Technology is everywhere in our modern world—and that’s a good thing. Tech facilitates payments, allows long-distance communications and connects people. But it also jeopardizes democracy. Democracy today grapples with a new problem: social media disinformation.
Spread of disinformation—otherwise known as propaganda—is not a new phenomenon. In antiquity, Persian emperor Darius I propagandized to justify his rise to power and discredit political enemies. The Romans did the same, especially throughout the war of Mark Anthony and future emperor Octavian. During World War I the US government established the Creel Committee, run by propaganda artist Edward Bernays, in order to promote a pro-war public opinion. The French even had a name for this sort of World War I propaganda: “bourrage de crâne”, translated roughly as “brain stuffing”.
Today disinformation, the manipulation of information for ideological reasons, makes a comeback through the medium of social media. Freedom House, a think-tank, reports that in 2017 internet freedom—the presence of diverse, free opinions on the internet—declined for the seventh consecutive year. The same report suggests that in 18 countries deceit and disinformation played important roles in 2017 elections. Authoritarian regimes—such as China, Venezuela, Iran, and Russia—were notable contributors to the decline of internet freedom. Yet democracies were involved as well.
In the Philippines, now-president Rodrigo Duterte was supported by a paid “keyboard army” that spread propaganda in his favor during the country’s elections. France saw the shutdown of thousands of fake Facebook accounts spreading lies before its election in 2017. Hyper-partisanship and Russian intervention played a significant role in pervading disinformation during the 2016 American election.
Disinformation is dangerous for democracy. Not only does it suppress internet freedom by pushing ideologies, but it also puts democracy fundamentally at risk: how can one vote consciously and reasonably if facts are quashed? How can electors make choices best for the nation if rationality is destroyed? And will their beliefs matter if one specific ideology is dominant over all others—especially if that belief is not based on fact but feeling?
Evidently we need to save democracy’s caretaking of debate and diversity of opinions by fighting disinformation. Yet even solutions are plagued by partisanship and rarely please everyone. Some argue any censorship of media violates free speech, and that therefore it should be illegal. Others wish to see increased censorship—but to what extent? Striking a balance between conserving freedom of speech and eliminating lies and propaganda is easier said than done.
In order to solve this ongoing issue, the populace must come to terms with certain realities. First, if we are to fight disinformation there must be a consensus on what constitutes opinions and what is fake news. An opinion, if based on fact and logic, is not propaganda. Many reputable journals and magazines hold an editorial line—a sort of general thesis throughout their essays and articles. The New York Times, for example, generally holds a left-of-center editorial line, meaning they mostly defend leftist principles and causes (e.g. free healthcare, environmentalism…). Nevertheless, it promotes its principles through fact-checking and structured arguments. That is not fake news: the magazine does not impose a belief by lying; it defends one through logic.
Second, social media platforms—such as Facebook, Twitter, and Reddit—must understand the immense power they wield on peoples’ opinions, and thus regulate false content on their platforms in order to avoid spreading of disinformation. The Rohingya genocide in Myanmar—the persecution of Muslims by the Burma government—was exacerbated by viral fake news on Facebook. Toxic content was likewise permeated throughout the 2016 election. The US government must force Facebook as an American-registered company to curtail false information as to avoid these nefarious consequences—for domestic as well as international safety.
Third, the government—and the president or leader in particular—must set an example of proper conduct for the country to follow. If the leader of the nation blatantly lies, the consequences and gravity of such wrongdoing are greatly undermined. That means there needs to be maximum transparency in regards to government foreign and domestic policy. The American government should have, for example, detailed the horrid conditions of detained illegal immigrants as to clarify the situation and avoid the spread of lies (instead it sought to downplay its wrongdoing). Additionally in the case of the US, Donald Trump should revise his tweets before making them. Politifact, a fact-checking website, found only 31% of his statements to be true, with the remaining 69% considered either “half-true”, “pants on fire” (meaning completely wrong) or “false”.
Lastly, an exchange of opinions between the left and right is needed to separate truth from fiction. Not only is such an exchange enriching by encouraging intellectual diversity, but it allows right-wingers to differentiate between real leftist opinions and fake ones, and vice-versa. This should raise awareness about disinformation—boosting support for anti-disinformation policies— and weaken its effects by demonstrating the chasm between fact and prejudice.
As with every new and groundbreaking technology, humanity must adapt to its ramifications. Social media is not a weapon the same way a gun is, but it can be just as dangerous through spreading disinformation. Democracy, it is time for you to adapt to this new world. Just do it quickly.