NCF Resesearch Officer Sam Lewis argues that the most important way to combat misinformation is by reframing the law in a way that conceptualises social media companies as having more agency. This would allow attempts to tackle misinformation to place more focus on how it is being spread. This preserves freedom of speech rights by making the law not focus on what people are allowed to say but instead on how platforms popularise false and harmful ideas.
Content posted on social media is causing violence around the world. Everywhere from Britain to India, misinformation has caused riots, lynching and countless unnecessary deaths. Despite the pressing nature of this issue current attempts to handle misinformation are reactive rather than proactive. When misinformation fuelled violence has occurred governments have simply prosecuted those involved and, in the most extreme cases, turned off the internet during the violence.
This may seem to be an inevitable compromise to ensure that free speech rights are protected. At first glance a more active approach to tackling misinformation may appear to encroach on people’s right to a free and open discourse. Any government’s attempt to regulate this discourse therefore runs the risk of overreaching its authority over its citizens.
Are Social Media Companies Neutral Platforms?
Whilst this concern is something that should be taken seriously, it is wrong to view the issue of misinformation so simply. Social media platforms are not just the means by which people can have free and open discourse. These platforms have an agenda and present their users with highly curated information. The platforms’ algorithms are designed to retain attention, often by promoting deliberately provocative content. These algorithms in turn create the echo-chambers which are essential for misinformation to thrive.
It is not just that people use social media to spread misinformation, these platforms are actively promoting it. This is particularly alarming given who owns of these platforms. For example, X’s Elon Musk has repeatedly called for the overthrowing of democratically elected governments (such as the UK). There should therefore be serious concern about whether Musk uses X to create civil unrest in these countries. This line between the platform and its content has become even more blurred since social media sites have offered their own AI services (for instance X’s Grok). These platforms should not be viewed as neutral forums which individual actors have been using to spread misinformation. Instead they are sites that are specifically curated to spread misinformation and create civil unrest.
The Legal Issue
The current response to misinformation is not a mere compromise made to maintain the principles of free speech. It is instead a reflection of the failings of current digital regulations. The current trend in digital regulation is to perceive social media companies as neutral platforms. Legislation in India, the UK and EU uses deliberately neutral phrases to label these platforms such as ‘network providers’, ‘user-to-user services’ and ‘intermediary services’. Doing so creates a separation between these platforms and the content that is posted on them. The means that any attempt to tackle misinformation focuses on the content and not the platforms. A clear example of this is seen in India where the government has recently proposed applying a ‘code of ethics’ to users who post news information.
Attempts to tackle misinformation must therefore focus on the nature of the content and not the platforms that are advertising them. This would allow attempts to tackle misinformation to place more focus on how it is being spread. This method also preserves freedom of speech rights by making the law not focus on what people are allowed to say but instead on how platforms popularise false and harmful ideas. This will therefore allow governments to take more preventative measures to tackle misinformation whilst ensuring that peoples’ freedom of speech is protected.
The Next Steps
We are beginning to see examples of lawmakers placing more of a focus on the platforms and not the users. Australia has recently banned under 16s from social media platforms. This appears to be the beginning of a trend with similar plans being put forward in the likes of Malaysia and Denmark. Meanwhile, the EU has used its Digital Services Act to sue X for the their misleading use of blue ticks and the UK is attempting to use the Online Safety Act to tackle the issue of platform’s AI services.
Whilst these are all positive steps this idea is still in its infancy. Most importantly the steps being taken are uncoordinated. Some governments are attempting to implement reforms whilst others are testing the potential limits of their current legislation. Governments should certainly continue with these experiments but there must also be a global rethink of the threat posed by social media platforms. There must be a more coordinated effort in tackling the threat of misinformation, one that focuses on the platforms and not the users.
Image above by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay
