Digital media has few answers to fake news

Ever since the US presidential election highlighted the vulnerability of digital channels to purveyors of “fake news,” the debate over how to counter disinformation has not gone away. And if there is one thing that the search for solutions has made clear, it is that there is no silver bullet.

Instead of one comprehensive fix, what is needed are steps that address the problem from multiple angles. The modern information ecosystem is like a Rubik’s Cube, where a different move is required to “solve” each individual square. When it comes to digital disinformation, at least four dimensions must be considered. First, who is sharing the disinformation? Disinformation spread by foreign actors can be treated very differently than disinformation spread by citizens, particularly in the US, with its unparalleled freespeech protections and relatively strict rules on foreign interference.

Second, why is the disinformation being shared? “Misinformation” — inaccurate information that is spread unintentionally — is different from disinformation or propaganda which are spread deliberately. Preventing well-intentioned actors from unwittingly sharing false information could be addressed, at least partly, through news literacy campaigns or fact-checking initiatives. Stopping bad actors from purposely sharing such information is more complicated.

Third, how is the disinformation being shared? If actors are sharing content via social media, changes to platforms’ policies and/or government regulation could be sufficient. But such changes must be specific.

For example, to stop bots from being used to amplify content artificially, platforms may require that users disclose their real identities (though this would be problematic in authoritarian regimes where anonymity protects democracy advocates). To limit sophisticated microtargeting — the use of consumer data and demographics to predict individuals’ interests and behaviours, in order to influence their thoughts or actions — platforms may have to change their datasharing and privacy policies, as well as implement new advertising rules.

This is a kind of arms race. Bad actors will quickly circumvent any changes that digital platforms implement. New techniques — such as using blockchain to help authenticate original photographs — will continually be required. But there is little doubt that digital platforms are better equipped to adapt their policies regularly than government regulators are.

Yet, digital platforms cannot manage disinformation alone, not least because, by some estimates, social media account for only around 40 per cent of traffic to the most egregious “fake news” sites, with the other 60 per cent arriving “organically” or via “dark social” (such as messaging or e-mails). These pathways are difficult to manage.

The final — and perhaps the most important — dimension of the disinformation puzzle is: what is being shared? Experts tend to focus on “fake” content, which is easier to identify. But digital platforms naturally have incentives to curb such content, simply because people generally do not want to look foolish by sharing altogether false stories.

People do, however, like to read and share information that aligns with their perspectives; they like it even more if it triggers strong emotions — especially outrage.

Such content is not just polarising; it is often misleading and incendiary, and there are signs that it can undermine constructive democratic discourse. But where is the line between dangerous disagreement based on distortion and vigorous political debate driven by conflicting worldviews?

Even if these ethical questions were answered, identifying problematic content at scale confronts serious practical challenges. Many of the most worrisome examples of disinformation have been focused not on any particular election or candidate, but instead on exploiting societal divisions along, say, racial lines. And they often are not purchased. As a result, they would not be addressed by new rules to regulate campaign advertising, such as the Honest Ads Act that has been endorsed by Facebook and Twitter.

With the right insights, and a commitment to fundamental, if incremental change, the social and political impact of digital platforms can be made safe for today’s beleaguered democracies.

Digital platforms cannot manage disinformation alone because social media account for only around 40 per cent of traffic to egregious “fake news” sites