Dealing with disinformation
What is the best approach for governments to be dealing with disinformation?
Before the holidays, I asked if more sophisticated content consumers would help Canada avoid the need to implement online harms restrictions? Can investment in improved digital literacy be effective?
An article in Financial Times by Bellingcat founder Eliot Higgins argues that “education, not regulation, is the answer.”
As the digital realm’s challenges mount, calls for state-led intervention grow louder. Governments across the world, alarmed by the implications of unbridled platforms, are contemplating regulatory measures to curb the spread of disinformation. But while the intent might be noble, the journey towards state-mediated truth is rife with complexities.
…
The potential for governmental over-reach is clear. While democratic nations might employ regulations with a genuine intent to combat falsehoods, the same tools could be weaponised by authoritarian regimes to suppress dissent, curtail freedoms and consolidate power. Russia, China, Iran and Venezuela could even use western states’ attempts at countering disinformation as a pretext to justify their own draconian censorship and control of the internet. In such contexts, the line between combating misinformation and controlling narratives becomes precariously thin. The risk? A digital space where genuine discourse is stifled under the guise of regulatory oversight.
He warns that government interventions could “inadvertently exacerbate the very problem they aim to solve.”
“If people perceive these interventions as mere tools to control narratives rather than genuine efforts to combat disinformation, public trust could erode further.”
How do we combat misinformation without impeding digital freedoms? Education is the key.
In short, combat misinformation with good information and training how to distinguish between good and bad. Dealing with disinformation requires investment in education.
Addressing the root causes of disinformation requires a grassroots approach. Education stands at the forefront of this strategy. The idea is simple yet transformative: integrate open-source investigation and critical thinking into the curriculum. Equip the youth with the skills to navigate the labyrinthine digital realm, to question, analyse and verify before accepting or sharing information.
…
The potential of such a grassroots movement doesn’t stop at school gates. Envision a world where universities become hubs of open-source investigation, with national and international networks of students sharing methodologies, tools and insights. As these students move into their professional lives, they carry forward not just skills but a mindset — one that values evidence over hearsay and critical thinking over blind acceptance.
Higgins suggests media organisations could form partnerships with university-level, creating “pop-up newsrooms and investigative collectives.”
Such an approach is by no means easy. It will require a collaboration between policymakers, news media, technology leaders, educators, and academic institutions. Implicit is a greater degree of difficulty than we have typically seen emerging from Canada’s digital policy framework. But there is a certain degree of urgency associated with getting started.
In late December, Statistics Canada reported that nearly half of all Canadians found it more difficult to distinguish between true and false information than it was three years earlier.
Let me leave you with a final quote from Higgins: “In a world where any information, regardless of its veracity, is readily accessible, the traditional educational paradigm could be upended. Historical revisionism, fuelled by falsehoods, could reshape collective memories. How does one teach critical thinking in an environment where facts are fluid?”
