Converge’s Post

In recent years, the global response to the spread of misinformation has led to a notable shift in legislation and public discourse. However, a recent report by the Center for News, Technology & Innovation - CNTI highlights a concerning trend: a majority of the "fake news" laws implemented from 2020 to 2023 have reduced the protections for an independent press and risked public access to a variety of fact-based news sources. https://lnkd.in/erGskaEk This finding echoes the concerns raised by Raluca Radu in 2020, who analyzed the legal responses to the "Infodemic," noting that certain government countermeasures, often enacted through decrees or emergency legislation, potentially stifled media freedom (see open access here: https://lnkd.in/exJpE-kY) My colleague Chico Camargo and I also discussed how the exaggerated threat of fake news or misinformation can be leveraged to justify restrictions on human rights and undermine democratic processes in some of our research (https://lnkd.in/esRxRJcQ) And recent research by Andreas Jungherr and Adrian Rauchfleisch adds evidence, showing that alarmist warnings against disinformation can decrease democratic satisfaction and increase support for restrictive regulation of digital communication environments (https://lnkd.in/eyzMz4Ft) So what is message here? Basically, I think it is crucial to acknowledge that even well-intentioned actions (warning against "fake news") can have unintended consequences. Now, it's silly to blame all the above on the people studying these phenomena and who (with good intent) try to improve the health of the public arena, the availability of quality information and so forth, by sounding the alarm ("but we need to warn people because no one will do anything otherwise"). But these things can backfire in various ways and undo what one wanted to achieve in the first place.

The final part of my report on foreign interference in elections looks at the crucial roles of social media regulation and public education in combating Russian and Chinese attempts to influence our national debates, tilt our election results and weaken our countries. Every media tool since the printing press has been closely regulated by government - except social media, whose tech giants grew too powerful too quickly. While autocratic govts tightly control the social media firms' actions domestically, they also take full advantage of democratic nations' failure to rein them in - using these channels to foment division, suspicion & conspiracy theories in the democratic world. The outcome, in many countries, is the weakening of democracy itself. But this is not inevitable: in this last report, I outline proven ways to turn back the tide of disinformation and help people to sort truth from lies.

Censorship is a significant concern for anyone in the field of public policy, whether a student or a graduate, because it can stifle pertinent facts that are necessary for the due analysis of the state of affairs. Whether perpetrated by an institution or by the government as a whole, censorship is the antithesis of the very idea of democracy and free speech. This is precisely why I chose to pen down this article on the most censored countries in the world. Not only does it take a look at how undue censorship can negatively impact economic growth, but it also evaluates countries that have faced heavy instances of such restrictions in the recent past. Some of these might not be surprising, whereas others might take you aback. This only goes to show that our perceptions regarding various states can drastically differ from what data shows us. Find the article here: https://lnkd.in/dAJcfWJC

Excerpt: “Fake news” legislation that governments around the world have written in recent years to combat mis- and disinformation does little to protect journalistic freedom. Rather, it can create a greater risk of harm. That’s the main finding of a review I helped conduct of legislation either considered or passed over the past several years related to fake news and mis- and disinformation. In all, the Center for News, Technology and Innovation, or CNTI – an independent, global policy research center comprising news professionals and academics like myself – looked at legislation in 31 countries, ranging from Ethiopia to the Philippines. We drew upon previous reports and data from the Center for International Media Assistance, LEXOTA and LupaMundi – all of which track media laws globally – to identify legislation either considered or passed from 2020 through 2023. We analyzed 32 pieces of legislation by qualitatively and quantitatively coding key terms concerning, among others, “news” and “journalism,” “fake news” and “journalists,” and any authorities responsible for overseeing these terms. While the legislation targeted what was termed “fake news,” the phrase itself was only explicitly defined in just seven of the 32 pieces of legislation we looked at – or less than a quarter. Fourteen of the 32 policies clearly designate the government itself with the authority to arbitrate that definition, while 18 don’t provide any clear language in that regard – thereby giving government control by default. Lack of clarity in “fake news” laws can be found across different regime types, with 12 of these 31 countries we looked at considered to be democracies. Meanwhile, punishment for violations can be severe, including imprisonment from several months up to 20 years in Zimbabwe. We found there are few protections for fact-based news or journalistic independence in the legislation we examined. Loosely defined laws pertaining to “fake news” could be used by governments to crack down on an independent press.

I wouldn't rely on social media for information. I still trust established, vetted news sources like The New York Times, CNN, MSNBC, and scholarly publications that use data or in law, decisions. Even social media posts citing to these bear source-checking. Regarding Eric Trump's assertion last night ("We no longer trust our elections, we no longer trust our judicial system,. . . "): Hey, most of us trust the results of our last presidential election! Our judicial system is straining recently, as certain justices and judges are warping their legal analysis e.g., Judge Cannon. I trust the judicial system will ultimately correct itself, given rigorous advocates on both sides. At the top Supreme Court level, we may really need to consider structural reform. What is your opinion? What sources do you trust?

📱 Should we approach digital harms as a holistic issue of information resiliency? In our latest on the blog, we consider this question in the context of the UK political landscape. #digitalresilience #disinformation #mediaethics #digitalthreats https://lnkd.in/efVZV-73

😬 Is 'Fake News' Legislation Undermining Press Freedom? In the midst of a flurry of elections in 2024, a global study sheds light on the contentious issue of "fake news" legislation. Conducted by the Center for News, Technology, and Innovation (CNTI), the research examined laws from 31 countries between 2020 and 2023, revealing troubling trends. The study found that such legislation often lacks clarity and may inadvertently restrict media freedom. Only a fraction of the laws explicitly define "fake news," with many granting governments broad powers over its interpretation. These ambiguous laws, prevalent across different types of governments, pose significant risks to journalistic independence, with penalties ranging from fines to imprisonment. Moreover, there are concerns about the potential chilling effects on journalists and sources, who might refrain from covering certain topics to avoid legal repercussions. Looking ahead, the long-term implications of these laws remain uncertain. CNTI emphasizes the need for continued monitoring and precise language in media-related legislation to uphold journalistic integrity and preserve democratic values. This research underscores the importance of protecting press freedom, especially during critical periods like elections. It calls for a thoughtful and balanced approach to combatting disinformation while safeguarding the fundamental principles of a free press. #Journalism #PressFreedom #FactBasedNews #FakeNews #Future #Legislation #Media

As this article points out, generally speaking, deepfake political calls exist in something of a legal grey area. And while the company that launched this AI-powered political campaign caller stated their intent to act ethically, the safeguarding of democratic political processes should not depend on developers' ethos. As 2024 is likely to be the largest election year in human history, more needs to be done to reduce the impact of AI-powered misinformation/disinformation. https://lnkd.in/dhWJJfcm #ai #artificialintelligence #elections #2024 #robocaller #law #fec #regulation #ethicalai #aiethics #responsibleai

https://lnkd.in/ekT3EbHS Why Local Media Has Failed Us My first question is: do local reporters verify the statements made by politicians and bureaucrats? I’ll answer no, because we don’t see such verification in the stories. Verification requires reporters to actually ask questions, to look up data, assess it, and in some cases challenge the information given, and to publish those questions and answers.

Our latest report examining over 30 pieces of legislation aimed at addressing "fake" or "false" news, offers five important questions to ask when constructing policies related to news and journalism today - disinformation or otherwise: Are legislative policy or other non-governmental methods the best approach to address disinformation? Each option, including legislative policy, has potential benefits and harms that are important to think through. Are specific, independent oversight of these definitions included in policy? This can be designated via self-regulatory bodies or through independent government agencies designed to protect against undue political influence. Are there clear adjudication processes for these definitions? Can journalists, news entities or civil society formally challenge definitional decisions by oversight bodies and if so, how? Who is the subject of the policy? Who would be liable? Solely individuals? Publishers? Platforms? Some combination based on the circumstances? What potential future and global implications might emerge? These decisions have global consequences, as policies in one country inherently impact those in others. See the full report here: https://lnkd.in/e8ruR2DZ