War and fake news | Beware of censorship

We saw them during the pandemic, we still see them during the war in Ukraine: fake news has the wind in its sails on social networks. Why are such lies circulating? Because removing them would be a bad idea, according to many experts in political science and communication.

Catherine Handfield
The Press

Since the beginning of the invasion of Ukraine by Russia, on February 24, social networks are full of photos, videos and assertions of all kinds. In the batch, it is inevitable, there is false.

Last week, the independent organization EU Desinfo Lab published a review of the different accounts of this disinformation. She gave examples from both the pro-Russian and pro-Ukrainian side, while pointing out that “nothing compares to the magnitude of Russia’s information warfare”.

Pro-Kremlin disinformation has been conveying the same narratives for several years about Ukraine: it manufactures nuclear weapons and biological weapons, and “for every Ukrainian politician who is not pro-Russian, we try to find Nazi links non-existent or to link it to far-right political parties,” summarizes Aaron Erlich, assistant professor of political science at McGill University.

When an event makes the Kremlin look bad – like the bombing of the Mariupol maternity hospital – “a false story is told”, explains Aaron Erlich: the Ukrainians bombed themselves, and anyway, it was not even more a maternity ward, but a hideout for neo-Nazis.

Censorship

The first instinct, when we see this false news about Ukraine, is to want to delete it, as we would like to see the falsehoods that have been written about COVID-19 and the vaccine disappear. Twitter and Facebook have also deleted posts from the Russian Embassy in the UK about the bombing of the Mariupol hospital.

The European Commission also took a step in this direction at the beginning of March. On Facebook, on YouTube, on the Internet and on television, Europeans no longer have direct access to the content of Sputnik and the Russia Today channel. These Russian state-controlled media are spreading “lies to justify Putin’s war and to sow division in [l’]union,” the Commission ruled.

Censorship is the heaviest weapon for responding to misinformation…but experts question its use. Not only is censorship ‘out of step with the science of disinformation’, it can also be ‘harmful’ [au] fight for democracy,” says Michael Bang Petersen, professor of political science at the University of Aarhus, Denmark.

“In the past few years, a narrative has been constructed that people very easily fall prey to propaganda and fake news,” Petersen told The Press. However, this is a myth, he says, explaining that our psychology prioritizes our previous beliefs. “For ordinary citizens who normally have no interest in Russian propaganda, the effects of this exposure will be minimal,” summarizes Mr. Bang Petersen.

There is evidence, however, that propaganda can galvanize and justify already existing attitudes among people. However, even if there is censorship, the latter will find a way to circumvent it, notes Micheal Bang Petersen. A revealing example: in 2017, Ukraine banned access to Russian websites, such as the social network VKontakte. A recent study shows that a vast majority of users managed to get around the ban.

Censorship also gives the impression that the government is trying to hide something… and risks giving life to conspiracy theories, adds Aaron Erlich.

Note that social networks offer the possibility of reporting false news, which can lead to the addition of a warning statement. The experts consulted by The Press see this as a better approach.

Education and common space

Journalist and professor at the School of Media at the University of Quebec in Montreal, Jean-Hugues Roy does not believe that fake news should be censored either. He recalls that, in the Canadian Criminal Code, an article once prohibited the dissemination of false news. This section was struck down in 1992 by the Supreme Court because it violated freedom of expression.

“In a society where information circulates freely, problematic or irrational remarks are marginalized on their own,” says Mr. Roy, who tends to believe in the intelligence of the population.

Professor Petersen points out that the best approach to fake news is to face it, to learn to recognize it, but also to strengthen fact-checking journalism. Here again, notes Aaron Erlich, the example of Ukraine is relevant. Significant educational efforts have been made there in recent years, and Ukrainians are now “very, very good” at verifying the provenance of information, underlines the one who has studied the impact of pro-disinformation. Kremlin on Ukrainians.

A teacher at the School of Media, Roland-Yves Carignan believes that the solution also involves creating a common space on social networks. Social media allow everyone to have their own point of view on what is happening in the world, he recalls. Facebook brings like-minded people together, and their Facebook feed presents them with a reality of the world that’s far different from someone else’s reality.

He points out that with the pandemic, Facebook presented all of its users with common messages about COVID-19 and the vaccine. “I prefer that Facebook add a message that is the same for everyone,” says Mr. Carignan. If Facebook is being asked to take down what is false, it is being asked to decide what is true. And it is democratically that we must decide what is true. »