Two reports recently published in France and in Canada offer courses of action against misinformation. In Canada, the Citizens’ Assembly on Democratic Expression warns of the prospect “of a digital public square awash with scams that defraud consumers and sophisticated campaigns that distort and manipulate public opinion.” In France, the report Lights in the digital age, written at the request of President Emmanuel Macron by a group of experts led by Gérald Bronner (author of The democracy of the gullible), warns against the dangers of misinformation and, like the Canadian report, presents courses of action.
Changes in the conditions of production, distribution and consumption of information have heightened concerns about the ease with which information conveying false information circulates. In France, specialists from different fields of knowledge have worked to bring to light the multiple causes of the phenomenon and possible courses of action. For its part, the Canadian Commission highlights the observations of citizens on the consequences of misinformation.
Experts and citizens make the same observations: the availability of false information (fox) endangers the possibility of exchanging, contradicting each other, debating. The Canadian report explains that misinformation increases polarization. It accentuates the perception of threats between groups. These two reports take stock of the causes of the phenomenon of misinformation, particularly on the Internet. Above all, we target what needs to be done in order to limit the deleterious effects of the circulation of infox. Because once we have observed and deplored the scourge, it is important to propose courses of action.
Neither demonization nor censorship
In these reports, we address misinformation not by demonizing social networks, but rather by seeking solutions. There is a call to modernize the conditions of digital responsibility. We propose ways to civilize these virtual public spaces, in particular by fighting against the development of hatred on social networks. In addition to the updating of laws, in particular through the establishment of regulations for algorithmic processes, there is a call for the strengthening of media education programs.
The French report draws up an inventory of the psychosocial mechanisms that make individuals permeable to false information. It is found that most people are quite capable of distinguishing reliable information from falsehood. But some of them manage to make their way into people’s minds and can then cause damage both for individuals and for the community. Hence the importance of strengthening critical thinking and media education. In the digital age, the media are available in multiple models, ranging from information sites working according to high standards to multiple contributions conveyed through social media. Such a varied universe requires actions at several levels.
The French report notes that the configuration of social networks, where information is drowned in masses of sequences intended to entertain, is far from encouraging cognitive vigilance, this essential bulwark against credulity. Some algorithmic logic contributes to shaping beliefs or to reinforcing them. For example, the way in which algorithmic processes order the information offered to users mainly responds to commercial imperatives aimed at maximizing the attention of these users. Similarly, the way in which social networks alter perceptions as to the representativeness and popularity of points of view contributes to accentuating the prevalence of certain extreme discourses, which are nevertheless in the minority.
The pursuit of profit is seen as one of the main drivers of misinformation. The French report exposes that programmatic advertising (that which uses algorithms generated by artificial intelligence to determine the best advertising placement, by type of product and target audience) constitutes an important source of income for the craftsmen of disinformation. Hence the recommendation to hold programmatic advertising industry players accountable. Similarly, participatory platforms as well as monetized channels such as those found on YouTube should be better regulated. It is necessary to make less attractive the often indirect participations in the financing of projects compromised with the propagation of misinformation. It is noted that even some generalist press sites frequently use sponsored links referring to “clickbait” too often purveyors of false information, particularly in terms of health.
The Canadian report urges the government to fund an independent body open to expert and public input to regulate practices associated with disinformation. Measures ranging from improving the design of user interfaces to regulations that will counterbalance algorithmic logic responding to strictly commercial imperatives are highlighted in the French report. We propose, in the same spirit, to empower “influencers” with high digital visibility. Similarly, pressure must be intensified on platforms that sometimes derive significant revenue from the exploitation of the worst in the social behavior of their users.
These are two converging approaches, one citizen and the other from experts who insist on the urgency of seriously tackling the fight against infox, a deleterious poison for democratic processes. One wonders what more would be needed to convince of the urgency of moving from lamentations to concrete actions to reduce fake news.