#KeepItReal

Although they are not the producers of disinformation, social media platforms are often associated with current concerns around ‘fake news’. These platforms enable the dissemination of content - including disinformation - on a massive scale, thus amplifying the impact of potentially harmful disinformation.

Social media companies generate most of their income from selling online advertising, which means that they have a strong economic interest in keeping people on their platforms as much as possible: this is precisely the role of the personalised delivery of content served by algorithms.

Research shows that people are more likely to share disinformation because it is shocking, it sounds extraordinary or disturbing. Research also indicates that people may also share disinformation to reinforce their sense of belonging in online groups or communities. This means that disinformation is the sort of content that is likely to generate high income for social media.

In addition, in the online environment, users with the right knowledge can employ their technical skills to amplify disinformation through the use of a multiplicity of fake accounts and automated mechanisms (called “bots”).

Not really, but under international human rights law, government efforts to prevent harms that result from false information through legislation should always be precisely and narrowly written, to only apply in very specific situations to very specific types of expression. Free speech can only be restricted in very narrow circumstances identified by international human rights law. There are three conditions that must be met by any measure that seeks to restrict the circulation of information: there needs to be a clear and precise legal basis, there must be a legitimate aim, and the restriction must be necessary and proportionate. National laws that blanket prohibit broad and vague categories such as ‘fake news’ or “non-objective information” should always be abolished.

Governments do however have an obligation under international law to provide reliable and trustworthy information to the public.

While frequently demonised as spreaders of ‘fake news’, journalists and the media are also bound by standards to share accurate information. The professional ethical standards of journalism provide detailed guidelines on how to gather and communicate information in the public interest. Journalists have a responsibility to comply with high professional standards in order to produce accurate and reliable information. Press councils exist to ensure that the profession lives by the rules of accuracy of the information, independence of their work, fairness and impartiality, humanity and accountability. Provided that they have done their work according to such principles, journalists and the media should not be held liable if a minor inaccuracy or error is found in the information they publish.

Laws can legitimately protect the reputation of private individuals against lies that cause them harm. However, defamation laws are often misused by the powerful to silence critical voices by drowning media and journalists in long and costly legal proceedings – these are called SLAPPs (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation).

For more information on ethical standards in journalism, check the Ethical Journalism Network: https://ethicaljournalismnetwork.org/

Disinformation is a complex problem, and there is no simple fix for it. Countering disinformation through the restrictive legislation is really not the best approach to the problem. To combat the consequences of disinformation, we have to create an environment in which disinformation is less able to disrupt our public spaces and influence our view of truth. The best way to do this is by supporting an independent and diverse media, and increasing transparency. We need to build an environment in which people are able to access a diverse range of information. The wider the range of information people are exposed to, the better able they are to analyse and verify the accuracy of information.

Governments have an obligation under international human rights laws to foster an enabling environment for freedom of expression, which includes promoting, protecting and supporting diverse media, and ensuring that they disseminate reliable and trustworthy information, including about matters of public interest, such as the economy, public health, security and the environment.

This can be done in part by the creation of a strong, independent and adequately resourced public service media, which operate under a clear mandate to serve the overall public interest and to set and maintain high standards of journalism. Under international standards, public service media companies should be independent, publicly funded media houses that serve the public interest and pursue a series of objectives that would not be comprehensively fulfilled by private media actors.

States can also put in place a series of policy measures to increase citizens’ understanding of news, to foster quality journalism and trust in official sources.

And, of course, public officials should not disseminate disinformation themselves or seek to undermine trust in independent sources of information.

We live in a world where a big part of the population relies on social media as their main source of information. When social media companies make decisions on what content is allowed or not on their services, it has an impact on what a large number of us watch or read: such decisions may impact public debates.

Given their role in the dissemination of disinformation online, social media companies have tried different approaches to deal with disinformation:

• Fact checking: Some social media platforms, such as Facebook, work with external fact checkers to verify the truthfulness of contentious information. Content that is identified as false can then be labelled as such, in order to send a warning to users, it can be blocked or deleted or it can be downgraded. Facebook is not fact-checking ads, which has been controversial.
• Transparency is a fundamental principle to fight disinformation. It can be achieved by flagging content and its sources to enable users to better understand who is behind statements. The principle of transparency on social media platforms is particularly important for political advertisements, which should provide clarity on who is sending the message and on the criteria for targeting users; especially during elections.

Upgrading/downgrading content from official or trustworthy sources can be another tool that social media platforms use to stop disinformation. By upgrading trustworthy pages and downgrading unreliable ones, social media can help the dissemination of correct information. For example, in the current COVID-19 pandemic, some platforms have redirected users to official sources of information, such as to the national health service or government health advisory pages or to the World Health Organization.

While efforts by social media companies can be helpful, they aren’t a solution.

Social media companies use their community standards, rules which say what is allowed on their platforms, to make decisions on whether the content of a post should be removed or flagged – whether because of disinformation, or other reasons, such as incitement to violence, or nudity. Decisions on content are made by a combination of human judgement and algorithms, tasked with applying these rules to a vast range of content. Through the application of their content rules, these companies ultimately make the decision on what we can see and post on their platforms. Right now, there are very limited safeguards in place to check how content rules are being applied, and how social media companies are making decisions on content on their platforms. When it comes to disinformation, social media companies haven’t clarified enough what the process is when deciding what to flag or to remove from the platforms and rules that are currently applied do not entirely reflect international human rights standards.

So far, social media companies haven’t shown sufficient transparency on how decisions are taken in relation to content moderation and takedown on their platforms. Although they publish periodic transparency reports, the data provided is at times incomplete and does not give enough information on the decision making processes and policies applied. ARTICLE 19 is calling for more transparency and the right to appeal decisions that stifle the right to freedom of expression from social media companies through its #MissingVoices campaign. An appeal is not just about the substance of the content, but is a safeguard to protect the rights of a platform’s users. Essentially, it serves to protect everyone against arbitrary decision-making by social media companies in the enforcement of their content moderation policies.

So far, governments (and most recently the EU) have mostly tried to deal with disinformation on social media by pressuring social media companies to sort the problem themselves, under the threat of legal sanctions. However, this can result in increased censorship, and is taking place in the absence of clear and tangible commitments from social media companies that would translate into clear steps to counter online disinformation.

ARTICLE 19 wants to see the response in Ireland go one step further, and we are advocating for the establishment of a Social Media Council. This would be a self-regulatory mechanism – meaning a voluntary agreement that brings together the stakeholders of the social media sector with civil society and the public, to set up an independent, external body to support and promote ethical standards, through recommendations and the application of remedies, such as excuses, a right of reply, the publication of the decision in a relevant visible online space of the social media platform, or the re-upload of content.

This type of mechanism is inspired by the experience of press councils that would provide an open, transparent and accountable forum to address content moderation issues – such as disinformation – on social media platforms in Ireland, using international human rights law as a reference.

We believe the Irish Social Media Council, which would be the first initiative of its kind, could operate in complementarity and coordination with the future Media Commission, and would provide an excellent forum for an open a frank discussion of the appropriate response to disinformation on social media.