Misinformation and Free Expression

How should society—including social media corporations and governments—respond to the dangers of misinformation (i.e., about coronavirus) whilst also appreciating the importance of free expression? 

The world we live in is now dominated by information that is mostly served through social media and news feeds with their ‘Top 10’ covers, status updates, news feeds, comment chains, political advocacy, and omnipresent reviews, rankings, and ratings. As the world turned increasingly digital during the pandemic, social media kept us connected and provided an unrestricted space where divergent views, ideas, and interactions could be constructively converged. The internet has evolved into a complex and intricate environment with an unprecedented reach to anything at the touch of a button. And, whilst there are benefits to the infinite opportunities offered, this exposure can often mould beliefs and opinions for the better or worse while blurring the lines between what is true and what isn't. It must be noted, though, that not all the information that is provided to us was accurate. Misinformation is false or misleading information, spread without intent to harm in contrast to disinformation which is made with malicious intent. Information today is rapidly distributed via a variety of platforms, such as popular social media sites like Facebook, WhatsApp, and video sharing sites like YouTube. Unfortunately, social media has aided in making fake news proliferate due to their influential impact assisted by algorithmics catering to every individual's preference. In this essay, I examine the challenges we face due to the spread of misinformation and the relationships between such dissemination and the actions taken by the government and social media companies, arguing whether this intervention is necessary and, if so, justified. This essay will examine the potential problems that may occur during the intervention and how to deal with these issues in society, especially when misinformation is a potentially harmful component.

One of the most detrimental effects of misinformation is that it leads people into believing falsities, hence, significantly altering peoples’ views. It can confuse and easily manipulate citizens while simultaneously furthering political or social agendas. The issue has been further exacerbated due to social media and the instantaneous responses in digesting, engaging, and amplifying the information that we receive. On top of that it erodes the trust between institutions, communities, and the government. The COVID-19 pandemic was a ‘once in a century’ crisis that ravaged nations with economic gloom and despair, and unfortunately misinformation regarding the virus was seen to be equally as infectious. 

This prevented many from getting vaccinated - posing a threat to their own lives and that of several others. This clearly highlights the detrimental effect misinformation has played on people's lives - especially if it alters their decisions regarding personal health based on apocryphal news.

Irrespective of the prevalence of fake news, objections were raised at that point regarding the freedom of communication as it is a fundamental human right which any form of censorship evidently violates. Therefore, any restrictions imposed on the dissemination of fake news are a violation of human rights. Any form of censorship violates the fundamental freedom of thought, right to privacy and most importantly right to hold impressions without interference. Counter-misinformation initiatives are crucial to protect the beliefs of society and democracy however it is a double-edge as it interferes with maintaining a free democratic society. This trade-off can inadvertently compromise rights while censoring content to protect people from misinformation.

Social media companies worldwide have attempted to stop the rampage of misinformation, for example. as part of its "Tatmadaw True News Information Team," the Myanmar military published doctored or mislabelled photographs related to the Rohingya crisis. The accounts of this team were eventually blocked by Facebook for spreading hate speech. A social media giant, Facebook has been taking down inauthentic accounts as well as tightening policies on content moderation, but the guidelines have been vague, and the attempts have been driven by public backlash.

Nevertheless, there is always a question posed regarding the government's motives for battling misinformation, as some of their initiatives that are less overtly propagandistic or opportunistic raise concerns about their independence and integrity. For example, when such units are embedded in government information offices or services, they are not well-positioned to act as an independent fact-checking voice, although it is a good idea to ensure that such offices have internal protocols to keep from disseminating disinformation, they might run a risk of preserving government propaganda. India’s Press Information Bureau established a fact-checking unit in 2019 which initially focused on news about the government, raising concerns about such a unit serving primarily to defend the government’s reputation. Little information has been made available about how decisions labelling information as false are made in this unit which again raises flags due to the lack of transparency and accountability.

Regardless, when governments impose these restrictions, these risks imposing severe penalties on those who share inaccurate information without even being aware of doing so, or who have limited capacity to conduct fact-checking, which is clearly disproportionate. In order to protect the interests of the government, these decisions often curtail the fundamental rights of citizens. When content is moderated it may be politically motivated in order to shape the public's opinion and completely undermine the power of electoral systems which is an indispensable democratic pillar. They can choose to hold back information or even further propel false information. For example, Aljazeera reported that social media companies were being accused of silencing Kashmiri voices, wherein Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram were accused of taking down accounts of Kashmiris. The government had also blocked the internet and telecommunications from the region.

Governments have attempted to repress the spread of misinformation via legislative means, in India the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act is an Indian Law aimed at the prevention of unlawful activities in India. Its main objective was to make powers available for dealing with activities directed against the integrity and sovereignty of India. However, with the rise of the BJP government, many social activists were arrested under this act and accused of spreading disharmony and sedition. Legislative measures such as these will aid in filtering fallacious and inaccurate information, but the issue is so widespread that it needs to be deal with from the bottom up.

Censorship has been social media companies' primary tool in controlling the spread of misinformation; however, restricting the behaviour of free persons in liberal societies is always something that needs to be justified, and how strong the justification needs to be will depend on what and who is being restricted. As private companies, social media platforms are allowed to decide what kind of content they tolerate. However, this view overlooks important aspects of the problem. 

In order to achieve a middle ground, it is vital for intermediaries to develop clear and precise standards that identify what content may be subject to measures, including measures to combat disinformation by keeping in mind that these policies safeguard human rights. There have been responses driven by artificial intelligence and automation to filter the information however it might not always be the best step. Irrespective of how seamless and efficient artificial intelligence is with its two-step credibility and veracity assessment it will always be subject to unconscious bias by the designer of the system. The key to ensuring counter-misinformation measures by platforms and governments are conducted pragmatically is to maintain the utmost transparency. This transparency must include documents with orders or requests from users or the government and the actions carried out following that. A transparent process increases accountability of human rights violations and lays out a clear methodical manner in how the issue has been tackled without subject to any bias or obstruction of human rights.

The balance between regulation and freedom of speech will always be a delicate one but once again it is essential to find an equilibrium that doesn’t cross any boundaries while confronting the problem of misinformation. Misinformation is a complex multifaceted problem that is evolving as rapidly as social media is, and it is vital that it is handled in a way where the freedom of speech is not obstructed and social media platforms keep their ethos intact but still find policies to filter content While this remains a long-standing debate we as individuals and recipients of such misinformation should also develop a critical attitude towards the information we receive. It is imperative that the use of the Internet, including a critical attitude towards information, is inculcated. Among other things, general responses to tackling misinformation should be taken by schools and universities by aiming to introduce classes that address these topics in their curricula as well as do more research to increase understanding of the issue of misinformation in social media, as well as how it impacts society. Independent fact checking and reporting must be encouraged right from the local level. One should also be able to determine whether one should share particular science news stories or medical advice and be aware of the limitations of scientific research. People need to exercise discretion regarding what they share and read, news in this day and age simply cannot be regarded as absolute or unchangeable.