Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter.
Our duty as citizens includes combatting pandemic's digital disinformation
The digital age, like the age of the printing press, has transformed our modes of social interaction — our reading and writing habits and methods of communication and consumption. It is also disrupting long-standing institutions, threatening old hierarchies of knowledge and power.
The benefits of this transformation are manifest. But the near universal availability of information also brings certain dangers. One is the prevalence of disinformation online, and the attendant challenge of discriminating between reliable and unreliable information.
Both the need for reliable information and the dangers of disinformation have been thrown into sharp relief by the novel coronavirus pandemic.
The prevalence of disinformation online about the virus — its nature, origins, effects and possible treatments — is not merely anecdotal. Ongoing research allows us to identify, quantify and track digital disinformation, which are necessary first steps in helping address the problem.
So what, exactly, is digital disinformation? And how extensive is it, especially during this ongoing public health crisis?
When inaccurate information is spread intentionally, mainly by malicious actors, that is called disinformation. When inaccurate information is spread unintentionally, often by someone sharing a fake news story without realizing it, that is called misinformation. Since it's often difficult or impossible to determine if a sender knows the information is inaccurate, it's convenient to refer to all such inaccurate information as "digital disinformation."
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
During the pandemic, disinformation has overwhelmed the digital environment. There are hundreds of different disinformation stories circulating worldwide — significantly more than during past crises. Much of this disinformation is being spread by non-human actors referred to as "bots." Bots are used to support influence campaigns so the same disinformation is seen in many venues. According to research from Carnegie Mellon's Center for Informed Democracy & Social - cybersecurity (IDeaS), approximately two-thirds of users spreading fake stories on Twitter are bots. Oftentimes the disinformation is spread by providing a link to a website, a YouTube video or a meme.
Digital disinformation can be harmless or even humorous; take a look at the popular images of swans and dolphins returning to the canals of Venice thanks to social distancing. But it can also be lethal. One popular story touts drinking bleach as a cure for coronavirus. Many digital disinformation stories promote such fake preventions and cures, while others provide inaccurate descriptions of the nature of the virus or the emergency procedures taken by governments to respond to it.
And of course, there are well-known conspiracy theories, such as the one suggesting the virus was manufactured as a bioweapon.
Disinformation campaigns often target minority groups or vulnerable populations, such as senior citizens. But no one is immune. Various members of the public, from celebrities to politicians, often unwittingly consume and share disinformation online. To err in this way is human, of course, but it can have devastating consequences. When it's not deadly, disinformation often provokes fear, anger and polarization.
Governments and private-sector businesses around the world are exploring different strategies to deal with the problem. The European Union employs data scientists to combat disinformation and has insisted that private-sector actors do the same. For their part, social media platforms and internet companies are addressing disinformation by removing posts and videos that are blatantly false or harmful, providing easy access to accurate information or promoting trustworthy sources.
Still, it's not always easy to discern what is accurate or true. Computational social science can help develop methods to identify disinformation and counter it, including techniques to help us read more critically. But these scientific methods must put humans first. Purely artificial intelligence solutions are likely to fail, as there is often a fine line between what is disinformation and what is not.
Human judgment has to play a role.
Ultimately, resilience will depend on an active citizenry. As information consumers, each of us should evaluate information critically: Be skeptical of cures or preventions that sound too good, or government action that sounds draconian or otherwise implausible. Be careful what stories you share online, especially if you know they contain disinformation. Even seemingly innocuous or funny memes can contribute to the spread of disinformation. In other words, exercise good judgment.
We often think of disinformation as something that affects the "public," usually exempting ourselves or those in positions of power. However, just as we are all the beneficiaries of digital information, we are all potential victims of disinformation.
Digital technology certainly allows for greater access to information and more creative and flexible ways to integrate it into our social and political institutions. That does not diminish, but only intensifies, the need to be able to sift through information and judge the good from the bad.
No one is totally immune to confirmation bias or human error, and that includes both policymakers and those who have cultivated deep expertise. This makes it all the more important that all of us — the politicians, the experts and non-experts alike — cultivate the skills needed to discern genuine information from its counterfeit.
- How disinformation could sway the 2020 election - The Fulcrum ›
- Twitter adds tool to report falsehoods about U.S. elections - The ... ›
- Census Bureau opens unique office to fight disinformation - The ... ›
- Huge partisan divide on attitudes toward media, study finds - The Fulcrum ›
- Disinformation emerging as a major threat to 2020 election - The Fulcrum ›
- Disinformation: remain calm and do not spread - The Fulcrum ›
- Disinformation spreaders should be barred from public office - The Fulcrum ›
- Warning labels didn't halt spread of Trump's misinformation - The Fulcrum ›
- Hey, journalists. Does the public trust you? - The Fulcrum ›
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter.
"The imbalance of knowledge between Congress and executive agencies leads to an imbalance of power and vice versa," writes M. Anthony Mills.
Congress’ knowledge deficit renders it powerless
Mills is associate vice president of policy at the R Street Institute, a nonpartisan and pro-free-market public policy research organization.
"Knowledge is power." The phrase is attributed to Francis Bacon, the so-called father of modern science, who believed that scientific knowledge enables the mastery of nature and the "relief of man's estate." Although Bacon himself was interested primarily in scientific and technological progress, the connection between knowledge and power is also a political problem — and one that is particularly pertinent today.
Knowledge has always been necessary for making laws and political decisions. But in modern times, scientific knowledge in particular has become indispensable for governing — and not only because modern states make decisions about overtly scientific matters like research funding, environmental protection and space exploration. Administering public policies, from health care and welfare to regulation and taxation, relies on various types of scientific knowledge. And it is, for the most part, carried out by executive agencies staffed by experts.
Over time, such agencies have acquired legislative-like powers — the authority, in effect, to make law by interpreting deliberately vague or broad statutes. One rationale for Congress' delegation of this power to the executive branch has to do with knowledge: Congress lacks the requisite expertise, whereas executive agencies do not. This is in part Congress' own fault, since it has, over time, depleted its own in-house expertise — by, for example, reducing expert staff and dismantling the Office of Technology Assessment. The imbalance of knowledge between Congress and executive agencies leads to an imbalance of power and vice versa.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
This is problematic on three counts.
- The Constitution empowers Congress, not the executive branch, to make laws. It may not be realistic to expect Congress to function without some amount of delegation but, at the very least, Congress needs sufficient expertise — knowledge — to conduct meaningful oversight of the agencies to which this power is delegated.
- Congress is the Constitution's most democratic branch. Its members are elected representatives whereas, aside from the president, the executive branch is comprised of political appointees and unelected civil servants and contractors. Congress is therefore more directly responsive to democratic pressures. This arrangement may not always issue in technically sound policy, but it does allow for a higher degree of accountability.
- There is good reason to think that, on the whole, knowledge is more effectively used for political ends when it is not insulated from democratic pressures. Thinkers across the political spectrum have noted the temptation of modern nation states to instrumentalize knowledge for their own ends — and the problems that can result.
On the left, James C. Scott and Michel Foucault have pointed to the ways in which modern states produce knowledge in order to exert control over their populations. Without knowledge — including demographic, health and geographic data, as well as information about the flows of goods and people — the state is blind and unable to exercise its power. Yet such knowledge inevitably simplifies or even falsifies reality, and so can undermine the state's attempt to exert control. Sometimes the results are disastrous.
On the right, Michael Polanyi and Friedrich von Hayek have argued that central planning requires the planners to possess a knowledge of the vast array of complex systems that comprise the modern economy. Yet such knowledge is by its nature dispersed across these systems, existing only in decentralized form among the participants and practitioners. Thus centralized planning will fail because the planners will always lack adequate knowledge of how socioeconomic systems function.
The upshot of such arguments is not so much that the government cannot or should not rely on expert knowledge, but that attempts to insulate such knowledge from democratic accountability ends badly. We can attenuate this temptation by equipping Congress with more and better knowledge. By shifting knowledge back into the legislative branch, we can help shift power back to the people and their representatives.
- Trump takes crusade on the balance of power to the next level - The ... ›
- President Trump, Congress and broken standards of democracy ... ›
- Democracies better at containing virus than autocracies - The Fulcrum ›