Search Results for: harms

The cost of misinformation

October 31, 2023

What is the cost of misinformation?

We know that there is a real societal cost associated with viral misinformation, but what price do purveyors pay to spread their messages?

It turns out, it is pretty cheap. according to a recent article in Fortune, “For as little as $7, TikTok users can garner thousands of views on TikTok, opening a low-cost pathway to spread propaganda on hot-button topics.” The article discusses a surge in social media misinformation triggered by the Middle East conflict.

In Canada, we have seen senior politicians spreading misinformation in poorly informed social media messages, with the Prime Minister, Foreign Minister and Minister of Innovation all implicating Israel in killing hundreds by bombing a Gaza hospital, when in fact the explosion was caused by a misfired terrorist rocket that didn’t hit the hospital.

It is shameful that none of these three senior politicians have deleted their posts or issued an online clarification. The closest we had was a late night post by Canada’s National Defense Minister (more than 4 days later), absolving Israel from blame. With nearly 7 million followers, the quick-to-tweet politicians didn’t have to pay for their false messages to go viral. The Prime Minister’s post has been viewed more than 2.6 million times, and it was reposted by more than 5,000 other users. The Foreign Minister’s post was seen more than 2.2 million times. By way of contrast, the Defense Minister has only 41,500 followers, less than 1% of the Prime Minister’s 6.5 million. By the time his post was issued, the damage was done.

So, how do we measure the cost of misinformation, especially when the misinformation is spread by people who are supposed to know better?

I have written about government regulation of online harms a number of times in the past. A few weeks ago, in “Regulating misinformation”, I asked “What should be the role of government in regulating misinformation?”

The article in Fortune indicates TikTok “has had its share of criticism for propagating problematic content. It has faced multiple lawsuits for surfacing suicide, self-harm and disturbing content to kids, leading to mental health consequences.”

The BBC writes that “TikTok and Meta have been formally told to provide the EU with information about the possible spread of disinformation on their platforms relating to the Israel-Gaza conflict.” Under the terms of the EU’s Digital Services Act, companies must respond by set deadlines.

Recently, the Government of Canada announced that it plans to move forward with a bill addressing “online hate speech and other internet-related harms.” The Government of Canada’s website on Online Safety says “Now, more than ever, online services must be held responsible for addressing harmful content on their platforms and creating a safe online space that protects all Canadians.”

How will the legislation deal with the possibility that the online harms originate with the government itself?

Regulating misinformation

October 10, 2023

What should be the role of government in regulating misinformation?

That is an important question being considered in Canada and around the world as governments seek solutions to online harms and the spread of misinformation. My own views on the subject have been evolving, as I wrote early this year.

As the Center for News, Technology and Innovation (CNTI) writes, “the credibility of information the public gets online has become a global concern. Of particular importance… is the impact of disinformation – false information created or spread with the intention to deceive or harm – on electoral processes, political violence and information systems around the world.”

It’s important to distinguish between “hate” and that which is “merely offensive”. We may not like encountering offensive content, but does that mean there should be legal restrictions preventing it? Readers have seen me frequently refer to Michael Douglas’ address in Aaron Sorkin’s “The American President“. “You want free speech? Let’s see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who’s standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours.”

My post in January referred to a Newsweek article in which Aviva Klompas and John Donohoe wrote:

The old saying goes, sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me. Turns out that when those words are propelled by online outrage algorithms, they can be every bit as dangerous as the proverbial sticks and stones.
…
When it comes to social media, the reality is: if it enrages, it engages… Eliciting outrage drives user engagement, which in turn drives profits.

But my views are also informed by years living in the United States, a country that has enshrined speech freedoms in its constitution.

As CNTI notes “Addressing disinformation is critical, but some regulative approaches can put press freedom and human rights at great risk.”

Ben Sperry provides another perspective in a paper soon to be published in the Gonzaga Law Review. “The thesis of this paper is that the First Amendment forecloses government agents’ ability to regulate misinformation online, but it protects the ability of private actors — ie. the social-media companies themselves — to regulate misinformation on their platforms as they see fit.”

The Sperry paper concludes that in the US, regulating misinformation cannot be government mandated. Government could “invest in telling their own version of the facts”, but it has “no authority to mandate or pressure social-media companies into regulating misinformation.”

So, if government can’t mandate how misinformation is handled, by what rights can social media companies edit or block content? The author discusses why the “state-action doctrine” protects private intermediaries. According to Sperry, the social media platforms are positioned best to make decisions about the benefits and harms of speech through their moderation policies.

He argues that social media platforms need to balance the interests of users on each side in order to maximize value. This includes setting moderation rules to keep users engaged. That will tend to increase the opportunities for generating advertising revenues.

Canada does not yet have the same history of constitutional protection of speech rights as the United States. However, most social media platforms used here are US tech companies. Any Canadian legislation regulating online misinformation is bound to attract concerns from the United States.

About a year and a half ago, Konrad von Finckenstein and Peter Menzies released a relevant paper for the MacDonald Laurier Institute. In “Social media responsibility and free speech: A new approach for dealing with ‘Internet Harms’” [pdf, 619KB], the authors say that Canada’s approach to date has missed the mark. “Finckenstein and Menzies note that the only bodies with the ability and legitimacy to combat online harms are social media companies themselves. What is needed is legislation that establishes a regime of responsibility for social media companies.” Their paper proposes legislation that would protect free expression online while confronting disinformation, unrestrained hate speech, and other challenges.

The UK Online Safety Bill is continuing to work its way through British Parliament.

Canada already has laws prohibiting the wilfull promotion of hate, as applied in a recent case in Quebec. In that case, a man was convicted of promoting hatred against Jews in articles written for the no-Nazi website, the Daily Stormer. He was sentenced to 15 months in jail with three years of probation.

Does Canada need to introduce specific online harms legislation?

What is the right approach?

These papers provide perspectives worth consideration by policy makers.

Online disinhibition effect

September 27, 2023

Online disinhibition effect is a term used by psychologists to refer to the tendancy by some who hide behind online anonymity to be nasty without fear of repercussions.

In the early days of my blog, there was a piece called “4 degrees of impersonal communications” in which I wrote:

people say things in emails that they would never say to someone over the phone. And, over the phone (especially in a voice message), we seem willing to speak in ways that one would never consider saying face-to-face.

I will add that people say things in anonymous comments on blogs that add a further dimension. Perhaps it is a sign of the indifference associated with mass anonymity.

On Sunday mornings, one of my rituals is to watch CBS Sunday Morning. A few weeks ago, I saw the show rebroadcast a segment from last year that reminded me of my earlier blog post.

In the segment, correspondent David Pogue spoke with professor Mary Aiken, a forensic cyber psychologist who shared four ways online conversations differ from in-person conversations:

  • First, we can see each other in real life, looking at visual cues, reading body language.
  • Second, online exchanges may not take place in real time, leading to the possibility that things are taken out of context or misinterpreted.
  • Third, most online discussions are public, meaning that the impact of insults have the potential to be amplified, increasing the impact, the shame and the pain.
  • Fourth, online anonymity means no repercussions for being mean, or hurtful.

“Add all this together and you get what psychologists call the online disinhibition effect.”

The segment refers to a report from Paladin Capital Group, “Towards a Safer Nation: The United States ‘Safety Tech’ Market” [pdf, 2.0MB].

A new sector, the online safety technology or ‘Safety Tech’ sector, which complements the existing cybersecurity industry is gaining prominence. This research report has found evidence of an emerging and thriving US Safety Tech sector that aims to deliver solutions to facilitate safer online experiences and protect people from psychological risks, criminal dangers and online harm. Importantly, Safety Tech innovations also have the capacity to protect people from the corrosive effects of misinformation, online harassment, discrimination, and extremism which increasingly threaten democracy and civil society.

What is the difference between cybersecurity and cyber safety? Binary; cybersecurity primarily focuses on protecting data, systems and networks; cyber safety or Safety Tech focuses on protecting people.

As the CBS correspondent says in the segment, “Never in the history of the internet has anyone’s mind been changed by being yelled at”.

As Canada’s Parliament considers legislation to address online harms, can technology help to address solutions? How do we separate the person from the idea?

Parliamentary committee failures

August 1, 2023

A British Parliamentary Committee has recently released a report discussing Digital Exclusion [pdf, 1.4MB] in the UK. The intent of the report was to call attention to the “political lethargy” in the UK that is undermining an ambition to make the UK a technology superpower.

However, the report was criticized as being “vague and superficial” in a commentary by Telecoms.com editorial director Scott Bicheno. He observed inconsistencies, such as a claim in the Committee’s press release that there are 7M households without broadband or mobile internet access. The report itself says the correct figure is 1.7M households. The report uses an Ofcom study that found 6% of UK households (which corresponds to 1.7M of the UK’s approximately 28M total households) had no internet connection, whether fixed or mobile. One can only presume the figure in the press release is just wrong, perhaps driven by a typo.

The Telecoms.com commentary concludes with a reference to the UK’s efforts to create an Online Harms bill. The article finishes with a bite. “If this clumsy legislation is anything to go by it seems the first focus for improving digital skills should be the government itself.”

Unfortunately, Canada’s Parliamentary Industry Committee (INDU) has not really distinguished itself with exemplary digital literacy as I have discussed many times in the past.

In my view, the parliamentary committee review process is broken. That view was also expressed last fall by University of Ottawa professor Michael Geist. Is there a better example than the Heritage Committee review of Bill C-18, the Online News Act?

Witnesses are frequently given too little time to provide meaningful responses to questions from Members of Parliament. Frequently, those questions seem designed mainly to create transcripts for campaign materials in the next election, hoping for a “gotcha” moment that can be editted into a partisan soundbite for Twitter or Facebook.

It is interesting to see that the UK parliamentary committee report on Digital Exclusion can be as poorly crafted as some INDU reports I have critiqued here in Canada (eg. this one). Indeed, it is sad that so little illumination seems to emerge from so many committee review processes.

As Professor Geist wrote, “I don’t have any obvious solutions. The reality is probably that unless Ministers prioritize accountability and MPs show some independence, nothing will change.” On that note, it has been just over 2 years since I highlighted CRTC funding of a purveyor of hate. The Department of Canadian Heritage ignored warnings until the story went viral. No one has been held accountable. Not one dollar has been recovered. The Heritage Committee review of the case resulted in no report, no admonishments, no accountability. The Ministers responsible for the funding, Rodriguez and Hussen, have retained seats at the Cabinet table.

Of course, there have been exceptions where Committee review created better legislation. The Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration recently concluded a productive review of Bill S-245, “An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (granting citizenship to certain Canadians)”. But, the Committee review process there was nearly derailed by partisan filibustering.

The Parliamentary Committee review process is currently broken.

Why are some committee reviews more productive than others? Why has such success been the exception, not the rule?

Will increased digital engagement drive increased partisan polarization or less?

Mid-term report

June 12, 2023

As we approach the Canada Day holiday weekend, it is an appropriate time to pause for a mid-term report on the top posts so far this year.

These are the blog posts that attracted the greatest viewership so far.

The most viewed post in the first half of the year was from late 2022. Most of the top viewed articles in the mid-term report are from March or earlier; only one is from the past 5 weeks.

Which subjects are of the greatest interest to you? Which articles have you forwarded to a friend or colleague?

Scroll to Top