, Germany, and Mexico. The companies are also co-operating with French news organisations to introduce new fact-checking tools, while Facebook’s fake news filtering tools are being tested in Germany.

Several fact-checking initiatives have also been launched outside the realm of Internet companies. The EU established the East Stratcom Task Force to address ‘Russia’s ongoing disinformation campaigns’, and has discredited 2500 stories since its creation in June 2015. Similar initiatives have been implemented in Finland and the Czech Republic. Africa Check promotes accurate information in Africa’s public debates and media outlets.

In the UK, parliament is planning to launch an inquiry into fake news and the role of social media platforms, which are seen to ‘have a responsibility to ensure their platforms are not being used to spread malicious content’. The German government has taken concrete steps against fake news with an action plan that would make it easier to filter fake information from the Internet, protect victims of fake news, and fine Internet platforms that do not comply with the plan with a suggested figure of €500,000.

Nevertheless, questions remain whether such groups will have a meaningful effect when they are faced with the enormous amount of potentially falsified content that is being shared on social media platforms worldwide.

The key may be in awareness-raising and education. Apple CEO Tim Cook echoed an increasingly heard message, calling for ‘massive information campaigns’ targeting every demographic. South Africa’s Eyewitness News website implemented a fake news guide last month, alerting all visitors to its websites ‘Don’t fall victim to fake news!’ and in the USA, schools have tentatively started to adapt their curriculum towards better awareness of fake news and fact-checking.

Cambridge University’s innovative solution is to provide a fake news ‘vaccine’. Researchers propose ‘pre-emptively exposing’ readers to small bits of fake information, ‘to provide a cognitive repertoire that helps build up resistance to misinformation, so the next time people come across it they are less susceptible’.

 

 

Follow the latest developments on how stakeholders are tackling the issue of fake news, and how fake news is impacting digital policy, on our dedicated page on the GIP Digital Watch observatory.

Did you know that echo chambers can affect public diplomacy? Read the blog post here.

Interested in e-diplomacy? Join the course in May 2017. Stay tuned: DiploFoundation is finalising a new online course on fake news and disinformation.

Comments

  • Profile picture for user Ginger Paque
    Ginger Paque, 10/20/2020 - 03:47

    Excellent article, Barbara, thanks. While I agree with you that fake news has always existed, I think it has become more noticeable now because echo chamber walls are becoming MORE permeable, not less -- the narrowly-held inaccurate information discussed in small spaces is spreading out, being aired, tweeted, repeated, and challenged. While challenges and clarifications perpetuate the discussion, it's an important process. We cannot afford to let 'alternative facts' stand without examination, no matter who makes the statements, or who perpetuates them. Flexible truth cannot become the norm.

  • In reply to by Ginger Paque

    Profile picture for user Barbara
    Barbara, 10/20/2020 - 03:47

    Thank you for your insights, Ginger! It's good to hear that you feel that the echo chamber walls are becoming more permeable. I share your impression that the Internet allows us to disseminate our views, discuss, challenge information at a larger scale than ever before. However, I am afraid that these discussions are taking place in restricted circles; although these circles can permeate geographic and cultural boundaries, they still put us in touch with people who more or less have the same social views as we do. Or do you feel that filter bubbles are exaggerated phenomenon?

  • Profile picture for user Ginger Paque
    Ginger Paque, 10/20/2020 - 03:47

    You may be correct, Barbara, that the bubbles are not more permeable, but they are expanding then, as we tend to add keywords, not filter them out. So our bubble zones expand, overlapping more and more, exposing us to new ideas and concepts. The more that questionable foundations are reviewed and critiqued, the shorter their effective lives, and the less influence they have. To continue your analogy, I think that with effective airing and exposure, they will 'pop'.

  • Profile picture for user Katharina Hone
    Katharina Hone, 10/20/2020 - 03:47

    This is a great piece. There is so much here and I really appreciate the number of links for further reading. It's really a perfect overview of the debate. My comment takes a zoom-out perspective. What sometimes is forgotten in the debate is that truth and fact or not unmovable yardsticks against which we can compare 'the fake'. Many debates in the 80s and 90s tried to add sensitivity towards the danger that arises when something is declared as fact. When you declare 'a fact' it gives you power in a debate - who would want to question a fact after all? Yet, many things we once believed to be facts have turned out to be social constructions: extreme example include facts about the superiority of some races or facts about the superiority of one gender over the other. I think, once we take this into account, the debate gets even more complicated: to challenge fake news but to also question what appears as irrefutable facts.

  • In reply to by Katharina Hone

    Profile picture for user Barbara
    Barbara, 10/20/2020 - 03:47

    Thank you for putting the issue in perspective, Katharina! Indeed, the fake news discussion is generally quite 'binary': there is true news and there is fake news. However, what is being increasingly addressed in relation to these 'post-truth'-discussions is also society's ability to critically assess information. According to some, this is in serious decay. Whether this is a historical development or generated by a feeling of pre-digital nostalgia - I'm not sure. Nevertheless, if the post-truth discussion will move away from the true/false dichotomy and lead to efforts towards building an awareness for the need to think critically and check assumptions, the trend might actually generate some fruitful results!

Leave a Reply

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and email addresses turn into links automatically.
  • You may use [view:name=display=args] tags to display views.
CAPTCHA This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.