This op-ed was published in commemoration of International Fact-Checking Day, held April 2 each year to recognize the work of fact-checkers worldwide.
One big challenge looms over attempts to regulate misinformation, especially where legislation is concerned: Figuring out what fake news, misinformation and disinformation really mean.
The problem of intention
Think about the definitions of those terms, and many people can agree that while misinformation refers to false information being shared unintentionally, without the user’s knowledge of the content being false or misleading, disinformation refers to publishing false information with the intent to deceive. mislead or even cause harm.
That means the next question for policymakers to resolve has to be how to determine the intent underlying the publication or sharing of false information. Given that ordinary readers and fact-checking initiatives can seldom correctly identify the author’s or publisher’s intention from the information alone, finding misinformation solutions is a difficult job.
The importance of truth
To address this challenge, policymakers can learn from the approach to deal only with false information where an absolute truth is known or can be determined, and to extricate an author’s intention by estimating how much effort was put into creating the piece of misinformation.
Similar to the daily work of fact-checkers, they must ascertain that a claim is verifiable. Misinformation such as conspiracy theories, for which evidence is often not available, is seldom chosen to be debunked. When a claim is to be rated as false or truthful, evidence usually accompanies the claim.
With a known absolute truth, we can then know how far our claim and/or evidence strays from it. For instance, some misinformation involves genuine information but with a distorted interpretation (misinterpretation). There are also cases in which genuine information is accompanied by a lack of contextual information (providing incomplete information). These types of misinformation that involve genuine evidence are sometimes created or shared due to carelessness or honest mistakes.
By contrast, some misinformation involves distorting genuine evidence (manipulation), or even concocting evidence (fabrication). In these cases, the actual alteration makes it less likely to be just an honest mistake. Unlike misinterpretation or incomplete information, fabrication clearly involves the creation of fictitious content, and manipulation involves the altering of evidence.
Implications for legislation
Given these distinctions between various forms or degrees of intent, we can be more confident about an intent to mislead when fabrication or manipulation is present than in cases of misinterpretation or providing incomplete information. In turn, regulations can be applied to the former but not to the latter types of misinformation. It should be noted there are still pitfalls for policymakers taking this approach: Certain types of false information can continue to cause harm, and there is a chance people could no longer manipulate or fabricate for legitimate purposes (such as satire or polemic).
Misinformation, disinformation, and fake news are all middling-sized words with potentially enormous definitions. These words should be abandoned when it comes to legislation and regulation. Given the challenge of comprehending these terms, it is not surprising to see how many government task forces are stranded. The nuanced nature of misinformation needs to be better understood before we get to strategies.
Ironically, what we need in dealing with these terms is yet another term — “false information” or “information falsity.” To be more specific, how far away is the false information from the absolute truth, if an absolute truth is available and known? This suggestion resonates somewhat with the lament that the muddying of the definition of fake news is hindering governments’ ability to accomplish anything effective.
Since there are multiple factors underlying information falsity, policymakers should not expect the issue of misinformation to have a universal solution. The same applies to regulations executed by social media companies, who are often asked to be accountable for spreading misinformation online. Stakeholders should proceed with building a comprehensive framework for false information to ensure forward momentum.
