The Disinformation Detox

Context: Free speech in a digital age is possible despite the threat of information disorder. An SC judgment and a UNHRC report offer the way forward.

Difference between Disinformation and Misinformation:

• “Disinformation” is “false information disseminated intentionally to cause serious social harm”.
• In contrast, misinformation consists in “the dissemination of false information unknowingly”.

Two recent events on clampdown of free speech:

• The Supreme Court of India (SC) recently warned against any “clampdown” on “free speech”.
  • Now, the clampdown on information on social media or harassment caused to individuals seeking/delivering help on any platform will attract a coercive exercise of jurisdiction by the SC.
  • The SC reinforces past precedents enshrining the principle that abuse of public power may not unreasonably or arbitrarily curb the freedom of speech, press, and media platforms.
• The UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) Special Rapporteur Irene Khan submitted her report on “Disinformation and Freedom of Opinion and Expression”.

Compromised Freedom of speech:

• Disinformation: The UNHRC report speaks of “information disorder” that arises from disinformation which is “politically polarising, hinders people from meaningfully exercising their human rights, and destroys their trust in governments and institution.
• Disproportionate shutdowns: “Reactive content moderation efforts” are unlikely to make any worthwhile difference in the “absence of a serious review of the business model that underpins much of the drivers of disinformation and misinformation”.
  • Internet shutdowns do “not curb disinformation but, rather, hamper fact-finding and are likely to encourage rumours”.

Challenges due to the disinformation:

• Endangers the right to freedom of opinion and expression.
• Manipulates media ecosystem: It “poses a threat not only to the safety of journalists but also to the media ecosystem in which they operate” and forces the “legacy media to divert precious resources from reporting to dispelling and debunking lies”.
• Violent social excursion: Online disinformation also results in offline practices of violent social excursion on actually existing individuals and communities such as ethnic, gender, migrant, sexual minorities.

Factors responsible for disinformation:

• Use by extremists and terrorist groups: Frequently engage in the dissemination of “false news and narratives as part of their propaganda to radicalise and recruit members”.
• Digital transformation and competition from online platforms.
• State pressure and the absence of robust public information regimes.
• Low digital and media literacy among the general public.
• Societal crisis: Disinformation mongers enhance the “frustrations and grievances of a growing number of people”, “decades of economic deprivation, market failures, political disenfranchisement, and social inequalities”.
  • Disinformation is thus not the “cause but the consequence of societal crises and the breakdown of public trust in institutions”.
• Surveillance capitalism: A 2020 Oxford study of “Industrialised Disinformation” says -“81 governments” use “social media to spread computational propaganda and disinformation about politics”.
  • Despite Facebook and Twitter recently removing more than 3,17,000 accounts and pages, the “cyber troops” often act as “agents” of political parties and a tool of geopolitical influence.
  • Authoritarian countries like Russia, China and Iran capitalised on coronavirus disinformation to amplify anti-democratic narratives designed to undermine trust in health officials and government administrators.

Conclusion: Global platforms and  businesses need to “apply their policies consistently” or “uphold human rights in all jurisdictions to the same extent.